ANALYSIS OF DATA ON ECONOMIC LIFE OF KARAKALPAKS

ANALYSIS OF DATA ON ECONOMIC LIFE OF KARAKALPAKS

Ibodullayeva Sabina Hamid qizi

E- mail: sabinaibodullayeva1110@gmail.com

Tel : +998936857755

Abstract: In this article, I tried to highlight some important aspects of the social relations of the Karakalpak people, especially animal husbandry and home crafts.

Key words: Nation, people, diaspora, ethnogenesis, Oasis, territory, culture, social life, political changes, dynasty, ruling class,

According to the received historical data, at the end of the 16th and 18th centuries, the majority of Karakalpaks lived in the middle and lower reaches of the Syrdarya. The Karakalpaks of Syrdarya lived under the Kazakhs in the 17th century and until the middle of the 18th century, and their political and economic situation depended on the Kazakh khans. But it differs strongly from the Kazakhs in terms of economic management. Kazakhs were engaged in nomadic cattle breeding, while Karakalpaks had a semi-nomadic lifestyle and engaged in animal husbandry, farming and fishing.

The natural conditions of the area where the Karakalpaks live are also whimsical, so the Karakalpaks living in these conditions, unlike the Kazakhs, did not have the opportunity to engage only in cattle breeding or farming. Their natural geographical conditions allow for the development of farming, fishing and animal husbandry in a complex manner in these lands.1 Karakalpaks living in the Lower Syrdarya, Kuvondarya, and Jana-Darya valleys were engaged in farming. Grain farming was well developed in the Karakalpaks, and the grain they grew not only satisfied their own needs, they exchanged grain with Kazakhs for cattle. Another group of Karakalpaks engaged in cattle breeding. There was also a difference between 1 Толстов С.П. Города гузов. СЭ. 1947. №3, с.100 their husbandry and Kazakh husbandry. Cattle breeding of Kazakhs requires moving in all four seasons of the year. Karakalpaks were only engaged in ungulates. If they grazed in the summer in the meadows, fodder would be prepared for the winter. This connected animal husbandry with agriculture. In turn, cattle were used for tillage.

The fishing Karakalpaks exchanged fish for grain with the farming Karakalpaks. Such a complex management of their economy is also reflected in folk proverbs: "Ush ay saun, ush ay kaun, ush ay kabagym, ush ay shabagym ayteo'ir tirishim etiremiz". Trade plays an important role in the life of Karakalpaks. They exchanged grain for livestock with Kazakhs. Karakalpak merchants acted as brokers between Bukhara and Kazakh khans. They also traded with the Uzbeks of the island and Khiva, while Karakalpak merchants were also in Russian cities. According to some Russian sources, in the 30s of the 18th century, they themselves took lead and made bullets from it. They also prepared gunpowder to sell to Kazakhs.

Even after the Karakalpak people moved to the territory of Khorezm, they drained the barren dry and marshy lands where they were located, made irrigation canals, built dams and other water facilities, and agriculture developed as the main branch of the Karakalpak economy.2

As we said above, the three oases of Kallikul, Kushkhana Tov and Kegeili are formed on the left bank of the Amudarya below the channels of Lavzon, Chonlibosuv, Shumonoy, Kiyotzhorgan. On the right bank of the Amudarya, to the west-north of the present Chimboy, in the vicinity of the former Uzbek farming district, Karaboyli, the Kushkhanatov oasis was created, which is irrigated by the water of the Karaboyli, a natural branch of the Amudarya. Its water comes from Churtonboy, Eshon, Arziboy, Tillaboy, Biyjon, Elgeldijob and other streams A.V. According to Kaulbarsi, the Kushkhanatov lowland was considered a dark, bloody, Kipchak district of northern Khorezm in the 1930s and 1950s.

At the end of the 19th century, the Kegaili oasis became a large agricultural district in northern Khorezm.

