This article discusses the mechanism of formation, features of the legal and fiscal status of some categories of land milka/mulka in the Khanate of Khiva in the XIX-early XX centuries. The article examines the question of the existence of unconditional private land ownership mulk-l khali in the Khiva Khanate during the period under study. The article covers the discussion of Khiva historiography about the lands "atai-mulk" and "yarlykli-mulk", issues of legal and fiscal status of these forms of land ownership. The idea of "yarlykli-mulk" lands, formed by Russian authors at the beginning of the XX century and which had a noticeable impact on the discourse on land ownership forms in Khorezm, was largely the result of erroneous interpretation of information documents, mixing of various legal and fiscal practices (for example, land ownership rights and granting tax privileges) and, probably,the use of the term "yarlykli-mulk". terminological negligence.

Keywords: Khorezm, Khiva Khanate, land ownership, mulk, tax registers, tax privileges.

The issues of land ownership and the ways of its evolution in the Central Asian khanates remain complex and controversial to this day. Among the main factors that determine the complexity of their study, the following can be distinguished::

- the relative diversity of forms and ways of evolution of land ownership in different parts of the region, due to the specifics of socio-economic processes, different dynamics of central government participation in the distribution of land and water resources, the peculiarities of existing traditions of legal concepts and legal practices, etc.;

- not fully adequate reflection in the Muslim act materials of existing legal practices of land ownership and their evolution, as well as differences between theory and practice;

- noticeable, in some cases dominant, influence of discourses on the issues of theory and practice of land ownership formed by the Russian administration in the region on subsequent research and interpretation.

A researcher who studies land ownership and agrarian relations in the Khanate of Khiva in the 19th and early 20th centuries faces similar problems. Despite the publication in the pre-revolutionary and Soviet periods of a number of works devoted to these issues [Shkapsky, 1900; Ivanov, 1937 (1); Ivanov, 1940 (2); Sazonova, 1946; Yuldoshev, 1959; Koschchanov, 1966], the study of land relations in Khorezm, as shown by Yu. Bregel in 1972, is "only in the initial stage" [Bregel, 1972, p. 100]. In his opinion, the main drawbacks of the published works on land relations by that time are far from complete involvement of the state in the development of land relations.

available sources, inconsistency of information from local texts and documents of the Russian administration, as well as often erroneous interpretation of the data contained in them by researchers and, as a result, the inconsistency of the conclusions made, as exemplified by the works of M. Yu.Yuldashev [Bregel, 1972, p. 100].

Four decades after the publication of this publication, Yu. It is necessary to state that the problems of land ownership in Khorezm continue to remain on the periphery of research in both Uzbek and world historiography1. Moreover, the lack of any obvious progress in this direction contributes to the revival of untenable research positions and paradigms about the nature of Khiva land ownership in a number of modern works on the history of Khorezm.

This article will address a number of issues related to the mechanism of formation, features of the legal and fiscal status of certain categories of land milka/mulka in the Khanate of Khiva in the XIX-early XX centuries. The issue of unconditional private land ownership mulk-i khāliṣ ^{2 will be investigated}. Based on the analysis of the content of the Khan's decrees (yārlīq/yārlīg) on the sale of state land (mamlaka-yi pādšāhī) to the private ownership of individuals and the identification of such land in further civil circulation and in fiscal registers, I will try to find out whether the land recorded in these labels actually became tax-exempt property. Consideration of this range of issues will help to understand the ways and forms of land plot evolution in Khorezm.

MULK - IĀāliṢ AND THE FORMATION OF UNCONDITIONAL LAND OWNERSHIP IN KHOREZM

The question of the existence of private land ownership in the Khiva Khanate, exempt from taxes and duties, is one of the debatable problems of Khiva land ownership. The existing research literature demonstrates a variety of opinions on this issue, which can be grouped into two groups.

The former, recognizing the widespread use of unconditional land ownership in the Bukhara Khanate (in the form of milk-i khāliṣ and milk-i ḥurr-i khāliṣ), questioned the existence of such land ownership in Khorezm (Shkapsky, 1900, p.112-113; Ivanov, 1937, p. 42; Koschchanov, 1966, p. 110). One of the earliest researchers of Khiva land ownership, O. Shkapsky, admitted that the system of progressive taxation of simple hereditary mulks in Khiva, called atai-mulks, actually allowed owners of large plots of land to pay very small amounts as a tax, which in reality was "nothing more than a complete whitewash from tax payments" [Shkapsky, 1900, p. 113]. At the same time, he was forced to admit that "the lands of Atai-mulk do not have a clear tax whitewash, since the Khiva Khanate does not practice such a system" (Shkapsky, 1900, p.113).

More categorical on this issue is the opinion of A. Koschchanov, who noted that "in the Khiva Khanate there was no such form of mulk lands as milki-hurri-khalis, which existed in the Bukhara Khanate." In his opinion, "Mulko-

¹ Rare exceptions include dissertation research and a number of journal publications by A. Shaikhova [Shaikhova, 1986; Shaikhova, 1988; Shaikhova, 1989].

^{Milk-i khāliṣ (milk-i ḥurr-i khāliṣ, milk-i ḥurr, milk-i muṭlaq)} is a local term denoting a separate category of land ownership in the Central Asian khanates. According to most researchers, granting such a status to a land plot meant that the state refused any fiscal and legal obligations in favor of the owner.

All lands in the khanate were divided into atai mulk and yarlykli mulk. ...However, they (yarlykli mulk. - U. A.) still cannot be called absolutely private owners... since they were charged rent in favor of the state "[Koshchanov, 1966, p. 110-111].

The opinion of the famous discoverer of the "Archive of Khiva Khans" P. P. Ivanov in this respect is much less unambiguous. Assuming that the existence of the institution of unconditional private land ownership for Khiva is "not typical at all" [Ivanov, 1937, p. 42], he analyzed the information of the court historiographer Kungradov-Agakha and came to the conclusion that in Khiva there were personal lands of the khans of Khiva, designated in narratives by the term mulk-i khāliṣ, which had a land character and located in the localities of Gandumkan, Yangi-aryk, Anbar-khan, etc. [Ivanov, 1937, p. 51].

At the same time, all these researchers allowed the presence in the khanate of lands belonging to representatives of privileged classes, the owners of which were exempted (partially or completely) by special labels from paying taxes and performing certain types of labor duties.

The second group of authors is Yu. Bregel and A. Shaikhova suggested that the practice of selling land plots from state-owned land plots (mamlaka-yi pādšāhi) to the personal property of individuals (mulk-i khāliṣ), which was widespread in the Khiva Khanate of the XIX century, meant that such land was transferred to the category of tax-exempt lands (Bregel, 1969, p. 78; Bregel, 1969, p. 78)., 2007, p. 4; Shaikhova, 1989, p. 73-74].

