Uzbeks are nobles of the Turkic peoples, and Sarts are entrepreneurs of Central Asia (part 1): Rustamjon Abdullaev. Who are the Uzbeks and where did they come from?

News from Muslim republics

30.03.2016

After reading this article, it became clear to me that its authors, as they themselves admit, are not experts on the very complex problem of the origin of the Uzbek people. But, as they themselves write, they studied at the history department of the university, but did not find a place for themselves in the academic science of the Republic of Uzbekistan, they were engaged in work available to them in order to earn their bread, and in their free time, as patriots of the history of their people, they were interested in scientific research, publications by various authors. These works, it seems to me, interested them; they were given food to substantiate their ridiculous anti-scientific concept on the issue of the origin of the Uzbek people. The main essence of their concept is that the history of the Uzbek people begins with the penetration of nomadic Uzbeks led by Shaibanikhan into Moveraunnahr from Dashti-Kipchak, thereby they deny the historical roots of the Uzbek people, consisting of two multilingual autochthonous ethnic layers and brazenly believe that history of the peoples of Central Asia until the 15th century was Tajik.

Apparently, they do not represent the full complexity of the problem, like studying the history of the origin of the Uzbek people, the historical roots of which, contrary to the false beliefs of the authors of the article, go back to the Late Bronze Age, and not to the era of the conquest of Central Asia by nomadic Uzbeks from Dashti-Kipchak.

Ethnically, the Uzbek people are not exclusively Turkic or, as Messrs. Mingbaev and Norbaev suggest to us, Turkified Mongols. In fact, the Uzbek people are an ethnic synthesis of multilingual tribes and peoples, the assimilation of which took place over at least two and a half thousand years1. Later (in 1924), as a result of the Soviet policy, the united Turkic ethnic group of Central Asia was divided into separate national republics. However, long ago (at least in the 11th-12th centuries), our people, which emerged as a Turkic-speaking ethnic group, received the name “Uzbek” on the advice of Russian orientalists.

In the historical past, no ethnic group under the term “Uzbek” existed. The term "Uzbek" first (at the end of the 13th - beginning of the 14th centuries) appeared as a political association of groups of young warriors of the eastern Dashti-Kipchak. Then (in the second half of the XIV-XV centuries) this military-political association of young warriors turned into the name of the population of the entire Dashti-Kipchak region. Now, all nomadic Uzbeks and Turkified Mongol tribal groups began to be called Uzbeks.

Therefore, in eastern written sources of the late Middle Ages, Dashti-Kipchak was mentioned as “Uzbek eli”, “Uzbeklar mamlakati” (“country of the Uzbeks”). The Turks and Turkified Mongols, in connection with the conquests of Genghis Khan and after him, also penetrated into Transoxiana and its environs. But they came here with their tribal names. Because, at that time, in the steppes of Dashti-Kipchak, the term Uzbek (“Uzbek eli”, “Mamlakati Uzbek”) as a popular name had not yet been formed.

As noted above, these terms in Dashti-Kipchak appeared around the middle of the 15th century. Nomadic Uzbeks, led by one of the leaders of Chingizid Shaibanikhan, a graduate of Bukhara madrassas, penetrated our lands as part of 92 tribal groups, took away power from the weakened Timurids and established their own power.

For the sake of fairness, it should be noted that this was just a dynastic change, therefore a state called Uzbek did not appear in Maverannahr, and no fundamental changes took place in the system of local and state administration. The country continued to develop intensively in all spheres of life. Especially, under Shaybanid Abdullakhan II, the country developed rapidly in the spheres of economic, cultural, trade relations and in monumental construction. Although this development was not truly reflected in Soviet historiography, it was properly reflected only in the historiography of the period of independent Uzbekistan (for example, in volume III of the new edition “History of Uzbekistan”).

Unfortunately, the Shaybanids and their successors, the Ashtarkhanids, were unable to rule the country like Abdulla Khan II. Due to inter-aristocratic intrigues and inter-feudal struggle within the country, the state was artificially divided into three parts (Khiva Khanate, Bukhara Emirate and Kokand Khanate), which were led by the leading tribes of nomadic Uzbeks, after which no khanate was named. Because the main population was not only nomadic Uzbeks, its core consisted of ancient sedentary Turks and Turkified Sarts.

This is historical reality! Refusing it is tantamount to refusing past history and the richest cultural heritage created by our ancestors since ancient times. To believe that the history of the Uzbek people begins with the nomadic Shaybanid Uzbeks means that the entire history and ethnocultural heritage created up to that time belongs only to the Tajiks. Therefore this difficult question specialists should and do do it. It’s not for nothing that people say: “chumchuk sўysa ҳam қassob sўysin” - “even a sparrow should be cut by a butcher.”

The authors of the article are offended that we criticize the lack of science in their article. In response, they write that “Askarov and Inamov make a lot of appeals to scientific character and science as such in an attempt to score points under the shadow of beautiful words. But, by doing so, they expose their irresponsible approach to scientific methodology and the historical discipline, hastily forgetting that the platform we have chosen is not a field of academic warfare, but just an online publication, and the format of the article, accordingly, is popular science. In this regard, demanding that we be scientific is tantamount to playing with marked cards. But another question arises - to what extent are Askarov and Inamov themselves faithful to the mythical “scientific”?

From the context it is clear that for them scientificity and academic science are empty chatter, “an attempt to score points under the shadow of beautiful words.” They say that they do not speak in scientific journals, but only in Internet publications, where everything can be published. Therefore, scientific methodology and historical discipline cannot be demanded of them.

If they consider themselves sons of the Uzbek people, and even more so, historians, then they would not be so far from an amateurish approach to native history and would not speak from such a non-scientific position. After all, in modern world, the Internet is also open to young people. Young people read all sorts of articles and they develop not a scientific, but a methodologically incorrect idea about their native history. University students and college and high school students prefer to read history on the Internet than listen to boring lectures by young teachers who are not yet prepared in theoretical, scientific and methodological terms. Unfortunately, it has become a tradition to officially promote the importance of Internet materials in universities. And we, representatives of the older generation, cannot look at this irresponsibly.

The article we published on the Internet “On the inconsistency of the article “Old problems of new Uzbek historiography” was not written as a response to Mingboev and Norbaev, but was written for young people, so that they would not be mistaken when reading articles by all sorts of amateurs on the history of the origin of the Uzbek people. In the article we wrote about the tasks of historical science, about the role and formation of spiritual culture, about the role of history in the spiritual and moral education of the nation.

And our opponents, in their response article, assessed our opinion as a relic and nothing more than a political instrument, supposedly supposed to serve such abstract goals as “spiritual culture” and “spiritual education of the nation.” They further write that academic science should not be controlled by the state, it should be based on strict, methodologically verified research activities, the results of which should be reflected in scientific articles and monographs, and not be operated by such abstract, non-scientific categories as “continuity”, “spirituality”, "autochthony" and "alienity".

With the exception of phrases such as “academic science should be based on strict, methodologically verified research activities, the results of which should be reflected in scientific articles and monographs,” the judgments of our opponents are fiction and false, and call for distortion of Russian history.

They appeal to the educational role of pedagogical science. But let’s give one more quote: “there is still a pedagogical historical discipline designed to ensure the loyalty of the population, preserve historical memory and form a single identity. It already tells people who is who, without claiming absolute objectivity, but in its codification it is necessary to take into account the developments academic research." They also perceive the role of historical science in front of society very narrowly, as evidenced by the interpretation of their following statements: “Askarov, in the best traditions of Soviet science, tries to give the issue a political context, declaring his enemies “pan-Turkists” and “pan-Turkists”;... and accusing constructivists of "calling for interethnic conflicts." “We state that a historian is not a politician, and if Askarov imagines himself to be a politician who has the right to tell a multimillion-dollar society how to see its history, then he has betrayed academic science.”

“Constructivism is not a political ideology, but a theory in the philosophy of science, an alternative to the theory of ethnicity, more modern and widespread throughout the world. Constructivists do not call for interethnic conflicts; on the contrary, studying them, they state that they are not based on some far-fetched "objective ethnic criteria", but a social conflict covered by an ethnic screen. Thus, they prove that ethnicity is a construct that exists only in our heads, it is not an objective reality; that there are no clear boundaries between us;..." “Pan-Turkism and Pan-Iranism are political movements; they do not take into account any historical context, being guided only by the current state of affairs. A scientist should be guided not by political preferences, but by facts.”

From the context you can see where it leads final goal opponents. No, dear fellows! Firstly, history must serve society and take into account the ethno-political situation that has existed in the region since ancient times; secondly, you have a poor understanding of the ideological essence of Pan-Turkism and Pan-Iranism, which appeared in the first years of Soviet power and became more active in the Turkic-speaking republics after the collapse of the USSR; thirdly, no, dear “philosophers,” modern constructivism, as a philosophical movement, denies the ethnogenetic stage of the history of an ethnos and, as a political instrument, seeks food to incite interethnic contradictions, thereby denying the ethno-forming factors of an ethnos. “We are all,” write the authors of the response article, “first of all people, and only then Uzbeks, Tajiks, Muslims, Christians. This is the theory of scientific liberalism and tolerance, which sharply criticizes the theory of ethnicity, which involves dividing people by ethnicity, race and language signs."

The main goal of the opponents is clear from the context. They state that “it is necessary to take facts from everyday life and their statement is enough; there is no need to scientifically analyze them on the basis of historical scientific methodology. The people themselves select what they need from them; There is no need to promote the education of youth in the spirit of national and ideological spirituality "History should develop precisely on such a theory of liberalism and tolerance." This is clearly open propaganda calling for interethnic hostility, directed against peaceful life in the region, ideological sabotage.

They further write: “Askarov is an archaeologist, not an ethnologist or linguist, and therefore, despite all the official regalia, he is not a recognized authority on issues of ethnogenesis and linguistics.” It’s true, I’m not a linguist, but I’m familiar with the scientific works of linguists and strictly following scientific ethics, I used their developments in writing my works.

I have been studying the problem of ethnogenesis and ethnic history of the Uzbek people since 1983, and have published a number of scientific articles in magazines and scientific collections. He published two monographs and organized a number of scientific conferences on the issue at hand. He has made presentations at regional and international conferences. What else do you need, gentlemen!

If you rely on the speech of archaeologist A. Sagdullaev, who in his controversial article (magazine “History of Uzbekistan”, No. 3, 2015) criticizes my work (“Uzbek khalkining kelib chikish tarihi”), then you are mistaken. There is my response to this article in the magazine “History of Uzbekistan” No. 1, 2016, and several positive articles in the republican press. It’s surprising that in your opinion A. Sagdullaev, who has not published a single scientific article in ethnogenesis, a recognized expert on the ethnogenesis of the Uzbeks, but Askarov is the author of a number of scientific articles and two respectable monographs - no! Do you have the slightest human conscience?

