Библиографическое описание:

Махмудов М. А. Attitudes to the cultural inheritent relics in Turkistan in the 20–30 s of the ХХ century and its depiction in the press // Молодой ученый. — 2014. — №1. — С. 295-297.

After gaining the independence there appeared a possibility of objectively approaching the history of Uzbekistan from the new point of view. Wisely using this opportunity, our historians are scientifically analyzing the material and moral heritages which remained from ancestors. There opened a wide opportunities to study the ancient relics remained from the ancestors.

The people’s cultural values and moral heritages have servedfor the East people asa powerful source of spirituality for thousands of years. Despite the long continued hard ideological pressure, the people of Uzbekistan achieved to keep the historical and cultural values passed from ancestors to generation and the particular traditions as well. Taking this into consideration, it is worth mentioning the following ideas of the President I. A. Karimov: “Of course, it cannot be conceived of any nation’s spirituality apart from its history, particular customs and traditions and life values. Naturally, moral heritage, cultural wealths, ancient historical monuments serve as one of the important factors about it” [1].

It is known, in the Soviet Union time there appeared a wrong conception that every local culture was outdated and the one received from outside was foremost. In 1920–30 s the politically wrong mottoes such as “national in form, socialist in meaning”and the state resolution“about resolving the engravings in architecture and building” adopted in 1956 were aimed at putting the artistic creation and architecture into one common form soon [2].

If we look at the historical studies of the 20–30 s of the ХХ century, we will witness that the problem of material heritage was a particular of great importance in that time too. Especially, this problem became quite feverish in second half of the 20 s, the information given in the articles announced in the periodical presses can be the vivid proof of our opinion about it. Particularly, in the journal “MaorifvaOqitguvchi” (Education and educator) that published at that time in the present Fergana city the material heritage objects in the areas joined in Turkistan region, their condition, the attitude of the new Soviet government to the ancient relics were depicted. For example, in the issue 11 of the journal in 1925 the following information was given: “ As Central Asia is an old cultural country, it is full of ancient historical monuments.The precious area will still keep the memorials of the developed time of the Persian and Turkish educated people in its bosom. As Eastern Turkistan is the cradle of Turkish monuments, Western and Southern Turkistan is on one side the treasure of Sosoniy and Chigatay works. These lands will be the gravesite of a thousand year old life.

The movements of studying the country going into effect today in Uzbekistan, the interest to the history of the country has increased. One of the richest field of the country’s history are still under the ground. This underground world that attracted German, French and later Russian colonies and although there existed few sculptures of the history, they began to covet. As a result the forward of the movement and work began, there appeared some publications in the press. The evil tyranny’s blind eyes didn’t utilize these science treasuries, but they began to knock them down and get rid them of enviously. They were removed with the proper documents providing identity” [3].

It can be seen from the article above that during the Soviet Union time the cultural heritage objects were not paid attention. There is one more important thing that although a commission for saving and reconstruction of ancient relics was formed in Turkistan in 1923, the commission was assumed a political characteristic and its trend was watered with the Soviet ideology.

During the time being studied condition of saving the architectural buildings, prohibition of their reconstruction can be seenin the work of local educated people. Specifically, it can be seen in the work of M. Saidjonov who lived in 20–30 s of the XX century.For example, M. Saidjonov’s large scientific article called “the city of Bukhara and its old buildings” about the ancient relics in Bukhara was published in the journal “MaorifvaOqitguvchi” (Education and educator) in 1927. In that article mainly the historical monuments such as the historical places in Bukhara, arc, Shakhristan, Registan, and the buildings of Ashtarkhaniys and Somoniys’ time were studied. The work is valuable with its information about the history of particular areas in Bukhara, especially, about the buildings of Somoniys’ time. Under the support of the French Institute of Central Asia Study (IFEAK) this work was published in the IFEAK journal in 2005 in the special issue 16 in June [4]. According to the internet information, this book has been bought by many libraries ofUIC and European countries up to now.

M. Saidjonov mentioned in his article published in the journal “Maorif va Oqitguvchi” (Education and educator) in 1927, issue 9–10 that the mausoleum of Somoniys in Bukhara was studied by the popular Orientalist V. L. Vyatkin in 1925 [6].

The next article of Saidjonov called“Обследование усъпалъницъ Чилъдухтарон в Самарқандэ”(Studying the mausoleum of Childukhtaron in Samarkand) was published in the journal of Socialistic science and techniques in 1936 [6]. Below the theme of the article “(Из работ Узкомстариса 1935 г)” was shown and it can be seen from this that in this article much information about the successful researches of M. Saidjonov in his work in the system of the committee of protecting the history of the Republic and cultural relics. While studying the article it can be known that M. Saidjonov was scientifically powerful and very knowledgable in the science progress and in the field of archeology, toponyms, source study and history. This article gave information about the history of the ofmausoleum of Childukhtaronand deed of trust for a vaqf (vaqf is an Arabic word which means “pious foundation, money donated to sustain an Islamic school, mosque, etc”).