A. Shaikhova, in one of her publications on this issue, based on the analysis of a number of labels about the sale of state lands by the supreme ruler (mamlaka-yi pādšāhi) to the personal property (mulk-i khāliṣ) of individuals, as well as vasika documents recording the subsequent purchase of these lands back into the khan's ownership, puts forward the position that such transactions ³ were carried out by khans to increase their personal land holdings and authorized the transfer of state lands to unconditional private ownership [Shaikhova, 1988, p. 47]. In her subsequent work, developing this thesis, she noted that such a procedure could be used not only for the subsequent purchase of land by the khan, but also for its actual consolidation as unconditional property for those persons to whom it was granted [Shaikhova, 1989, pp. 73-74].

This assumption was confirmed in one of Yu's later works. Bregel, dedicated to the publication of various types of assembly materials of the Khiva Khanate. In particular, when describing the structure of labels on the sale of state-owned land (mamlaka-yi pādšāht) to the private ownership of individuals, the author expresses the opinion that such plots became the unconditional private property (mulk-i khāliṣ) of the new owner and retained such status in further transactions [Bregel, 2007, p.4].

Thus, A. Shaikhova and Y. Bregel considered the existing practice of granting land plots by the supreme ruler from state ownership (mamlaka-yi pādšāhi) to private ownership (mulk-i khāliṣ) as the main mechanism for the formation of unconditional private property. We have at our disposal about 70 labels from the collections of the Central State Archive of the Republic of Uzbekistan (CGA RUz.)⁴ recording such transactions and chronologically covering the period from the end of the XVIII to the beginning of the XX century.⁵. Let's take a closer look at these materials.

³ The Austrian researcher Florian Schwarz, who followed similar procedures in Bukhara, referred to them as "bay-back transactions" (Schwarz, 2010, p. 36).

⁴ Chronological division of documents of this collection is presented as follows: 1-label of Abulgazi Khan (1790); 2-Muhammad Rahim Khan I (1806-1825); 3-Alla-Kuli Khan (1825-1842); 5-Rahim-Kuli Khan (1842-1845); 10-Muhammad Amin-Khan (1845-1855); 3 - Sayyid Muhammad Khan (1856-1864); 38 - Muhammad Rahim Khan II (1864 - 1910).

⁵ Texts and facsimiles of 10 labels of the collection were published by Yu. Bregel (2007). In addition to the collection of the Central State Administration of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Such documents are kept in the collections of the Ichan-kala State Museum-Reserve in Khiva. Descriptions and facsimiles of four of them were published by E. Karimov (Karimov, 2007). Specific

Almost all labels record the sale of state-owned land (mamlaka-yi pādšāhī, mamlaka-i pādšāhīġa ta'alluq tāpgan yirdīn or mamlaka-i pādšāhīġa muḍaf wa muta 'alliq būlġān yirdīn) to private individuals (mulk-i khalis) on their own behalf (in most cases, their close associates and friends). high-ranking dignitaries. The documents note that from the moment of publication of the label, the transferred land becomes the personal property of its recipient, after his death in the same status-his heirs, in case of its sale-the same property of its new owner.

The external form and structural design of such documents are similar to the structure and form of other types of labels used in the Khanate (for example, labels on granting tax immunity, on appointment to a position). This, in particular, is indicated by the elements and formulas found in all such documents that are characteristic of labels ⁶. However, there are a number of formulas: "sātduhc" ("sold"), "barča ḥuḳūḳ wa marāfiḳ bila" ("with all rights and benefits"), "wa' qabulīhī yyyahu " ("with the consent and approval of the opposing party"), as well as mention of the exact boundaries of the site on four sides (khudūd) and the application of the seal of kaziya, which were widely used in the legal practice of the Khanate in the registration of private acts of purchase and sale of property (watīqa-yi bātt batāi), primarily reflected the sale procedure ⁷.

This combination, on the one hand, of the structure and elements of chartered certificates, and on the other hand, of formulas for the legal practice of issuing private acts of sale, was due to the political and socio - economic background of the era in which this legal practice was formed. The first khans of the Kungrad dynasty, who came to power at the beginning of the XIX century, in the absence of more or less stable institutions and mechanisms for land grants, ⁸ as well as the need to redistribute the land resources concentrated in their hands (both confiscated from representatives of opposition groups and put into circulation due to increased irrigation activities) to form a new layer of loyal the land aristocracy had to build a new system of land grants almost from scratch, create new practices that legitimize such transactions. On the one hand, this procedure could not be registered only as an act of purchase and sale, since according to the legal tradition that existed in the region, state lands could not be assigned to anyone's property through purchase and sale, but could only be awarded by the khan to individuals for merits in the public and state fields.⁹ Therefore, such documents were structurally designed as grant labels. On the other hand, the presence of sales elements was necessary for

A number of such documents are in the collections of the al-Beruni Institute of Oriental Studies in Tashkent; a description of one of them was published in the "Catalog of Central Asian Charters" [Catalog of Charters, 2007].

⁶ These consisted in the traditional formula used in labels "[name and title of Khan] ...s? z? miz "(lit.: "our word"), as well as in securing the document with the khan's personal seal. In addition, the narration itself in the document is carried out in the first person, i.e. on behalf of the khan himself [Bregel, 2007, p. 2,4].

⁷ According to Yu. Apart from the descriptions of property boundaries, the labels in question did not contain any other formulas typical of watīqa [Bregel, 2007, p. 5]. However, they did not contain a number of key legal formulas, in particular,the legal formula for recognizing "iqrār-i mu'tabar-i šar'e identification (ta'rif) of a person who has been identified as a watīqa". the actual first-person confession formulas (man muqirr furuljtam ba-bay' - i bātt batāt), the legality of the action (nafīd-i lāzim-i shar'T) , the names of witnesses (uuḍ ḍār-i maglis), etc.

⁸ This can be confirmed by the fact that the researchers have almost no official documents at their disposal that record land grants of the central government in the pre-Leningrad period.

⁹ As noted by P. P. Ivanov, "an indispensable condition for the transition of ordinary mulch to the category of "purified" ("obelny") mulks was a special decree of the supreme power, issued in the form of a special salary certificate issued in the name of the owner of the mulch" [Ivanov, 1954, p.45].

making this transaction more legitimate and irreversible, since sales transactions were considered irreversible.

The presence in all such documents of the statement that the land is being sold to private ownership "for the maintenance of nukers "(az barā-yi mawāğib-i nawkar, nawkar mawāğibī učūn; mawāğib-i nawkariya wa waẓāyif-i ' askarlya učūn) was also used to give the transaction additional legitimacy. The institute of nukers - military squads-became more widespread in the Khiva Khanate compared to other Central Asian possessions. In the absence of a regular army, the Khiva khans were forced to assign the maintenance of a certain number of Nuker soldiers to the highest dignitaries and nobles of the khanate.¹⁰ In terms of taxation, nukers had certain benefits, in particular, they were exempt from paying land tax - salgut ¹¹ and performing labor duties related to the repair and cleaning of the irrigation system. They were allocated land from the state fund, and during or on the eve of military operations, they were paid monetary rewards. The maintenance of nukers was considered an important part of the khanate's internal policy related to maintaining its defense capability. Hence, the mention of "keeping Nukers" in the labels could be of great importance, since it probably served as a formal reason for the transfer of state land to private ownership by the Khan.

