THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE10
92
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
PUBLISHED DATE: - 22-10-2024
DOI: -
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajssei/Volume06Issue10-10
PAGE NO.: -92-99
SCIENTIFIC AND THEORETICAL ISSUES OF
STUDYING THE HISTORY OF UZBEK KHAN
ABDULLA KHAN II
Akbar Zamonov
PhD, professor, head of “History” department of Kimyo International
University in Tashkent, Uzbekistan
INTRODUCTION
There are still many individuals in the history of
Uzbekistan who have not been sufficiently studied,
not introduced to the public, and who have not
received their due assessment. One of them is
Abdullah Khan ibn Iskandar Khan, a great
statesman, a skilled commander, and a creative
ruler. If Muhammad Shaybani Khan (1500-1510)
was the founder of the Uzbek state, his nephew
Ubaydullah Khan (1533-1540) was the protector
and strengthener of this state, Abdullah Khan
(1557-1598) was the creator of the centralized
state, who ended the political disunity. Also, in
international politics, one of the four major states
that emerged in the East was the Khanate of
Bukhara during the time of Abdullah Khan. The
Khanate of Bukhara had the power to compete
with the Babur state during the period of
Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbarshah (1556-1605),
the Safavid state of Iran during the period of Shah
Tahmosb (1524-1576) and Shah Abbas (1587-
1627), and the Ottoman state during the period of
Sultan Suleiman (1520-1566), and being larger
than some of them in terms of territory, The
Khanate of Bukhara was raised to a higher level by
the efforts of Abdullah Khan.
Sources and historiography of the subject
Shaybani Abdullah Khan ibn Iskandar Khan's
personality and information about his activities
are covered in the following sources created in
Movarounnahr, Khorasan and Iran: Hafiz Tanish
al-Bukhari's
"Abdullanoma"
("Sharafnomai
Shahi"), Muhammadyar ibn Arab Muhammad
Qatagan's "Musaxhir al-bilad", Muhammad Talib's
"Matlab ut-talibin", "Tarihi tomm" by Sharofiddin
Rakimi, "Tazkirat us-shuaro" by Mutribi
Samarkandi, "Tarihi Muqimkhani" by Muhammad
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Open Access
Abstract
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE10
93
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
Yusuf Munshi, "Shajarai Turk" by Abulghozi
Bahadirkhan, as well as Hasanbek Rumlu's "Ahsan
at-
Tavorikh", Iskandarbek Munshi’s "History of
Alamaroi Abbasi" are among them [1].
During the years of independence, the Shaybani
period became one of the less studied periods.
Even so, it would be a mistake to say that there is
complete indifference or underestimation towards
Shaybani Khan and Abdullah Khan in Uzbek
history. While the general picture remains
unchanged, there are plenty of researchers who
advance new perspectives. Although there were no
special works devoted to the personality of
Abdulla Khan during the Soviet period and the
years of independence, as well as abroad, certain
studies have been conducted within the
framework of one or another research. In
particular, during the Soviet period, V.V. Bartold,
P.P. Ivanov, A.A. Semyonov, M.A. Salakhetdinova,
E.A. Davidovich; in the years of independence R.G.
Mukminova, B. Ahmedov, H.H. Toraev, G.A.
Agzamova, A. Ziya, G. Sultonova, A. Jumanazar;
foreign scientists such as Mustafa Budak, Remzi
Kilich, Gulay Karadag Chinar, Abdukadir Majid,
Hamza Kamal [2] paid attention to some aspects of
Abdullah Khan's work in their scientific research.
In recent times, supporters of Abdullah Khan's
personality re-evaluation have also been
increasing. For example, since 2006, the author of
this paper has been conducting scientific research
on the history of the Shaybani period, and now he
is preparing a special scientific work on the topic
of "Bukhara Khanate during Abdullah Khan's
time". Also, the fact that the issue of Abdullah
Khan's personality has left the circle of a couple of
amateurs interested in history and reached the
official media, newspapers, magazines and
websites, is a sign of a significant shift. It is in such
debates that new views are found and refined.
Why did Abdullah Khan's identity remain
behind the scenes?