As for my second opponent. At the last discussion of my monograph at an extended meeting of the academic council (26.IX.2015) of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Uzbekistan, where historians, archaeologists, ethnographers, ethnologists, source scholars and others participated, the Arabist A. Akhmedov, seeing the mood of the speakers, silently left the meeting room, and 12 days after the academic council, where my work was recommended for publication, he sent an unfounded, intriguing review to the director of the institute and demanded that his review be included in the minutes of the meeting. His review and my response, along with the minutes of the meeting and an official letter from the institute, were sent to the publishing house, where the work was soon published. Here is the face of my second opponent. A. Akhmedov, like A. Sagdullaev, did not publish a single article on the ethnogenesis and ethnic history of the Uzbek people, thereby both of them, out of purely personal hostility towards me, tried to biasedly denigrate my work.

When writing my scientific works, I widely used data from ancient Chinese written sources, thanks to the friendly help of sinologist, prof. A. Khojaeva. He is a renowned scientist of a wide range. There are no written sources other than Chinese on the early history of the Turkic-speaking peoples. And my opponents A. Akhmedov and A. Sagdullaev do not recognize the data of ancient Chinese written sources. This is because the data from ancient Chinese sources does not serve the traditional ideas of Soviet historiography. Therefore, they both look for "dirt under their fingernails" in the work of those who look at history with new perspectives and approaches.

Now, Messrs. Mingbaev and Norbaev, if you are such experts on the history of the Uzbek people, you should not criticize on the Internet, first write and publish a scientific work on the origin of your people! If people accept your conceptual belief, they will definitely thank you.

Usually, a new idea raised in scientific works due to the objective and subjective approach of opponents is not always perceived immediately, especially when the author has envious people.

In such cases, history amateurs, taking advantage of this, try to show themselves as a critic even of scientists with extensive scientific experience in the field of science. In the role of such parrots here I see Mingbaev and Norbaev.

In my books published in 2007 and 2015. a detailed idea was given of who the Aryans were, who can be called Aryans in ethnic terms, relevant information was given about this, according to which it is substantiated that the Aryan ethnos never existed. Aryans are social phenomenon the development of the nomadic stage of life of the pastoral tribes of the Eurasian steppes, the initiative layer of society, the aristocratic layer of the emerging early class society. They, contrary to historical linguistics and archaeological research, were not native speakers of ancient Iranian languages. According to a comparative scientific analysis of ancient Chinese sources, the language of the Aryans belonged to the proto-Turkic ethnic group. Their migration to the south, starting from the middle of the 2nd millennium BC, is evidenced by archaeological materials, especially from the Central Asian region.

Gentlemen Mingbaev and Norbaev! You have turned into slaves of the great Paniranist V.V. Bartold and his followers. Since you have decided to understand the history of your people, listen more to scientists with rich experience and baggage on the history of your native land. Do not forget the ethnopolitical situation that has existed here since ancient times.

V.V. Bartold is a major and very erudite scientist. However, during his lifetime such branches of historical science as archeology, anthropology, numismatics, ethnology, Turkology were not developed in Central Asia - all of them were in their infancy. Known written sources and rare written finds were considered Iranian-language. Thanks to the reading of authentic numismatic materials by G. Babayarov, M. Iskhakov, Sh. Kamoliddinov, it became known that the Iranian-language reading of numismatic materials by Academician E.V. Rtveladze turned out to be false; most of them were ancient Turkic. If the inscription on the coin did not contain ancient Iranian content, then it was perceived as “unknown writing.”

My opponents, represented by A. Akhmedov and A. Sagdullaev, deny the ethnogenetic aspect of archaeological materials. They believe that the problems of the ethnogenesis of the Uzbeks are studied only on the basis of written sources. There is no data directly related to language in written sources. Therefore, A. Askarov’s involvement of archaeological materials to resolve the issue of the ethnogenesis of the Uzbek people is not acceptable. They unfoundedly strive to convince readers that it is impossible to “squeeze the juice” out of ceramics and other artifacts of material culture for ethnogenesis, with which one cannot agree. Firstly, A. Akhmedov is a mathematician by basic education and is far from history and archeology. Therefore, it is difficult for him to understand the role of archeology in the study of ethnogenesis and ethnic history. Plus, although he is a source scholar, due to personal hostility towards source scholars on ancient Chinese hieroglyphs, he does not want to recognize the adequacy of ancient Chinese written sources.

Although ancient Chinese sources contain materials exposing the whims of A. Akhmedov. For example, in ancient Chinese sources dating back to the 3rd-2nd millennium BC. Turkic tribes Guz are referred to as “hu”, tiek - “di”, rivem - “rung”2. L.N. Gumilov in his work “Hunnu” writes that the ethnonym “Hun” first appears in the history of China in 1764 BC, then the Huns met twice, that is, in 822 and 304 BC.3 The Huns are recognized as Turkic-speaking tribes in the historiography of the West; secondly, if you delve deeply scientifically into the analysis of archaeological artifacts, you can be convinced that archaeological material also has an ethnogenetic aspect in the history of the ethnos. For example, according to archaeological research, starting from the Bronze Age, proto-Turkic tribes began to intensively penetrate from the northeastern regions of the Eurasian steppes into the regions of Central Asia. Their penetration was constant in the early Iron Age, in antiquity, not to mention the period of the arrival of the Chionites, Kidarites, Hephthalites, and the Turkic Kaganate in the era of early feudalism. These migration processes are well reflected in archaeological materials. Based on the analysis of archaeological materials, we can say which complex belongs to the culture of the sedentary part of the population, and which to the culture of nomads or settling nomads.

In the conditions of Central Asia, based on the analysis of archaeological complexes, funeral rites and religious and spiritual representations of culture bearers, one can unmistakably determine who is an Iranian-speaking Sogdian or Khorezmian, and which culture belongs to the Turkic-speaking population.

In order to come to such conclusions, the researcher must have a large scientific range and a subtle sense of knowledge of the material. In addition, the research archaeologist must rise from the level of an archaeologist to the level of a historian with extensive experience in the historical interpretation of archaeological artifacts.

Unfortunately, many archaeologists remained archaeologists and did not rise to the level of historians. Apparently, archaeologist A. Sagdullaev, judging by his reasoning, where he does not see the ethnogenetic aspect of archaeological materials in the history of the ethnos, remained an archaeologist. If he had been more objective when reading my work, without personal hostility towards me, then he would have understood me correctly. Unfortunately, the problem of the ethnogenesis of the Uzbeks does not interest him; he was brought up in the spirit of Pan-Iranism.

According to the data presented by A. Khojaev, based on deciphering ancient Chinese written sources, in the lower reaches of the Yellow River in the 3rd-2nd millennium BC. there were North Chinese local principalities "Shya" (2205-1766 BC), "Shong" 1766-1122. BC), "Zhou" (1122-771 BC), in the system of government administrations of which chroniclers called "shi" worked. The tasks of these chroniclers included recording events taking place, both within the country and outside. These "shi" also simultaneously left information about neighboring tribes and peoples living to the north, northeast and northwest of them. They mentioned them with disrespectful words, calling them savages and barbarians, who often unexpectedly appeared on foreign lands, trampled sown fields, and carried away women and children on horses. They live in light tents. Their main food is meat and milk. Judging by the description, we are talking about nomadic tribes, from whom, in the conditions of the steppes, mobility and dexterity were required, which is characteristic of the lifestyle of the steppe tribes of Eurasia of the Bronze Age.

From the history of China, the names of some “shi” (Sa Zhe, Rui Sung) have reached us. In the "Great Chinese Hieroglyphic Dictionary" ("Hitoy tili katta hieroglyphlar lugati"), compiled on the basis of materials from Sima Qiang's book "Historical Monuments" ("Tarihiy Hotiralar"), it is written that the ancestors of the Huns live on the northwestern border of the North Chinese state "Shya". - “hu”, “di”, “rung”. The terms “hu”, “di”, “rung” in the local language sound like “tiek” (in Chinese “di”, “rivem” in Chinese “rung”), “guz” (in Chinese “hu”). They were the ancestors of the Huns with Chinese names4. Similar information is found in the dictionary “Etymology of Words” (“Suzlar Etymologiyasi”) by Xi Yuan5. If “tiek” was the common name of (proto-Turkic - A.A.) related tribes, then “Guz” and “Hun” are separate tribes included in the union of tribes “tiek”6. In the second part ("Khunnlar tazkirasi") of the History of the Khan Dynasty it is written that "in the south there is the Great Khan, and in the north there is a strong "Hu". The historian of the Eastern Khan Dynasty Zheng Shuang writes that the "Hu" are contemporary with the Xiongnu", that is, the Xiongnu7. According to sinologist A. Khojaev, “di” in Chinese characters is also read as “dingling.” As the Chinese historian Duan Liangchin emphasizes, the “Guifangs” of the time of the Northern Chinese principality of “Shia”, “Shong”, “Zhou” were the ancestors of “Dingling”8. Another Chinese historian, Lü Simian, writes that “the previously named Dinling (Dingling) tribes now began to be called “Chile”, “Tele”. Now we generally call them “Uyghurs”, and in Western historiography they are called “Türks”9.

Thus, from the above data of Chinese historians and historical dictionaries Based on the analysis of ancient Chinese written sources, we can come to the conclusion that in the north, northeast and northwest of the ancient Chinese in the 3rd-2nd millennium BC. lived pastoral proto-Turkic tribes, the ancestors of the Huns. It was in these territories of the Eurasian steppes, more precisely in the eastern part of this region, that the nomadic tribes of the Andronovo cultural community spread in the Bronze Age. Consequently, the local nomadic tribes of the Bronze Age - Tiek, Guz, Xiongnu (Hun), Guifang, Dingling and others (in Chinese Hu, Di, Rung, etc.) can be identified with the tribes of the Andronovo cultural community, since the ancient Chinese characterization of the “barbarian” proto-Turkic tribes is fully consistent with the archaeological characteristics and chronology of the Andronovo tribes. After which I got the idea that the speakers of the Andronovo cultural community probably spoke different dialects of the ancient Turkic language, which I propose to call not Turkic, but proto-Turkic.

It is well known that ancient writing, as a vital need, first appeared in the society of sedentary tribes. There was no need for it in the early stages of nomadic society. Therefore, writing appeared among the Turkic-speaking ancestors much later than among the sedentary population.

