Sources from the history of handicraft production in the Southern Kazakhstan of the second half of XIX – early XX centuries

The article discusses the references lighting history of domestic production of the second half of XIX – early XX centuries about domestic production a significant amount of works is written. But most often they are devoted or to separate types of craft, or production of handicraftsmen is considered from ethnographic positions. At the present stage of development of economy of the independent Republic of Kazakhstan domestic production is important, especially in rural zones. However, along with other branches of social production, developments of stagnation of last years, and also a current economic crisis did not pass also this branch of small-scale production. It’s getting out of crisis state, growth of technical equipment of handicraft trade on a modern basis, improvement of system of vocational training of handicraftsmen and handicraftsmen, streamlining of supply of crafts with raw materials, improvement of quality of products of handicraft trade according to requirements of the modern market — all these factors are the most important conditions of growth of efficiency of the modern market relations. In this regard extraction from the past and introduction into the present of wealth of experience of handicraftsmen and handicraftsmen of the Southern Kazakhstan as one of the branches of economy developed economically is represented extremely urgent task of scientists of Kazakhstan of a research of history of handicraft trade. Studying of this branch is urgent not only from the historical point of view, but also as synthesis of data on one of the branches of economy which are important in life of the population of Kazakhstan in general. 

Kazakhstan's independence has made significant adjustments to the study of the historical past of Kazakhstan and the Kazakh people. In the years of independence there were studies on previously studied or little studied problems. The ability to get closer to the historical truth of the past in its entirety has been predetermined by the development of the country along the path of independence and autonomy.

As you know, in the last decades of the Soviet period there was a transfer of attention of historians to  the pre-October period of history in general, the problems of development of the productive forces and production relations in Central Asia. Unreasonably was made impression of trouble-free history of Central Asia. Past covered from the perspective of ideological cliches, while many questions have not received proper scientific analysis. The process of modern development of independent Kazakhstan now runs on the basis of scientific analysis of the existing way of life, traditions, customs, skills, people, its achievements in the historical past. The special importance is gained for the southern areas of the republic rich with traditions, diverse, labor skills, highly artistic receptions and ornamentation of products, by experience of handicraftsmen and handicraftsmen of the extensive region. It was one of the centers of domestic production, largest in Kazakhstan.

In the second half of XIX – early XX centuries Kazakhstan marked a major shift in the economic, social and cultural development. They were caused, first of all, the penetration of and approval of commoditymoney relations based on colonialism. A detailed study of the issue would clarify the solution of another

problem — the formation of the local bourgeoisie; entrepreneurs have re-created the experience in the organization of small and medium-sized businesses. It is very important nowadays, when emerging market mechanism finds its way into the contest with the same painful form of economy. A detailed study of the topic would help to highlight some of the nuances of the continuity of the historical and economic categories of past and present should pay attention to researchers in the expanded regionally to study the problem.

In the period under discussion handicraft production still continues to play a significant role in the life  of the population of southern Kazakhstan, in ensuring its essentials, especially in the life and in the life of the agrarian population of Turkestan, in spite of the widespread introduction of the colonial economy.

A characteristic feature of the cottage industry of South Kazakhstan was the fact that this important sector of the economy, although it has undergone during the study period some evolution, mainly preserved centuries-old features. Even then, when the economy of the region began to penetrate capitalist relations, along with factory industry closely coexisted craft-based skills and archaic traditions, trying to compete with cheaper products manufacturing industry, not always, however, to satisfy the tastes of the indigenous population of the region.