It is known that during the last one and a half
centuries, the era of the Uzbek khanates in the XVI-
XIX centuries was backward, and their statesmen
were viewed unilaterally as the cause of this
backwardness. In the general context of historical
research, relatively backward periods, historical
figures with a negative image are hardly studied by
generations as important history. Shaybani Khan
and his descendants who ruled the Turan region
have been poorly researched for many years
according to the above criteria. Shaybani Khan,
Ubaydullah Khan and Abdullah Khan, who were
the biggest representatives of the dynasty, at first
glance, are seen as the accomplishers of great
things, who caused great historical changes, but in
Uzbek history, they were openly condemned or at
least indifferent to their activities. First, during the
Soviet era, the rulers of the Shaybani period were
left behind the curtain. There were a number of
reasons for this, of course. First of all, the main goal
of the Soviets to criticize the Khanate period and
their rulers was to idealize the existing, current
system, in the words of Abdulla Kadiri, to instill in
the public what was brought to light from "the
dirtiest, darkest days of our history, the former
Khanate period." Therefore, this approach was also
reflected in historical stories and novels (for
example, the works of Cholpon, Abdulla Kadiri,
Mirkarim Asim, Pirimkul Kadirov, etc.). Secondly,
approaches to Uzbek historiography during the
Soviet era did not significantly differ from those in
literature: the era of the Shaybanids is
characterized by political instability, invasion
campaigns, and at the same time, the dictatorial
rule of the khans. Because the Soviet state was
established in the ruins of the Uzbek khanates, a
kind of statehood that began during the
Shaybanids period. For this reason, Soviet science,
which studied the figures of the Uzbek khanates,
tried to "stone" its ideological opponent, instead of
impartially illuminating the past. This prevented
an unbiased approach to the period of the Khanate
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE10
94
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
and the inclusion of some important events,
achievements
and
individuals,
including
representatives of the Shaybanid dynasty, into the
scope of research. As a result, it was concluded that
the national heroes and major historical figures in
the history of Uzbek statehood lived mainly in the
period before the 16th century and no one like
them emerged after that. Thirdly, the history of the
Soviet era interpreted Genghis Khan as an evil,
bloodthirsty conqueror, a tyrant and destructive
ruler. The empire he created, and the state policy
implemented by his descendants were looked
upon with negative colors. Naturally, Abdullah
Khan, who belonged to his generation, also fell
under this shadow. Fourthly, when talking about
the Shaybani dynasty or the personality of
Abdullah Khan, concepts such as "Uzbek state",
"Uzbek people" or "Uzbeks" should be used in
parallel with them. When the policy of glorifying
the single Soviet people was the main ideology of
the Soviet state, it was impossible to objectively
evaluate the Uzbek state, the characteristics of the
Uzbek people, and the successful activities of
Shaybani Khan or Abdullah Khan, who were its
rulers.
Why did Abdullah Khan's personality go
unnoticed during the years of independence?
First, the historiography of independent
Uzbekistan still cannot completely leave the model
of the Soviet era. The periodization and general
view of our history created by the Soviet school of
history is still preserved, the list of historical
figures to be officially selected has hardly changed
(some figures such as Amir Temur have been
added), approaches have hardly changed.
Secondly, there is no attempt to re-evaluate the
period
of
the
Khans,
particularly
the
representatives of the Shaybani dynasty, and
rewrite their history. The Uzbek khanates, which
played a decisive role in the formation of the Uzbek
nation, the ethnic, political and cultural image of
Central Asia, remains, and more emphasis is placed
on the times before them. During the general
criticism of the Khanate era, the Shaybani state and
one of its great rulers, Abdullah Khan, was included
in this circle of "backwardness". However, in terms
of borders and political structure, the era of
Shaybani differs from the khanates of the following
centuries. It would be unfair to consider the
Shaybanids as a backward and weak dynasty of
their time. Thirdly, in the early years of
independence, the anniversaries of great Timurid
representatives such as Amir Temur (1996), Mirzo
Ulug'bek (1994), Zahiriddin Muhammad Babur
(1993) were celebrated internationally. The factor
of Amir Temur was transformed into one of the
main ideas of the state, an ideological force uniting
the nation. The legacy of the Timurids was widely
studied and promoted at the national level. At a
time when such an ideological and political factor
was being absorbed into the people's psyche, the
Shaybanids, who swept the Timurids from the
stage of the Turanian throne, took shape as a
common enemy. Fourthly, in 1998, the first
President of the Republic of Uzbekistan, Islam
Karimov, met with a group of historians and
intellectuals of other fields, and set before them the
task of impartially researching the history of the
Uzbek people and statehood, not connecting the
origin of the Uzbek people only with the
Shaybanids, and studying their ancient roots on a
scientific basis. As a result, most experts
approached the history of the Shaybani period
cautiously and could not adequately assess the
reformist policy of the dynasty's representatives in
the fields of statehood, science and culture. And
these did not allow to introduce Abdullah Khan, the
biggest representative of the dynasty, to the public.
