In February, 2009 I had published book "Zametki po drevney i srednevekovoy istorii Chacha" (Some notes on ancient and medieval history of Chach" (Tashkent: Tashkent State Institute of Oriental Studies, 2009), which as a matter of fact is the review of D.A. Alimova and M.I. Filanovich's book named "Toshkent tarixi. Istoriya Tashkenta" (History of Tashkent) (Tashkent: ARTFLEX, 2007) [Kamoliddin, 2009]. In this work I have stated the point of view on some debatable questions of ancient and medieval history of Chach, and also have specified some lacks and omissions which are present in the mentioned book, hoping, that these remarks will be taken into consideration during preparation of the subsequent editions on the history of Tashkent.
Has not passed three months1 as instead of D.A.Alimova and M.I.Filanovich for my work as though on a command2 "have responded" two academicians - Edvard V.Rtveladze and Juri F.Burjakov [Rtveladzе, 2008: 54 - 61; Buryakov, 2008: 61 - 68]. The Review response of the first of them has obvious spiteful and aggressive character that speaks the several reasons. First, many mistakes which appear in D.A.Alimova and M.I.Filanovich's book, go back to him. Secondly, I am one of the authors who have stated critical remarks on some questions, stated in his book "History and Numismatics of Chach" (second half of III - the middle of VIII centuries AD) [Rtveladzе, 2006]3. Thirdly, his desire coincides with opinion of higher official structures4. Fourthly, he has too high opinion on himself and considers that only his point of view can be correct, and even if he is mistaken only himself has the right to correct for his mistakes. As to J.F.Burjakov's review response, which has as a whole neutral and justified character, its writing speaks that he was the editor-in-chief of the book written by D.A.Alimova and M.I.Filanovich.
Below I would like to give within the limits of scientific discussion the explanatory to some statements of these two scientists in my address and to state my point of view on these questions.
First of all, I would like to emphasize once again about a role of the popular scientific literature in a public life and the big responsibility which carries the author writing such work. In my "Zametki" I marked, that "if scientific works are intended for a narrow circle of experts and their writing assigns to the researcher the certain responsibility in front of the scholars, the popular scientific works, unlike the first, are intended for a wide range of readers and the problem of their writing assigns the special responsibility, because such works has an influence on the formation of public opinion on different questions of the history. Therefore the writing of popular scientific works on the history of cities demands from the researcher of more serious approach and the responsibility" [Kаmoliddin, 2009: 76]. Hence, the authors bear the responsibility before all society and have no right to mislead weight of people by the incorrect information and erroneous conclusions. Because, the people who are not expert in subtleties of these questions, perceive everything, that is written in these works as it is. Therefore the popular scientific character of the book of D.A.Alimova and M.I.Filanovich5 cannot be the justification available in it of weight of gross blunders and lacks, especially, if to consider, that this book has been published by the greater circulation (3 thousand copies) under the state order for budgetary funds, i.e. national money in which there is a share of each citizen of Uzbekistan. Therefore, I consider, that authors of this book, D.A.Alimova and M.I.Filanovich, should bear the responsibility before each of us, i.e. before all people of Uzbekistan.
In the foreword of edition, just as in the name and the text of the review of E.V.Rtveladze (further: "the reviewer"), some times appears a word "brochure" under which, possibly, it should be understood the instruction that is a question of the work of small volume having popular character. However, in my opinion, this definition does not approach neither to my work, nor to D.A.Alimova and M.I.Filanovich's work. First, a word "brochure" (from the French brochure) is used for a designation "acyclic editions in the form of the several stitched sheets of a printed material in volume from above 4, but no more than 48 pages" [Slowar inostrannyh slov: 92]. Secondly, according to the rules of the Higher Аttestation Commission of Uzbekistan, any scientific or popular scientific work which volume exceeds 5 lists, i.e. 80 p., are considered as the monography or the book. Thirdly, my book unlike D.A.Alimova and M.I.Filanovich's book, is not popular scientific work, but it is the scientific review written with observance of all rules of the scientific edition. Therefore I consider, that the name "the popular brochure" is used by the reviewer not correctly and mismatches character of my work.