At the present stage of development of economy of the independent Republic of Kazakhstan domestic production is important, especially in rural zones. However, along with other branches of social production, developments of stagnation of last years, and also a current economic crisis did not pass also this branch of small-scale production. It’s getting out of crisis state, growth of technical equipment of handicraft trade on a modern basis, improvement of system of vocational training of handicraftsmen and handicraftsmen, streamlining of supply of crafts with raw materials, improvement of quality of products of handicraft trade according to requirements of the modern market — all these factors are the most important conditions of growth of efficiency of the modern market relations. In this regard extraction from the past and introduction into the present of wealth of experience of handicraftsmen and handicraftsmen of the Southern Kazakhstan as one of the branches of economy developed economically is represented extremely urgent task of scientists of Kazakhstan of a research of history of handicraft trade. Studying of this branch is urgent not only from the historical point of view, but also as synthesis of data on one of the branches of economy which are important in life of the population of Kazakhstan in general.

Degree of study of a problem. The gain of Turkestan and transformation of extensive edge into colony did not put a task to define the place of Turkestan in colonial policy of the empire before the Russian researchers of the second half of the of XIX – early XX centuries. Therefore, in numerous researches on studying of productive forces of edge, the most important place was taken by a question of resettlement of peasants from the center of the empire with the purpose to create «the Russian Turkestan», and in passing, in  each of works, the place and value of domestic production of local population found reflection. It should be noted that small-scale production of local population was only in hands of Kazakhs and Uzbeks. At the same time colonization of Turkestan created new branches of the small-scale production which at the same time is very closely connected with colonization and as its main manifestation — a resettlement question.

The published official reports, memoranda, reports of the officials inspecting at different times Turkestan  are  of  extreme  interest.  I.  Kostenko,  Yu.  D.  Yuzhakov,  I.  Geyer,  N.A.  Karyshev,  V.I.  Yuferov, A.A. Kaufman, P.A. Skryplev, N. Gavrilov, V.I. Massal'skiy, etc. wrote about Turkestan at different times, but from the same colonizer positions. At the same time many practical measures proposed by officials mattered for streamlining of resettlement business, so and for creation of conditions for industrial penetration.

Great stuff lead the Ministry of Agriculture and State Property member of the Academic Committee in their reports A.A. Kaufman [1; 41], as well as the Count K.K. Palen [2; 18]. The publication of the last report led at one time a strong reaction of officials of various Russian agencies and departments, and particularly those concerned with resettlement issues, as it clearly showed how ugly was delivered resettlement case in Turkestan and the whole of its colonization. The audit found numerous cases of bribery, tyranny, theft apparatus numerous officials Resettlement Administration. Despite the glaring facts uncovered, the findings of  the various commissions and audits have been rather modest. So, K.K. Palen proposed to remove from the edge of the thieving officials and recommended a series of half-measures related to land management persons. Opposing communal land in the resettlement villages of Turkestan, K.K. Palen wrote, «can not be recognized according to the current resolution of the land policy of the state to get a displaced community law, since obviously this was not and there are no reasonable grounds».

Under the current land policy states K.K. Palen went without saying, in particular, the Stolypin reforms, on the basis of which, in the central regions of Russian common ownership of land destroyed. Absolutely  no sense, he thought, to support this form of landed property and in Turkestan. He offered to allow migrants' freedom of all kinds of crafts, private ownership of land, simpler and cheaper ways to attach the property».

Most of the proposals of Count K.K. Palen on land management and industrial development of Turkestan went further into the mainstream of official government policy.

K.K. Palen in its report pointed directly to the colonialist nature of the relationship of the tsarist government in Turkestan. He wrote: «With the exception of the motives of a political nature, had the value of the conquest of Turkestan, this region since the early days of its annexation to Russia was represented for the Russian government's double interest: I) in terms of fiscal policy as a source of government revenue, and as a new market for products of domestic production, and 2) in terms of the colonial policy as a new area for the movement of surplus population from the central provinces». The development of the productive forces of Turkestan, in his opinion, had to be «not at the cost of burdensome costs to the state center», and «from the suburbs to the opening of private enterprise and the involvement in it of capital both Russian and foreign».

K.K. Palen has repeatedly stressed that in Turkestan should be as many Russian settlements can be precisely because they help to establish Russian domination and securing the edge of Russian.

