Ethnical process and socio-political, economic history in the heritage of Pulat Soliyev

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://allbest.ru

Bukhara state university

Ethnical process and socio-political, economic history in the heritage of Pulat Soliyev

Turayev Khalim. DSc. in history, Professor

Uzbekistan Abdullayeva Feruza Senior lecturer

Uzbekistan

Abstract

The article analyses the famous Uzbek scholar Pulat Soliyev's treatise of the 20s-30s of 20^th century. It also verifies his scientific position on the issues of important political events in Central Asia under the last Timurids, especially during the period of Shaibanids' establishment. The author of the article deeply investigates the historiographic estimate of life of the Uzbek khanates, their commercial trade ties with Russia and Eastern countries, given in Pulat Soliyev's works.

Key words: history, source, work, research, article, attitude, conclusion, comparative analysis, crisis, Uzbek, position, trade, goods, subsistence economy.

Formulation of the problem

One of the prominent scholars who had laid the foundation stones of the scientific historiography was Pulat Soliyev (1882-1938) [1]. He became the victim of the communistic regime in 1937 due to his pluralism, democratic moods, and impartial approach to the historic issues out of the frames. But during his lifetime he was able to prepare several studies related to the history of Central Asia and presenting them to the scientific circles.

Analysis of recent research and publications

The thriving period of his creativity is linked with the 20s and 30s of the 20^th century. During this period he was successful at publishing several papers related to the diverse issues of the history of Central Asia[2]. His scope of interests included the history, culture, ethnic processes of Central Asia in Middle ages. The substantiation of the antiquity of the Uzbek population by illuminating the ethnical history of Uzbek population was the acute problem of the Uzbek scientific historiography school. Owing to these demands and responsibilities, Pulat Soliyev has published several papers related with the ethnical history of the populations of Central Asia. In his researches “Uzbeks and the children of Timur”, “History of Central Asia' and the “Comment on the history of Khorezm” [3, No.7-8] the socio-political and ethnical life of the Turkic populaces during diverse periods of time are expressed. In the article “Comment on the history of the Khorezm” which is under consideration the considerable scientific ideas on the ethnic history, culture, ethnic processes occurred in the Khorezm region are initiated.

In his studies of the ancient historic geography of Khorezm Pulat Soliyev relied on the data offered by Arab geographers Istakhri, Ibn Khavqal, Maqdisi, Khamavi, also Abu Raykhan Birum. As a result, during the time when the article was written the oasis of Khorezm was not archaeologically studied. The service rendered by the Pulat Soliyev is in that he had initiated the scientific views on the historical geography and historical ethnography of the Khorezm oasis far before P.Tolstov. In relation to the native population of Khorezm he advances critical views vis-à-vis the data presented by Biruni.

Highlighting previously unresolved parts of a common problem. Of course, Pulat Soliyev had no knowledge of the ancient Khorezmi language. Based on the papers by the Arabic geographers written in 9-11* century he concludes that the language of the population of Khorezm was Turkic. More recent researches on the issue show the reality of the ideas wrapped up by Pulat Soliyev in 1920s. The scholar studies the history of Khorezm on the ethno linguistic aspect. He casts doubt to the ideas according to which Khorezm also had the development of the special culture in the same way as it was formed on the banks of Nile and Euphrates[4]. According to the scholar there is no proof discussing the ancient culture of Khorezm. The main paper on which most people rely on is the work of Al-Biruni[5]. Pulat Soliyev also disagreed with the data presented by Arabic geographers Maqdisi, Khamavi. During the period when Pulat Soliyev was living the book “Avesto” was not yet put into scientific circulation.

The scholar denies the ideas initiated by the Russian orientalist N.I.Veselovski[6] on the ethnic mosaics of the Khorezm based on the fact they were based on the opinions of Biruni presented in his “Chronology”. He indicated that the ethnic names were given in the Russian alphabet in broken manner. He tries to proof that the personal names given by the N.I.Veselovski are Turkic in reality. Pulat Soliyev tried to assert that the culture of Khorezm is not only the culture of some certain or special populations, but also the culture of the Turkic and Persianate populations.