Although somewhat later, the Turkic-speaking ancestors had writing. For example, the “Issyk script” of the Saka tribes or the “unknown script” of the Yuezhi tribes; samples of the latter were found in more than ten locations. A.S. Omonzholov and other Turkic linguists proved that the “Issyk script” is the earliest example of ancient Turkic writing. It was discovered in the central part of the distribution of the ancient Turkic language. In these areas, carriers of the Andronovo culture are widespread and all its chronological stages are represented.

Unfortunately, in the historiography of the Soviet period, the speakers of the Andronovo and Dandybay-Begazin cultures were considered Iranian-speaking, even the world-famous historian, academician B.G. Gafurov wrote his monumental monograph “Tajiks” (1972 edition) in the spirit of pan-Iranism. A common thread in his work was the idea that the ancient Iranian language penetrated into Central Asia from Eastern Europe during the Bronze Age. In fact, the ancient Iranian language in the Persian world and Central Asia had an autochthonous basis, which was proven by objective facts in my scientific works. This is one of the new provisions that I put forward in the monograph “Uzbek Khalkining Kelib Chikish Tarihi”.

Messrs. Mingbaev and Norbaev, without realizing this, do not hesitate to slander that “A. Askarov preaches anti-scientific concepts, and this is nonsense!”

Usually, in science, new ideas are born in the process of comparing facts, scientific observations and their scientific analysis, and are subject to objective and subjective resistance. However, they should not be feared. Because this is the dialectic of life, without them neither science nor society will develop. Each new idea raised in scientific works, despite objective and subjective assessments, serves as a stimulus for the birth of more and more new works. In this regard, the monograph by A. Askarov is also of great scientific importance. The works of A. Askarov will not be smashed to smithereens in academic science, since the speeches of A. Sagdullaev, Mingbaev and Norbaev are not justified and have already received their assessment. On the contrary, they showed their treacherous face in front of their people.

Your allegorical remark about the anthropological types of each historical root of the ancestors of the Uzbek people is not appropriate, since I relied on the scientific conclusions of anthropologists. And you, based on data obtained from the analysis of an ethnographic group of nomadic Uzbeks, extend this to the entire Uzbek people, and present it as a historical reality.

Famous anthropologists academician V.P. Alekseev, professor L.V. Oshanin, V.V. Ginzburg, T.A. Trofimova, T.K. The Khojoys do not deny the proto-European identity of the Bronze Age proto-Turks. However, starting from the Early Iron Age, in connection with the penetration of the Karasuk culture into the steppes of Southern Siberia from the Far East, elements of the Mongoloid type with the ancient Turkic language appeared in the Caucasian population of the eastern part of Eurasia. Over time, the Mongoloid trait intensifies and their influx (chionites, kidarites, hephthalites) into Central Asia becomes intense. During the era of the Western Turkic Kaganate, there was not a single region left in Central Asia where the Turks did not penetrate.

In the 8th century The Arabs, in order to stop their influx, built defensive walls around the oases. But the Turkic ethnic layer here was so powerful before that, even under the Samanids, the basis of the army was made up of Turkic ghulams and generals. This meant that the Turkic ethnic layer of the Uzbek people, even under the Samanids, consisted mainly of sedentary Turks speaking Oguz, Karluk-Chigil dialects.

Even the Samanids themselves were from the Fergana Oguzes by origin. A monograph by the famous source scholar Sh. Kamoliddinov entitled “Samanids” was published about this in 2011.

So far no one has disputed the scientific conclusions of L.V. Oshanina, V.V. Ginzburg and T.K. Khojayov that the modern Uzbek people and the lowland Tajiks have basically the same anthropological appearance, both of them belong to the “type of Central Asian interfluve” of the Greater Indo-European Race.

Indeed, due to the appearance of the Mongoloid Karasuk people in the larger eastern part of the Eurasian steppes and the constant penetration of tribes with Mongoloid features into the regions of Mogolistan, the Dashti-Kipchak nomadic Uzbeks increased Mongoloidism among the Turkic-speaking population. In turn, in connection with the campaigns of Genghis Khan and the Dashti-Kipchak Uzbeks in Central Asia, the Mongoloid type began to predominate in the nomadic and semi-nomadic part of the Uzbek people.

According to the conclusion of anthropologist T.K. Khojayov, starting from the 17th century, the Mongoloid element gradually penetrated into the settled part of the population. Assimilation different types in the physical appearance of our people continued in some places in subsequent centuries. It `s naturally! But, despite this, the Uzbeks and Tajiks, as representatives of the “Central Asian interfluve type,” remained as before Caucasoid.

Dear opponents! In your conclusions about the anthropological appearance of the Uzbek people, you do not need to rely on an analysis of the anthropology of individual ethnographic groups. Carefully read the works of anthropologists, where they characterize the physical appearance of the entire population. Otherwise, you insult your people with your incorrect anthropological interpretations. You didn’t even hesitate to insult L.V. Oshanin with his absurd conclusions: “Since in the Soviet period the Uzbeks were declared to be the descendants of ancient Iranians, anthropologists such as Oshanin, despite the noticeable Mongoloid characteristics they discovered among the Uzbeks, attributed ancient Iranian origin to the Uzbeks due to established doctrine.” Firstly, Soviet doctrine does not say that the Uzbeks are directly descendants of the ancient Iranians; secondly, L.V. Oshanin also did not write that the Uzbeks in origin go back to the ancient Iranians.

Don’t try to create a false sea out of a drop, don’t draw conclusions from the words of foreigners, they won’t understand the aspirations of our people. Your example, taken from an article by W. Spencer, is based only on a DNA analysis of 366 ethnicos - descendants of nomadic Uzbeks by origin. It is not appropriate here to distribute them as original material to the entire Uzbek people.

Dear Internet readers! Pay attention to what my opponents write: “So far, the only detailed genetic study of Uzbek ethnogenesis was carried out by Wells Spencer in 2001. In this study of Uzbeks10, 366 people from different regions of Uzbekistan are represented.” The authors of this study note that: “Indeed, the genetic distances between the various Uzbek populations scattered throughout Uzbekistan are no greater than the distance between many of them and the Karakalpaks. This suggests that the Karakalpaks and Uzbeks have very similar origins.” To tell the truth, the Karakalpaks are also of Dashti-Kipchak origin, whose facial (physical) appearance belongs to the “South Siberian type,” and the Uzbeks, as noted above, belong to the “Central Asian interfluve type.”

Mingbaev and Norbaev write without shame that “The authors of the article also express their pleasure with the fact that in recent years in the scientific works of Uzbek scientists such famous historical figures as Tomiris, Shirak, Spitamen (against the Persians and Greeks), Mukanna ( against the Arabs), Jalaliddin Manguberdy (fought against the Mongol invaders), Amir Temur (liberated from the Mongols), Dukchi Eshan, "Basmachi" and Jadids (against Tsarist Russia)." “We say: no, not “in recent years.” Another quote from my opponents is indicative: “Tomiris, Chirac, Mukanna, Spitamen, Jalaliddin Manguberds were canonized in the official Uzbek historiography in Soviet times, and this once again shows that serious changes modern scientists of Uzbekistan could not contribute in this regard. Tomiris, Shirak, Spitamen, who are mythologized conditionally historical persons, in fact did not and could not leave any trace in the historical memory of the peoples of modern Central Asia, which were formed thousands of years later. Jalaliddin Manguberdy, although he is a historical character, his true appearance does not correspond to the far-fetched aura of a “patriot” and “fighter” against the Mongols. He was a representative not of the people, but of a specific dynasty, but he thought about the masses in the last place, which is reflected, for example, in his official biography, and fought against the Mongols for the sake of resources, and not his homeland. When he lost the territories of his father, then, as befits a nomad, he turned his attention to Iran, the Caucasus and Middle Asia, where he tried to create his own state. But this is not the main thing. The main thing is historical memory. There is not a single legend in the historical memory or folklore of any Central Asian people associated with the named persons. We learned about them in Soviet times - it’s time to admit it.”

Calling the historical figures Tomaris, Spitamen “mythologized conditionally historical persons” or Jalaliddin Manguberdi “a far-fetched patriot and fighter”, as well as a “nomad” does not correspond to historical reality. Carefully read the “father of history” Herodotus and other ancient authors and the monograph of Academician Buniyatov “The State of the Khorezmshakhs”. Remember Jalaliddin's struggle with Genghis Khan's troops at the crossing of the Indus River and Genghis Khan's objective assessment of the heroic actions of Jalaliddin Manguberdi. The ungrateful Mingbaev and Norbaev write without shame that “in the historical memory, in the folklore of not a single Central Asian people, there is not a single legend associated with the named persons.”

In our previous article, we criticized N. Mingbaev and Sh. Norbaev in that they incorrectly believe that the history of the Uzbek people begins with the penetration of nomadic Uzbeks led by Shaibanikhan into Maverannahr from Dashti-Kipchak, thereby denying the historical roots of the Uzbek a people consisting of two multilingual autochthonous ethnic layers and brazenly believe that the history of the peoples of Central Asia until the 15th century is Tajik. In response, they write that “This is a misreading of our views. Uzbek historians are very afraid that they will be deprived of the historical heritage dating back to the period before the 15th century. We do not deny the role of previous peoples, but we emphasize decisive role Sheybanids in the composition of the Uzbek people. Without the Sheibanids, there would be no Uzbeks, there would be no Uzbekistan."

In our previous article we put forward the following thesis: “The science of ethnology determines that the history of the origin of each people consists of three stages. At the first stage, on the basis of economic and cultural ties of tribes and clans living territorially close, speaking different languages ​​and dialects, ethnocultural rapprochement, interpenetration and ethnic mixing, that is, ethnogenetic processes take place. This ethnogenetic process, being a long-term objective historical reality in the history of each people, ultimately ends with the formation of an individual people, therefore, the ethnogenetic process ends with the formation of a people. This means that a people is the product of long-term ethnogenetic processes and a set of ethnic units. The stage of ethnogenesis in the history of a people covers the period from the moment when it began to form as a tribe or nationality."

This scientific and methodological thesis does not suit our opponents and, considering themselves luminaries of methodology, they criticize us with the following phrases: “Such a Soviet understanding of ethnology and ethnogenesis has long since sunk into oblivion. In the process of ethnogenesis there are no objective boundaries; it is impossible to determine where the beginning is and where the end is Soviet science assumed that the socialist nations created in the USSR were the final stage of the ethnogenesis of local peoples... ethnic processes took place with a conscious purpose - for the formation of specific Uzbeks, Tajiks, Kazakhs, etc., who will no longer change, will not disappear, who - on century." Further, continuing, they write: “Such a simplified understanding of ethnogenesis has not been taken seriously by anyone for a long time. In ethnogenesis there is no beginning and end, communities appear and disappear, modern ethnic groups are no exception - we will not be surprised if in 500 years new nations will consider us as an "intermediate process" on the path of their formation. Since we know that ethnogenetic processes are not always interconnected, is it necessary to consider the Sogdians, who by chance moved to the Zeravshan Valley three thousand years ago, as our immediate ancestors? Do Americans consider the Indians to be their ancestors? "Australians - Aboriginals, Russians - Scythians, English - Celts? Moreover, the contribution of Sogdians, Khorezmians and other eastern Iranians to the ethnogenesis of the Uzbeks is by no means obvious." In this way they showed themselves as intriguers in the history of the ethnic group and exposed their illiteracy in history in general.