Further the reviewer writes about any mine "kritikan performances in the press, carried unilateral, prejudiced, personal, and at times simply aggressive character" [Rtveladzе, 2008, c. 54 - 55]. I do not know, what he means, because I almost have no publications "in the press" for exceptions of two-three articles which had peace character. But I guess, that, possibly, it is a question of a series of my articles under the general heading "About the future of social studies in Uzbekistan", written by the middle of the 90th of XX century in which I tried to pay attention of the public to some negative phenomena which are taken place in a scientific life and called to struggle for preservation of scientific traditions of our teachers. However, these articles in due time for the known reasons have not been published and have remained in my personal archive. The reviewer was a sign with these articles and knew that they have not been published. And in fact in these articles it was a question of such scientists as himself and people similar to him from among lawyers, philosophers and hired scientists, and also "fighters" for human rights and former Komsomol workers.
Further the reviewer once again reproaches me with "aggression" and results endurance from J.E.Bregelja's review of B.V.Lunin's book as an example of benevolent scientific criticism [Rtveladzе, 2008, c. 55]. In this connection I would like to note, that the degree of goodwill or "aggression" depends on character of reviewed work. If work is written well and according to the requirements shown to scientific researches also the review of it will be corresponding. If work is written at a low scientific level and does not meet elementary requirements and to receive it should on merits. During Soviet time all scientific and popular scientific editions passed careful scientific both literary edition, and issue of books of such poor quality practically was impossible. Therefore the reviews of scientific editions were corresponding and were not beyond goodwill. Now, unfortunately, we should deal with scientific production of a different level and quality. But it is especially disturbing, when production of such poor quality proceeds from director and the leading scientific employee of the Institute of history of the Аcademy of Sciences of Uzbekistan, who is called to be a leader of the historical science in Uzbekistan. Such works of poor quality bring more harm, than advantage, and make damage to the reputations of the Uzbek science in opinion of world community. Therefore we should concern to such works with all severity, and not only "aggressively", but destroy them radically and not allow their occurrence to the public. By virtue of these reasons I consider the conclusion about expediency of withdrawal of the book of D.A.Alimova and M.I.Filanovich from public using quite natural. And that fact testifies to their attitude to the duties and to criticism in their address, that they reprinted the work without any changes with gross blunders existed in it, not having considered any of my remarks [Alimova, Filanovich, 2009]. I do not doubt that my late teacher Pavel G.Bulgakov whom the reviewer mentioned, would approve my review and have joined my conclusion. Because he was principal scholar and irreconcilable to the similar negative phenomena in a science. That it is impossible to tell about the reviewer.
Further the reviewer accuses Academic council of Tаshkent State Institute of Oriental Studies that they recommended my work for printing [Rtveladze, 2008: 55 - 56]. Below he accuses director of the Institute Francaise des Etudes d’Asie Centrale Bayram Balchi that he has supported M.Ishakov, S.Kamoliddin and G.Babayarov in the edition of their work "Zametki po istorii numizmatiki rannesrednevekovogo Chacha (III - VIII veka)" (Notes on history of numismatics of early medieval Chach (III - VIII centuries) " (Tashkent: IFEAC, 2007), containing critical remarks about his book "Istoriya i numizmatika Chacha" (vtoraya polovina III - seredina VIII vv. n.e.) (History and numismatics of Chach (second half of III - the middle of VIII centuries AD) (Tashkent, 2006) [Rtveladze, 2008: 60, n. 9]. It is necessary to note, that it was the publication in the series "Work documents of IFEAC", edited for a narrow circle of experts with the purpose of acquaintance and discussion and let out in the circulation only 70 copy as the manuscript. Besides in the note of edition it is noted, that all "the responsibility for the maintenance of published manuscripts is born by their authors representing materials in a kind prepared for the publication (camera ready)". Therefore we consider charges of the reviewer