Talk:Bukhara

Name ?

I just noticed that the Uzbek spelling has been changed from "Бұхара" to "Бухоро". I don't know Uzbek but I'm pretty sure user 80.71.101.90 has "corrected" it to the Russian spelling. His comment says "fixed Cyrillic name" - but obviously there is more than one Cyrillic name since there are more than one cyrillic languages. Can anybody check this? Hippietrail 09:00, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nobody has commented so I'm fixing this now. — Hippietrail 00:29, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wow, I'm over a year late on this. The deal on this is that "Бухоро" is the correct Uzbek Cyrillic spelling, whereas "Buxoro" is the correct Uzbek Latin spelling. The Cyrillic alphabet was phased out in Uzbekistan following the breakup of the USSR.--KASchmidt 05:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Might it be worth noting that the spelling Bokhara is used in many English sources? I see there is a redirect set up for that useage, but it might be helpful to note it in the main page, to clarify. - Kd5mdk 20 Feb 2005 0449 UTC-6

"Bokhara" is essentially an archaism; it reflects the transliteration of the Arabic-alphabet spelling according to the principles usually used to render Persian into English. This is fair enough, as the majority of the city's population are Persian/Tajik-speaking, but as the population there now uses either the Cyrillic or Latin alphabet, the spelling "Bokhara" is more of a fossilization than a contemporary Romanization.--KASchmidt 05:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. As someone who is doing a fair amount of work on Central Asian history using strictly English language sources, many dating from the 19th century, it's particularly hard to keep track of what is varient spellings and transliterations of the same name, and what is a completely different place with a similar name. I suppose I'm just particularly sensitive to this. Kd5mdk 8 July 2005 22:56 (UTC)

"Bokhara" may be just the older English name, but it is still used in the rug trade, and in books about rugs. Since it occurs in so many sources, its seems appropriate to confirm a user's suspicion that Bokhara is Bukhara. --Bejnar 20:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

ethnic percentages

The previous wording (not mine) about Bukharas Tajik not Uzbek character was deleted. For the moment I have put in a (I hope neutral) new wording on this and included an official Uzbekistan Govt source which states that the Tajik minority in the country is concentrated in Bukhara and Samarkand. However the actual percentages are in dispute. It may well indeed be that the Tajiks are in the majority in Bukhara as they claim. The total Tajik population in the country as a whole varies wildly according to which figures you use (see this link for various claims one way and another}. If, as here, the accusation is that the Tajik minority are deliberately under-enumerated as a matter of official policy, what do we do wikipedia-rules-wise?. It's difficult to find verifiable sources which are not in some way based on official census figures. Jameswilson 21:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, good!

Usually, even things like that leave some kind of paper trail. There's always some scholar at some university interested in the topic. The Armenian Genocide is an example of a topic which doesnt die despite the attempts to quell it.

There's bound to be some scholar somewhere on this topic right? I checked the 1943 Ency Brit, but it doesnt mention anything of the sort. If there is truly an ethnic rpression, itb bound to be documented by some human rights group or something.

Ah, I found something; a report by the US govt stating:

"Government statistics dating from 1992 show that the population of approximately 23 million is about 71 percent Uzbeks, 8 percent Russians, 5 percent Tajiks, 4 percent Tatars, and 3 percent Kazakhs, with many other ethnic groups represented. The statistics may underestimate the actual number of ethnic Tajiks. The figures also do not include many ethnic Tajiks whose mother tongue was Uzbek. Moreover, some Tajiks choose for a variety of reasons to declare themselves to be ethnic Uzbeks."

This is enough for our purposes, though there might be more somewhere on Bukhara itself. I'll also leave this ref at Tajik. Cheers, The Minister of War ^(Peace) 06:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Found another article which mentions this [[1]] - which suggests a much higher national percentage for Tajiks in Uzbekistan. One could certainly deduce from that that they "must be" a majority in Bukhara if thats one of their strongholds. Jameswilson 01:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

City infobox

I think the city infobox should be placed at the top, as opposed to the world heritage site infobox, which is less relevant to the subject of the article. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Bias

I think that this article on Bukhara is extremely bias and supports very questionable and in fact, very useless arguments about the ethnic "belonging" of Bukhara. The blunt statement that "Russians supported Uzbeks over Tajiks and let Uzbekistan have Bukhara and Samarkand" is so grossly wrong and sounds like an accusaion by some Tajik nationalists who simply never studied history. The latter were heavily supported by Russians during the Soviet period on the matter of "belonging" of Bukhara and Samarkand to tajiks. It was Soviet Russian policy to keep Central Asian nationals apart, have them quarrel over the territories and history that Russian tried very hard to destroy ( archived, documents, witnesses). The statement that makes one laugh is that "Persians lived in Bukhara, that are now Tajiks". How Persians became Tajiks? This just can't be serious. The very discussion of "belonging" of such an ancient city with a very rich culture and history is totally inappropriate. Bukhara does not "belong" to any ethnic group. It was in fact part of the Persian empire at some period, yet with the Timurid's dynasty coming into power, it ceased to be a Persian domain. Turks, Mongols, Arabs, Persians and many other ethnic groups resided in this region. With Islam winning over the region, Bukhara became a center of Islamic thought, which made it so beoynd any "ethnic" belonging, but in fact took it to a whole new level of an international center of Islamic culture. The fact that Turks culture (that was called Uzbek later) spread over the region Uzbek language was established in Bukhara as one of the main languages along with Persian and Arabic show that Bukhara was no longer purely Persian city. Persian language was spoken by most of the population regardless of its etchnic origins, whether they were mongols, turks, arabs or tajiks. In any event, such statements like in this article intices nationalism and misunderstanding. It is not scientific and extremely bias. It does not deserve to be published on a public site. --This comment was added on 11 August 2007 by 91.188.128.131

-Reality- I am just amazed at how Uzbeks have been either ignorant or simply can't handle the fact that Tajiks (Persians) are indigenous people of Central Asia. First of all there was a reason why Soviet supported Non-persian speaking people to have Samarkand and Bukhara including other regions. Tajik, Soghdian, Iranian, Bactrian, Parthian are all Persians! The cities of Bukhara and Samarqand are and they were important centers of the Sogdian empire. The term "Uzbekistan" is a very recent one - Uzbeks did not arrive in the area until long after the Iranian peoples had settled there. Since Tajik and Sogdian are both Iranian languages, and as some Uzbeks say that Tajik has "nothing in common with Sogdian" reflects a complete ignorance of the linguistic reality. The boundaries of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan were fixed by the Soviets with no regard for the history of the region or the ethnicities living in those areas, so whether an area was located in what is now Tajikistan or not has nothing to do with whether it is a part of Tajik heritage. Bukhara and Samarqand are both proudly and correctly considered important Tajik-Persian cities by the Tajiks. Since the ancestors of the Uzbeks did intermarry with the indigenous Iranian peoples, there is most likely a Sogdian element in the Uzbek population as well. However, Uzbeks are primarily of Turkic origin, which means that their ancestors were Altaic migrants from the east, with an ethnolinguistic origin completely unrelated to the Sogdians or any of the other Iranian (and therefore Indo-European) peoples of Central Asia who were already there when they arrived. Bukhara was the Academy for all Persian poets and great philosophers such as Rudaki, Firdavsi, Saadi, Rumi, Nizami etc. How can you say and ask "How Persian became Tajiks?" I tend not to read Uzbek accounts of history, because they tend to be quite ridiculous. To act as if there is no physical difference between Tajiks and Uzbeks is not only ridiculous, it defies all reality. You can also say that the sky is green, but it will continue to be blue in reality - Tajiks appear generally Caucasian (I don't think I can be confused for Mongol), while Uzbeks appear generally Asiatic/Mongol. Whatever fantasies the Uzbek government and Uzbek nationalists may cherish, unfortunately they will be at odds with reality. There is no shame in being a Turk, or the descendant of later migrants from Mongolia, but it's unfortunate that you and others feel this way about your origins. It is also clear that you do not speak either Tajik or Iranian Farsi, because you don't seem to know anything about the linguistic structure or lexicography of either one. The Persian element in Uzbek exists because Persian was the primary literary language of the area, and thus all the other regional languages, such as Uzbek, Pashto, Turkish, etc. borrowed extensively from it. Further, the Russian words are obviously from recent origin and in part the result of efforts by the Soviets to Russify the languages of Central Asia. Thus, this analogy is entirely irrelevant. Just as Uzbeks fantasize about being the area's original inhabitants, or descendants of Sogdians, or any number of nonsensical theories, Kazakhs may well fantasize about being European. Both groups need to simply accept reality - they are Altaic-speaking, and Asiatic-looking, and any scholarly publication will tell you that both are the descendants of a wave of Altaic, Turkic migrants from the east. The Tajiks are the direct descendants of the Iranian peoples whose continuous presence in Central Asia and northern Afghanistan is attested from the middle of the 1st millennium bc. The ancestors of the Tajiks constituted the core of the ancient population of Khwārezm (Khorezm) and Bactria, which formed part of Transoxania (Sogdiana). They were included in the empires of Persia and Alexander the Great, and they intermingled with such later invaders as the Kushāns and Hepthalites in the 1st–6th centuries ad. Over the course of time, the eastern Iranian dialect that was used by the ancient Tajiks eventually gave way to Farsi, a western dialect spoken in Iran and Afghanistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AryanMK (talk • contribs) 21:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Meaning unclear

Can someone tell me what the sentence, from the lead quoted below, is trying to say? --Bejnar 21:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"These two cities, Samarkand and Bukhara, belonged to Persians, especially to eastern part, who are now Tajiks."

• True the Tajiks are Iranian peoples and prior to the Mongols the Persian Sassanid Empire and Samanid dynasty ruled there, but the post-Mongol invasion history shows that after the Chagatai Khanate the area was part of Timur's empire, the Timurid dynasty, and then the Uzbek Shaybanid dynasty, all descendants of Genghis Khan. It wasn't until the 18th Century that the Persians under Nader Shah briefly again made an appearance in the area. So is the sentence saying "Under the Sassanids and Samanids the area was part of the Persian empire, and the Persian speaking Tajiks predominantly of eastern Uzbekistan are a remnant."? If so what relevance does it have for Bukhara and why is it important enough to be in the lead? --Bejnar 21:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sentence needs to be changed since the city does not belong to any one ethnic group. Though it should be mentioned that that ethnic group are the majority of the city. --Behnam 21:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Alternative History to Main Article

The Tadzhiks are of Iranian origin and speak a Persian dialect. They appear to have formed the bulk of population at the time of ancient civilizations ones flourished in Central Asia and seems to have laid the foundation of the irrigation systems in the western part of the area. The Kazakhs belong to Turkic-Tatar branch of the Mongol peoples. The Turkic speaking peoples - the Uzbeks, Turkmenians, and Sarts - are descendants of Turkic and mixed Turkic-Iranian peoples who come into this part of Central Asia, especially since the beginning of the middle ages. They now far outnumber the Tadzhiks in the area. In addition many Jews immigrated into the area, especially to Khorasan, forming a large minority there at the time of Darius the Great (521-485 BC).

The Persian Empire at the time of darius the Great extended from Egypt and Turkey through Transcaucasia, modern Persia, and Afghanistan to the Indus valley, and included the most ancient centres of Indo-Iranian culture and language. To the north of this ancient Persian Empire layed vast lands of the Scythians and in east the lands of Turanians. The territory of the former Soviet Central Asia comprised the north-eastern part of the Persian Empire.

In the fourth century BC, the rule of Persia was replaced by that of Alexander the Great, who in 329 BC took Bukhara and Samarkand, already ancient cities. After his death the Orient, as it was then called, was ruled from Syria by the dynasty of Seleucus. In c. 250 BC the Parthians, of Scythian origin, who lived south-east of the Caspian, established their own empire, which included most of the later modern Soviet Central Asia, including Bukhara. They in turn were succeeded by the Persian Sassanides (226-442 AD), the last dynasty to of native kings of Persia. The Sassanides were overthrown by the Arabs, and it was during the poriod of Arab rule in Central Asia that the Turkish tribes begun to move into the country and the Islamic religion was introduced. The inhabitants of Merv, and in lesser extent in Bukhara, were Nestorian Christian in the sixth century AD. The ancient city of Khorasan become a capital of the Persian-Arab state of Khorasan. In the seventh century AD it was second only to Baghdad, the greatest city in Orient.

From ancient times threre were strong trade ties from the northern coniferous forest zone with Central Asian trading centres, Bukhara, Samarkand and Merv. At first with the Finnic tribes, then with Norsemen, Kijevan Rus and later with Muscovites. The merchants from Central Asia who came to Russia via the Caspian Sea and Volga. In 1216 Mongol Genghiz Khan destroyed the ancient civilizations of Central Asia. Bukhara, Samarkand, and Khiva were all burned and redused to ruins. There was a brief revival when the empire of Genghiz Khan was divided among his successors and Timur (nickmamed Tamerlane on account of his lameness) founded a new kingdom with its capital of Samarkand, where his tomb can see even today. After Timur´s death his kingdom broke up into a number of separate feudal states, with a loose and constantly changing relationship one with another according to the growth or decline in power of the local rulers. The most powerful states had their centres on Khiva, Bukhara, and Kokand. These centres stood on important caravan trading routes, and around them lay the largest areas of irrigated land.

The successors of Timur the Tamerlane ruled intil the 15th century, after which the ruling families were Turkic Uzbek- by that time the (and now) the most numerous of all peples of Central Asia. The Uzbeks were of Islamic faith and spoke Jagatai, one of the Turkic group of languages.

In ancient and mediveal states of Central Asia all depended for their prosperity upon irrigation works. War or raids of nomandic tribes not only interrupted trade but could destroy the work of generation or a century of peaceful development by causing destruction, damage, or neglect to these works. This happened to a considerable extent during the disintegration of Timur´s empire in the 15th century. it is probable that the towns and cultuvated oases which the Europeans first saw in the 16th century and later were mere fragments of their former splendour and prosperity.

During the 16th century England was interested in the possibility of opening up trade through the Caspian Sea, and one of the first Western Europeans to visit the feudal states of Khiva and Bukhara was Sir Anthony Jenkins, a pioner of Anglo-Russian trade, and peharps the first Englishman to see Caspian Sea. The Russian traveller Puzhukin visited these towns a century later, and another Russian, Muravin journeyed to Khiva in 1740.

At this time there was trade between Bukhara and India. Later, after the Russo-Persian war 1811 the Russians obtained the exclusive right to maintain warships on the Caspian Sea. Also by this time and little later Russian colonization in Western Siberia has expanded to southward into Kazakh territory. Russian fishing communities were established on the north coast of Aral Sea in the second half of the 18th century. Anticipating Russian advance, the rulers of the Khanate of Kokand built a number of forts along Syr-Darya valley early in the the 19th century. In 1847 the Russians moved to the mouth of the river from their base in Kazakhstan and built a fort from which to attack the Khanate of Kokand. Their advance into Central Asia began to cause some concern to the British Government of India.

The Russian advance towards Afghanistan and its threat to Bukhara Indian trade and the security of India started the "Great Game". In 1840 a British colonel and an army captain, sent on diplomatic missions to the Emir of Bukhara, dissapeared without trace. In 1843 Joseph Wolfe, an Jewish clergyman of the Church of England, set out on his own initiative from London to discover the fate of the two man (rather in the same way in which Stanley set out in search Livingstone), but he was seized and thrown into one of the dreadful dungeons of Bukhara and only released after the intervention of the Shah of Persia. He was able to reveal that both British officers, after long confinement in a dungeon infisted with sheep-ticks, had been decapitated in public.

Twenty years later Russian army conquered after a bitter and prolonged struggle Chimkent and then Tashkent. In 1868 the power of the Kokand and Bukhara states was finally broken. The Russians adopted similar colonial policy in many respects to that of the British in India. The weaker states of Kokand, Khorezem, and Merv were incorporated into the Russian Empire. But Bukhara and Khiva were dismembered and left as native states. In case of Bukhara which was the centre of the most fanatic of all Muslims in Asia, the Russian Government was wise enough not to attempt to start a Holy War by outright annexation, but chose instead to make it a vassal state, a protectorate. Russia was in a strong position since she controlled the Zerevshan valley and could at any time cut off the supplies of the life-giving water to Bukhara. No trade was allowed except with Russia and Bukhara was left to stagnate and degenerate still further in dirt and corruption. The rulers of the Bukhara and Khiva were more concerned of their personal enrichment than with with economic progress or welfare of their peoples. Huge tracts of land belonged to Emir of Bukhara, and other lands belonged to mosques, religional schools, Madrassas, and local Beys. The land was worked by peasants who were allowed to reatain about quarter of their corp. Those who owned some land paid heavy feudal dues, and peasants had to give their labour for construction and maintenance of the irrigation work. When Emir of Bukhara fled in 1920 to Afghanistan, he had a personal fortune of 175 million American dollars.

In 1915 and 1916 Germany was active to create a second front agaist the Russians. Dr Oskar von Niedemayer and Dr Werner Otto von Hentig from Afghanistan contacted Emir of Bukhara and local Afghan War Lord Amir Habibullah to start Holy War anginst the Russians in Central Asia and invade to British India with 150.000 armed tribesman. The German experts promised both arms and economocal support of value of 10 million pounds. The plan began to founder when Amir Habibullah could not unite Afghan tribesmen under his command and was finally collapsed completely with the German defeat in 1918.

Bukhara and Khiva remained until 1920 in the maps showing even the areas which belonged to these vassal states. But after the Emir of Bukhara had fled to Afghanistan a serious revolts took place and the Red Army had to be called from Tashkent to smash the Muslim rebellionists. The new Soviet puppet state that was set up in the territory of old Emirate of Bukhara was declared to be completely independent and an appeal was made to the Soviet Russia for economic assistance. Under the leadership of Enver Pasha 1921-1922 anti-Soviet organisations began to popularize the idea of Pan-Islamic state, Panislamstan under Turkic leadership in Central Asia. To meet this threat, the Soviet agents managed to have Enver poisoned. Without strong leader figure the Panislamstan movement lost ground among poor peasant population. The Soviet propaganda machine promised land reform which gave them the lands of the Beys and the mosques, while energetic measures were taken to improve the economy of Bukhara and provide facilities for education and helth services. But despite these, local resistance continued after the Nationalization of land and property in 1925-1929. The struggles continued in a few areas with bloodshed to 1939 and 1944. The continous querilla (bandit) war caused severe decline in some sections of economy, particulary livestock breeding, which was not fully recovered until 1943 and 1944 when the last fanatic Muslims rebellionists withdrew to Afghanistan. In 1936-1939 Abwehr supported the Panislamstans with full support of exiled Emir of Bukhara in Kabul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.192.106 (talk) 04:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Haw many jews live in Bukhara? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.188.220 (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Bukhara had Numerous names

Bukhara had numerous names, and this page does not even mention that fact!! In the book:

History of Bukhara by Narshakhi (translated by Richard N. Frye), Page 27 writes:

"... Bukhara had many names. One of its name is Numijkat. It has also been called "Bumiskat". It has 2 names in Arabic. One is "Madinat al Sufriya" meaning - "the copper city" and another is "madinat al tujjar" meaning - "the city of merchants". But, the name Bukhara is more known than all the other names. In Khurasan, there is no other city with so many names. ...".

-- someone should add this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.121.25 (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Tajik name

Since per official statistics, Tajiks make up 4% of the population, whereas Russians represent 6%, would it be more logical to replace the Tajik name of the city with the Russian one in the infobox? Abdullais4u (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)