The need to study Abdullah Khan's personality
During his time and even after his death, historians
described Abdullah Khan as "master", "great
khagan", "prosperity period of Bukhara state", "the
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE10
95
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
last great ruler of Turan". Even in the 19th century,
when the Turkestan region was in a socio-political
decline, historians and public figures felt the need
for a strong ruler like Amir Temur and Abdullah
Khan, and in their works hoped for the return of
such rulers. For example, Ahmad Donish (1827-
1897) writes in his work: "Every hundred and
thousand years of the Hijri, a ruler who renews the
state and society appears. Amir Temur Koragoni
was born as a mujaddid (renovator) of the eighth
hundred years of the Hijri. After that, Mujaddids
came from every corner of the Islamic land. For
example, Sultan Husain (Mirza) left Herat near the
ninth mia (hundred, century). Abdullah Khan came
out of Bukhara as a mujaddid at the beginning of
the millennium" [5]. It can be seen that the writer
hoped that the society felt the need for such a
powerful person during the tyranny of the Russian
Empire.
It is known from history that when the country is
in decline, the instability is on the rise, and the
country is trampled under the feet of invaders'
horses, great leaders and statesmen emerge and
unite the country and the people under a single flag
(for example, Jalaluddin Manguberdi, Amir Temur,
etc.). Abdulla Khan also grew up in a highly
conflicted period in the history of Uzbek statehood,
when the country was divided into several parts
and disorganized. He united the divided state with
"sword and blood" while adhering to the existing
political and social customs and traditions. A
united and militarily-politically strong state will be
able to carry out large-scale reforms. In this
situation, Abdullah Khan strengthened the
management procedures and began to implement
reforms that improved the socio-economic
condition of the population. Representatives of the
field of science and culture were glorified, and they
became scientific creators of reforms. The country
became a field of creativity, and Abdullah Khan
himself remained as the ruler who built the most
buildings in history. It is important that the
exemplary path of Uzbek statehood covered by this
person's courage and tenacity is an example for the
young generation coming up today.
Today, it is necessary not to limit the list of
historical figures to be studied within the
framework of history education and research, to
avoid making biased conclusions by comparing
one of them with another. A list of political figures
consisting of only Jalaluddin Manguberdi and Amir
Temur falls short to show the richness and
greatness of the past. The history of Uzbek
statehood needs more serious research.
Comparing and distinguishing historical figures,
recognizing only the strongest and looking
indifferently at the rest creates a big gap in
society’s consciousness. With this point of view,
the Shaybanids believed that Temur, who
overthrew the kingdom, was not able to create a
strong state, was not a "spiritual" and tolerant
person, invaded our country, was a nomad,
therefore, a "savage". Also, a comparative
argument is often put forward: Was Amir Temur
greater or Abdullah Khan? Was Abdullah Khan as
great as Amir Temur? To evaluate one person,
comparing him with another person does not lead
to correct conclusions: not everyone can be equally
great and equally strong, but everyone has their
own place in history.
Amir Temur and Abdullah Khan - a common
destiny.
In Turanian historiography, the title "master" has
been applied to many rulers who built a
centralized state and carried out victorious
campaigns. For example, historians often used this
quality in relation to Genghis Khan, Amir Temur
and Abdullah Khan. In the years of independence,
when the factor of Amir Temur became a separate
idea in Uzbekistan, the concept that the word
“sahibqiran” was used only for Amir Temur was
absorbed into the minds of our people, and the
word "Sahibqiran" became understood only by
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE10
96
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
Amir Temur. However, in the sources of the 16th-
19th centuries, along with Amir Temur, Abdullah
Khan is also referred to as "sahibqiran". Even the
word "sahibqiran" was used as a synonym instead
of the name Abdullah Khan.
It is known that there are few individuals who
created a large empire and built a centralized and
comprehensively strong state in the Turan region.