to address of Mr. Bayram Balchi unreasonable. Meanwhile, the same work without any changes has been published in the international annual Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi edited in Germany [Iskhakov, Kаmoliddin, Babayarov, 2008: 207 - 269]. Besides the same work is published on a web-site of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Zurich University in Switzerland [Kаmoliddin, Bаbayar, 2007]. Apparently, the reviewer knows nothing about these publications. Otherwise, he, probably, would accuse editors of the above mentioned annual (Th. T. Allsen, P.B. Golden, R.K. Kovalev and A.P. Martinez), as well as the scientific editor of the above mentioned web-site A. Kaplony, that they have published this work. If to follow logic of the reviewer in that case, it is necessary to do responsible editions of the journals "Voprosy filologii" (Questions of philology) (Moscow), "Moziydan sado" (Echo of History) (Tashkent), "O’zbek tili va adabiyoti" (Uzbek language and literature) (Tashkent), "Imom al-Bukhoriy saboqlari" (Imam al-Bukhari studies) (Tashkent), "Transoxiana" (Argentina) and the publishing house Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina (Venice) that they have published my articles with critical remarks in his address (see above, n. 3). Really is though any bases to doubt of objectivity of editors of all these editions.
If to speak about objectivity of editors it is possible to result some other examples showing, that, for example, editors of the quarterly journal "O’zbekiston tarixi" has their own approaches at selection of materials for the publication. They are not interested in the scientific value or novelty of article, but is more important, whether whom is its author and is he loyal to D.A.Alimova and her associates. I shall result only one example. Several years ago I represented to editors of this journal the article "New data on the early campaign of the Arabs to China", containing absolutely new data which are throwing light at the history of the Arabian conquest of Central Asia. However, this article and has not been published in this journal. But it has been published in English in the journal of Eurasian Studies published by the Institute of history of the Academy of Sciences of the Peoples Republic of China [Kamoliddin, 2007: 198 - 205] and in the scientific annual "Cultural values" published in St.-Petersburg (Russia) [Kаmoliddin, 2008: 187 - 190]. Besides this article has been published in the 3-issue (2007) of the web-journal Sephis e-magazine [Kamoliddin, 2007], which is edited in Belgium, and has caused the active discussion in the broad audience of scholars of the international online-club of historians "H-Asia". In particular, a high estimation to this article gave the Chinese historians and the American sinologs. The Institute of history of the Uzbek Academy of Sciences with its journal, certainly, has stood aside of these events. Hardly somebody will doubt that the same fate would expect also the present material if I have handed it to the editors of the journal "O’zbekiston tarixi". Though logically this magazine is obliged to accept my material to the publication as in it E.V.Rtveladze's review of my book is published. In scientific discussion both parties should have the equal rights and opportunities. If you are assured that you speak, you should enable to the opponent to express the opinion. Otherwise it will be not discussion, but imposing of the point of view with a position of force, that actually occurs in our case.
Other example of the "objectivity" of editors from our practice is connected with the reviewer himself. Several years ago I have written an article in which has stated a critical remark about one of the articles of the reviewer on the toponyms [Rtveladze, 2003: 17 - 22]. Thinking that I act openly and fairly, believing, and that my critic will be objectively apprehended, and, hoping on continuation of healthy scientific discussion on this question, I have offered it for the publication in the book of articles prepared for printing in the Institute of Arts, editor of which was the reviewer. However, it has appeared, that I was mistaken in the assumptions, counting on decency and scientific conscientiousness of the reviewer as my article has not been included in the book without explanation of any reasons. After that I have published this and some other my articles on the same question in other editions [Kаmoliddin, 2004: 30 - 34; Kаmoliddin, 2005: 48 - 51; Kаmoliddin, 2006: 38 - 43], including the foreign ones [Kаmoliddin, 2004: 25 - 27; Kamoliddin, 2004; Kamoliddin, 2006: 333 - 341] which publication testify that my critic was right and fair.