Apparently, there is no need to further argue with such amateurs as N. Mingbaev and Sh. Norbaev on the complex, centuries-old history of the Uzbek people. I would rather offer my respected Internet readers the following views of my opponents. Let them judge who is right and who is wrong: “Had it not been for the invasion of Genghis Khan, perhaps the Turkic element would not have held out even in the indicated territories of its primary distribution. No matter what “monster” Genghis Khan was, as it is presented in Uzbekistan, from his conquest in Ultimately, local Persophones suffered more... After the penetration of the “Mongols” into the region, several more areas were subjected to Turkization. Thus, the Chagatai Khan Kebek built the city of Karshi, which became not only the trade and cultural center of Maveraunnahr, but also the support of Turkic speaking in Kashkadarya. Khan Khaidu restored the city of Andijan, which became the largest Turkic-speaking settlement in the region. Khorezm was finally Turkified due to the presence there of huge groups of Golden Horde (from the beginning of the 14th century - Uzbek) tribes, primarily the Kungrats... Indeed, to this day, in all these cities and In the villages, with the exception of Margilan and the disappeared Akhsa, the majority are Tajiks.Many Uzbek cities and settlements known in the Fergana Valley today simply did not exist until the 16th century. Namangan was built on the site of Akhsa in the 17th century, Kokand was restored at the beginning of the 18th century. from the side of the ancestors of the Uzbek dynasty Ming, Shahri Khan - from the side of Khan Umarsheikh in the first quarter of the 19th century, Fergana - from the side of the Russians called Skobelev "...

“The above facts speak for themselves: firstly, in the Fergana Valley the Turkic element began to dominate only thanks to the resettlement of Uzbek tribes in the 16th-18th centuries, and secondly, almost all the cities and settlements of the Valley, indicated by Babur as Tajik, to this day remain Tajik (except for Margilan), and many large Uzbek cities and towns (with the exception of the very early Turkified Kuva, Osh, Uzgen and Andijan) were created and settled later, i.e. the all-consuming assimilation and Turkization of the Iranian population is nothing more than a scientific myth... .Starting with the conquest of the country by Sheybani Khan, the influx of Uzbeks and the displacement of the Tajik element from the valley parts of the region by the Turkic one, which did not stop until recently.The Tajiks eventually remained here only in the largest villages, more or less well protected...What is curious is that the Uzbeks settled on the territory of Kokand began to quickly lose their tribal identity, while in Bukhara, on the contrary, it was preserved even among settled urban groups."...."It is necessary to note another important aspect associated with Khorezm. For many centuries this area was independent and culturally isolated.... At the beginning of the 16th century. Uzbek commanders Ilbars and Beybars, independently of Sheybanikhan, created the Uzbek Khanate of Khiva here... Imagine what would have happened if not Ilbars and Beybars: Khorezm today would be separate country, whose population would not call themselves Uzbeks, there would not be the cultural heritage that was created in Khorezm by Uzbek dynasties. And traditional arguments, they say, there would not have been the name “Uzbek”, but the people were the same as now - this is an empty shake of the air: there is no single self-name - there is no single nation... Persians and Tajiks speak the same language, but are not one nation.....The nomadic Uzbek tribes, who migrated in huge numbers from Dashty Kipchak, ensured the numerical superiority of the Turkic element in the central and southern regions of Maveraunnahr, in the central and western regions of Fergana... Thanks to the Sheybanids, the Turks turned into a numerically and politically dominant force in the region. If it weren’t for them, in large areas of Uzbekistan until then, mainly Persian speech would have been heard.... A small part of the Turks, who had formed a different identity, became part of the Uzbeks at the beginning of the 20th century.”

At the conclusion of the second part of the response article, N. Mingbaev and Sh. Norbaev denigrated the centuries-old rich history of the Uzbek people and without shame came to the conclusion that “Uzbek historians want to be very ancient, the most ancient in the region. To do this, they need to show themselves as the descendants of the ancient Iranian peoples, and thus declare themselves the successors of all states and cultures that existed in Central Asia. In part, this point of view, formed in Soviet times, according to the principle “the most ancient is the greatest,” should, in their idea, be a response to the claims of historians and politicians from neighboring countries, who usually have a nationalistic attitude towards the Uzbeks and try to belittle their role in the history of the Middle East. Asia. Thus, they want to get rid of the label "alien invaders" and show themselves as "local", "indigenous" and "autochthonous". But today - not the USSR. We live in the 21st century. "Autochthony" is neither international nor world law "historical science is not perceived as an argument in such disputes. The deeply nationalistic view that supposedly peoples are "indigenous" and "newcomers" and that only "indigenous" people have the right to statehood is already considered at best bad manners, at worst a manifestation of Nazism and fascism." .

“Yes, we have problems with neighbors who also claim to be “ancient” and “autochthonous” (especially Tajiks), but we need to stop looking back at our neighbors and coming up with slogans in the form of “you are a fool.” The Uzbek people must have the courage to reconsider their history , let our neighbors follow our example, and if they don’t follow, it’s their problem. Whoever lays claim to a multi-thousand-year statehood is doomed to shame in the face of the world community. The only direct descendants of the ancient peoples are the Yaghnobis - speakers of the New Sogdian language. Even the Pashtuns and Pamir peoples - the remains of the pre-Tajik Iranian inhabitants, and they are descendants of tribes that moved to the region no earlier than the 2nd-1st centuries BC, and are not related to the ancient Bactrians. And the current Turkic languages ​​came from the language of the Turkic Khaganate - pre-Kaganate Turkic languages, if they existed in our region, they would be very different from modern Uzbek, Kazakh, Turkmen, etc.

“It was not the Uzbeks who became part of the Tajiks or Chagatai, Sogdians or Khorezmians - it was they who became part of the Uzbeks, adopted their identity, their history and culture. Who should be considered their predecessor - the assimilated or the assimilated? Therefore, for the history of the Uzbeks and other peoples of Central Asia, pre-Turkic and the pre-Persian strata have no significance."

"Samarkand was destroyed at the beginning of the 13th century, rebuilt at the end of the same century, and repopulated. But then it was again destroyed as a result of civil strife in the 18th century. It was rebuilt by the last outstanding statesman Bukhara - Emir Shahmurad (1785-1800). He ordered the construction of new neighborhoods on the site of the ruins and resettled here the population from 34 Uzbek and Tajik cities and settlements, including Tashkent, Penjikent, Andijan, Zaamin, Yamin, Urgut, Kashgar, Andijan, Urgench, Shakhrisabz, Urmitan, Dakhbid, etc. Mahallas with such names still exist in Samarkand, and the people living in them remember the history of the migration of their ancestors. What does this mean? That the boasts of Uzbek historians regarding the three-thousand-year history of Samarkand are completely inappropriate, for this is actually a city built 200 years ago, inhabited by people from various parts of the region who have no genetic, cultural or linguistic relationship to the distant Sogdians, who founded a settlement on these lands called "Samarkand" in the VIII-VII centuries. BC.".

“We also note that the concept we propose fully satisfies the requirements of Askarov, who considers history a source of “spiritual education.” The fact is that the main historical heritage of Uzbekistan - the memorial sights of Tashkent, Khiva, Bukhara, Kokand, Samarkand and Urgench were built overwhelmingly by representatives Uzbek dynasties in the 16th-19th centuries. And what remains of the Sogdians and Khorezmians? A couple of ruins with traces of an undoubtedly outstanding, curious culture. Yes, Afrosiyab and Tuprakkala are outstanding monuments of antiquity, but, with all due respect, in terms of cultural influence and spiritual significance they cannot compare with the masterpieces of Samarkand, Khiva and Bukhara, and, unlike them, will never become national symbols. All written culture, literature and historiography in the Turkic language were also created under the Timurids and Uzbeks. What did the Sogdians leave behind? Numerous manuscripts and fragments that have survived to this day, for all their curiosity, are very far from the masterpieces of the Uyghur Navoi, Barlas Bedil, Yuz Agehi, Minga Nadira, Utarch Sufi Allayar, Chingizid Abulgazy Bahadurkhan, Timurid Babur, Kungrat Feruz."

“In ten years, Sheibanikhan managed to create a large and strong state that covered all the main territories of the Timurids. In fact, he recreated the Timurid empire and placed on the throne the blood Timurid - his uncle Kuchkunchikhan, the grandson of Mirza Ulugbek. His work was continued by such outstanding Sheibanids as Ubaidullakhan and Abdullakhan II . Under them, the Shaybanids were considered one of the four largest states of the Muslim world - along with the Ottomans, Safavids and Baburids. The Shaybanids were allies of the Ottomans against the Safavids and actively fought against them and the Baburids for influence in Khorasan. Without them, our region would have been absorbed by the Safavids So why shouldn’t we remember and honor the generals and rulers, without whom we would not exist in our current state, in pursuit of the dubious glory of being the descendants of the Khorezmians, Sogdians or Bactrians, whose vague and not really known history had any impact on us ?".

On the origin of the ethnonym Uzbek and “nomadic Uzbeks”.