When it comes to this issue, of course, Amir Temur
is remembered as a great statesman who
performed this task. In the sources of the XVI-XIX
centuries, later, in the works of Jadid
representatives, Amir Temur and Abdullah Khan
are described in a row, they are compared to each
other. Because Amir Temur was the first
representative of the local statesmen who united
the Turan region around a single center and built
the largest empire in this region, while Abdullah
Khan was the last. In the sources, some powerful
statesmen are compared to each other with some
duty phrases. For example, in the works
"Zafarnama" dedicated to the history of Amir
Temur, "Abdullanama" dedicated to Abdullah
Khan, and "Musahhir al-bilad", while commenting
on the strength of the states of both individuals and
the strict establishment of laws and regulations, it
is said: "if a single soul, a single div walks on a
broad daylight from east to west with a golden
plate like the sun on his head, no one will be able to
take a look at him." In most of the sources related
to the period of Abdullah Khan ("Abdullanoma",
"Musaxhir al-bilad", "Rawzat ar-rizvan"), Khan's
activities related to the conquest of countries, the
appointment of ambassadors and governors, and
the management of the army are compared to Amir
Temur. Also, modern writers who dreamed of
national independence (in particular, Behbudi,
Fitrat) asked "divine powers" to people like Amir
Temur and Abdulla Khan to come from the depths
of history and liberate the society from the
oppression of colonialism.
Of course, such comparisons are not in vain. If the
life paths of both statesmen are analyzed, there are
commonalities in their activities in many areas.
First, there are many similarities in the state
activities of both: neither Amir Temur nor
Abdullah Khan inherited the power from their
father, and they came to the top of the state
through military and political struggle. After Amir
Temur took over the power of Movarounnahr, two
of the Chigatai Khans - Suyurgatmish Khan (1370-
1388) and his son Sultan Mahmud Khan (1388-
1402) were placed on the throne as "supreme
rulers" and practically kept the reins of
government in their hands. When Abdulla Khan
took over the power of Bukhara in 1557, he
dethroned his uncle Pirmuhammad Khan (1557-
1561), then his father Iskandar Khan (1561-1583),
and practically ruled the state himself.
Secondly, when both rulers came to the political
arena, the country was in decline, there was an
increase in disorganization, instability, looting, and
invasions of neighboring countries. They (Amir
Temur and Abdullah Khan) won in this struggle
(1370, 1557) and were able to build a centralized
state in a short period of time. Also, after the death
of both of them (1405, 1598), the large empire they
built began to disintegrate as a result of mutual
crown-throne disputes.
Thirdly, Amir Temur's loyalty to the three sheikhs
was very high. These are Shamsiddin Kulol, Sayyid
Baraka and Zainiddin Tayabadi. 1) Shamsiddin
Kulol (died 1370, Kesh) was the elder of Amir
Temur's father Amir Taragai (died 1360). For the
first time, he told Temur himself the prophecy
about his bright future. 2) Amir Temur met Mir
Sayyid Baraka (died 1404) for the first time in
1370 near Termiz. At the first meeting, Mir Sayyid
Baraka presented Amir Temur with a drum and a
flag, symbols of the kingdom, glory and victories.
3) Zainiddin Tayabadi was a great Khorasan
“sheikh” and “sheikh ul
-
Islam”. Timur met the
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE10
97
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
sheikh during one of his campaigns to Khurasan
(1381) and expressed his respect for him and
began to glorify him as a pir.
Abdulla Khan also devoted himself to the scholars
of three religions and always tried to strengthen
the country with their spiritual support. 1) Khoja
Islam Joybari (1493-1563) was followed first by
Iskandar Khan, and then by his son Abdullah Khan.
In 1557, Abdullah Khan took over Bukhara with
the help of this scholar. 2) After the death of Khoja
Islam, Abdullah Khan elevated his son Khoja Sa'd
Joybari to the rank of “sheikh ul
-
Islam” of the state
and was under his spiritual influence until the
death of Khoja (1589). 3) Abdullah Khan was very
devoted to Qasim Sheikh Azizon of Karmana (d.
1581) and took an active part in solving many of
the political conflicts of Sheikh Khan with
neighboring countries (Khorazm, Kazakh Khanate)
by diplomatic means. Also, the rulers always relied
on the help of these scholars in the management of
the state and society.