Statement of purpose of the article Pulat Soliyev knew well the archaic Turkic language. He was successful at revealing the terms in Turkic from the point of view of linguistics. He commented thoroughly the lexical and social meanings of the terms “Er”, “ama”, “yop”. While writing over the researches on Khoresm Pulat Soliyev widely used the papers written by V.Bartold translated into Uzbek by Fatikh Karim. He advanced the hypothesis that the word “Artkait” in the “History of irrigation of Turkistan” of Bartold could be the transformation of the “Eryigit”. He mentions that certain terms of the ancient Khorezmian language related with the irrigation system have been preserved in Khivans and Turkmens. While maintain that the headdresses of the Khivans and Turkmens resemble to each other, he feels pity that the comments of V.Bartold are not enough for these two cases. At the same time he pays tribute and esteem to scientific potential of the V.Bartold. It seems that Pulat Soliyev conducted special surveys based on the formation and distribution of headdress- karakalpak. On this occasion the scholar makes several comments and fills the data gathered by V.Bartold. The existence of the fact that this headdresses were worn not only by the Khivans and Turkmens, but also by karakalpaks living in the Lower Amudarya, also by the people living in Astrakhan, that's the Nogai people in Northern Caucasus were wearing karakalpak headdress were attested by the proof of Pulat Saliyev. At the same time he maintains that this headdress was not increasingly worn by Nogais was certified only in the karagach tribe of nogais. Developing his views on the main headdress - karakalpak, he advances his assumptions on the existence of this headdress as the main national dress of contemporary karakalpaks, nogais, Turkmens and the Uzbeks of Khorazm. The reason of the lack of this type of headdress in the Turkmens and Karakalpaks of Samarkand and Ferghana regions, and their wearing mostly headdress from thick felt is substantiated by Pulat Saliyev by their relative minority status in these regions.

He tried to prove that the words “Ama”, “yab” are of Turkic origin. For example the scholar verifies that the word “yab” meant “yabuk”, that's “to work”- to form certain type of activity. He mentions that it is wrong to assume them to be of Aryan origin. Pulat Saliyev who had tried to describe the ethnic mosaics of Khorezm based on the Chinese sources, comments of the Japanese monk scholar Yanaki, preferred to note that mostly Turkic people had lived in this region from the ancient times. The data offered in the works of Arabic geographers Istakhri, Ibn Khawqal, Madqisi on the ethnic structure and geography of Transoxania are presented to wide analysis. He pays attention to the records of these authors on Turkic populations living in nomadic and semi-nomadic lifestyles in the Khorezm region, southern parts of Amu and Syrdarya rivers.

Statement of the main material Pulat Soliyev was interested in the opinions of Maqdisi on the language of Khorezm. The scholar was excited at Maqdisi who had profound knowledge of Persian, who could duffer different dialects of it, didn't know Khorezmi language. He makes an irony to the idea of the Arabic traveler affirming that the reason of it was that Khorezmi language was not either Persian or Soghdian but of Oghuz origin[7, p. 162]. Maqdisi didn't pay attention to this language, didn't study, or couldn't understand it. He concludes that he had only checked Persian language.

Pulat Soliyev having profoundly studied the data offered by Ibn Hawqal writes that the terms which are present in the papers of him were of Turkic origin, thus the language of Khorezm was of Turkic origin.

It is noteworthy to mention that, Pulat Soliyev concludes his research on Khorezm with special tolerance, profound scientific consideration. He notes that the ghouz, turks, qanghli, ghouz-turkmens, besides to them Persianate people were living in Khorezm and it was doubtless to affirm that the culture of Khorezm was related to these bilingual populace. Consequently, it would of use to consider the article of Pulat Soliyev “Comment on the Khorezm” needed in modern times being a paper which has not lost its enlightenment and political significance. The critical approach of scholar to historical sources is recognizable to great extent.