After Count K.K. Palen, travelled to Turkestan made official for special assignments for the Resettlement Administration N.A. Gavrilov [3; 112]. In a report published then came through clear desire to soften the actual state of affairs of the resettlement in Turkestan. Similarly, a note by the Chief Executive Officer land management and farming A.V. Krivoshein about the trip to Turkestan, undertaken in the spring of 1912, in which liberal criticism peacefully coexist with the protection of the interests of the landlords and the autocracy [4; 52].

The  member  of  scientific  committee  of  the  ministry  of  agriculture  and  state-owned  properties A.A. Kauffman in the generalizing work «Resettlement and Colonization» [5; 349] came to interesting conclusions. The first of them — by means of resettlement it is impossible to lift welfare of the peasantry; the second — the only means can serve increase in culture of country land use and economy, and also distribution among peasants of the correct data on conditions of a settlement and the economic device on places.

Many scientists working in the resettlement organizations at a tsarism and who remained to work in them in the first years of the Soviet power continued to develop problems of Turkestan. V.P. Voshchinin, for example, in the article «About the Term of Colonization», giving definition of colonization process in a broad sense, wrote: «Colonization is expansion, or deepening of use of natural resources of the country by artificially organizational or proceeding self-sufficing economic consolidation of this area new labor elements». In narrow sense it is possible to understand as colonization, in his opinion, «only such actions of the government which have the appointment systematic involvement of the population in certain, on the basis of economic feasibility, insufficient economic development of regions and rational, on the same sign, use of labor force attracted». In the grant for educational institutions written to them together with I.L. Yamzin it was noted that internal resettlements as elements of productive forces, happen and develop out of will of people and the state, following from an economic condition of the country and answering the level of the national economy, giving in only to regulation from the state. «Colonization advance, — authors wrote, — develop under the public law: with perhaps smaller expenses to perhaps big results» [6; 7], i.e. spontaneous manifestation of the objective laws which are not giving in to systematic studying and regulation is the cornerstone of universal colonization.

On the same positions there was some staff of the State research institution organized in the first years of the Soviet power. They did not see a basic difference between colonization of suburban areas a tsarism  and policy of the Soviet power.

One of followers of the M.N. Pokrovsk, P.G. Galuzo emphasized that the resettlement policy was subordinated to the general tendency to colonize edge. He considered that to Turkestan mainly prosperous peasants moved, and most of them, after arrival became even richer, thanks to skill and occupation of the earth at indigenous people. From these positions the article «Arms of the Russian Immigrants in Central Asia» is written to them. The statement of the Syr Darya governor that «each new Russian settlement in Turkestan is equivalent to battalion of the Russian troops» [7; 57] was a starting position of this article.

P.G. Galuzo developed the views also in the monograph «Turkestan — Colony» [8]. And still it should be noted a huge merit of P.G. Galuzo who introduced the idea that in Turkestan, in effect, the military and feudal and capitalist imperialism was weaved. This concept found reflection in its work «The agrarian relations in the south of Kazakhstan» in 1867–1914 [9; 29], based on the huge material collected by it and processed. 

But as the general view of P.G. Galuzo on the Turkestan question remains the same, though he also speaks about differentiation of the main producers, not all material in the monograph is picked up by it in the way that there is no doubt left that immigrants only sought to get only economy and therefore did not take any part in local life. The peasant immigrant, — Galuzo considered, — bore to indigenous people only the evil.

From works of other historians of the 50th years anyway raising the questions connected with resettlement policy and its consequences for development of productive forces in Turkestan it is necessary to stop at G.I. Safarov's work [10] which, having devoted the monograph to covering of so-called «colonial revolution», claimed that revolution came to Turkestan on telegraph, i.e. he did not recognize those prerequisites which became ripe in Turkestan and gave the population of Central Asia including the Russian immigrants, to active participation in edge life.