Fourthly, a monument with almost the same
content has been preserved from both rulers in
one place. Rather, Abdullah Khan imitated Amir
Temur in this matter. In the Ulughtog Gorge (a
mountain located 100 km north of Jezkazgan,
north of the Sarisu River) in the present Republic
of Kazakhstan, a "Zafarnoma" engraved on stone
by both rulers was found (stored in the Hermitage
Museum of Russia). In 1391, Amir Temur, during
his campaign against Tokhtamysh Khan, reached
Ulughtog, built a bridge on top of it in one day, built
a camp, and ordered the army to collect stones
from the surrounding area and build a tower-like
structure. Stone masons wrote inscriptions in 2
languages - Arabic and ancient Uyghur. The
inscription consists of 11 lines, 8 of which are in
ancient Uighur and 3 in Arabic. The text of the
memorial engraved in Turkish script is as follows:
"In the year seven hundred and ninety-three,
between the summer (koklam) month of the year
of the sheep, Temurbek, the sultan of Turan,
marched against Bulgar Khan Tokhtamish Khan in
the name of Islam with three hundred thousand
soldiers. He reached here and built this hill as a
sign. God bless you, inshallah. May God have mercy
on the people, remember us with a prayer" [4].
200 years later, Abdullah Khan, who marched to
Dashti Kipchak, against Baba Sultan, followed the
example of his predecessor and built a mosque
opposite the minaret built by Amir Temur, as a
memorial of the Ulughtog expedition. Hafiz Tanish
Bukhari writes about this: "On that day (May 3,
1582), the prayer stopped until noon and he
ordered the army to collect a lot of stones."
Following the order, they built a mosque in that
place from the collected stone. With this, they left a
monument of the high-ranking king in the pages of
the newspaper. Such a thing was done by Amir
Temur Koragon, the city-dweller, religious pole of
the world" [6].
Fifth, it is known that Amir Temur built many
structures during his career not only in
Movarounnahr, but also in Khorasan, Iran, the
Middle East and the Caucasus, which were part of
the state. In particular, the central cities of
Movarounnahr - Samarkand and Kesh - became a
wide area of creativity, many masters-builders of
the East participated in the construction of
structures such as mosques, madrasas, houses,
mausoleums, and minarets. During the period of
Abdullah Khan, hundreds of structures were built
in Movarounnahr, although their height and
grandeur did not reach Amir Temur's structures,
but in terms of quantity, they were more than the
number of buildings built by all the Timurids. In
this regard, the academician V.V. Bartold, who
assessed their contribution to architecture, rightly
called Amir Temur "the first builder of Central
Asia" and Abdullah Khan as "the second builder of
Central Asia" [3].
REFERENCES
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE10
98
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
1.
Hafiz Tanish al-Bukhari. Abdullanoma /
translated from Persian by S. Mirzaev.
Scientific editor, editor, author of foreword and
comments B. Akhmedov. - T.: Sharq, book 1,
1999; Book 2, 2000; Muhammadyar ibn Arab
Qatagan. Musakhkhir al-bilad. - T.: Sharq, 2009;
Muhammad
Talib.
Matlabut-talibin
/
translation from Persian and comments by G.
Karimi and E. Mirkomilov. - T.: Movarounnahr,
2016; Mutribi Samarkandi. Tazkirat ush-
shuaro. / Translation from Persian, author of
introduction and comments I. Bekjonov. T.:
Muntoz soz, 2013; Sharofiddin Rakimi. The
history is complete. / Translated from Persian
by N. Norkulov and H. Bobobekov. - T.:
Spirituality, 1998; Muhammad Yusuf Munshi.
Tarikh-i Mukim-khani (Mukimkhanskaya
istoriya) / Perevod s Tajikskogo, predislovie,
primechanie i indicator prof. AA. Semenova. -
T, 1956; Abulghazi Bahadirkhan. His family
name is Turkish. T.: Cholpon, 1990; Hasanbay
Rumlu.
Ahsaneut-tawarikh
(Historical
chronicle of the events of 807-985 Hijri / 1404-
1578 AD). Translation and comments from
Farsi: Corresponding member of AMEA, Doctor
of History, Professor Oktay Afendiyev, Doctor
of Philosophy in History, Docent Namik Musali.
Kastamonu,
2017;
Iskadarbek
Munshi
Turkman. Abbasi is a historical figure. /
Translation from Persian to Azerbaijani,
introduction, comments by Oktay Efendiev,
Namik Musali. Baku, 2009.