The problem of the history of Uzbek population in 20s of the 20^th century became the essential problem standing in the history science of Uzbekistan. The prominent historian Pulat Soliyev made great efforts to reveal this problem, the clarification of the history of Uzbek population into the wide range, the removal of Timurids from the administration and the crisis of the Central Asian khanates. He dedicated the research named “Uzbeks, and the children of Timur” consisting of four chapters to this issue. ethnography khorezm turkic uzbek soliev

The aim of this article consists of the study of the methodology of the scholar in writing the research, position, approaches and conclusions of Pulat Soliyev based on the profound analysis of his aforementioned research.

The first part of the article “Uzbeks, and the children of Timur” is dedicated to the crisis of the Timurid dynasty[8]. On the basis of the research Pulat Soliyev puts such manuscrips as “Shajarai Turk” of Abulghazikhan, “Bakhr ul-asrar” of Makhmud ibn Vali, “Timur's code” which is written in the tongue of Emir Timur, “Khabib us-siyar” of Khondamir, “Shaibaninama” of Binai, “Tarikhi Abulkhayrkhani” of Mas'ud ibn Kukhistani, “Baburnama” of Zakhiriddin Mukhammad Babur and strengthens his proofs by the data given in them[9].

The author while writing openly the invasion of Central Asia by the shaibani Uzbeks, affirms their settling in Dashti Qipchaq, the fragmentation of Golden Horde, after the transfer of the control of lands stretching from Yayiq river up to Lower Syrdarya from the son of Jochi's son Shaiban, they were living in these areas. He constates that this had continued until the Emir Timur's epoch. It is certain that he didn't aim to comment the term “Uzbek”. He directly names as “Uzbeks”. He tries to substantiate his opinions by the data given by “Timur's code” and “Bakhr ul-asrar”. According to him, the frequent attacks of shaibani Uzbeks to Transoxania are related with the internal fightings of the Chagatai khans for power. These attacks are multiplied during the reign of Shakhrukh. The fall of Khorezm into the influence of Abulkhairkhan according to the comments of Pulat Soliyev are due to the fact of rebellion by Turkmens, the death of the governor of Khorezm - Ibrakhim Sultan, who was the son Shakhrukh and the ageing Shakhrukh. The author recognizes the fact that the development of trades in the realm of Timurid's, the intensification of the plundering of occupied land and the repression and links the rebellions with these factors. Shakhrukh's becoming weak towards the Uzbeks he considers due to the internal warfare.

Pulat Soliyev's information on the invasion of Khorezm by Uzbeks is based on the paper “Tarikhi Abulkhayrkhani” of Mas'ud ibn Usman Kukhistani. During the usage of the data of the work the scholar makes a critical approach to it. He attempted to reveal the reasons why the officials of the Khoresm preferred Abulkhayrkhan to Shakhrukh, mentioning the fact that Abulkhayrkhan giving a lot of gifts to the people of Khorezm persuading them to join to his side [11]. After the invasion of Khorezm, Abulkhayrkhan opening the treasury distributed them to scholars and clerics. This event had a positive influence on his activities in Khorezm, increasing his fame. The population of Khorezm not having seen such a generosity didn't support him[12,-P.41-42]. The comparative analysis of Pulat Soliyev indicates the formation of seeds of the crisis in the realm of Timurid's. The reasons of leaving Khoresm by the Shaibani Uzbeks is associated by the author searches in the “Bakhr ul-asrar”, and based on the paper he concludes that Shaibani Uzbeks hadn't liked the weather of Khorezm and the pandemics of cholera made them leave this region[13].

