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

2026

Закрытый доступ Метаданные (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.62724/202610104
Достоверность данных 70 средняя
Как считается эта оценка

Складывается из проверяемых признаков самой записи: есть ли у статьи DOI, сколько независимых источников подтвердили её данные, заполнены ли обязательные поля и насколько свежо последнее подтверждение. Снижают оценку расхождения между источниками и отсутствие идентификатора. Значение от 80 означает, что запись опубликована без дополнительной проверки; от 60 до 79 — что она опубликована с пониженной достоверностью и ручная проверка желательна. Запись, выверенную редактором вручную, пересчёт не опускает ниже 90. Это оценка наших данных о статье, а не оценка самой статьи.

Аннотация

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.