Further the reviewer passes directly to remarks on my book, distributed by him to 5 sections. In the first section the reviewer specifies typing errors, different interpretations and the discrepancies which are existed in my book [Rtveladze, 2008: 56]. With some of them, concerning number of typing errors and different interpretations, as a whole it is possible to agree. But such mistakes are not much - only 7, and some of them are disputable. As I already marked in my book, "it is possible to find mistakes in any work" [Kаmoliddin, 2009: 77]. All the matter is that in what quantity and quality they are. If I have admitted 7 mistakes in the book in volume 100 pages, only in the Russian part of the book written by D.A.Alimova and M.I.Filanovich in volume 84 pages there are about 180 mistakes, and in their Uzbek translation it is much more. Besides it is necessary to emphasize especially, that D.A.Alimova and M.I.Filanovich's book is written for a wide range of readers under the state order and published by the greater circulation (3 thousand copies) on the budgetary funds. Therefore it should pass careful scientific and literary edition in publishing house. As to my book it is calculated on a narrow circle of experts and teachers of high schools, and it has been published not in publishing house, but in the printing house of Tаshkent State Institute of Oriental Studies in small circulation (200 copies) on my own means. Such works, as a rule, do not pass through hands of professional editors and proof-readers. Therefore in them there can be some typing errors and different interpretations.
As to some "discrepancies" (they are only 4) which the reviewer specifies, in this part it is possible to discuss with him. So, the reviewer writes, that "the ossuariums it is impossible to name "funeral urns", because there is a basic distinction between them: ossuariums used for storage of bones, and urns are intended for storage of ashes of the dead" [Rtveladze, 2008: 56]. Yes, I agree that traditionally it is right: an urn - a vessel for storage of ashes of the dead, subjected cremation [Slovar inostrannyh slov: 528; Urna pogrebal’naya: 222; Urny pogrebal’nye: 866]. But this is in fact not an axiom. Besides funeral urns served not only for storage of ashes, but also the bones which have remained from a corpse after ther burning. In places of burial of the dead were put also special urns in which gathered tears spilled on them [Urna: 914]. Thus, from these data follows that funeral urns could be different and served not only for storage of ashes, but also bones. They are in this respect very similar with ossuariums which actually are one of versions of a funeral urn. Therefore in the scientific literature as funeral urns sometimes refer to the ossuariums too because this Latin term meaning "vessel for storage of bones", has no standard Russian equivalent. Besides in this case in our text the term "the funeral urn" is resulted in structure of the citation from A.A.Potapov's article "Reliefy drevney Sogdiany kak istoricheskiy istochnik" (Reliefs of ancient Sogdiana as a historical source), published in the quarterly magazine "Vestnik drevney istorii" (Bulletin of ancient history) [Potapov, 1938: 127 - 137].
Further the reviewer writes, that "stylistically and grammatically it is incorrect to write "Sogdian and Turkic societies in the development were practically coevals" [Rtveladze, 2008: 56]. I do not see here any mistake, neither stylistic, nor grammatic, that any editor can confirm. Besides this phrase belongs not to me, and a part of the citation from the author's abstract of the thesis for a doctor's degree of Elmira Gjul [Gyul, 2002: 16] in which discussion I took part, and from her book published on the basis of this dissertation [Gyul, 2005: 67].
The reviewer writes that "For the Manichaean religion never and nobody is used term Manichaeism", …, but used only "Maniheystvo" [Rtveladze, 2008: 56]. However, I an sure that the reviewer doesn’t know that this word borrowed in Russian, is used both in that, and in other form [Slovar inostrannyh slov: 300].
The reviewer writes, that "names of books and articles, which are in French transferred without upper signs that is inadmissible because this may influence on the sense of a word " [Rtveladze, 2008: 56]. We have checked up all names of works in French and were convinced that absence of the upper signs does not influence at all sense of references. This remark can be lawful for the text, but is not essentially important for the list of the literature. Much more inadmissible is, when the reviewer writes ИFЕАK instead of ИФЕАK or IFEAC [Rtveladze, 2008:. 60, n. 9]. Besides the reviewer, resulting the reference to F.Grenet's work in French, does not trouble himself with to put down the upper signs [Rtveladze, 2008: 59, n. 3].