What was the legal and taxable status of the land transferred by means of such labels in mulk-i khalis'? From the context of labels, it is almost impossible to see whether such transactions meant granting land property a completely different legal status of ownership (distinguishing it from other types of labels), as well as any fiscal privileges. The documents state only the fact of the transfer of land from mamlaka-yi pādsāhī to the category of mulk-i khālis, inherited and freely alienated ¹². This formulation does not give sufficient grounds to classify lands that have received the status of mulk-i khālis in the course of such transactions as whitewashed property, i.e. exempt from paying any taxes and duties.

It is very difficult to trace the involvement and participation of these lands in further transactions (purchase and sale, mortgage, inheritance, etc.). In private legal acts (wathika), through which various civil transactions between individuals were recorded, the term mulk-i khālis was used as a characteristic and/or fiscal status of lands. extremely rare ¹³. In any case, from the vast number of documents available to us,

¹⁰ Judging by the materials of tax registers (daftars) Almost all the dignitaries of the Khanate of Khiva had their own nukers [Ivanov, 1940, p. 156-159, Central State Administration of the Republic of Uzbekistan, f. I-125, on. 2, d. 385].

^{Solgut (sālġūt) -11} the main state land tax-rent from privately owned land. It was collected mainly in cash and formed the main article of tax revenues of the state treasury [Catalog of Khiva Kaziy documents, 2001, p. 660].

¹² This part of the document securing the sold plot of land in the ownership of the mulk - i kholis of the recipient of the label, while retaining this status for the recipient's heirs in subsequent transactions, is presented with possible minor variations as follows: "Ī rnd ī b ū y ā rlig-i' ā liy ma ḍ m ū ni ġ a ā g a h b u l ġāč sh u l ma'l u m al-khud u d yirn u mash a r al-ayhun u ng mulk-i kh a li ṣī b u I u b ahd u wa a farida d a khil wa maz a him b u lm a s u nlar wa ū z ī d ī n s ū ngra farzand wa w ā rithlar ī n ī ng mulk ī b ū ls ū n". The label from 1793 also says: "And if they wish, if necessary, they can sell [the land] and in this case let [it] also become the property (mulk-i khāliṣ) of its buyer" [CGA RUz., f. I-125, op. 2, d. 6, l. 1; Bregel, 2007, p. 30-31].

¹³ Although a number of land sales documents (walhiḳa-yi batāt) state that the land will be sold "out of its cleared property" (uzūmnīng khāli khāliṣ mulkimdīn) [Ichan-Kala, KP 6535-48]. However, I have not been able to determine whether this phrase was a formal reference to the "purity and indisputability" of the property being sold, or whether it described the legal or fiscal status of the property being sold, or whether, following the example of numerous similar formulas found in various Waqfis, such as "khāliṣ mulk wa pākīza mālīmdīn" or "khāliṣ amwāl wa āṭīb amlākīmdīn", it only confirmed P. P. Ivanov, referring to Bukhara, noted that since "cleared mulks are mentioned in the literature and in documents quite rarely, it can be assumed that the fund of the category of these lands was generally small" (Ivanov, 1952, p. 45).].

the use of the term mulk-i khāliṣ to denote land under a transaction was found only in one of the forms in the collection of samples of Kazian documents (Mağmū ' a-yi wathāiḳ) from the funds of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Uzbekistan, compiled in the second half of the XIX century in the Khiva Khanate, in the city of Khazarasp [IVAN RUz., N 7799].

Information from the tax registers (daftar) of the Khan's Chancellery in the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries provides relatively more clarity in covering these issues. Thus, on the title page of the daftar compiled in 1325/1907 [CGA RUz., f. I-125, op. 2, d. 491] there is the name "Notebook from 1325 on collecting payment for the survey of new descendants of yarlykdars, as well as registration of label lands" ¹⁴. In turn, the daftar itself is divided into 2 types of registers, which differ both in appearance (paper, handwriting) and the nature of the information contained in them. ¹⁵ The first register is titled as follows: "Notebook dated 1325 on the 23rd day of the month of Shaval for registering new descendants of Yarlyqdars and their lands and issuing labels" ¹⁶.

This register contains lists of yarlyqdars (yārlīqdār) - descendants of various generational groups and families (awlād) (usually representatives of the families of sheikhs, khojas, ishan, etc.). At the beginning of each list, the name of the family is given by the name of its founder. Then there are the names of all persons who are representatives of this group, both those who received labels before and those who received labels again. At the end of the lists, the total number of members of the artist's family and the gross amount of fees charged to them are summed up in the form of yārlīqāna (payment for the issuance of a new or re-approval of the previous label) and kātībāna dīwān pulī (payment for clerical services).

So, for example, when listing the list of yarlyqdar descendants of Hazrati Shaikh Chin Bab, the names of 65 persons belonging to this family are given: "There are 65 people in total. Of these, 49 [people] were removed from the former yarlykdar as yarlykan and katiban diwan puli but 4 tilla and 2 tangi, [a total of] 206 tilla 7 tanga. With 16 [people] - new yarlykdars [taken] yarlykan divan bullets of 8 tilla and 4 tanga, [and a total of] 135 tilla 1 tanga " ¹⁷.

Thus, according to this register, in most cases, each former jarliqdar was charged a fee of 4 tilla (tillā) for issuing a new or re-approving the previous label (yārlīqāna) and 2 tanga (tanga) for clerical services (kātībāna dīwān pulī). In turn, each newly labeled tag and katiban divan bullet was charged double the amount, i.e. 8 tilla and 4 tang, respectively.

In other cases, when summing up the results, the amount of fees charged varies slightly. Thus, the list of yarlyqdar descendants of Ghazanfar Khwaj, who lived in the community of the Nadr Diwan Mosque, contains the names of 52 persons belonging to this family: "There are 52 people in total. Of these, 42 people of the former yarlykdars were retained as yarlykan [each] for 33 tangas, [a total of] 154 tilla and as katiban of the divan puli for 1 manat [a total of] 23 tilla 3 tangas. From 10 new yarlykdars, it is deducted [from each] as a yarlykan no 66 tanga [total] 73 tilla and 3 tanga, and as a katiban 2 bullets of 10 tanga [total] 11 tilla and 1 tanga. Total withheld 260 tilla 7 tanga " ¹⁸.

¹⁴ 1325 tāzadīn yārlīqdārlārnīg awlādī kurulub wa yārlīq yir biltb tanga ālingān daftarī.

¹⁵ According to the archive pagination, the first register is located at l. 2 vol. 153, while the second l. 154 - 168 vol.

¹⁶ 1325 nčī yilī 23 nčī šawālda yārliqdārlarnīng tāza awlādī daftar bulub yirlāri yāzīlīb yārlīq birīlgān daftar.