The period after the Shokhrukh is characterized as the new stage in the relations between timurids and shaibanis. The timurids needed an assistance from shaibani Uzbeks in the internal struggles for power. The author explicitly expresses the interests of the shaibani Uzbeks in engaging in relations. Especially, the relations between the Timurids and Uzbeks triggered during the reign of Timurid Abusaid and shaibani Uzbeks. On the usage of shaibani Uzbeks in the reintegration of the timurid realm by Abusaid and his hope for the assistance by Khoja Akhrar the scholar systematically advances his point of view. It is noteworthy to mention that Pulat Soliyev was one of those scholars who had briefly studied the activities of Khoja Akhrar Vali[14]. While he studies the relations of Khoja Akhrar and Timurid Abu Said, he affirms the fact that the properties of this cleric and his reputation remained high among the populace[15]. This situation is of great importance in determining the bilateral relations. As a logical continuation of relations on the advice of Khwaja Ahrar Abusaid had referred to the assistance of Abulkhayrkhan and with his help he was successful at occupying Transoxania, Khorasan and Iraq. The conclusion that the closeness of Khwaja Ahrar and Abusaid paved the way to the increasing of the properties and the reputation of Khwaja Ahrar is advanced. It seems that Pulat Soliyev didn't aim to study the relations of Khwaja Ahrar and Abusaid to full extent. Probably, that's why he doesn't write about Abusaid's advances with the consent of Khwaja Ahrar towards Iran, to the lands of Jakhanshah Turkmen, finished with his death in 1469. After this occasion the reputation of Khwaja Ahrar diminishes in Transoxania and the attitude of shaykh ul-islam of Samarkand changes towards the cleric [16, -P.172]

Pulat Saliyev mentions that Alauddawla, Muhammad Juqi, Abusaid, Khusayn Bayqara relied on the assistance of Abulkhayrkhan. Specially, he points out to the reception of Khusayn Bayqara in the court of Abulkhayrkhan. Only the Abulkhayrkhan's death makes an end to the continuity of the conflicts. According to the conclusion drawn by the scholar the murder of Abulkhayrkhan lead to the disintegration of the state of shaibani Uzbeks. On one hand the Kazakhs, on the other hand the manghits gave strike to the unity of shaibani Uzbeks[17, -P.57].

It is naturally that logical continuation of events turns around the personality and activities of Muhammad Shaibani. The author pays great attention to the activities of Muhammad Shaibani. The description by scholar the internal strifes among Uzbeks, despite the stubbornness of the Kazakh and Manghit tribes, acquisition of the status of the conqueror by Shaibani has got complete picture[18,- P.42-43.]. The scholar pays attention to the relation between the Shaibanikhan and the Timurids and the incapability of the agreements on the mutual help[19].

Pulat Soliyev writes with sorrow about the situation after the nomination of Sultanali Mirza, the son of Akhmad Mirza to the governorship of Samarkand. By this time Transoxania was disintegrated into several fiefs, the influence and the obduracy of emirs was increasing, the government having nominal authority. Sultanali Mirza's increasingly becoming puppet in the hands of the emirs was explained in the studies conducted Pulat Saliyev.

The scholar admitting the development of Transoxania during the Emir Timur and Timurids at the expense of colonies, substantially disagrees with the disintegration of the country during the late Timurids, and the destruction of rich culture constructed during the times of Emir Timur, Shokrukh and Ulugbek by late Timurids and shaibani Uzbeks[20].

Conclusion

The scholar praises the Babur's properties as the initiator in the second part of the research, in most cases alluding to the “Baburnama”, giving evaluations to the socio-political processes. He supports the very negative relations of Babur towards Timurid emirs Sultan Makhmud Mirza and Khusravshakh, disapproving the bad behavior of Khusravshakh and his soldiers. In the data given in Baburnama, praising Babur, maintains his impartial position in the internal conflicts between the Timurids. All these data prove the importance of the researches conducted by Pulat Soliyev.

References

1. The curriculum vitae, socio-enlightenment of Pulat Soliyev were revealed thoroughly by V.A.Germanov and F.Temirov. See: Germanov V.A. Professor Pulat Soliyev and his time. -T.: Fan, 2002. Temirov F. Pulat Soliyev. T.: Pulat Soliyev. ABU Matbuot Konsalt, 2011

2. Besides to being published as a special edition the papers of scholar were published in the “Maorif and uqituvchi” magazine.

3. Maorif va uqituvchi, 1927, No 7-8.

4. If we support this idea, it could lead towards the conclusion, that culture of the Khoresm is not part of the culture of Turkic population and the native of Central Asia. That's why this idea was refuted by the scholar.

5. Pulat Soliyev doesn't indicate the name of the paper of Biruni. As for us, it can be the work “The monuments which lasts from the ancient people”. Because there is an information on the scripts, language of Khoresm given by Biruni.