In the second section of his remarks the reviewer, trying to justify D.A.Alimova and M.I.Filanovich's incompetence in spelling of medieval Islamic names, himself finds out the ignorance in this area6. In total he results 6 remarks any of which is not correct [Rtveladze, 2008: 57]. In my book-review I did not write about any diacritical signs, but I have only specified on incorrect writing of the Islamic names like Халиль (instead of Халил), Джамаль (instead of Джамал), Kафаль (instead of Kаффал), Kуляль (instead of Kулал), Яхья (instead of Йахйа), Мамун (instead of Ма’мун), Мутасим (instead of Му‘тасим), etc. Even more monstrous the phrase is: "The son of the killed governor of Chach ran to the Arabs, and has resulted group under command of Аbu Muslim Ziyad ibn Salih" [Alimova, Filanovich, 2007: 102] in which are mixed two known historical persons - Аbu Мuslim and Ziyad ibn Salih [Kаmoliddin, 2009: 52 - 53]. This is not cavils, but indication on the gross blunders for which they are obligated to answer. The cavils are the naive and ridiculous remarks of the reviewer, on which I am not desirable to answer.
In the third section of the remarks the reviewer writes that in my work are resulted vast digressions, … actually not having attitudes to a popular scientific sketch about history of Tashkent " [Rtveladze, 2008: 57]. Formally, my book is not the review, but independent scientific work under the name "Zametki po drevney i srednevekovoy istorii Chacha" (Note on ancient and medieval history of Chach). In the summary to my book it is marked, that "in the work expresses the point of view of the author on some debatable questions of ancient and medieval history of Chach" [Kаmoliddin, 2009: 2] which statement should be not necessarily connected with D.A.Alimova and M.I.Filanovich's popular scientific sketch. They had their own purposes and tasks, and me also had my own ones. And as cases in point are debatable for a substantiation of the point of view is required attraction of data and certificates as more as possible wide circle of sources. Otherwise the stated conclusions will appear proofless and unsubstantiated.
In the fourth section of the remarks the reviewer marks, that I use "a selective, unilateral method of the proof of the positions and conclusions". Thus he reproaches me that I refer to the work of the "very few people of known Azerbaijan scientist H.G.Korogly", and that I "do not consider works of the "outstanding linguists and historians V.I.Abaev, I.M.Djakonov and V.B.Henning " [Rtveladze, 2008: 58]. First, if the reviewer does not know H.G.Korogly's book it does not mean yet, that it for very few people is known. H.K.Korogly is very known and authoritative scientist in the area, and his book "Vzaimosvyazi eposa narodov Credney Azii, Irana i Azerbaydjana" (Interrelations of the epos of people of Central Asia, Iran and Azerbaijan), published in the Publishing house "Nauka" in Moscow [Korogly, 1983], represents magnificent research which on its scientific importance nothing concedes to the works of V.I.Abaev, I.M.Djakonov and V.B.Henning. Secondly, what for to concentrate attention that he is the "Azerbaijanian" scientist. In a science it is not accepted to divide scientists into the nations. We do not name E.V.Rtveladze the "Georgian" or "Georgian-Russian" scientist, and J.F.Buryakov "Russian" or "Jewish" scientist. Thirdly, in our text the main is not a question of an ethnic belonging of the Turs, but the question of use of the place names Turan and Turkistan in written sources. Therefore we are not obliged to result here all the existing points of view about an ethnic belonging of the Turs. Besides I consider, that it is not possible to agree with all of the V.I.Abaev, I.M.Djakonov and V.B.Henning's conclusions. For more details about this I would recommend to the reviewer to read through my article "О metodah opredeleniya etnicheskoy prinadlezhnosti drevnih narodov po dannym pis’mennyh istochnikov" (About methods of definition of an ethnic belonging of ancient people according to written sources) [Kаmoliddin, 2003: 22 - 28; Kаmoliddin, 2004: 786 - 788].