¹⁷ Ğam'ī āltmīš bīš nafar kīšī. Sūndīn qirq tuqqūz kuhna yārlīqdār dīn yārlīqāna wa kātībāna dīwān pulī ūčūn turt ṭillā īkkī tanga dīn īkkī yuz āltī ṭillā yittī tanga. Un altī tazasīdan yarliqana wa dīwan pull sakkīz ṭillā tūrt tangadīn bīr yūz dagī utūz bīš ṭillā bīr tanga alīndī [CGA RUz, f. I-125, on. 2, d. 491, l. 28 vol. -29 vol.].

¹⁸ Ğam'ī 52 nafar. Sūndīn qirq īkkī nafar kīshī yārlīqāna ūčūn utflz ūc tangadīn bīr yūz īllīk tūrt ṭillā. Kātibāna dīwān pulī bīr manātdīn yigirma ūč ṭillā ūč tanga. Ūn tāza nafar kīšīga yarliqana ucun yitmīš ūč ṭillā ūč tanga, dīwan pulī katībana ūn tangadīn ūn bīr ṭillā bīr tanga. Uam'i ökkī yuz āltmīš bir ṭillā yittī tanga ālīndī [Central State Administration of the Republic of Uzbekistan, f. I-125, on. 2, d. 491, l. 7-8].

As you can see, despite some differences in the amount of payment, the principle of taxation remains: those who have received a new label are charged twice as much as the previous owners of labels.

Most likely, the yarliqdars mentioned in this register were persons who received special tarkhan labels (tarkhān) from the supreme authority, freeing their owner (or owners) from the payment of all taxes and duties. This hypothesis is supported, in particular, by the fact that, as noted above, a significant number of the lists and individuals represented in this register were representatives of generational groups - Sayyids, Ishan, Khojas, sheikhs, as well as descendants of various "saints". American researcher W. Wood, who published a collection of such labels, noted that "in Khorezm, at least after the 16th century, the status of tarkhan was mainly complained to religious persons, such as prominent Sufis or representatives of holy families (i.e., Khojas, Sayyids, etc.)" (Wood, 2005, p. 30).

As is known, the tax privileges granted by these labels were not formally permanent and required re-approval after a certain period of time or when the reigning monarch changed.¹⁹ In almost all lists of labels, there are special marks above individual names indicating the amount of land owned by one or another member of the family. In all lists, above the names of individuals, there are indications of " new " (tāza), indicating that this person was the new recipient of the label. The re-approval of the old or receipt of new labels was accompanied by the payment of the tag and katiban specified in the document for the puli²⁰.

Tarkhany labels granted tax privileges not to the property itself, but only to its owner. In fact, it was about granting yarlykdar the right to collect in its favor that part of taxes on land property (and other property) that was previously deducted in favor of the state treasury. This did not at all mean changing the legal status of the property, much less preserving any privileges for further transactions. That is why the lands belonging to the owners of tarkhan labels - yarlyqdars, could not under any circumstances be considered whitewashed and had nothing to do with the lands of mulk-i Khali.

The second register found in this case has the form of a separate notebook of a smaller format, nested in the first register [CGA RUz., f. I-125, op. 2, d. 491, l. 154-179]. The differences between these registries are observed in the way records are compiled. In the second notebook, the names of the owners of labeled land (yārlīqlī yirī)²¹, the size of these lands is indicated, and their exact boundaries are given. At the same time, unlike the first register, there is absolutely no indication of payments due from these lands.

Moreover, later on, when comparing the names and boundaries of the land plots indicated in this register with the content of the Khiva khans ' labels on the sale of land in mulk-i khāliṣ, it turned out that most of the persons indicated in this list received the land described here under the specified labels. So, the register provides descriptions of the label lands of Rahman Bergen Yasaulbashi in 100 tanaps in Kunya-Urgench:

"The label lands (yā rl ī ql ī yir ī) of Rahman Bergen Yasaulbashi in Kuhna Urgench are 100 tanaps in size. [Border] on the east with its mulk [lands] issued from the state (mamlaka-yi pādšāhī), on the north - with the Kara Khoja Canal (yāf), on the west - with the lands of,

¹⁹ See, for example, the collection of tarkhan labels issued to the descendants of Nadr Muhammad Shaykh, who were replaced by the rulers of Khorezm during the XVIII century [Wood, 2005]. See also: [Ichan-Kala, rcp. N KP 1381].

²⁰ The Soviet researcher A. Sadykov gives specific amounts of income of the Khan's treasury from the issuance of such labels, which amounted to 13,500 rubles in the XIX century. [Sadykov, 1972, p. 13].

²¹ In some cases, the indication that the described lands are labeled (yārlīqIī yirī) is given in the text itself, sometimes in the form of a postscript to the list.

issued from the state-owned (mamlaka-yi pādsāhī) Ukuz Khalifa, and from the south - with a canal (uāf)" [CGA RUz., f. I-125, op. 2, d. 491, l. 163].

According to the label of the Khivan ruler Sayyid Muhammad Khan from 1292/1875 G., he sold (sātduk) 100 tanapol of land in Kunya-Urgench from part of the state (mamlaka-yi pādšāhī) Rahman the Bergen Lesauvage in personal property (mulk-i khāliṣ) 100 Tilla for the content of nukers (mawāğib-i nawkariya wa wadhāīf-i 'askariya ūčūп). The designations of the boundaries of the sold land plot given below in the label completely coincide with those indicated in the register [CGA RUz., f. I-125, op. 1, d. 559, l. 13].

Another entry in the register concerning the label lands of the mentioned Rahman Bergen: "Another plot of label land (yārlīqlī yirī;) Rahman of Bergen Yasaulbashi in Kunya Urgench in 300 tanap. [Eranichit] from the north with the [property] of the Muhammadhan Hajj and part of the road along which the herd grazes (fāda yulī), from the north from beginning to end with the road, from the west with the public canal, and from the south with the [property] of the recipient himself " [CGA RUz., f. I-125, op. 2, d. 491, l. 163].

The descriptions of this plot are identical to the parameters of the plot sold by Khan Sayyid Muhammad to the same Rahman Bergan Yasaulbashi on the basis of a label dated 1301/1881 [CGA RUz., f. I-125, op. 1, d. 559, l. 20]. Such a comparison makes it possible to find out that the 200 tanaps of yarlych lands mentioned in the register in the Kandum-kala area and 50 tanaps in Kunya-Urgench, which belonged to Rakhmatulla Yasaulbashi [TsGA RUz., f. I-125, op. 2, d. 491, l. 157], were obtained by the last Khan's labels from 1847. (50 tan.) [TsGA RUz., f. I-125, op. 1, d. 16, l. 2] and 1882 (3000 tan.) [TsGA RUz., f. I-125, op. 1, d.559, l. 18].