Interest in questions of resettlement and development of productive forces increased in Turkestan in the early forties. In 1940 P. Sharova's article about resettlement policy of a tsarism in Central Asia in 1906–1917 [2; 11] was published. In it the author considers mainly methods of implementation of Stolypin reform. Direct result of carrying out reform: she paid to differentiation strengthening, replenishment of ranks of the proletariat at the expense of poor people immigrants not enough attention. Undoubtedly, numerous approvals by Sharova that to the Turkestan region, middling persons generally moved and that only there among them there was a sharp differentiation are wrong. It is known that among immigrants there were a lot of landless and land-poor peasants arriving to the region with hope to receive the earth. Without having received it, many became farm laborers, i.e. from the very beginning of the settlement joined ranks of the agricultural proletariat. In the 50th years in some generalizing works of historians among many other questions also the question of resettlements of the Russian peasants, in particular, to Turkestan is considered. K.E. Zhitov and V.Ya. Nepomnin,  E.B.  Bekmakhanov,  E.V.  Bunakov,  A.M.  Aminov,  M.G.  Vakhabov,  H.T. Tursunov,

R.H. Aminova's monographs are among the last, for example. Questions of resettlement found the reflection and in basic researches of history of Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan.

Very valuable information regarding various types of handicraft industry of the local population, the researchers report the handicraft industry of the region: V.P. Kuznetsov, M.I. Brodovsky, A.P. Horoshhin, Vasilev, N.A. Kirpichnikov, I.I. Geyer, G. Golovin, V.K. Rozvadovsky et al., which contains interesting information about the many types of crafts are reflected characteristics of different crafts, determined by their role in the life of the population of Turkestan.

It should be noted that among the many literary sources, such as the pre-revolutionary and postrevolutionary period, we could not find at least one full work specially devoted to craft and handicraft production in South Kazakhstan. But since this region was the most advanced in the craft against Kazakhstan, in most studies, covering the state of the industry in Turkestan in the analyzed period, in one way or another there is evidence of South Kazakhstan crafts artisans. On this basis, we can rightly assume that these sources of work, allows you to explore different aspects of the studied problem. The V.I. Masal'skiy's paper «Russia. Complete geographical description of our fatherland. Turkestan» [12], published in 1913, contains information about the various types of handicraft industry, their characteristics and role in the life of the local population.

Created in the early XX century in the province handicraft committees conducted special surveys of local crafts and summarizes the information received. V.K. Rozvadovsky [13], who was the secretary of Turkestan artisanal Committee conducted a survey of a number of crafts of Turkestan. The results of his surveys have been published and are useful source for the study of handicrafts. Appreciating the quality manufactured products, noting specialized workshops for certain types of production, he paid particular attention to ascertain the number of people employed in these institutions artisans, their earnings, etc. The objects of his research in addition to silk weaving were carpet, pottery, etc. productions.

Works of the Russian traveler and orientalist P.I. Pashino are of considerable interest to a subject of our research. They contain data on weaver's crafts, on tanning, potter's productions, on metal products. Giving appreciation to great skills of potters, their art taste, the author notes, «that local plates and dishes appearance do not concede at all to the Russian faience» [14; 21]. According to P. Pashino, economic backwardness of Turkestan did not correspond to its richest natural resources and opportunities [15; 274]. He considered that Russia which was more developed economically is obliged to help the people of Turkestan to overcome economic backwardness. The Turkestan region, the author wrote, needs not only delivery of the Russian goods, but also development on the place of textile, tanning, glass and other factories and plants. 

Speaking about the manufactory industry, he emphasized that «the manufactory industry occupies the known part of the population of each city». Describing quality of production and the output, he gave preference to handicraftsmen of Bukhara and Kokand, comparing their products to high-quality products of the Russian masters. As for the South Kazakhstan products, in his opinion, they were more poor quality though the author noted that as well as in other areas were in wide demand for the population.