6. N.I.Veselovski (1848-1918) - Russian archeologist and orientalist. He had conducted archeological surveys in Samarkand. He is the author of the papers related with the social-political history of Central Asia. Pulat Soliyev had used the “Ocherk istoriko-geographicheskikh svedeniy o Khivinskom khanstve ot drevneyshikh vremen do nastoyashego” of N.I.Veselovski in writing the paper (Spb. 1877).

7. The opinions of Pulat Soliyev and academician V.Bartold are contradictory on the issue of the Khorezmi language. V.Bartold had admitted without checking the data of Arabic geographer Istakhri on the language of Khorezm which was “incomprehensible language” and declared that it was called Persianate language. Also, V.Bartold confirms that there are elements of ancient Iranian culture existing in the culture of Khorezm. He maintains the idea that the turkification of the Khorezm was completed in 13^th. See: V.V.Bartold. K istorii orosheniye Turkestana. Soch. T.III. -Moscow, “Nauka”, 1965. P. 162.

8. Pulat Soliyev. Uzbeklar, ham Temur bolalari. // “Maorif va uqutguvchi” jurnali. -Tashkent, 1928. ¹5-6.

9. Some of the manuscripts were held in the personal library of Pulat Soliyev. The scholar mentions that the “Shaibaninama” was found in the 20s of the 20^th century and gives broad commentary on this copy.

10. The tribes living in the Dashti qipchaq were collectively named as “nomadic Uzbeks” in the historical literature during the Soviet epoch. But Pulat Soliyev hadn't used the term “nomadic” towards them, having used “Uzbek” or “Uzbeks”.

11. Pulat Soliyev paid attention to Shakhrukh's being “wali”, “sakhibqiran”, Abulkhayrkhans being a recreant among the populace of Herat.

12. The ruler of Khoresm during this period was Emir Ibrahim. He had surrendered the city to the army of Abulkhayrkhan without any resistance. The clerics and the nobles required from emir Ibrakhim to accept all of the terms of the Abulkhayrkhon and were successful at it. See about it: Akhmedov B.A. Gosudarstvo kochevikh uzbekov. -Moscow: Nauka, 1965. -P.49-50; the same author. Uzbek ulusi. - Tashkent: Nur; 1992. 1992. -P.41-42.

13. There were other reasons for Abulkhayrkhan to leave Khoresm. The tribes under the leadership of Makhmudkhan and Akhmadkhan migrating in and around Aral were posing serious danger to the areas under the ulus of Abulkhayrkhan.

14. We should state that the limitedness of sources used by the Pulat Soliyey. The author mostly used to use the work “Bakhr ul-asrar” of Makhmud ibn Vali. The reason why he didn't use the hagiographic work `'Rashakhat” remains unknown.

15. The current level of the researches on Khwaja Akhrar remains high. One of those who studied the issue V.V.Bartold specially mentioned the relations of Khwaja Akhrar and Abusaid. Also, the political activity of Akhrar Vali is reveled in the studies of

16. O.D.Chekhovich, A.N. Boldyrev, B.A.Kazakov, J.Paul, B.Valikhujayev, Z.Quttiboyev, Joan Gross, A.Urinboyev, E.Karimov, B.Bobojonov, M.Qodirova. See: V.V. Bartold. Ulughbek I yego vremya. Soch. V 9-ti tomakh. T.2. ch. 2. -Moscow: Nauka, 1964. P. 169172.;

17. Samarkandskiye dokumenti XV-XVI vv. (O vladeniyakh Khodji Akhrara v Sredfney Azii I Afganistane). Faksimile, kriticheskiy tekst, perevod, vvedeniye, primechaniya I ukazateli. O.D.Chekhovich. -Moscow: 1974;

18. Boldyrev A.N.Yeshyo raz k voprosu o Khodje Akhrare// Istochnikovedeniye I tekstologiya srednevekovogo Blijnego I Srednego Vostoka v period feodalizma. Sbomik. Statey. -Moscow: Nauka, 1984. P.103-108;

19. J.Paul. Forming a faction: The Himayat system of Khwaja Ahrar. // International Journal of Middle East Studies, 23 (1991);