Thus, the plots described in the second register were lands granted/sold by khans of Khiva under special labels from the state land fund (mamlaka-yi pādšāhī) to private ownership (mulk-i khālis). However, in fiscal and clerical documents, as you can see, these lands appear under the name yārlīqlī yirī. The above data allow us to conclude that the lands granted/sold by the supreme ruler to various persons under labels in Khorezm in the XIX century were really exempt from taxes and payment of duties, as the researchers assumed. This conclusion is based on the fact that, unlike the first daftar of jarliqdars, the second register of jarliqdars does not contain a single reference to the need for the specified owners to pay a tax or any state fee.

Another confirmation of this assumption is the principle of creating descriptions in both registers. While the first list focuses on individuals (yārlīqdār) who are granted the privilege of tax immunity, the second list focuses on the description of the land plot (yārlīqlī yirī), its size and exact boundaries. This, in my opinion, is one of the fundamental differences between granting tax privileges and granting a whitewashed status to land. In the first case, the grant / privilege was not formally of a permanent nature and was granted to a person, not to his property, i.e. it did not imply the preservation of this status for the property in its further transactions. Therefore, in the first register, it was important to note the persons who have such privileges, and then the size of the land at their disposal. In cases where land was granted whitewashed status (mulk-i khāliṣ), such a grant was assigned to the property and retained for possible transactions in the future. That is why the second list focused more on describing the exact boundaries and dimensions of the land plot, rather than on the identity of their owner.

It is likely that the described practice of transferring land from State lands to tax-exempt private ownership was not widespread, as can be shown, for example, by the relatively limited list of persons listed in this daftar.

LANDS OF ATLI-MULK AND YARLYKLI-MULK

The question of the legal and fiscal status of mulk-i khāli земель lands in Khorezm in the research literature closely intersects with the problem of other categories of land ownership, called amau - mulk and yarlykli-mulk in the works of Russian authors of the late XIX-early XX centuries. The first references to these categories are found in the works of authors of the late XIX-early XX centuries, as well as in the correspondence of officials of the Russian administration in the region [Shkapsky, 1900, p. 93, 97-114; Girshfeld and Galkin, 1902, p. 35-37; TsGA RUz., f. I-2, op. 1, D. 291, L. 112]. In the future, the question of the nature and status of these categories of mulch was raised to a greater or lesser extent by A. Koschchanov, Yu. Bregel, N. Pogorelsky, and A. Shaikhova [Koschchanov, 1966, pp. 115-120; Pogorelsky, 1968, p. 28; Bregel, 1972, pp. 67, 72, 78; Shaikhova, 1989, pp. 80-82]. Returning to the discussion of this issue, my task is, firstly, to summarize the existing information about the fiscal and legal status of these lands, and secondly, to show that O. Shkapsky's erroneous interpretation of these labels contributed to the formation of an erroneous discourse about the nature of the yarlykli-mulk lands andmulk-i khāliṣ, which left a noticeable imprint on subsequent research in this direction.

According to the authors of the early 20th century, the amau-mulk lands (literally, "father's") were privately owned lands that were initially taxed and passed on to the current owners by inheritance. A Russian diplomatic official in Turkestan, A. Kalmykov, in his report "On the state of the Khiva Khanate" in 1910, stated in particular that "in most parts of Khiva there are so-called hereditary lands (atai-mulk), the owners of which, even after selling their land, are still obliged to pay a land tax to the state that is responsible for the development of the Khiva Khanate". continues to consider them official owners... " [CGA RUz., f. I-2, op. 1, d. 291, l. 112].

According to A. Koschchanov, the category of amau-mulks included lands in the more fertile and old-irrigated territories of the khanate that have existed since ancient times: Pitnyak, Khazarasp, Besh-Aryk, Khanka, Novy Urgench, Khiva, Shavat, Khazavat, etc., whose owners were called "atai mulkdars" (Koschchanov, 1966, p.113).

In terms of taxes, the owners of atai-mulks, according to these authors, were divided into three categories: the lowest - adna (adna), the middle - avsat (awsaṭ), and the highest - ala (a'la). Landowners of these categories paid 1, 2, and 3 full (or 2, 4, and 6 small)taxes, respectively tilla of the land tax-salgut (sālġūt) [Hirschfeld and Galkin, 1902, p. 35-36; TsGA RUz., f. I-2, op. 1, d. 291, l. 112]. At the same time, the payment of salgut was made depending not on the size of the land owned by a particular mulkdar, but on the category to which it was assigned: "The owners of atai-mulks pay salgut not in proportion to the amount of land owned by them, but in a courtyard, according to the category to which they belong" [Shkapsky, 1900, p. 108].

A. Kalmykov added that such a division into categories was hereditary in nature and "persists to this day (1910 - U. A.), regardless of how much land someone has at a given time. Belonging to one or another category is passed down from father to son, which is why the lands are called atai mulk " [TsGA RUz., f. I-2, op. 1, d. 291, l. 112]. According to O. Shkapsky, every 20 years a cadastre of such lands is made ," and atai-mulkdars are listed from one category to another, according to the change in their welfare." The last of these cadastres, according to his data, was conducted in 1886 [Shkapsky, 1900, p. 109].

The data from the tax notebooks (daftar) of the Khiva Khans ' archive can provide some clarity on this issue. Research by later authors (p. Ivanov, M. Yuldashev, Yu. Bregel, O. Dzhalilov) confirm the information of Russian authors regarding the fiscal gradation of owners of mulk lands (or atai-mulks)

They are divided into three specified categories with the corresponding amount of salgut paid, and also specify the criteria according to which mulkdar farms were assigned to a particular category. Thus, the lowest category (adna) included farms with up to 5 tanaps of land, the middle category (awsaṭ) - from 5 to 10 tanaps, and the highest category-over 10 tanaps (a'la); paying 1, 2 and 3 full (or 2, 4, 6 small) tilla salgut, respectively. Under such a system, tax books often indicated only the category to which each taxpayer belonged, and not the size of his land plot [Yuldashev, 1966, p. 63; Bretel, 1972, p. 67; Zhalilov, 1986, p.23].

This information is also confirmed by an explanatory note from the funds of the Central State Administration of the Republic of Uzbekistan, compiled, according to Yu. Bregel, in the 1870s by an unknown Khiva author [Bregel, 1972, p. 72]. The beginning of this note is as follows: "When collecting salgut from people who own money-bought mulks (zar kharid mulk yirlī kīšīlārdīn), divide them into the highest (a'la), middle (awsaṭ) and lower (adnā) categories, take from people who have a lot of land (yirī kūb kīšīdīn) - 3 full tilla (pukhta ṭ illā); from people who have less land (āzrāq yirlī kīšīdīn), 2 full tilla; finally, from people who have little land (āndīn ham yirī ez kīšīdīn), 1 full tilla. Every year, one person is taken from each of them to dig a canal (qazūčī) and together with them they break channels (yāf qāzdūrūrlār) or perform other state tasks (pād; šālīq khidhmatīn) [for] 12 days... Such orders and traditions have been established since ancient times (qadīmdīn qāyda wa rusum; šūldūr)" [TsGA RUz., f. I-125, on. 2, d. 458, l. 1].