P.I. Pashino, N.I. Gabbin noted the low equipment and roughness of the produced production, an archaic way of production and small profitability of local masters. However they also, as well as other researchers of domestic industries — I.I. Geyer, V.K. Rozvadovsky, G. Golovin, — highly appreciated products of handicraftsmen-handicraftsmen, noting their originality, high quality, emphasized that they in providing the population of their product played the taking priority value and were in great demand not only within the country, but also in other areas of Central Asia.

In I. Geyer and I. Nazarov's researches devoted to cottage industry of the city of Tashkent, the main attention was paid weaver's, lining /astarchi/ and jewelry /zargerlik/ to productions. Authors emphasized that from what shortcomings skill of local handicraftsmen from the point of view of Europeans would not suffer, it differed «in a considerable variety and a readiness of the receptions and was very far from primitiveness» [16].

Data on an annual turnover of productions of the Tashkent handicraftsmen-weavers, pad of resident students are provided in their works, instruments of production of handicraftsmen-astarchi are described. Authors specified that at that time were not collectives. Ordinary either the family, or the owner and 2 assistants to the master worked. They provide data of rather monthly output of handicraftsmen, masters and the volume of the produced production.

V.K. Rozvadovsky, I.I. Geyer and other researchers of history, economies, and ethnographies of edge were concerned by deterioration of the situation of handicraftsmen-handicraftsmen, falling of quality of the produced production and offered a number of actions which would promote preservation of the original, reached considerable perfection of craft. In particular, they suggested issuing to handicraftsmen the loan as it became in the silk farms.

The description of the technology of production of raw silk is available in work of the N.F. Petrovsky, famous expert on Turkestan and the collector of east antiquities [17]. It as the envoy of the Ministry of Finance, had to get acquainted with edge economy, especially with opportunities of development of those branches of local production behind which essential trade industrial value could be recognized. Its work is written on the basis of the field materials collected by it in the cities of Central Asia.

Except above-mentioned authors, some information on a condition of the domestic industry is supplied in the works by A. Vamberi, P.I. Nebolsin, Ch.Ch. Valikhanov, S.A. Davydova, etc.

The  history  of  domestic  production  in  a  varying  degree  is  considered  in  G.I.  Georgi,  S. Bolshy, A.I. Levshin, R. Karutts, A. Semenov, I.O. Krause, A. Felkerzam, S.M. Dudin's works.

Scientists-researchers of history, economy and ethnography of the Turkestan region suggested to carry out a number of actions which would promote preservation of the original, reached high degree perfection of skill of craft.

The works devoted to studying of an economic situation of crafts of edge during the pre-revolutionary period and their history began to appear in the first years after establishment of the Soviet power. In this regard researches are of great interest A. Skvortsova, V. Balkov, etc. In A. Skvortsov's works [18] a number of branches of cottage industry is lit: metalworking, woodworking, tanning and others. However its works have the general character. In them there are no data on number of handicraftsmen, about the output, V. Balkov's work [19; 19] is the first summary generalizing work on history of craft cottage industry in which the author characterizes small cottage industry, briefly stops on a state it during the colonial period, gives a number of digital data.

The big contribution to a research of this branch was made by ethnographers. Their researches help to use practically traditional receptions in some types of the crafts which did not lose the value and today.

Are closest to a subject of a research of work of E.A. Masanov [20]. For many years it collected material, using not only written sources, but also conducting survey of the population concerning handicraft trade. The author versatily lights activity of handicraftsmen of the Kazakh people, discloses value of each separate branch of the craft industry, their specific features, technology of production of products, and also the social relations between handicraftsmen. It possesses a large number of publications on genesis of many customs and cult ceremonies, stories of handicraft trade, including art crafts. 

For many years activity in the sphere of ethnography M.S. Mukanov [21] which is considered the largest expert in history of craft matter in Kazakhstan gained deserved popularity works on economic occupations, life and life of the Kazakh people and first of all on history, the organization and social structure of handicraft trade.