The dependence of the Karakalpaks on the Khanate of Khiva, which is considered one of the largest feudal states of Central Asia, forced them to follow the economic and political system of the Khanate. Their agrarian relations have changed. 2 Жданко Т.А. Очерки исторической этнографии каракалпаков. Ленинград. 1950, с.18-19

S.K. In the 20-60s of the 19th century, Kamalov put an end to the wars between peoples with the centralization of power by the Khiva Khans in the socio-economic system of the Karakalpaks, the development of irrigation works and agriculture, especially their (Korakalpaks) neighborhood with the Uzbeks - Khorezm people, who have been engaged in agriculture since ancient times, immediately destroyed the land at that time. It led to the development of agriculture.3

Feudal land ownership in the Karakalpaks is closely related to the feudal land ownership of Central Asian khanates, mainly Khiva Khanate, which ruled in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Russian scientists and travelers - N.N. Muravev, M.I. Ivanin, G.I. Danilevsky, Ya. Kilevein, A.L. Coon, L.F. Some information is given in the works and memoirs of Kostenko, N.I.Veselovsky, Girshfeld and M.N.Galkin, O.Shkapsky, V.Lobachevsky, A.V.Kaulbars.

However, since those authors were officials of tsarist Russia, representatives of the bourgeois class, their writings were of a tendentious nature. Historians and orientalists have studied the history of Khiva Khanate socio-economic and political history, including important issues such as feudal state structure and land ownership. The well-known orientalist historian Professor P.P. Ivanov, Academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences M.Y. The companions found the archive of the Khans of Khiva, and based on the materials in it, they created important works that broadly covered the above issues.

In fact, in the 19th century, there was only a book by O. Shkapsky entitled "Essays of Amudarya" about land ownership and land tax in the Khiva Khanate. This book is characterized by rich factual materials. O.Shkapskyi gave extensive information about the Amudarya section, especially the geographical location of Shorokhan section, natural conditions, agricultural works, farming tools, irrigation facilities.4 He explains that land ownership in Shorokhan section consisted of kingdom (state), private property and foundation. At the same time, he explained the land ownership and tax system in the entire Khiva Khanate. Shkapsky briefly describes the plight of farmers in the Amudarya region. However, despite the importance of that work, due to the presence of deficiencies in the issues raised in it, 3 Камалов С.К. Каракалпаки в ХVIII-XIX веках. Ташкент, 1968, с.132 4 Жалилов О. XIX-ХХ аср бошларидаги қорақалпоқ тарихидан Фан. Т., 1985, 20 б. the issue of feudal land ownership in Khiva Khanate and Karakalpaks was not resolved conclusively in the work. About Shkapsky's book, every researcher who has read M. Y. Yoldoshev's works can see its shortcomings. In particular, although he divides the ownership of land in the Shorokhan section into three, but in explaining them, he mixes royal (state) land with property-land. Property divides land into freehold and deeded property, depending on whether or not the tax is levied.

Titled property is the property of individuals who have a title issued by the state for private ownership of land.

Labeled property owners did not pay taxes. Otom Mulk was in the hands of the khan's neighbors, big officials, who, although considered excellent, paid a small tax in comparison to her husband.

In general, the tax collected from the owners of the Otoi property was very little, but in some places they were exempt from the tax, he notes. According to Shkapsky's information, landowners were generally exempted from taxation

the conclusion follows. Even the land that Shkapsky considered to be the property of the nobles had a label about its ownership in the galas (the khan's neighbors or officials). Tax-exempt personal property is similar to title property in this respect. Therefore, the presence or absence of a label cannot be the basis for dividing the property into categories as shown by Shkapsky.