The origin of the ethnonym Uzbek and the people of the same name has interested many researchers. According to the established unspoken tradition, the Uzbeks were the nomads from the eastern Deshti-Kipchak who invaded Central Asia under the leadership of Muhammad Sheybani and overthrew the Timurids.
Various versions have been put forward regarding the origin of the ethnonym Uzbek:
Aristov N.A., Ivanov P.P., Vamberi G., Chaplichek M.A., Khuukam H believed that the origin of the ethnonym Uzbek is associated with the name of the Golden Horde Khan Uzbek.
Grigoriev V.V. in his review of the book, Vambery wrote: “In his extensive review of A. Vambery’s book “The History of Bukhara,” published in 1873 in London in English, prof. Grigoriev wrote “... and the city of Vamberi considers this popular name (Uzbeks - A.S.) to be adopted by the Turkic clans - in memory of the Golden Horde Khan Uzbek, as the Khiva historian Abulgazi also claims... In the Golden Horde, where Uzbek ruled, khan, there were never any Uzbeks, but Uzbeks appeared in the Blue Horde, to which the power of Uzbek Khan did not extend, and they appeared no earlier than a hundred years after his death.”
Bartold V.V. called Uzbeks the Golden Horde nomads who lived in Eastern Deshti-Kipchak, Safargaliev himself calls the Uzbeks as nomads of the Shiban ulus.
Regarding the origin of the Uzbek people, most versions say that the nomadic population of eastern Deshti-Kipchak was called Uzbeks: Grekov B.D. and Yakubovsky A.Yu. They believe that from the plural. Persian (and Tajik) Uzbeks - Uzbeks subsequently arose the term Uzbek, "which became a collective name for a whole group of Turkic-Mongolian tribes of the Ak-Horde." The term “Ulus of Uzbek” began to be applied not to the entire Ulus of Jochi, but only to its Ak-Horde part
Their point of view is supported by Semenov A.A.: “Of course, the chronological framework for the appearance of the name of the Uzbek people now has to be significantly pushed back, but the main point of prof. V.V. Grigoriev that there were no Uzbeks in the Golden Horde, but they appeared in the Blue Horde (otherwise in the White Horde) over which the power of Uzbek Khan did not extend, and remains, undoubtedly, in force to this day.” Continuing his thought Semenov A.A. writes: “In other words, Sheybani Khan, without making any distinction between the Kazakhs and Uzbeks at the beginning of the entire tirade and generalizing them into one Uzbek people, further separates the latter from the Kazakhs in the sense that by Uzbeks he means the tribes of the former ulus of Sheyban, and under the Kazakhs are the tribes of the former Eastern Kipchak or Horde ulus."
Summarizing the results of his article, Semenov A.A. gives the following conclusions:
1) the Uzbeks did not come from the Golden Horde and it has not been proven that they received their name from the Golden Horde Uzbek Khan, as some believed. Forming one people with the so-called Kazakhs, the Uzbeks from time immemorial lived in the steppes of Desht-i-Kipchak, therefore the statement of others that, as a result of internal unrest and strife, migrated to the east, to the river, contradicts the truth. Chu, the Uzbeks, having separated from the general mass, began to be called Cossacks (Kazakhs), i.e. free people
4) Incessant strife between the Uzbek tribes of the domains of Sheiban and the Horde, which turned into bloody wars with colossal robberies of the vanquished and turning them into slaves, in the 15th century. AD resulted in a more definite form of struggle between the Uzbek khans from the house of Sheiban and the Uzbek-Kazakh khans from the descendants of Genghis along a different line. And the final isolation of the Uzbek tribes of Desht-i-Kipchak, the so-called Uzbek-Kazakhs, from the Uzbek tribes of Sheybani Khan took place during the reign of the latter, as evidenced by the entire policy of Sheybani Khan in relation to his fellow tribesmen who did not follow him to Central Asia and those who remained in Desht-i-Kipchak.
Further ideas of Semenov A.A. developed by Akhmedov B.A. in his monograph “The State of Nomadic Uzbeks.” Akhmedov B.A. believed that in the 20s of the 15th century in Eastern Dashti-Kipchak (east of the Volga and north of the Syr Darya) a state of nomadic Uzbeks was formed, under the Uzbeks Akhmedov B.A. meant the tribes that were previously part of the uluses of Shiban and the Horde. Here we want to note that the original composition of the Shiban ulus is known: according to Abulgazi, it included four tribes Kushchi, Naiman, Karluk, Buyruk. According to the list of Masud Kukhistani, there were 27 tribes under the rule of Abulkhair Khan, of which we can recognize some “tribes” as Jochid clans (Ijan, Kaanbayly, Tangut, Chimbay), thus, out of 23 tribes subject to Abulkhair Khan, only three (Kushchi, Naiman, Karluk) were indigenous Shibanid tribes. The tribes Kiyat, Kongrat and Mangyt, who were three of the four Karachi-biy clans in the Great Horde, were also present in the Khanate of Abulkhair Khan. Of the indigenous Tuka-Timurid tribes (Ming, Tarkhan, Uysun, Oirat), the khanate of Abulkhair Khan included the Ming and Uysun tribes, and possibly Oirat. We do not know the tribes that were part of the Horde ulus.
Thus, it can be argued that the composition of the population of the Khanate of Abulkhair Khan (“nomadic Uzbeks”) was much wider than the tribes of the former uluses of Shiban and Horde.
Yudin V.P. in his review of the monograph by Akhmedov B.A. makes the following comments regarding the topic of the article:
1. The term Uzbek acquired the meaning of an ethnonym already in the 14th century and not in Central Asia, but in Eastern Dashti-Kipchak.
2. Exaggeration of the role of the state of Abulkhair Khan in the history of eastern Dashti-Kipchak. This state is the natural successor to the state of Jumaduka.
Here we can agree with two points; indeed, Uzbeks as an ethnonym begin to appear back in the 14th century, and Abulkhair Khan did not found any separate khanate that laid the foundation for the Uzbeks, but was another one of the khans of the eastern part of the Golden Horde.
Iskhakov D.M. believes that initially Uzbeks were the name of nomads subordinate to the Shibanids, but later this term acquired the character of a polytonym and began to cover such ethnic groups as Kazakhs, Mangyts, Uzbek-Shibanids
In general, illustrating various points point of view, we would like to move on to the issue of the ethnonym Uzbek from the other side. We will deliberately omit various interpretations of historians and orientalists of the 19th-20th centuries and conduct a content analysis of primary sources for the presence of the ethnonym Uzbek in them.
Most sources using the word Uzbek as a designation of an ethnic group or country can be divided into two parts:
1. Central Asian (Timurid) sources
2. The rest.
Let's start the content analysis with the second group:
2.1. Qazvini:
“Arpa-kaun sent troops to go to the rear of the Uzbeks (Uzbeks) ... news arrived about the death of Kutluk-Timur, on whom the Uzbek state rested (Mamlakati Uzbeks).” It can be noted here that it is unlikely that the term Uzbeks here is of an ethnic nature; it simply states that the army belongs to Uzbek Khan. The state of Uzbek here should also be understood as the state of the Uzbek Khan, and not the state of the Uzbeks
2.2. Ibn Batuta:
Talking about the country (Chagatai ulus) Ibn Batuta testifies: “His country is located between the possessions of four great kings: the king of China, the king of India, the king of Iraq and the king of Uzbek.” According to A.A. Arapov “With such a comparison, he actually admits that the name “Uzbek” is not a personal name, but the name of the country - “the country of Uzbek (Uzbeks)”, the same as China, India, Iraq.”
2.3. al-Kalkashandi
The only Arab author who used the phrase “Uzbek countries”. “envoy from Tokhtamysh, sovereign of the Uzbek countries.”
In general, in all three sources the name Uzbek does not carry ethnicity, but is either geographical in nature or relates to the personality of Khan Uzbek.
Let's move on to Central Asian and Timurid (and dependent on them) sources, excerpts from which are in the SMEIZO:
1.1. Shami
“They (the emirs Adil Shah and Sary-Bug) ... went to the region of the Uzbeks and took refuge with Urus Khan.” "Kutluk-Buga, son of King Urus Khan of Uzbekistan". “And he (Tamerlane) intended to move into the region of the Uzbeks. Noyons and emirs gathered and reported that it would be right if we first went to Inga-tura and destroyed his evil, and then went to the country of the Uzbeks.” “Timur-Kutluk Khan died in the region of the Uzbeks, his ulus was mixed up.”
In this source, Urus Khan is presented as an Uzbek ethnically; the news of the death of Timur-Kutluk in the Uzbek region is also interesting.
1.2. Natanzi
"Tuman-Timur Uzbek". “Tokhtamysh granted his request (the request of Baltychak, Emir Timur-bek-oglan for his own execution). After this, the Uzbek state became entirely in his power.” “When 6 years of his (Timur-Kutluk) reign had expired and the affairs of the kingdom had returned entirely to their previous order, one day he fell asleep after a long period of drunkenness, his breathing stopped, and he died. After him, the state again fell into disorder, and the Uzbek ulus, according to its custom, began to look for the glorious Urug Chingiz Khanov.” “Since the Uzbeks always had a desire to manifest the power of the descendants of Genghis Khan, they went to serve the court of Timur Sultan (son of Timur Kutluk).” “Kara-Kisek-oglan (Juchid, military leader of Urus Khan) sent towards Otrar, to get the language, Satkin the Great and Satkin the Small, the most outstanding Uzbek daredevils with a hundred horsemen.”
1.3. Yazdi
"Tuman-Timur Uzbek (Emir of Timur)". "Kutluk-Timur-oglan, Kunche-oglan and Idigu-Uzbek". “That night two nukers of Idigu-Uzbek” [IKPI, 310]. “Yagly-biy bakhrin, one of Tokhtamysh Khan’s confidants and ichkiys rushed forward with the brave men of his Uzbek army.” “He (Timur) gave, to the son of Urus Khan, Koyrichak-oglan, who was with him, a detachment of Uzbek braves, who was among the servants of the highest court.” “Ambassador Timur-Kutluk-oglan and Emir Idigu’s man arrived from Dasht, ambassador Khizr-Khoja-oglan also arrived from Jete... His Majesty dealt mercifully with the ambassadors of the Uzbeks and Jete.” It is worth noting here that by Jete the Timurid authors meant the Moguls from Mogulistan, while the Moguls called the Chagatais Karaunas.
1.4. Samarkandi
“The nukers of Pulad Khan, Amir Idigu-bahadur and Amir Aise, who were the holders of power in Dashti-Kipchak and the Uzbek countries, arrived as ambassadors.” “Events 813 (06.05.1410-24.04.1411)… Amir Idigu-bahadur arrived from the country of the Uzbeks and Dashti-Kipchak”... “Tavachi Aban returned, who had traveled to the Uzbek region to visit Amir Idigu.” “News came from Khorezm that Jabbar-berdi, having put Chingiz-oglan to flight, took possession of the Uzbek ulus.”
“The sons of Khojalak fled from the Uzbek possessions and reported that the Uzbek region was in disarray,” “at the end of the rabi (03/28/1419-04/26/1419) Barak-oglan, who fled from the Uzbek ulus, came to seek refuge at the court of Mirza Ulugbek-gurgan” , “a man named Balkhu fled there (to Burlak) from the Uzbek side and brought news of the disorder of the Uzbeks.”
“Barak-oglan captured the horde of Muhammad Khan (in in this case Hadji-Muhammad) and most of the Uzbek ulus submitted and submitted to him”, “Barak-oglan captured the horde of Muhammad Khan, the king of the Uzbeks, and took possession of the ulus”, “He (Barak) went to the Uzbek country and the management of the ulus fell into his hands.” “The Uzbeks, to whom the image of victory in the mirror of imagination seemed impossible, saw it, and a huge booty fell into their hands (about the victory of Barak-oglan over Ulugbek).”
“Events...The Uzbek army...invaded Khorezm,” according to Ghaffari, this army was sent by Kichi Muhammad.
“at times, some of the Uzbek army, having become Cossacks,” “observed the actions of the Deshti-Kipchak army and the Uzbek Cossacks,” “the Uzbek king Abulkhair Khan.”
“The Khan ordered several Uzbek people to activate the Yede stone. The Uzbeks acted as ordered."
“A decree arrived that Said-yeke Sultan (Saydek Khan, uncle of Ibak Khan), the brother of Abulkhair Khan of Uzbekistan... should be sent to the Highest Horde,” “Abu Said sent him grateful and pleased to the Uzbek region.”
1.5. Ghaffari
“Timur (son of Timur-Kutluk) fled from him (Jalaluddin, son of Tokhtamysh) and was killed by Gazan Khan (son-in-law of Jalaluddin, who was besieging Idiga), one of the Uzbek emirs who was besieging Khorezm.”
1.6. Razi:
“until the end of his days, Abu Said was the sovereign of the entire ulus of Jochi Khan. In 728/1327-28 he had no rivals left. After him, the Dzhuchiev ulus began to be called the Ulus of Uzbek.” “Seyid Khan (ruler of the Moguls) ... thinking that maybe with his help he could drive out the Uzbeks of Sheibani Khan from his hereditary possession.”
1.7. Muhammad Haidar Dulati.
In most cases, the author divides the Uzbeks into Uzbeks of Shayban and Uzbek Cossacks, often using the ethnonym Uzbek means “Uzbeks of Shayban,” but there are exceptions, such as with the Kazakh Khan Tahir, son of Adik, son of Janibek, whose subjects the author often calls simply Uzbeks. Below we will mention the information that is indirectly related to the Uzbek Cossacks and Uzbeks of Muhammad Sheybani:
“The second book is about the life of this slave and what I saw and knew about the sultans, khans, Uzbeks, Chagatays and others.” “In that area, the high ear (Sahibkiran) was informed that Tuktamish Uglan was arriving, who, fearing the Urus Khan of the Uzbeks, turned his face of hope to the threshold of the refuge of the world of Sahibkiran.” “After the death of Abul-Khair Khan, the Ulus of the Uzbeks fell into disorder, great disagreements arose there and the majority [of people] went to Kirai Khan and Janibek Khan, so that their number reached two hundred thousand people and they began to be called Uzbek Cossacks.”
"Assassination of Burudj uglan bin Abulkhair Khan Uzbek". “Khan (Yunus) approached with six people, one of whom was a standard bearer, and, blowing the horn, crossed the river. Every Uzbek located in the house was immediately grabbed by women. When Burudj Uglan heard the sound of the horn and saw six people with a banner, he jumped up to mount his horse, [however] his groom - the ahtachi and the horse were seized on the spot by the maids, and women jumped out of the house and grabbed Burudj Uglan himself. At that moment the khan arrived and ordered his head to be cut off and impaled on a spear. Of those twenty thousand Uzbeks, few escaped.”
“So, with the help of [Khan], Shahibek Khan took Samarkand and thoroughly established himself in it. His army reached fifty thousand [people] and wherever [only] there were Uzbeks, they joined him.” . “After these events, he (Sultan Ahmad Khan) spoke out against the Uzbek Cossacks. The reason for this was the following. When describing the affairs of Sultan Mahmud Khan, it was mentioned that Sultan Mahmud Khan twice gave battle to the Uzbek-Kazakhs and was defeated. For this reason, Sultan Ali Khan opposed the Uzbek Cossacks and defeated them three times. For everything they did to his elder brother, Sultan Mahmud Khan, he paid in full. He strengthened Mogolistan so much that the Kalmaks and Uzbeks could not pass close to the territory of Mogolistan at a distance of seven to eight months.”
“In terms of courage, he (Sultan Said Khan) also stood out among his peers. So, once I was with him when he himself personally led the attack, and a description of this is in the second book. In shooting, I have not seen his equal either among the Mughals, or the Uzbeks, or the Chagatais, both before him and after him.”
“After the death of Abu-l-Khair Khan, disagreements arose in the Uzbek ulus.” “There are many large rivers in Mogolistan, similar to Jeyhun or close to it, such as Ila, Emil, Irtish, Chulak, Narin. These rivers are in no way inferior to Jeyhun and Seyhun. Most of these rivers flow into Kukcha Tengiz. Kukcha Tengiz is a lake separating Mogolistan from Uzbekistan. Less water flows out of it than it flows in - what flows out is equal to one part of the water flowing into it and flows through [the territory of] Uzbekistan and flows into Kulzum called Atil. In historical books it is written Atil, but among the Uzbeks it is known as Idil."
“After the death of Adik Sultan, this Sultan Nigar Khanim was taken [as a wife] by Kasim Khan, brother of Adik Sultan. After the death of Kasim Khan, the khanate went to Tahir Khan, the son of Adik Sultan. He revered the hanim so much that he preferred her to his own mother. Khanim was grateful to him for such an attitude towards her, but she turned to him with a request: “You are like a son to me and with you I never remember and do not want to see another son besides you. However, I am old and I do not have the strength to endure this nomadic life in the steppes of Uzbekistan.” “Since Rashid Sultan remained in Mogolistan, he arranged his winter quarters in Kochkar. And Tahir Khan was in Uzbekistan. The events that took place there forced him to leave for Mogolistan, and he came close to Kochkar.”
“Those places belonged as an iqta to Qasim Husayn Sultan, who was from the Uzbek sultans of Kafa and Crimea.” Probably this sultan was a descendant of Sultan Bayazid, a second cousin of the Crimean Tukatimurid khans, who served the Timurids.
1.8. Firdaus al Iqbal
Abulek Khan, [son of Yadgar Khan], after his father and elder brother, was padishah for sixteen years. He was a very gentle and harmless person. Therefore, [under him] liberties arose among the Uzbeks and anarchy emerged. Aminek Khan, the son of Yadgar Khan, after [the death of] his brother, opened the way to justice and justice. Eli Muhammad Shaibani Khan, who took possession of Transoxiana, during the period of Aminek Khan migrated to Transoxiana and there was no ale left near him, except for the people who [directly] belonged [previously] to Yadgar Khan.
As we know, Yadiger, Abulek and Aminek were khans of the Nogai Horde with the support of Musa Mangyt, son of Vakkas. The following news also suggests that the Mangyts and Uzbeks were close, if not identical.
1.9. Ibn Ruzbihan:
“Three tribes are classified as Uzbeks, who are the most glorious in the domains of Genghis Khan. Nowadays one [of them] is the Shibanites, and His Khan Majesty, after a number of ancestors, was and is their ruler. The second tribe is the Kazakhs, who are known throughout the world for their strength and fearlessness, and the third tribe is the Mangits, and [of] them are the kings of Astrakhan. One edge of the Uzbek possessions borders on the ocean (i.e., the Caspian Sea. - Jalilova R.P.), the other on Turkestan, the third on Derbend, the fourth on Khorezm, and the fifth on Astrabad. And all these lands are entirely places of summer and winter nomads of the Uzbeks. The khans of these three tribes are in constant conflict with each other, and each encroaches on the other. And when they win, they sell each other and take each other captive. In their midst, they consider the property and people [of their enemy] to be permissible spoils of war and never deviate from this [rule]... In all these clans there are a lot of respected khans: each clan of great and eminent descendants of Genghis Khan is called sultans , and the one who is more noble than all of them is called khan, that is, the greatest of their sovereigns and rulers, to whom they submit obedience.”
It is quite possible that the ocean does not mean the Caspian Sea, as R.P. Jalilova suggested, but the Black Sea, near which the Nogais also roamed. Calling the Caspian Sea a border in the context of that message looks strange, because the names of the borders are located on the western (Derbend) and eastern (Astrabad) parts of the Caspian Sea.
Ibn Ruzbikhan also describes the Kazakhs as relatives of the Uzbeks of Sheybani. The Mangyts and the kings of Astrakhan are also called Uzbeks.
Here we come to the main question: what was the relationship between the Uzbeks and Tatars?
If we follow the scientific tradition, during the collapse of the Golden Horde, two ethnic groups arose: Tatars in the Western part of the Jochi ulus and Uzbeks in the Eastern part of the Jochi ulus.
Here it is quite possible to express disagreement with this point of view for the following reasons:
1. In written sources we did not find a strong connection between the Shibanids and the Uzbeks; moreover, in these sources there are often such persons as Tokhtamysh and his son Jabbarberdi, Idigu, Timur-Kutluk, Urus Khan, Yagly-biy bakhrin, Timur Khan and Pulad -khan, sons of Timur-Kutluk, Kichi Muhammad, Koyrichak, son of Urus Khan, Barak, son of Koyrichak, Hadji Muhammad, Abulkhair Khan and his son Burudj-oglan, Ghazan (son-in-law of Jalal ad-Din), Yadiger, Aminek, Abulek are either directly named Uzbeks, or are closely associated with them (or are the rulers of the Uzbek ulus). Of these, only Haji Muhammad, Abulkhair Khan and his son and the Arabshahids are Shibanids. Here it is reasonable to assume that since the 14th century there has been absolutely no connection between the “Uzbeks” and the Shibanids, because initially the “Uzbeks” were associated with the rulers of the Golden Horde.
2. The peculiarity of mentioning the ethnonyms Tatars and Uzbeks.
Nowhere except the Central Asian Timurid chronicles does such an ethnonym as Uzbek appear, this was noted by A.A. Semenov:
“The Uzbeks, as a people as a whole, were not uniform in their composition, no matter how they tried to explain the name of this people, whether on behalf of the Golden Horde Khan Uzbek (712/1313-741/1340) or as a self-sufficient name of the people, taken in itself. An interesting circumstance, in any case, is that neither the Arab authors contemporary with Uzbek Khan and subsequent ones until the 15th century, nor the Persian sources closest in time to them ever mention the Uzbeks as part of the tribes of the Golden Horde, although the relations of Uzbek Khan with the contemporary Mamluk Sultan of Egypt, al-Malik-an-Nasir Muhammad (709/1309-741/1341), were very lively.”
Neither Russian, nor Arab, nor even European sources record the ethnonym Uzbek in the 13-14 centuries. Moreover, the memoirs of Johann Schiltberger, who was directly on the territory of the Golden Horde at the beginning of the 15th century, are known; he does not find any Uzbeks in the eastern Deshti-Kipchak, calling all nomads Tatars; moreover, he named Haji Muhammad as the Tatar king, at that time as in Central Asian chronicles he is the “Uzbek sovereign”. The same solidarity silence regarding the Uzbek ethnic group is kept by Russian and Arab chronicles, which refer to the population of the Golden Horde as Tatars.
By Uzbek territories, Haydar Dulati also understood Kafa and Crimea:
“Those places belonged as iqta to Qasim Husayn Sultan, who was from the Uzbek sultans of Kafa and Crimea.” It is very strange that some “Uzbek” sultans of Kafa and Crimea are not recorded anywhere in the history of the Crimean khans.
Moreover, in the Central Asian Timurid chronicles the ethnonym Tatars are absolutely not found, except in those cases when it concerns a tribe (for example, the Kara-Tatars from Rum (Asia Minor)), not one of the khans of the Golden Horde is called a Tatar, and his army is Tatar.
A paradoxical situation arises when the ethnonym Tatar is found in Russian, European, and Arabic chronicles, but is not found in Central Asian sources, while the ethnonym Uzbek is found in Central Asian sources, but is not found in Russian, European, and Arabic chronicles.
This situation is reminiscent of the situation with the Cumans, when some authors separated the Kipchaks of the Eastern Deshti-Kipchak and the Cumans of the southern Russian steppes as two different peoples.
Based on all of the above, we would like to express our assumption that the ethnonym Uzbek among Central Asian authors was the name of all Golden Horde nomads (and not just its eastern part). At the same time, Russian, European and Arab sources referred to the entire nomadic population of the Golden Horde as Tatars.
This is confirmed by the words of Ibn Ruzbihan:
“The Kazakh army in former times, when Genghis Khan appeared on the arena of history, was called the Tatar army, this was mentioned by the Arabs and Persians.” . Thus, Ibn Ruzbikhan indirectly equates the Uzbeks of Central Asian authors with the Tatars of Arab and Persian sources.
Also interesting are the statements of Matvey Mekhovsky in his “treatise on two Sarmatias,” where he calls the Kazakhs a Tatar horde.
Thus, it can be summarized that the ethnonym Uzbek was not the self-name of the ethnic group that formed in the East of the Jochi ulus, such an ethnic group did not exist, there was one nomadic ethnic group on the territory of the Golden Horde, which in Arabic, Russian and European sources was called Tatar, and in Central Asia Uzbek . Initially, the inhabitants of Central Asia denoted the nomadic population of the entire Jochi ulus, but later, after the conquest of Central Asia by the “Uzbeks” of Muhammad Sheybani, it narrowed down to defining this ethnonym as the descendants of this group of “Uzbeks.” Of course, we can say that in the Jochi ulus there was no separate ethnic group of “nomadic Uzbeks”.
Based on this, it can be argued that the ethnonym Uzbek is the local Chagatai name for the nomadic population of the Ulus Jochi (“Tatars” according to other sources), and when speaking about the “Turkic-Tatar states” (post-Hordan khanates) that arose after the fall of the Golden Horde, we are obliged to include here such states as the Khiva and Bukhara Khanates in Central Asia and the Kazakh Khanate.
The Golden Horde Tatars were the ancestral ethnic group for the Siberian, Crimean, Kazan, Polish-Lithuanian Tatars, Bashkirs, Uzbeks who left Sheybani for Central Asia, Kazakhs, Nogais, Karakalpaks, etc. The hypothesis that two ethnic groups arose on the territory of the Jochi ulus (Tatars and Uzbeks) is not confirmed by primary sources. It is based on the initial acquaintance of orientalists with Central Asian chronicles, in which the name Uzbek was quite common.