Its work «Kazakh House Art Crafts» is devoted to a research of types of art craft, specific features of each area, the equipment and the production technology of works of art craft, living conditions of handicraftsmen, the social relations and some other questions. This work is the generalizing research of house art craft of the Kazakh people.

In one way or another, some aspects of the studied topics addressed in the U.D. Dzhanibekov [22], the famous explorer of the material culture of Kazakhs. Of considerable interest is the monograph ethnographer

V.G. Moshkova [23]. «Carpets of Central Asia peoples of the late XIX – early XX centuries», Created on the basis of a large ethnographic and statistical material. The author thoroughly researched one of the largest branches of handicraft industry in Central Asia — carpet weaving.

Issues  related  to  handicraft,  leather  industry,  are  covered  in  famous  work  V.V.  Zaorskaya  and K.A. Alexander [24]. It should be noted that many aspects of handicraft and cottage industry — labor skills and technology of production, the principles of artisans accommodation by quarters of the city, social relations between craftsmen, etc. — are common to all the regions of Central Asia. In this context, we have a significant interest is the work O.A. Sukhareva [25; 96], who deals with the history of the craft industry in Bukhara chronological framework of our study. Based on extensive field data versatile author covers the activities of the Bukhara craftsmen disclose the value of each separate branch of the craft.

The largest specialist in the history of pottery production in Central Asia E.M. Peshchereva [26; 52] in his monograph explores the different types of pottery, technology and production technology, reveals the specifics of the craft in different regions, cities, describes the organization and the social structure of the pottery industry, the living conditions of the potters, social relations, and others. This work is a synthesis study of pottery production.

Research the history of the industry dedicated to the work of medieval towns R.G. Mukminova [27]. The author, based on a detailed study of the written sources, gives a detailed analysis of the state of feudal crafts. Especially coverage received weaving and a number of other types of crafts in the cities of Bukhara and Samarkand in XVI century. Our interest was the study of the author of the guild organization of medieval craftsmen, preserved in general terms until the XX century.

Valuable data on a subject of our research are provided in I.M. Dzhabbarov's article [28], published in the collection «Occupations and Life of the People of Central Asia». On the basis of the big field material collected by the author in operating time in the Khorezm expedition in 1952 and 1953 it gives a broad overview of the historical and ethnographic handicrafts Southern Khorezm late XIX and early XX century. The paper analyzes the state of craft production in the region under study, considered the social relations, rituals and customs of Khorezm craftsmen. The article repeatedly states that many of the techniques of craft production, tools of artisans working, shape products, the organization of labor, production traditions are typical for other areas of Turkestan. In this regard, the I.M. Dzhabbarov we were able to gather interesting information related to the subject of our research.

Research of jewelry art of the Kazakhs and other peoples of Turkestan, in the period under discussion, devoted to work of V.V. Vostrov, Sh.Tohtabaeva, L.A. Chvyr, N. Sycheva, N. Azizova, M.A. Bikzhanova, et al.

Researches of ethnographers are valuable the fact that they help to use practically national traditions in some crafts, such as weaving, potter's production, etc. which production till today is in a certain demand.

Thus, about domestic production a significant amount of works is written. But most often they are devoted or to separate types of craft, or production of handicraftsmen is considered from ethnographic positions. Still there is no generalizing work considering in a complex handicraft work of the Southern Kazakhstan as branches of small-scale production of local population. It also is the main objective of this research.

The analysis of the references lighting history of domestic production in the second half of XIX – early XX centuries, allows to draw a conclusion that the question interesting us was not a subject of a special research. The fractional information provided in a number of works does not give the complete picture reflecting a craft role in social economic development of the Southern area which, apparently from materials of our research, was one of the centers of craft handicraft work, largest in Kazakhstan.