As can be seen, this note generally repeats the information of Russian authors and the data of the Khiva tax registers on the division of atai-mulk holders into three categories with the payment of proportional tax. As for the performance of duties, according to this note and the information of the colonial authors, the owners of the lands of atai-mulk were required to exhibit one worker (qazučī) from each farm, regardless of its size.

Thus, it can be assumed that atai-mulks were hereditary private lands that were originally owned by the population even before the Kungrad dynasty came to power in Khorezm. During the activities of the first Kungrad rulers aimed at centralizing and regulating the distribution of land resources and streamlining the fiscal system, such lands were approved as simple / ordinary plots for their owners on the terms of the latter's fiscal duties, which consist in paying land tax on a progressive scale and providing one employee (qazučī) from each farm for annual payments. irrigation works.

O. Shkaisky, based on surveys of local residents, noted that "a hundred years ago... by order of the Khan, a kind of cadastre was made, which resulted in the above-mentioned division of the Atai-mulkdars according to their general welfare into three categories" [Shkapsky, 1900, pp. 108-109]. According to V. Girshfeld and A. Galkin, "with the consent of the khan, a new cadastre was then made for all these lands and they were subject to the specified income taxes from each yard" [Girshfeld, Galkin, 1902, p. 36]. A. Kalmykov supplemented this information: "before the reform, mullahs were gathered who explained to the people the usefulness of the planned measures. Khan of Events " [Central State Administration of the Republic of Uzbekistan, f. I-2, op. 1, d. 291, l. 112]. It is noteworthy that the reform of centralization and regulation of tax collections carried out by the first Kungrad rulers is also mentioned by the authors of the Khiva court chronicles of the XIX century - Munis and Agakhi22.

²² In particular, Firdavs al-iqbal reports that since the conquest of Genghis Khan, the "land of Khorezm" (Kwārazm diyārida) has had tyrannical customs, according to which various payments (wazā'if) and special duties (marsūmāt) on property (amvāl)were levied by the "wicked" oppressors-sultans and amirs citizens (fuqarā'va ra'āyā). At the same time, "everyone, using power, collected a tax (salut) from ordinary people in their favor and forced them to pay public duties (bīgār).

It is noteworthy that practically none of the local sources I have reviewed contain the phrase atai-mulk as an attestation of inherited private land. In particular, in the above-quoted note of a Khiva official, lands with similar hacking techniques are called " purchased mulk "(zar kharid mulk). It is interesting that the term atai-mulk is not used by any of the well-known Russian authors before the beginning of the XX century, who touched upon the issues of land ownership and land taxes in Khorezm, in particular A. Kun, who devoted a number of publications to taxation issues. At the same time, it is difficult to assume that such a formulation was exclusively an "invention" of Russian authors, which is confirmed by the characteristic local etymology. It is obvious that this term was based on the concept of "ancestral property", which was often found both in local usage and in various documents (ātalarimīzdanq(ālgan mir(āth mulklar), which may have been perceived by these authors as a legal and/or fiscal designation of this category of land.

The information given by Russian authors of the early 20th century about another category of land, yarlykli-mulk, is much more ambiguous and controversial, in particular as regards the ways of formation of such lands. On the one hand, sources report that the yarlykli-mulk lands were formed from relatively long-cultivated state ("padshalych") lands, which were assigned to the property of their holders according to Khan's labels; the owners of these lands began to pay a monetary tax - salgut (sālgui)^{in the amount of 1 large} tilla instead of the dayak's in-kind tax (dahyak) 23 from 5 tanap, which was equal to 72 kopecks from 1 tanap [Hirschfeld and Galkin, 1902, p. 34]. Hence the name of these lands - "yarlykli-mulk", i.e. "lands obtained by a label" [Shkapsky, 1900, p. 102-103]. On the other hand, according to V. Hirschfeld and A. Galkin, obtaining such labels was associated with monetary expenses. For lack of money, many holders of state-owned land, without seeking the khan's label, simply entered the tax lists (daftar) and were considered "mulqdars", and their lands-"simple mulks"; tax was taken from them in the same amount as from the khan's land.yarlykli-mulkov [Girshfeld and Galkin, 1902, p. 35].

The existence in the khanate of the second of the described methods of securing state lands for their holders is confirmed, in particular, by the last part of the note quoted above by an unknown Khiva author:

"When the population of a state increases, they give land from vacant land (bīkār yirdīn yir birīb) and for every five tanaps they take 1 full tilla, and from every 10 tanaps they take one kazuchi person for irrigation work (qazū qazdūrūrlār). With these Kazuchi dig channels (yaf qazib) and conduct water to empty lands (bīkār yirlārgā sūltūrūrār). From each person who sows this land, they take two-fifths of the grain (bīšdīn ökkī galla ālūrlār). From this land, those who take the land and write their name in daftar (üzī aim dqftaġa yāzdūrsa), take 1 full tilla from every 5 tanaps, [and] do not take grain [at all]. These are the rules and customs from ancient times " [TsGA RUz., f. I-125, op. 2, d. 458, l. 1].

This document confirms the fact that holders (tenants) of newly irrigated public lands who paid rent on a share of the crop (in this case, in the amount of two-fifths of the crop), if their name was entered in the special tax register (daftar), changed their fiscal status, switching from paying in kind

His Majesty [Iltuzar] Khan... He put an end to such levies, and by raising the banner of justice, he erased tyranny and shameful oppression from the face of the earth..."[Munis and Agahi, 1988, p. 389].

²³ Holders of state lands in the Khanate of Khiva in the 19th and early 20th centuries, who rented them on the basis of hereditary lease, were subject to a natural tax - rent-dayak, the amount of which was not clearly fixed for the entire territory of the khanate and varied depending on the nature of the landscape, soil fertility and irrigation conditions [Ivanov, 1940, pp. 28-29A. Vambery noted that the amount of in-kind tax levied on state lands was 1/3 of the harvest (Vambery, 1869, p. 219). The above-quoted note from a Khiva official shows that the size of the bank could have been 2/5 of the crop.

annuities to a fixed tax. Unlike the Atai-Mulkdars, who, as shown above, paid the land tax according to a progressive scale.

Thus, the procedure for assigning newly irrigated state lands to their holders by entering the name of the latter in the special tax register (daftar) resulted in a change in the fiscal status of these lands. However, it is unclear whether this procedure meant a change in the legal status of the land. In other words, did these lands really become mulks and their owners become Mulkdars? It is rather difficult to answer this question unequivocally. Returning to the note of the Khiva official, it can be noted that the author, firstly, does not mention the term mulk in relation to this category of land, and secondly, contrasts them with money-bought mulks (zar kharid mulk), or atai-mulks, in the terminology of Russian authors.

If we assume that all mulks, regardless of fiscal obligations, were invariably private property, ²⁴ then the designation of this category of land by the term label-mulk can serve as their legal qualification as private land ownership. In order to understand this issue, let's take a closer look at the first one described by the authors of the beginning of the XX century. methods of forming land labels-mulks, as well as touch upon the problem of the appropriateness of applying this term in relation to this category of land ownership.