20. Valikhodjayev B. Khoja Akhror tarikhi. -Tashkent: Fan, 1996; Joann Gross. Sharia and Unbelief in the Letters of Khwaja Ubaydullakh Ahrar // The First International Conference of the Association for the Study of Persianate societies (ASPS) in Dushanbe XVI-XVII September, 2002 (Invitation program, p.5), the same author;

21. Gross Joann, A. Urinbayev. The letters of Khwaja Ubayid Allah Ahrar and his Associates. Leiden, 2002;

22. Karimov E. Khuja Ahrar hayoti va faoliyati. Tashkent: Ma'naviyat, 2003; Babadjanov B. K voprosu o vospriyatii statusa sufiyskogo shaykha na primere Khwaja Ahrara // Arabskiy Vostok, islam drevnyaya Aravia. Sbornik statey v chest. V.V. Naumkina. Moscow, 2005. P.177-190.;

23. Kadirova M. Jitiya Khodja Ahrara. Opyt sistemnogo analiza po rekonstruksii biografii Khodja Ahrara I istorii roda Ahraridov. -Tashkent: Frantsuzskiy institute issledovaniy Tsentralnoy Azii (IFEAC), 2007.

24. As we have mentioned before, because of the fact that Pulat Soliyev hadn't used the data offered in the “Rashakhat”, he left out the relations of Khwaja Ahrar with the shaykh ul-islam of Samarkand Burkhanuddin (Khwaja Mavlana valid Khwaja Isamiddin). In reality the relations between these two clerics had sharp upward trend. The shaykh ul- islam Burkhanuddin (Khwaja Mavlana valid Khwaja Isamiddin) who had feeling against Khwaja Ahrar had conspired with the team under the leadership of Darvish Mukhammad tarkhan, the the brother-in law of Abusaid decided to not to go to the audience and the conversations with Khwaja Ahrar. The shaykh ul-islam gave even fatwa to confiscate the properties of Khwaja Ahrar. Except for the Abulali tarkhan, the relative of Darvish Mukhammad tarkhan, all emirs agreed. Abulali tarkhan was warning that this was not leading to good consequences. As a result, shaykh ul-islam's this act didn't bring luck to him and he was forced to go to Herat, where he died of severe illness. The author of “Rashakhat” links it with the curse directed at him by the Khwaja Ahrar. See: Bartold V.V. Ulugbek I yego vremya. Soch. V 9-ti tomakh. T. 2. Ch.2. - Moscow: Nauka, 1964. -P.172

25. Pulat Saliyev. Uzbeklar, ham(va) Temur bolalari // “Maarif va uqutguvchi” magazine. - Tashkent, 1928. ¹5-6. P.57.

26. Among the works dedicated to the Shaibanikhan there is a “Mekhmonnomai Bukhoro” written by the Fazlullakh ibn Ruzbekhkhan. But Pulat Soliyev didn't have the opportunity of using this paper. Because, the manuscript version of this paper found by the Uzbek enlightenment figure Miyan Buzruk (18911938) in the Nuru U smaniya library in 1925 has not been presented to the wide public, also in the article devoted to the work published by the Miyan Buzruk there is a brief passage on Shaibani. The paper was studied by the Uzbekistani scholars 50-70s of the 20^th century, Russian language translation, and in the years of independence some data on the work in uzbek translation was published. See: Salye M.A.

27. Maloizvestniy istochnik po istorii Uzbekistana “Mekhman-name” / Trudi Institua vostokovedeniya AN Uz SSR, vip.3, 1954; Fazlallakh ibn Ruzbikhan Isfakhani, Mikhman-name-yi Bukhoro / Perevod, predisloviye I primechaniya R.P.Djalilovoy. Moskva: Nauka, 1976; Turayev H. Miyon Buzruk Solikhov (hayoti va ilmiy merosi) // “Bukhoro mavjlari” magazine. -Bukhoro, 2001. ¹1. -P.42-43.

28. The author writes about the Akhmad Mirza's invitation of Shaibanikhan to Samarkand. The purpose was to use the assistance of Shaibanikhan in the struggle against Mongols. But the development of the events shows the integration of shaibani Uzbeks with the Mongols, their changing sides against the Akhmad Mirza. Pulat Soliyev thoroughly reveals the issue.