References

1. Kaufman, A.A. (1905). Pereselenie i kolonizatsiіa [Resettlement and colonization]. Saint Petersburg:  Obshchestvennaia Polza [in Russian].
2. Palen, K.K. (1910). Pereselencheskoe delo v Turkestane [Resettlement in Turkestan]. Otchet po revizii Turkestanskoho kraia — Report on the revision of the Turkestan Territory. Saint Petersburg: Senatskaia tipohrafiia [in Russian].
3. Gavrilov, N.A. (1911). Pereselencheskoe delo v Turkestanskom krae (oblasti Syr-Darinskaia, Samarkandskaia i Ferhanskaia) [Resettlement in the Turkestan region (the Syr-Darya, Samarkand and Ferghana regions)]. Otchet o sluzhebnoi poezdke chinovnika osobykh poruchenii pri Pereselencheskom upravlenii — Report on the official visit of the official of special assignments at the Migration Department]. Saint Petersburg: Senatskaia tipohrafiia [in Russian]. 
4. Krivoshein, A.V. (1912). Zapiski hlavnoupravliaiushcheho zemleustroistvom i zemledeliem o proezde v Turkestanskii krai [Notes by the chief executive of the land management and agriculture on the journey to the Turkestan region]. Poltava: Elektricheskaia tipo-litohrafiia I.L. Frishberga [in Russian].
5. Kaufman, A.A. (1905). Pereselenie i kolonizatsiia [Resettlement and Colonization]. Saint Petersburg: Obshchestvennaia Polza [in Russian].
6. Yamzin, I.L., & Voshinin, V.P. (1926). Uchenie o kolonizatsii i pereseleniiakh [Тhe doctrine of colonization and resettlement]. Saint Petersburg: Bibliotechnyi fond [in Russian].
7. Galuzo, P.G. (1926). Vooruzhenie russkikh pereselentsev v Sredneі Azii (istoricheskii ocherk) [Arms of Russian settlers in Central Asia (Historical essay)]. Tashkent: Hos. Izd. UzSSR [in Russian].
8. Galuzo, P.G. (1935). Turkestan — koloniia (Ocherkі istorii kolonialnoi politiki russkoho tsarizma v Srednei Azii) [Tashkent Turkestan is a Colony (Essay on the history of the colonial policy of Russian tsarism in Central Asia)]. Tashkent: Hos. izd. UzSSR [in Russian].
9. Galuzo, P.G. (1965). Ahrarnye otnosheniia na yuhe Kazakhstana v 1867–1914 hh. [The Agrarian relations in the south of Kazakhstan in 1867–1914]. Alma-Ata: Nauka [in Russian].
10. Safarov, G.I. (1931). Problemy natsionalno-kolonialnoi revoliutsii [Problems of the national-colonial revolution]. Moscow- Leningrad: Hos. sotsialno-ekonomicheskoe izd-vo [in Russian].
11. Sharova, P. (1940). Pereselencheskaia politika v Srednei Azii v 1906–1917 hh. [Resettlement policy in Central Asia in 1906– 1917]. Istorik-marksist — Historian-Marxist, 6, 29–38 [in Russian].
12. Masalsky, V.I. (1913). Polnoe heohraficheskoe opisanie nasheho Otechestva. Nastolnaia i dorozhnaia kniha [Russia. Full geographical description of our Motherland. Table and road book]. V.P. Semenov-Tyan-Shanskiy (Ed.). Saint Peters- burg. A.F. Devrien, 1899–1913. Turkestan Territory. (Vols. 1–19; Vol. 1). Sankt-Petersburg [in Russian].
13. Rozvadovsky, V.K. (1916). Opyt issledovaniia honcharnoho i nekotorykh druhikh kustarnykh promyslov v Turkestanskom krae [Experience in the study of pottery and some other handicrafts in the Turkestan region]. Turkestanskoe selskoe khoziaistvo — Turkestan agriculture, 7, 710 [in Russian].