Further the reviewer writes, that "in discourses of the author on the role of a horse at the Iranian people is shown ignorance of this question by the author" [Rtveladze, 2008: 58]. The role of a horse at the Iranian tribes and people is well-known to me [Kuzmina, 1977: 28 - 52]. But more it concerns to an antiquity, instead of the Middle Ages. And in my text it is a question of the Middle Ages when horse breeding was the basic employment mainly only of the Turkic tribes and people [Nesterov, 1990; Kаmoliddin, 2006: 79 - 99]. Besides "my discourses" actually is only the opinion that the Iranian people "never used in food meet of a horse" [Kаmoliddin, 2009: 20], at least, in the Middle Ages. Other part of my "discourses" is endurances from the text of a medieval source [аl-Isfahani: 190] and from the text of the research of the authoritative scholars [Marshak, Raspopova, 1989: 418] on which in my text there are references [Kаmoliddin, 2009: 20].
In the fifth section of the remarks the reviewer accuses me "of incompetence in many problems, questions and in knowledge of the scientific literature especially connected with archeology, history of religion and numismatics of Central Asia". In particular, he considers erroneous a phrase: "It is supposed, that ossuariums were, first of all, vessels for storage of skulls" [Rtveladze, 2008: 58]. However, this phrase belongs not to me, but to J.A.Rapoport [Rapoport, 1971: 35] on which book in my text there is a reference [Kаmoliddin, 2009: 22]. Not only archeologists, but even students know that in osuuariums besides skulls there are also other parts of a human skeleton. And for this purpose it is not obligatory to study them in situ, on what does accent the reviewer, because the detailed information on it can be found in any encyclopedia [Rapoport, 1967: 651; Rapoport, 1974: 579; Оssuariy: 955]. The assumption that "ossuariums were, first of all, vessels for storage of skulls" [Rapoport, 1971: 35], does not mean, that only skulls were stored in them, and there were no other parts of a human skeleton [Rtveladze, 2008: 58]. This means that the basic applicability of ossuariums was, first of all (!), storage of a skull, and together with it other parts of a human skeleton which were of secondary importance. About it also writes J.A.Rapoport in the book devoted to ossuariums. If it is so interesting to the reviewer, he could open and read this book before speaking something in my address.
Further the reviewer writes, that the scientific literature about ossuariums, resulted in my book, "rather poor, and besides it is published during rather remote times … " [Rtveladze, 2008: 58]. Yes, really, there is a big number of the literature about ossuariums, published as in our country, as abroad. Presently, owing to the huge database which has been saved up on the Internet system, we it is possible to read practically any book or article without leaving a house or a cabinet. But the problem of my research did not oblige me to give the full review of the literature about ossuariums. Me, first of all, interested ossuariums, which researchers connected with the Turks. The question on distribution of the Zoroastrianism among the Turks is still poorly investigated. Therefore I have devoted for research of this question special article in which I have collected data of sources and data of the archeology, concerning this question [Kаmoliddin, 2004: 4 - 9]. Having seen the big number of the literature about ossuariums, including all issues of the Istoriya Material’noy kul’tury Uzbekistana (IMKU), I have defined, that archeological materials and conclusions of the scholars, which were interesting for me, have been published, mainly, only during remote times. About distribution of the Zoroastrianism among the Turks have wrote only a few scholars such as A.A.Potapov, J.A.Rapoport, L.I.Rempel, G.A.Pugachenkova, V.I.Kozenkova, I.A.Benediktov, E.F.Gjul and some others. As to the works of other scholars, who were carried out researches on ossuariums, including the newest researches, the materials related to my subject practically are absent in them, why I have not included them into my article, and especially into the book, in which I used only some fragments from the article. Therefore at the reviewer was made the impression, that the literature about ossuariums used by me is rather poor. In the book I used these materials to show, that a ceremony of burial places in the ossuariums of the oval form, which was widely spread in the early Middle Ages in the Tashkent oasis, has been connected with the Turks.