According to the archive materials, relatives of the khan, high-ranking officials, some priests, soldiers who served the khan (cavalry soldiers, some persons) were exempted from taxes.5

He had special labels about him. Such persons are called label holders. The land owned by them is not labeled property, it is either private property land, or state land, or else it is considered as waqf land.6

The information provided by P.P. Ivanov about agrarian relations in the Khiva Khanate is significant. He is the first to come to the conclusion that the Khans of Khiva had their own private lands, and he proved his opinion on the basis of the Documents of the Khiva Khans Archive. P.P. Ivanov wrote in his article "Thus, our document characterizes the ownership of clan land among the Karakalpak people in 5 Йўлдошев М.Ю. Материалы по истории каракалпаков// Общественные науки в Ўзбекистана 1965 №1, 62-65 б. 6 Иванов П. Очерки истории каракалпаков//Материалы по истории каракалпаков. Москва-Ленинград, 1935, с.37 one of the most important districts of the Amudarya delta," and in his article "New information about the Karakalpaks" he wrote, "The agrarian character of the Uzbeks of Khiva and other Central Asian districts" studying their relations, we see that there was a form of a clan-community, like among the Karakalpaks. However, this difference is that this form of land ownership almost disappeared in Uzbek districts at the beginning of the 19th century, giving way to official, large landowners or state ownership. In the districts of Karakalpak, clan-communal land ownership was preserved in one form or another until the beginning of the second half of the 19th century. In the middle of the 19th century, the ownership rights of the tribal clan community to the land and pastures consisted only of fake formalities, and in practice all the cultivated fields were owned by the feudal clan chiefs.

These data are valuable data for characterizing land ownership in the Khanate of Khiva, including Karakalpaks.

In the Khanate of Khiva, there were three different forms of feudal oppression: material, natural and coercive. Material oppression includes the land tax known as "solgit" and the property and livestock tax known as "zakat". Property tax was imposed on ordinary peasants as well as large and medium-sized landowners. Tax payers were divided into three different categories: those who owned more than ten tons of land had to pay three golds, those who owned up to ten tons of land had to pay two golds, those who owned up to five tons of land had to pay one gold. At the same time, great nobles and religious leader

The Karakalpaks used to pay zakat in addition to the harvest. It consisted of five golds for forty camels, horses, and cattle, and 10 abbos (one abbos is equal to 25 silver coins) for forty sheep. Owners of large livestock used to trick the poor to transfer most of the zakat. Karakalpaks engaged in farming in Khanate lands paid two bushels of grain from 4-5 bushels of grain collected regardless of the size of the land, which was considered a natural tax. In addition to the above taxes, Karakalpak landowners collected "usir" (a part of the harvest) from local religious leaders, and a separate tax "tunupuli" (toll for wood) for benefiting from forests.

The entire burden of taxes falls on the shoulders of hard-working Karakalpaks, nobles and religious leaders are exempt from taxes.7 7 Иванов П. Архив хивинских: ханов. Ленинград, 1940, с.142

Karakalpaks were also involved in forced labor (digging ditches in the khanate, adjusting bridges, adjusting and adjusting dams on the Amudarya, etc.). Each householder had to earn 12 days per worker per year. Workers who adjust bridges are called "bridgemen", and those who clean canals are called "diggers". 27,079 people were involved in this work in one year, 6,000 of them were from Karakalpaks.

Another feudal obligation was that the people of Karakalpak had to feed 12,000 serfs serving in the khan's army. This cost them 100-140 thousand gold in 1874. In wars, Karakalpak military detachments were led by biys, batirs and centurions. During the war, they received 4 times more than during the peace due to the increase in the taxes of Karakalpak workers. Khan officials "qushbegi" and "mektar" were engaged in tax collection. Qushbegis from Karakalpaks on the left bank, and mekhtars from the right banks collected taxes. They were not rewarded by the Khan of Khiva for this service. During the collection of taxes, they tried to justify themselves with various evils and lived at the expense of them. Tax collectors took bribes. Elders were exempted from paying taxes by giving bribes to beys and fathers, and fathers and fathers to beklarbegi, qushbegi, and mekhtars, in exchange for which the share of the tax they had to pay was borne by the working population.