2.
Бартольд.
В.В.
Туркестан
в
эпохи
монгольского нашествия / Соч. в
9 томах. Т.
I.
–
М.: Восточной литературы, 1963;
Бартольд. В.В. История культурной жизни
Туркестана / Соч. в 9 томах. –
Т. II. Ч.1.–
М.:
Восточной литературы, 1963; Давидович
Е.А. Корпус золотых и серебряных монет
Шейбанидов. XVI век. —
М.: Наука. Главная
редакция восточной литературы, 1992;
Иванов П. П. Хозяйство Джуйбарских
шейхов.
К
истории
феодального
землевладения в Средней Азии в XVI—
XVII
в., М.—Л., Изд
-
во АН СССР, 1954; Семёнов
А.А. Очерк устроиства центрального
административного
управления
Бухарского ханства позднейшего времени
// Материалы по истории таджиков и
узбеков Средней Азии. –
Вып. II. –
Сталинабад, 1954; Салахетдинова М. А.
Неизвестный документ, составленный в
связи с походом шейбанида Абдулла
-
хана II
на Герат в 1578 г. // Письменные
памятники и проблемы истории культуры
народов Востока. XXII годичная научная
сессия ЛО ИВ АН СССР (доклады и
сообщения). 1988 г. Часть 1. М.: Наука, ГРВЛ,
1989; Салахетдинова М. А. Некоторые
данные источников о борьбе Абдулла
-
хана
II за власть в Бухаре // Письменные
памятники и проблемы истории культуры
народов Востока. X годичная научная
сессия ЛО ИВ АН СССР (автоаннотации и
краткие сообщения). М.: ГРВЛ, 1974..
Ahmedov B. Uzbek nation. - T.: "Nur", 1992. -
pp. 26-125; This is the author. Lessons from
history.
–
T.: Teacher, 1994; A. Ziya. History of
Uzbek statehood. - T: East, 2001; H. Toraev.
The role of Khojabor Khojas in the socio-
political and spiritual-cultural life of the
Bukhara Khanate in the 16th-17th centuries.
Doctor of historical sciences, thesis abstract. T.,
2007; G. Sultanova Relations of the Bukhara
Khanate with the Kazakh and Yorkent
Khanates in the second half of the 16th
century: History. candidate. dissertation. - T.,
2005; Zamonov A. T. Army structure and
military management in Bukhara Khanate.
Doctor of Philosophy of History (PhD),
dissertation and monograph. - T., 2018; G.
Agzamova. "Uzbek cities and urban life in the
first half of the 16th-19th centuries". History is
a science. Ph.D., dissertation. - T., 2000;
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND EDUCATION INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2689-100X)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE10
99
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajssei
Muqimov Z. Owners of sword and pen.
(Historical records about state figures.) -
Samarkand, 1996, 2008; Hosseinishirazi S. S.
Military-political
relations
between
Maverannakhra and Iran in the XVI century.
Dissertation na soiskanie uchenoy stepi
candida istoricheskix nauk. Monday, 2014;
Budak M. The beginning of Ottoman-Uzbek
political relations // Eurasian Studies. -
Ankara, 1996. -
No. 4.; Remzi Kılıç. Ottoman
inkwells (1530-1555) // Laws of history. - No.
2. - Ankara, 2001; Abdulkadir Macit. Sheybanî
Khanate (1500-1599). Istanbul, 2015.
3.
Бартольд.
В.В.
Туркестан
в
эпохи
монгольского нашествия / Соч. в 9 томах. Т.
I.
–
М.: Восточной литературы, 1963.
4.
Sharafuddin Ali Yazdi. Zafarnoma. / The
authors of the foreword, translation,
comments and indicators are Ashraf Ahmad,
Haydarbek
Bobobekov.
T.:
New
age
generation, 2023. - p. 505-506.
5.
Ahmed Donish. Risola or a brief history of the
kingdom of the House of Mangits. / The author
of the translation, comments and introduction
is Qiyamiddin Yoldashev. T.: National
encyclopedia of Uzbekistan DIN, 2014.
–
17 p.
6.
Hafiz Tanish Bukhari. Abdullahnama. /
Translation from Persian by S. Mirzaev and Yu.
Hakimjonov. Thai for publication. B. Ahmedov.
Book 2. - T.: Sharq, 2000. - 71 p.