29. For the decay of this great culture Pulat Soliyev accuses both dynasties to the same level. But he supports the invasion of the Azerbaijan, Iran, Levant, India by Emir Timur, transporting the wealth of these countries to Transoxania and his partly contribution to the development of his country.

30. Anke fon Kyugelgen. Legimitasiya sredneaziatskiy dinastii mangitov v proizvedeniyax ix istorikov (XVIII-XIX vv.). -Almati: Dayk Press,2004.

31. Axmedov B.A. Gosudarstvo kochevix uzbekov.- Moskva: Nauka, 1965.

32. Ahmedov B.A. O'zbek ulusi.- Toshkent: Nur, 1992.

33. Babadjanov B.K. Voprosu o vospriyatii statusa sufiyskogo shayxa na primere Xvadja Axrara // Arabskiy Vostok , islam, drevnyya Araviya. Sbornik statey v chest V.V.Naumkina. -Moskva, 2005. B.177- 190.

34. Bartold V.V. Ulugbek I ego vremya.Soch. V 9-I tomax. T.2.ch.2- Moskva: Nauka, 1964.- B.169-172.

35. Bartold V.V. K istorii orosheniya Turkestana. Soch.T.Sh.-Moskva, Nauka,1965.

36. Boldirev A.N. Eshyo raz k voprosu o Xodja- Axrare // Duxovenstvo I politicheskaya jizn na Blijnem I Srednem vostoke v period feodalizma. Sbornik.statey.-Moskva: Nauka,1985.-str.47-63.

37. Bulot Soliyev. XVII-XIX asr(larda ) iqtisodiy va tujjoriy munosabatlar // “ma'orif va o'qituvchi” jurnali.Toshkent, 1929,1-son.-B-52-56.

38. Valixo'jayev B. Xoja Axror tarixi.-Toshkent: Yozuvchi,1994.

39. Veselovskiy N.I. Ocherk istoriko- geograficheskix svedeniy o Xivinskom xanstve ot drevneyshix vremyon do nastoyashego. Spb,1877.

40. Germanov V.A. Proffesor Pulat Saliyev I ego vremya.-T.,”Fan”, 2002.

41. Kadirova M. Jitiya Xodja Axrara. Opit sistemnogo analiza po rekonstruksii biografii Xodja Axrara I istorii roda Ahraridov. -Tashkent: fransuzskiy institute issledovaniy Tsentralnoy Azii (IFEAC), 2007.

42. Kazakov B.A. Ananimnoye jitiye Xodji Ahrara // Istochnikovedeniye I tekstologiya srednevekovogo Blijnego Srednego Vostoka. Sbornikstatey.-Moskva: Nauka,1984-ctr. 103-108.

43. Karimov E. Xo'ja Axror hayoti va faoliyati. - Toshkent: Ma'naviyat, 2003.

44. Muravyov N. Puteshestviye v Turkmeniyu I Xivu. Ch.1-2.-Moskva, 1822.

45. Poslannik Petra I naVostoke. Posolstvo Florio Beneveni v Persiyu I Buxaru v 1718-1725 godax // Podgotovka teksta, vstupitelnaya statya I kommentarii V.G.Volovnikova.-Moskva: Nauka, 1986.

46. Po'lat Soliyev. O'zbeklar, ham Temur bolalari // “Maprif va o'qituvchi” jurnali.- Toshkent, 1928.¹5- 6.

47. “Rashahat”, Litografiya. Lakhnav nashri.

48. Salye M.A. Maloizvestniy istochnik po istorii Uzbekistana “Mexman-Name”// Trudi Instituta vostokovedeniya AN UzSSR, vip.3, 1954.

49. Samarkandskiye dokumenti XV-XVI vv. (O vladeniyax Xodji Axrara v Sredniy Azii I Afganistane).// Faksimile, kriticheskiy tekst, perevod, vvedeniye, primichaniya I ukazateli O.D.Chexovich.- Mockva: Nauka, 1974.

Ðàçìåùåíî íà Allbest.ru