14. Pashino, P.I. (1868). Turkestanskii krai v 1866 h. [The Turkestan region in 1866]. Putevye zametki — Travel notes. Saint Pe- tersburg: Tiblen i K [in Russian].
15. Lunin, V.  (Eds.).  (1974).  Istoriia  obshchestvennykh  nauk  v  Uzbekistane  [History  of  social  sciences  in Uzbekistan] Bibliohraficheskie ocherki — Bibliographic sketches. Tashkent: Fan [in Russian].
16. Geier, I. (1903). Kustarnye promysly v Tashkente [Handicraft industries in Tashkent]. Tashkent: Fan [in Russian].
17. Petrovsky, N.F. (1874). Shelkovodstvo i shelkomotanie v Srednei Azii [Sericulture and silkworming in Central Asia]. Saint Petersburg: Litotipohr. V. Gratsianskoho [in Russian].
18. Skvortsov, A. (1925). Kustarnye promysly v sredneaziatskikh respublikakh v proshlom i nastoiashchem [Collection of materials for the statistics  of the Syr-Darya region]. Narodnoe khoziaystvo Srednei Azii — Handicraft industries, 10–11, 10–13     [in Russian].
19. Balkov, V. (1927). Kustarno-remeslennaia promyshlennost Srednei Azii [Handicraft industry of Central Asia]. Tashkent: SAHU [in Russian].
20. Masanov, E.A. (1958). Iz istorii remesla kazakhov (Vtoraia polovina XIX – nachalo XX v.) [From the history of the craft of Kazakhs (Second half of XIX – beginning of XX century)]. Sovetskaia etnohrafiia — Soviet Ethnography, 5, 148–149 [in Russian].
21. Mukanov, M.S. (1979) Kazakhskie domashnie khudozhestvennye remesla [Kazakh domestic art crafts]. Alma-Ata: Kazakhstan [in Russian].
22. Dzhanibekov, D. (1982). Kultura kazakhskoho remesla [Culture of the Kazakh craft]. Alma-Ata [in Russian].
23. Moshkova, V.G. (1970). Kovry narodov Srednei Azii kontsa XIX– nachala XX vv. [Carpets of the peoples of Central Asia late XIX – early XX centuries]. Tashkent: Fan [in Russian].
24. Zaorskaya, V.V., Alexander, K.A. (1915). Promyshlennye zavedeniia Turkestanskoho kraia [Industrial establishments of Turkestan]. Petrograd: Ekaterin. tip. [in Russian].
25. Sukhareva, O.A. (1962). Pozdnefeodalnyi horod Bukhara v kontse XIX – nachale XX vv. Remeslennaia promyshlennost [The late feudal city of Bukhara in the late XIX – early XX centuries. Handicraft industry]. Tashkent: AN UzSSR, Tashkent:          AN
26. Peschereva, E. (1959). Honcharnoe proizvodstvo Srednei Azii [Pottery production of Central Asia]. Trudy Instituta etnografii im. N.N. Miklukho-Maklaia AN SSSR. Nov. ser. T.10. — Proceedings of the Institute of Ethnography. N.N. Miklouho-Maclay Acade- my of Sciences of the USSR. New Ser. TH. Moscow-Leningrad. [in Russian].
27. Mukminova, R.G. (1976). Ocherki po istorii remesla v Samarkande i Bukhare v XVI veke [Essays on the history of crafts in Samarkand and Bukhara in the 16th century]. Tashkent: Fan [in Russian].
28. Jabbarov, I.M. (1971) Remeslo uzbekov Yuzhnoho Khorezma v kontse XIX – nachale XX vv. Istoriko-etnohraficheskii ocherk [Craft of Uzbeks of Southern Khorezm at the end of XIX – beginning of XX centuries. Historical-ethnographic sketch]. Zaniatiia i byt narodov Srednei Azii — Employment and a life of the people of Central Asia. Leningrad: Nauka [in Russian].