As mentioned above, the first references to the yarlykli-mulk lands are found in the work of Fr. Shkapsky, published in 1900. In the course of studying land relations in the Shurakhansky district of the Amu Darya division, O. Shkapsky drew up short translations of 39 labels on the sale of land plots by khans to private individuals, compiled "in a monotonous form". The fact that O. Shkapsky studied transactions similar to those considered in the first part of my research, i.e. related to the grant/sale of state lands to private ownership by khans, is beyond doubt. This is indicated by the structure of the documents described by him, information that they reflect the sale of land by the khan "from mamlakai padshalyk" to individuals "so that they can support the nukers", as well as mention of the right of inheritance of this land. Based on the study of brief translations of these documents, O. Shkapsky came to the conclusion that "persons who got themselves labels that, in addition to the security of land ownership, were associated with the transition from paying a dayak to paying a certain land tax of salgyt in the amount of 72 kopecks per tanap or 1 rub. 92 kopecks per tithe", " passed into the category of maliks (mulkdars), i.e. land owners" [Shkapsky, 1900, p. 98-102].

Published two years later (1902), the work of V. Hirschfeld and A. Galkin repeats these conclusions of O. Shkapsky. In most of the subsequent specialized and generalizing works on the history of Khorezm, the research of Russian authors continued to be widely used and formed the basis for at least two main conclusions concerning Khiva land ownership:

1. The Khiva Khanate's practice of selling state-owned land to private individuals by means of a special label implied the transfer of such khans to a separate category of land ownership-yarlykli-mulk and a change in their fiscal status, which was expressed in the transition from payment of natural rent by their owners (dahyak) to a fixed land tax (sālutut).

2.The Khiva Khanate was not characterized by the existence of unconditional private ownership of land, exempt from taxes and duties.

²⁴ This provision is widespread in modern Western European historiography. Thus, in the opinion of the Austrian researcher Fr. According to J. Schwarz, "the legal tradition and legal practice are unambiguous regarding the following issue: milk of any kind, regardless of fiscal and other financial obligations, is a full-fledged property" [Schwarz, 2010, p.35].

Thus, the authors of the academic multi-volume "History of Uzbekistan" noted that the labels were "mulks"...labeled private-owned lands assigned to the ownership of one or another person according to the Khan's charter (label) from among state-owned lands " [History of Uzbekistan, 1956, p. 42]. According to A. Koshchanov,"...yarlykli-mulki are land plots that at various times were transferred from the number of state-owned lands according to Khan's labels to eternal and hereditary possession of private individuals for service or for other reasons... i.e., the label mulki were very close to private land plots. However, they still cannot be called absolutely private property, in view of the fact that they represented one of the forms of state lands that were in hereditary use, and their owners paid a land tax to the state treasury." Thus, the author comes to a rather ambiguous conclusion that such lands, being mulks, were "close to private ownership", but in reality they were "one of the forms of state lands" (Koshchanov, 1966, p.111, 115).

A. Shaikhova adhered to a compromise position, which consisted in recognizing that the Khans ' labels on the sale of land actually meant the transfer of such land to the category of mulk-i khāliṣ, i.e., unconditional private property exempt from taxes. At the same time, in her opinion, there was a part of the labels that implied the transfer of state lands to yarlykli-mulk - private property subject to taxation, as it is characterized by Russian authors [Shaikhova, 1989, p.80-82].

Thus, in Khiva historiography, under the influence of O. Shkaisky, a widespread discourse about the yarlykli-mulk lands was formed. Proof that the conclusions of subsequent authors regarding the yarlykli-mulk lands were formed largely under the influence of the works of O. Shkapsky, V. Girshfeld, and A. Galkin can be found in the fact that subsequent researchers do not provide new information when describing this category of lands, but limit themselves to existing descriptions. Meanwhile, as early as in 1969, Yu. Bregel drew attention to the fact that "the term... they were labeled in tax registers... it has nothing to do with the taglikli-mulk category (as it is characterized by Russian authors)" [Bregel, 1972, p. 86].

The materials at our disposal allow us to question the conclusions and positions of Russian authors of the early XX century regarding the first method of land formation yarlykli-mulk. There are the following reasons for such doubts.

First, the labels on the sale of state-owned land by the khan to individuals, which, in the opinion of these authors, provided a legal basis for the formation of yarlykli-mulk (taxable lie) lands, in fact, as was shown in the first part of this study, sanctioned the transfer of these lands to the category of mulk-i khāliṣ, meaning exemption from all taxes and duties. These lands retained their legal status in further transactions, and appeared in fiscal documents under the names yārlīqlī or yārlīqlī yir.

As mentioned above, O. Shkapsky based his opinion on the method of formation of yarlykli-mulk lands on the study of short translations of labels about the sale of land by khans. At the same time, being extremely pedantic in terms of terminology and legal formulations, he actually ignored the key term mulk-i khāliṣ, which is found in such documents. In the translation of one of the labels given by O. Shkapsky, the term mulk-i khāliṣ is not mentioned at all, which, apparently, can be explained by the costs of the translator's work. If O. Shkapsky had turned to the study of this term, he might have drawn different conclusions, since by that time Russian researchers had already accumulated knowledge about the legal category mulk-i khāliṣ in other Central Asian possessions.²⁵

²⁵ See, for example: [Rostislavov, 1874, pp. 5-7; Gire, 1884, pp. 344-345]. For more information on the content and nature of discussions on land ownership among the Russian administration in Turkestan in the second half of the 19th century, see Morrison, 2013, pp. 23-64]

Secondly, as the quoted note of a Khiva official shows, in the Khiva Khanate of the late XIX - early XX centuries. Indeed, there was a category of land described by V. Hirschfeld and A. Galkin (O. Shkapsky does not mention anything about this method) as the second method of land formation yarlykli-mulk, according to which holders/hereditary tenants of state land by writing their name in a special fiscal register passed from payment of in-kind rent to land tax. Thus, there is no doubt that there is a certain category of land in Khorezm with the same fiscal status as the yarlykli-mulk land (as it is described by Russian authors), but the formation of such lands was not associated with obtaining any label, therefore, such lands could not be called yarlykli-mulks.

Third, where could O. Shkapsky have borrowed the idea of lands formed as a result of issuing a special label? As it was shown above, among the tax registers of the Khan's chancellery, there are lists of yarlykdars-recipients of tarkhan charters that exempted them from paying taxes, including payments from their lands. The Yarliqdars, as mentioned above, had to pay a special payment (yārlīqāna) of 4 small tilla to the treasury after the passage of time in order to re-approve and extend their tax privileges. Taking into account that O. Shkapsky did not distinguish in his work between the grant of property rights and the grant of tax immunity, ²⁶ it can be assumed that he mixed the legal concepts associated with the issuance of labels on the sale of land and tarkhany labels on the grant of tax immunity, and interpreted the payments assigned to the owners of the latter as taxes assigned to the first ²⁷.