Zakat was collected by "tax collectors" and 10% of the collected tax was kept by the khan. Judges also participated in collecting zakat. The "mushrif" taught the grain tax. The grain collected by them was given to qushbegi and mekhtars, and they delivered it to the khan's palace. The forced labor tax was controlled by the kushbegi and mekhtars, especially cleaning the canals was very difficult, as a result of which people fell ill. For every event held by the khanate, the biy and fathers paid bribes to the khan. This was collected from ordinary workers. The addition of such levies on top of the already collected taxes was a double exploitation of the Mekhnatkas (by the Khans of Khiva and by their own feudal lords), which made them even more angry.

REFERENCES

1. Ilniyazovich, S. F. (2024). Historiography of Various Expeditions and their

Results in the Regions Inhabited by Karakalpaks in the First Half of the 20th

Century. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INNOVATION IN NONFORMAL

EDUCATION, 4(9), 159–165. Retrieved from

2. Sayfutdinov , F. . (2024). ILLUMINATION OF THE SPIRITUAL LIFE OF

THE KARAKALPAK PEOPLE IN RESEARCH. Journal of Universal

Science Research, 2(5), 441–452. Retrieved from

research/article/view/34891

3. Sayfutdinov Feruz Ilniyoz o’g’li. (2023). XIX ASRDA XONLIKLARNING

O‘ZARO SAVDO MUNOSABATLARI. JOURNAL OF SCIENCE,

RESEARCH AND TEACHING, 2(8), 111–114. Retrieved from

4. Sayfutdinov, F. (2024). HISTORIOGRAPHY OF INFORMATION

ABOUT THE POPULATION OF THE ZARAFSHAN OASIS. (20TH

CENTURY). Modern Science and Research, 3(2), 911–914. Retrieved from

5. Sayfutdinov, F. (2023). ILLUMINATION OF KARAKALPAK PEOPLE

IN ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDIES. Modern Science and Research, 2(12),

910–917. Retrieved from https://inlibrary.uz/index.php/science-

research/article/view/27281

6. Sayfutdinov Feruz Ilniyozovich, . (2023). STUDY OF THE

KARAKALPAK PEOPLE IN ETHNOLOGICAL SCIENTIFIC WORKS

HISTORY . International Journal Of History And Political Sciences, 3(12),

61–68. https://doi.org/10.37547/ijhps/Volume03Issue12-11

7. Sayfutdinov , F. (2024). ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF THE ZARAFSHAN

OASIS (2ND HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY). Modern Science and

Research, 3(1), 577–581. Retrieved from

8. Ilniyoz o’g’li, S. F. (2023). XIX ASRDA XONLIKLARNING O ‘ZARO

SAVDO MUNOSABATLARI. JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, RESEARCH

AND TEACHING, 2 (8), 111–114.

9. Sayfutdinov, F. (2023). THE IMPORTANCE OF DIGITAL

TECHNOLOGY IN TEACHING HISTORY. Modern Science and

Research, 2(10), 719–723. Retrieved from

10.Sayfutdinov Feruz Ilniyazovich, . (2023). USING GIS SOFTWARE AND

THE IMPORTANCE OF DIGITAL HISTORY IN THE STUDY OF

HISTORY . International Journal Of History And Political Sciences, 3(10),

31–33. https://doi.org/10.37547/ijhps/Volume03Issue10-06

11.Sayfutdinov, F. (2023). ANALYSIS OF DATA ON LAND OWNERSHIP

AND LIVESTOCK FARMING OF KARAKALPAKS. Modern Science and

Research, 2(10), 650–657. Retrieved from

12.Sayfutdinov Feruz Ilniyozovich, . (2023). LAND OWNERSHIP

RELATIONS BASED ON THE NATIONAL ECONOMY OF

KARAKALPAK. International Journal Of Literature And Languages, 3(11),

20–27. https://doi.org/10.37547/ijll/Volume03Issue11-04