There are several scientific works of the scientist which were prepared to be published, but remained unpublished, they were mainly about Country Study, archeology and ethnography, they were collected after 1930 by studying the deed of trust for a vaqf. It is known from the articles of B. Ergashev, S. Gorshenina and N. Naimov during the research, some collections and works in different volume that were not published for some reasons such as “vaqfnoma of Shayh Sa yfuddin Bokharziy”, “architectural addres of Samarkand”, “Architecture of Samarkand. The city history”, “the mausoleums around Bukhara”, “the first museum in Khorezm”, “materials for the Uzbek history”, “Anthology of writers” and other brochures about Childukhtaron, MasjidiKalon have been keeping their scientific importance up to now. Also, M. Saidjonov studied the archeological relics of Kashkadarya oasis, and made a collection of “The history of Shakhrisabz architectural monuments”. Being written in 1936 this work is the only large scientific work about the architectural relics of the region [7]. But, unfortunately, the scientific works haven’t been completely studied and become widespread yet.

Muso Saidjonov gave important information about the buildings built in Bukhara during the Khanate time and their function in his article “The city of Bukhara and its old buildings” published in the journal “Maorif va Oqitguvchi” (Education and educator) in 1927, issue 9.Particularly, “the khan of Bukhara was the ruler contributed the development of science and education after he had calmed down the country and he paid a great attention to “medicine” and “mathematics”. He gathered 40 specialists of different subjects in the palace and preferred organizing scientific talks with them most of all. He also wrote books on different sciences himself.

Paying particular attention to the science of medicine he built the madrasah “Doralshifo”. The madrasah consisted of 18 rooms. “Dorlshifo” was not special for only teaching medicine, but also it served as a hospital and an ambulance. There was a pharmacy there that gave free medicine to everybody. While examining the patients who came from far away in the hospital, their fares were divided. Besides that, there were a special library and a primitive school. … Later in this madrasah only religious lessons were taught like other common madrasah” [5].

The commission “ancient relics” established in 1923couldn’t get the help of the Centre. As a result, many architectural monuments of Turkistan remained unreconstructed. The work program of this commission consisted of the following aims:

1.      To open museums in Kokand, Bukhara and.

2.      To Muslimize the exhibits of the museums.

3.      To establish a museum of ancient relics in Samarkand.

4.      To arrange a place in Samarkand to save the old written works.

5.      To carry out regular excavating in Afrosiyob and Bukhra.

6.      To make a list of old buildings in Uzbekistan and print their photos.

7.      To save the old documents proving identity of vaqf and old commission.

In the end, in 1925, 24 july the commission of studying the condition of the old works of Khorezm which was organised by the committee of saving the old works of Central Asia began its work.A representative came from the Centre Masolski was appointed as the head of this commission. In short time Masolski gathered information about the conditions of the material heritage objects in Khiva which was the centre of architecture of Khorezm and gave it to the committee [8]. In this list given the following architectural monuments in Khiva were reflected:

1.      The Palace of MukhammadAlijan

2.      The Tower of MukhammadAlijan

3.      The front part of Polvon ota graveyard.

4.      The side appearance of Polvonota graveyard.

5.      The upper side appearance of Juma masjid.

6.      The interior of Juma masjid.

7.      The madrasah of MukhammadNiyozbobobegi.

8.      The madrasah of Shervonxon.

9.      The Tower of Islamhuja.

10.  The doors of the madrasah Muso Tura.

11.  The gates of Arc Palace

12.  The appearance of Arc and Oksokbobo Palace

13.  The Gates of Arc Palace

14.  The Arc of Okshikbobo

15.  The Gate of Husho

16.  The Stone Gate.

It can be seen from the list above that not all the architectural monuments in Khiva were not included in the work program of the committee. Most of the architectural monuments which were included in the program also remained unreconstructed because of the lack of money and increasing the struggle against the religion in that time.

As a conclusion it should be noted that the 20–30 s of the ХХ century was difficult time for Uzbekistan, the educational and cultural problems were impartially depicted in the press. But, some parts of the Soviet and local government were indifferent towards the changes happening. And in its turn this influencedon the disagreement of the people of Turkistan, the culture to be denigrated and also influenced negatively on increasing the mind of the local people.


1.      Каримов  И. А. Юксак маънавият – енгилмас куч. – Тошкент: Маънавият, 2008. – Б. 29–30.

2.      Аҳмедов М. Қ. Ўрта Осиё меъморчилиги тарихи. – Тошкент: Ўзбекистон, 1995. – Б. 3.

3.      Маориф ва ўқитғувчи. – 1925. – №11. – Б. 92.

4.      Саиджонов М. Бухоро шахри ва унинг эски бинолари // ИФЭАК. Серия “Рабочие докумень”. – Вьп. 16(июн 2005г).

5.      Саиджонов М. Бухоро шахри ва эски бинолари //Маориф ва ўқитғувчи. – 1927. – № 9–10. – Б.52.

6.      Саиджанов М. Ю. Обеледование усьпальниць Чильдухтарон в Самарканде // Социалистичэская наука и тэхника. – 1936. – № 5. – С.31.

7.      Астанова Г. Аждодлар меросини ўрганиб (тарихий меросимиз тадқиқотчиси) // Имом ал-Бухорий сабоқлари. – 2005. – №1. – Б. 79.

8.      Қаранг: Маориф ва ўқитғувчи. – 1925. – №11. – Б. 95.


Социальные комментарии Cackle