Thus, O. Shkapsky's work mixes various legal and fiscal concepts. The procedure of securing land in unconditional private ownership (mulk-i khāliṣ) by issuing special labels is interpreted by him as a way of forming a separate category of land ownership yarlykli-mulk, taxable. In turn, the fiscal obligations of the latter were taken over by them from lands whose formation was not associated with the issuance of labels, and the terminology was borrowed from those lands that were owned by the recipients of tarkhans, who granted their owners tax privileges. These conclusions were the basis for a number of studies on land ownership in the Khiva Khanate and formed an erroneous discourse that continues to exist to a greater or lesser extent in modern studies.

list of literature

Bregel Yu. E. To the study of land relations in the Khiva Khanate (sources and their use) / / Written monuments of the East. Historical and philological research. 1969. Moscow, 1972.

Vamberi A. Ocherki Srednoi Azii (Posledenie k Traveststviyu po Srednoi Azii) [Essays on Central Asia (Supplement to the Journey through Central Asia)]. Turkestansky sbornik, vol. 13, St. Petersburg, 1869.

Gire F. K. Report of the auditor, by the Highest command, of the Turkestan Region. St. Petersburg: B. izd., 1884.

²⁶ This can be seen in his statement that there are "... three types of grants (grants of land with exemption from taxes, grants of collecting taxes, and strengthening rights to land with exemption from taxes), essentially representing the same grant of land " [Shkapsky, 1900, p. 112].

²⁷ F. Schwartz calls this confusion of the concepts of "property rights" and "tax privileges" one of the main reasons for the erroneous interpretation of land ownership and land rights in Central Asia, as well as in other Muslim societies [Schwartz, 2010, p.35].

Girshfeld V. A., Galkin A. S. Military-statistical description of the Khiva oasis. Compiled by the General Staff Captain V. A. Girshfeld. Revised by the Head of the Amu-Darya Department, Major General A. S. Galkin. Parts I-II. Tashkent, 1902-1903.

Davidovich E. A. Feudal land milkage in Central Asia of the XV-XVIII centuries: essence and transformation // Forms of feudal land ownership and tenure in the Near and Middle East. Bartholdovskis readings. 1975. Moscow, 1979.

Жалилов О. XIX-XX аср бошларида Қорақалпок тарихидан (Хива давлат ҳужжатлари асосида). Toshkent: Fan Publ., 1986.

IVAN RUz. - Manuscript Collection of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Uzbekistan.

Ivanov P. P." Udel'nye zemli " Seyid Mukhammedkhana khivinsky (1856-1865) ["Specific lands" of Seyid Mukhammedkhana khivinsky (1856-1865)]. Moscow, 1937, vol. IV.

Ivanov P. P. Archive of Khiva Khans of the XIX century. Research and description of documents with a historical introduction, Moscow: Gosudarstvennaya publichnaya Biblioteka, 1940.

Ivanov P. P. Economy of the Juybar sheikhs. On the history of feudal land ownership in Central Asia in the XVI-XVIII centuries. Research, texts, and translations of documents. Moscow-Leningrad: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1954.

Istoriya Uzbekskoy SSR [History of the Uzbek SSR], Vol. I. Kn. 2. Tashkent: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the Uzbek SSR, 1956.

Иулдошев М. Хива хонлигида феодал ер эгалиги ва давлат тузилиши. Тошкент: Узбекистан давлат нашриёти. 1959.

Ichan-Kala is a manuscript collection of the Ichan-Kala State Museum Reserve in Khiva, Uzbekistan.

Karimov E. E. Regests of Kazian documents and Khan's labels of the Khiva Khanate of the 17th-early 19th centuries. Tashkent: Fan Publ., 2007.

Catalog of Central Asian chartered diplomas from the Fund of the Abu Rayhan Beruni Institute of Oriental Studies of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Uzbekistan / Comp.: A. Urunbaev, G. Juraeva, S. Gulomov. Halle (Saale), 2007.

Catalog of Khiva Kazakh documents of the XIX-early XX centuries / Comp.: A. Urinbaev, T. Horikawa, G. Juraeva, K. Isogai. Tashkent-Kyoto, 2001.

Koshchanov A. From the history of agrarian relations in the Khiva Khanate in the late XIX-early XX century. Diss. of Candidate of Historical Sciences. Tashkent, 1966.

Sadykov A. Russia and Khiva in the late XIX - early XX centuries. Tashkent: Fan Publ., 1972.

Sazonova M. V. Land relations in the Khiva Khanate in the XIX century. Diss. kand. ist. nauk. L., 1946.

Pogorelsky N. V. Ocherki ekonomicheskoi i politicheskoi istorii Khiva khanstva kontsa XIX i nachala XXv. (1873-1917 gg.) [Essays on the Economic and political history of the Khiva Khanate in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (1873-1917)].

Rostislavov M. Essay on types of land ownership and the land issue in the Turkestan region. St. Petersburg: Printing house of the Panteleev brothers, 1879.

Shaikhova A. Dokumenty ob letenii vakufnykh zemly v Khiva khanstve XIX nachala XX v. [Documents on the lease of waqf lands in the Khiva Khanate of the 19th and early 20th centuries].

Shaikhova A. Novye dokumenty ob obrazovanii mulki Khivinskikh khanov [New documents on the education of mulks of Khiva Khans]. 1988. N 11.

Shaikhova A. Legal documents as a source on the history of socio-economic (mainly agrarian) relations in the Khanate of Khiva in the XIX - early XX centuries. Diss. of Candidate of Historical Sciences. Tashkent, 1989.

Shkapsky O. A. Amu-Darya essays. On the agricultural issue on the lower Amu-Darya river. Agriculture and land ownership in the Shurakhansky area of the Amu-Darya department. Tashkent, 1900.

K istorii krestyan Khiva XIX v. [On the history of Khiva peasants of the 19th century]. Tashkent: Fan Publ., 1966.

Brеgеl Yu. Documents from The Khanate of Khiva (17^th-19^th Centuries) // Papers on Inner Asia. No 40. Bloomington, 2007.

Morrison A. Amlākdārs, Khwājas and Mulk Land in the Zarafshan Valley after the Russian Conquest // Exploration in the Social History of Modern Central Asia (19^th - Early 20^th Century) / Ed. by P. Sartori. Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2013.

Munis and Agahi, Firdaws al-lqbāl. History of Khorezm / Ed. and Annot. by Yuri Bregel. Leiden-Boston-Koln: Brill, 1988.

Schwarz F. Contested Grounds: Ambiguities and Disputes over the Legal and Fiscal Status of Land in the Manghit Emirate of Bukhara // Central Asia Survey. Vol. 29. No. 1, 2010.

Wood W, A Collection of Tarkhan Yarliqs From the Khanate of Khiva // Papers on Inner Asia. Bloomington, 2005.

Permanent link to this publication: