БАЙМАҒАМБЕТ АЙШУАҚҰЛЫНЫҢ ТАРИХИ ТҰЛҒАСЫН БАҒАЛАУДАҒЫ ҚАЙШЫЛЫҚТАР: ҰЛТТЫҚ ҚОЗҒАЛЫС ЖӘНЕ ОТАРЛЫҚ ӘКІМШІЛІК КОНТЕКСТІ

2026

Closed access Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.62724/202610104
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

This article examines the contradictions in assessing the historical figure of Baymagambet Aishuakuly, the ruling sultan of the Junior Zhuz in the first half of the XIXth century, within the context of the national liberation movement and the colonial administrative system. The purpose of the study is to provide a comprehensive analysis of Baymagambet Aishuakuly’s political activity in relation to the socio-political conditions of the period and to identify historiographical biases in his evaluation. The research employs historical-comparative analysis, systematization, and historiographical interpretation. The study analyzes the transformation of the administrative system following the 1824 Orenburg reform, the weakening of the khanate institution, the strengthening of imperial governance, and the political choices faced by the local elite. The findings demonstrate that Baymagambet Aishuakuly’s activities constitute a complex historical phenomenon that cannot be interpreted in a one-sided manner. His opposition to the movement led by Kenesary Kasymuly was shaped not only by cooperation with the colonial administration but also by an attempt to preserve traditional institutions of authority. The study concludes that this historical figure should be evaluated within the framework of institutional constraints and political transformations of the era.