Literature:
1. Arapov A.A. “Miracles of Ibn Batuta’s journey through Central Asia” // Moziydan sado (Echo of history). - Tashkent, 2003 N3-4, P.38-43.
2. Akhmedov B.A. "State of nomadic Uzbeks." Moscow. The science. 1965. 194 p.
3. Grekov B.D., Yakubovsky A.Yu. The Golden Horde and its fall. M.-L. Publishing house of the USSR Academy of Sciences. 1950 478p.
4. Ibragimov N. “Ibn Battuta and his travels in Central Asia.” M.: Nauka, 1988.
5. Johann Schiltberger. Traveling through Europe, Asia and Africa. Baku. ELM. 1984. 70 p.
6. History of Kazakhstan in Arabic sources. T.1. Almaty. 2005.
7. History of Kazakhstan in Persian sources. T.4. Almaty. Dyke Press. 2006. 620 p.
8. Iskhakov D.M., Izmailov I.L. Ethnopolitical history of the Tatars (III - mid-XVI centuries). Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan. Kazan: School, 2007. 356 p.
9. Klyashtorny S.G. Sultanov T.I. "Kazakhstan: a chronicle of three millennia." A. 1992. 373 p.
10. Materials on the history of the Kazakh khanates of the XV-XVIII centuries: (Extracts from Persian and Turkic works). Alma-Ata. The science. 1969. 650 p.
11. Mirza Muhammad Haydar. “Tarikh-i Rashidi” (translated by A. Urunbaev, R. P. Dzhalilova). Tashkent. Fan. 1996.
12. Sabitov Zh.M. “Tarikh Abulkhair Khani as a source on the history of the Khanate of Abulkhair Khan” // Questions of history and archeology of Western Kazakhstan. Uralsk 2009. No. 2. P.166-180.
13. Sabitov Zh.M. “Khans of the Nogai Horde”//Medieval Turkic-Tatar states. Issue 1. Kazan. 2009.
14. Safargaliev M.G. "The Collapse of the Golden Horde". Saransk. 1960.
15. Semenov A.A. “On the issue of the origin and composition of the Uzbeks of Sheibani Khan” // Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of the Tajik SSR. Volume XII. 1953. - P.3-37.
16. Sultanov T.I. Nomadic tribes of the Aral region in the 15th-17th centuries. Questions of ethnic and social history. M. Science. Main editorial office of oriental literature. 1982 132s.
17. Fazlallah ibn Ruzbihan Isfahani. “Mikhman-name-yi Bukhara” (Notes of a Bukhara guest). M. Eastern literature. 1976.
18. Yudin V.P. "Central Asia in the 14th-18th centuries through the eyes of an orientalist." Almaty. 2001.

Probably, not every resident of our country can show off their knowledge in the field. Today we know this country mainly by the migrants who come to us, who are ready to work in the lowest paid positions.

Meanwhile, this country has its own ancient history and culture. Of course, there is also a main religion here, Uzbekistan is a Muslim country, although representatives of other faiths can also be found here.

Current state

Today, according to statistics, about 88% of the country's population are indigenous people of Uzbekistan, as well as representatives of Turkic-speaking peoples. Uzbeks are Sunni Muslims of the Hanafi persuasion (it should be noted that there are much more Sunnis in the Muslim world than Shiites, moreover, these two directions are waging a fierce struggle among themselves).

Therefore, to the question of what religion predominates in Uzbekistan today, we can give a confident answer: it is Sunni Islam.

Other denominations

The remaining denominations here are as follows: Orthodox Christians, represented by Russians who never left this country after the collapse of the USSR, Poles professing Catholicism (Polish families were exiled to Central Asia in the last century, so they stayed here). There are also Bukharan Jews here who profess Judaism, like their distant ancestors. Adherents of modern Protestant movements are also represented: Baptists, Lutherans, Adventists, etc.

Thus, everyone in this country has their own religion; Uzbekistan, according to the Constitution, reserves the right to freedom of religion for its citizens.

History of the Christian religion in Uzbekistan

Traditionally, different peoples lived on the territory of modern Uzbekistan. They practiced their pagan cults. Since the 5th century AD, Christianity, known as Sogdiana, came to this land. However, it was almost completely destroyed in the Middle Ages, when Islam began to assert itself.

Only in the 19th century, when the Russian Empire, trying to prevent the seizure of these lands by the British and the closure of English expansion at its borders, conquered these lands, Orthodox churches began to open in Uzbekistan. They were intended for Russians and for those local people who want to convert to Christianity. However, there were very few of them. And the Russian government, by its tradition, did not captivate its new subjects. As a result, there were very few conversions from Islam to Christianity.

That is why the Christian religion is so little represented here today. Uzbekistan is a state whose people were at first pagans, and then, obeying the will of the khan, adopted Mohammedanism.

Why was Islam adopted here?

We must not forget that the most powerful state of the Middle Ages, the Golden Horde, partially occupied the territory of modern Uzbekistan.

That is why the Muslim religion was adopted here; Uzbekistan as a state would not have arisen if the great Horde khans had not thought about how they could spiritually strengthen their country.

A spiritual revolution was carried out by a khan named Uzbek. It was he who abandoned the ancestral pagan religion, according to which there are many gods who need to be worshiped, becoming the first Muslim in his country.

By the way, there is a legend that our noble prince Alexander Nevsky, knowing that the enemies who attacked Rus' were pagans, tried to persuade the Khan of the Horde to accept Christianity. However, the khan's retinue, having learned about the intentions of the Russian prince and not accepting Christianity for his overly merciful attitude towards people, poisoned the great Russian commander and diplomat.

Who knows, if Alexander Nevsky had managed to accomplish his plan, would there now be such a country on the world map called Uzbekistan, whose religion is now unchanged?

History of Uzbekistan

So, Uzbek Khan, who later took the Islamic title Sultan Ghiyath ad-Din Muhammad, lived at the beginning of the 14th century. He was the most famous khan of the Golden Horde, who significantly strengthened the power of the state.

The religion of Uzbekistan before Islam was a mixture of tribal beliefs and traditional cults that hindered the development of the Golden Horde. Something had to be done urgently. And he realized that he had to make a serious choice in his life.

The fact is that Uzbek was not a direct recipient of the Horde throne. He seized power by killing the legitimate heirs to the throne.

Khan was helped by those who dreamed of the Islamization of this region. A fierce struggle began for the religious future of the country, in which it was not the supporters of the ancestral religion who won, but the supporters of the Muslimization of the Horde. By the way, Islam has always won with fire and sword, since its very appearance in the 6th century AD (even Muhammad was a good commander, let alone the 4 great viziers). Uzbekistan accepted Islam in 1320.

The resistance to his decision among the Tatar-Mongol elite was enormous. So, he had to execute about 120 of his direct relatives from the Genghisid clan in order to establish a new faith.

The desire to make his subjects faithful was dictated by the pragmatic interests of the khan. He sought to strengthen his power at all costs. Who knows, did he think that after many centuries the country of Uzbekistan, whose religion would be so close to him, would be named after him?

Islam today

Today it is a zone of tension. This is due to the fact that bloody events are taking place next to it, heavily implicated in heretical teachings that claim to be true Islam. This teaching is called Wahhabism. It is practiced by members of the sect better known as ISIS. Members of this sect strive to conquer all nations, retraining them in their own way. Central Asia is a tasty morsel for them. Therefore, the problem, consisting of three components: “Uzbekistan - religion - Islam” is more relevant than ever at the moment.

The ancestors of the Uzbeks began to unite from the 10th to the 15th centuries. This led to the mixing of the ancient Iranian population with the ancient Turkic tribes between the 11th and 13th centuries. The first settled populations (Sogdians, Khorezmians, Bactrians, Ferghanas, who spoke northeastern Iranian languages), and the second (that is, nomads) included the Kipchaks, Oguzes, Karluks and Samarkand Turks. A third element was added by the invasion of Turkic nomadic tribes led by Muhammad Shaybani Khan at the beginning of the 16th century, when the Uzbeks had already formed. It was in the 14th century that such outstanding Uzbek poets as Hafiz Khorezmi and Lutfi appeared. The poet Alisher Navoi, in his works written in the 15th century, mentioned the ethnonym “Uzbek” as the name of one of the ethnic groups of Transoxiana. From the turn of the century e. individual groups of Turkic-speaking tribes begin to penetrate into the Central Asian interfluve. From the 2nd half of the 6th century. n. e., since the entry of Central Asia into the Turkic Kaganate, this process has intensified. In subsequent centuries, the main ethnocultural process that took place on the territory of the Central Asian interfluve was the rapprochement and partial merging of the settled, Iranian-speaking and Turkic-speaking population with the nomadic, mainly Turkic-speaking population.

Among the Sogdian documents of the early 8th century, a document in the Turkic language written in the runic alphabet was discovered on the territory of Sogd. More than 20 runic inscriptions in the ancient Turkic language were discovered on the territory of the Fergana Valley, which indicates that the local Turkic population had its own written tradition in the 7th-8th centuries.

The Arab conquest of Central Asian lands, which took place in the second half of the 7th - first half of the 8th century, had a certain influence on the course of ethnogenesis and ethnic processes in Central Asia. The Sogdian, Bactrian, and Khorezmian languages ​​disappeared and their writing, along with the Turkic runic language, fell out of use by the 10th century. The main languages ​​of the settled population became Farsi and Turkic.

In subsequent centuries, the main ethnocultural process was the rapprochement and partial fusion of the Iranian-speaking, Turkic-speaking and Arabic-speaking populations. The process of the beginning of the formation of an ethnos, which later became the basis of the Uzbek nation, especially intensified in the 12th century, when Central Asia was conquered by a union of Turkic tribes led by the Karakhanid dynasty.

A new wave of Turkic-speaking tribes joined the population of Central Asia after the Mongol conquest of the 13th century. During this period, the following tribes and clans settled in the oases of the Central Asian interfluve: Kipchak, Naiman, Kangly, Khytai, Kungrat, Mangyt, etc. The ethnonym “Uzbek” was introduced into the region after the conquest and partial assimilation of the Deshtikipchak nomads (the name of the nomads Golden Hordes from the time of Uzbek Khan, XIV century), migrated to Transoxiana on the border of the 16th century, led by Sheibani Khan and under the leadership of the Shibanid princes - Ilbars and Bilbars from the north beyond the Syr Darya and from the southern Russian steppes.

The Turkic-speaking population of the Central Asian interfluve, which formed by the 11th-12th centuries. formed the basis of the Uzbek people. The last wave of Turkic-speaking nomads who joined the population of this area were the Deshtikipchak Uzbeks, who came at the end of the 15th century along with Sheybani Khan.

Turkic-speaking nomadic tribes who came to Central Asia in the 16th century. under the leadership of Sheybani Khan, they found here already a large Turkic and Turkified population, which had formed over a long period. The Deshtikipchak Uzbeks joined this Turkic-speaking population, passing on to it their ethnonym “Uzbek” only as the last, most recent ethnic stratification.

The process of formation of the modern Uzbek people took place in the agricultural regions of Fergana, Zeravshan, Kashka-Darya and Surkhan-Darya valleys, as well as the Khorezm and Tashkent oases. As a result of a long process of ethnic rapprochement and cultural and economic relationships between the population of the steppes and agricultural oases, the modern Uzbek nation was formed here, having absorbed elements of these two dialect worlds.

Back in the 1870s it was noted that “Uzbeks, no matter what kind of life they lead, all consider themselves one people, but are divided into many clans”. According to E.K. Meyendorff, who visited Bukhara in 1820, “while differing from each other in many respects, Tajiks and Uzbeks have much in common...”. The commonality of cultures of modern Uzbeks and Tajiks is explained by the history of the formation of these peoples. They are based on the same ancient culture population of agricultural oases. Ethnic groups of speakers of Iranian languages ​​are the ancestors of the Tajiks, and groups of speakers of Turkic languages, the Turks, became the ancestors of the Uzbeks.

Uzbeks are a sedentary tribe engaged primarily in agriculture and inhabiting the area from the southern shore of the Aral Lake to Kamul (a forty-day journey from the Khiva Khanate). This tribe is considered dominant in three khanates and even in Chinese Tartary. According to the Uzbeks themselves, they are divided into thirty-two tayors, or branches.

Uzbeks

UZBEKS-s; pl. Nation, main population of Uzbekistan; representatives of this nation, country. Songs of the Uzbeks.

Uzbek, -a; m. Uzbek, -i; pl. genus.-check, date-chkam; and. Uzbek, -aya, -oe. Wow literature. U. language. In Uzbek, adv. Speak Uzbek. Dance in Uzbek style.

Uzbeks

(self-name - Uzbek), people, the main population of Uzbekistan (14,145 thousand people, 1995). They also live in Afghanistan (over 1.7 million people), Tajikistan (about 1.2 million people), Kazakhstan (332 thousand people), etc. The total number is 18.5 million people. Language Uzbek. Believers are Sunni Muslims.

UZBEKS

UZBEKS, a people in Central Asia, the main population of Uzbekistan (21.128 million people, 2004), also live in Afghanistan (2.566 million people), Tajikistan (937 thousand people), Kyrgyzstan (660 thousand people), Kazakhstan (370.6 thousand people), Turkmenistan (243.1 thousand people). IN Russian Federation 122.9 thousand Uzbeks live (2002). The total number of Uzbeks in the world is about 25 million people. They speak Uzbek. Believing Uzbeks are Sunni Muslims.
The ancient ancestors of the Uzbeks were Sogdians, Khorezmians, Bactrians, Fergana and Sako-Massaget tribes. From the turn of our era, individual groups of Turkic-speaking tribes began to penetrate into Central Asia. This process intensified from the second half of the 6th century, from the time of the entry of Central Asia into the Turkic Kaganate. The completion of the main stage in the ethnogenesis of the local people speaking the Turkic language dates back to the time of the Karakhanid state (11-12 centuries). The ethnonym “Uzbeks” appeared later, after the assimilation of the nomadic Deshtikipchak Uzbeks who came to Central Asia in the late 15th - early 16th centuries, led by Sheibani Khan.
By the beginning of the 20th century, the process of consolidation of the Uzbek nation was not completed: it consisted of three large ethnographic groups. One of them is the settled population of oases, which had no tribal division; The main occupations were irrigated agriculture, crafts and trade. Another group is the descendants of Turkic tribes who preserved a semi-nomadic life (mainly engaged in sheep breeding) and tribal traditions (Karluks, Barlas tribes). Most of them retained the self-name “Turk”. Medieval Oguzes participated in the formation of some ethnographic groups of Uzbeks (especially in the sedentary part of Khorezm). The third group consisted of the descendants of the Deshtikipchak Uzbek tribes of the 15th and 16th centuries. Most of the nomadic Uzbek tribes called themselves after the names of peoples and tribes well known in the Middle Ages (Kipchak, Naiman, Kangly, Khitai, Kungrat, Mangyt). The transition to sedentism of nomadic Uzbek tribes, which began in the 16th and 17th centuries, was largely completed by the beginning of the 20th century. Some of them merged with the settled Turkic-speaking population, while the majority retained remnants of nomadic life and tribal traditions, as well as the peculiarities of their dialects.
The Uzbeks were engaged in agriculture, but in the foothill and steppe zones, cattle breeding with year-round keeping of livestock for grazing remained one of the main occupations. In 1924, as a result of national-state delimitation, the Uzbek SSR was formed within the USSR. It was then that the name Uzbeks was established for its main population.


encyclopedic Dictionary. 2009 .

See what “Uzbeks” are in other dictionaries:

    O zbeklar Ozbeklar ... Wikipedia

    A large Tatar tribe that ruled in Bukhara, Kokan, Khiva, etc. Dictionary foreign words, included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N., 1910. UZBEKS probably named after their khan. A large Tatar tribe ruling in Bukhara, Kokand... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

    Modern encyclopedia

    - (self-name Uzbek) people, the main population of Uzbekistan (14,145 thousand people, 1992). They also live in Afghanistan (over 1.7 million people), Tajikistan (about 1.2 million people), Kazakhstan (332 thousand people), etc. The language is Uzbek. Muslim believers... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

    UZBEKS, Uzbeks, units. Uzbek, Uzbek, husband The people of the Turkic linguistic group, constituting the main population of the Uzbek SSR. Ushakov's explanatory dictionary. D.N. Ushakov. 1935 1940 … Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary

    UZBEKS, ov, units. ek, ah, husband. The people who make up the main indigenous population of Uzbekistan. | wives Uzbek, and | adj. Uzbek, aya, oh. Ozhegov's explanatory dictionary. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova. 1949 1992 … Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary

    - (self-name Uzbek), people. There are 126.9 thousand people in the Russian Federation. The main population of Uzbekistan. The Uzbek language is the Karluk group of Turkic languages. Sunni Muslim believers. Source: Encyclopedia Fatherland ... Russian history

    Uzbeks- (Uzbeks), Turkic-speaking Mong people. origin, Sunni Muslims. Ancient U.'s ancestors were Sogdians, Khorezmians, Bactrians, Fergana and Sako Masaget tribes. The basis of the Uzbek nation was the Turkic-speaking population, which emerged in the 11th and 12th centuries... The World History

    Uzbeks- Uzbeks, gen. Uzbeks (wrong Uzbek) ... Dictionary of difficulties of pronunciation and stress in modern Russian language

    Uzbeks- (self-name Uzbek, Sart) people with a total number of 18,500 thousand people, the main population of Uzbekistan (14,145 thousand people). Other countries of settlement: Tajikistan 1198 thousand people, Afghanistan 1780 thousand people, Kyrgyzstan 550 thousand people, Kazakhstan 332 thousand… … Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary

    Uzbeks- representatives of the most ancient indigenous people of Central Asia living on the territory of modern Uzbekistan. The formation of the psychology of the Uzbek people took place under the influence of the integration of the ancient settled agricultural Iranian and Turkic-speaking... ... Ethnopsychological Dictionary

Share