Further the reviewer writes that "the same rather naive if to not tell more look discourses of the author about the Manichaeism which is declared by him as one of forms of the fire-worship" [Rtveladze, 2008: 59]. Yes, I confirm, that the Manichaeism is one of forms of the fire-worship, because worship of fire is one of the main attributes of this religious-philosophical doctrine. The same various forms of the fire-worship were the Zoroastrianism, the Mazdakism and so-called "Maзdeism" [Kаmoliddin, 2009: 22, n. 14], that it is impossible to tell about the Buddhism, the Judaism, the Christianity and the Islam.
By the way, my "discourses" about the Manichaeism have been published in the authoritative scientific annual published in St.-Petersburg [Kаmoliddin, 2008: 13 - 21], preliminary having passed through hands of the international editorial board consisting of experts which hardly would admit their publication if they were "naive". Besides the same article has been published in the 11-issue (2006) of the International scientific web-magazine Transoxiana [Kamoliddin, 2006], which let out by group of the sogdologs and medievists, many of whom are members of the online "Sogdian club". The article has caused the big interest in scientific circles and was a point of issue in two other large online-clubs. So, the known American sinolog Victor Meir, being the professor of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia (USA) in the reference to members of the online-club "Indo-Eurasian research" has noted, that he has found points of a support in my article for interpretation of some new unusual finds occuring from Central Asia which he connects with influence of the Buddhism and India [http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/Indo-Eurasian_research/message/8088 - 45k-]. The article was discussed also among members of online-club "Meta-Filter" after performance of the Indian scientist T.Putra [http://www.metafilter.com/70115/Somepapers]. I should note, that anybody from discussed my article has not named my discourses "naïve", but on the contrary, showed the big interest, and some people even suggested me the help to find the scientific literature, which was necessary for me. Here it is sincerely benevolent attitude of a scientist to a scientist irrespective of their nationality, creed, a post and a rank. That it is impossible to tell about the reviewer. Besides the materials included in my book, have been published in structure of my extensive article in the annual Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, which edits in Germany [Kаmoliddin, 2008: 43 - 70], and also have passed approbation in 3 international conferences - "Medieval archeology of the Euroasian steppes" (Kazan, February 14 - 16, 2007), the international congress of the orientalists ICANAS - XXXVIII (Ankara, September 10 - 15, 2007) and 5th conference devoted to the E.Turchinov's memory "Philosophy, religion and culture of the countries of Asia" (St.-Petersburg, February 6 - 9, 2008) . Thus my materials have not caused any objections neither in edition of authoritative German annual, nor at the Russian archeologists and philosophers, nor at the orientalists.
To inform the reviewer, my "discourses" on the role of the Manichaeism in Central Asia, represent essentially new point of view with which many authoritative scholars are agree. But the characteristic of this religious-philosophical doctrine, which he results in the review, it is possible to find in any encyclopedia and the textbook for students of high schools. Before suggesting to me reading through well-known work of A.M.Belenitsky or the book written by himself (in which there is nothing new about this religious-philosophical doctrine), and to list well-known literature (which, in his opinion, is known only to him) it would be better for him firstly to read in more details all over my publications on this question, certainly, if he is interested to discuss.
Further the reviewer writes, that my discourses about the Zoroastrianism referring to V.Zunderman's work "radically are incorrect", because "this author does not use at all the archeological and historical researches devoted to the Zoroastrian ceremonies and customs in Central Asia" [Rtveladzе, 2008: 59]. By the reference which is resulted by the reviewer, probably, the reviewer thinks, that about the Zoroastrianism have the right to write only archeologists and lawyers, and also hints that he knows the Avestian language, and personally was engaged in translation of "Аvesta". However, this mismatches the validity. Because everybody knows, that the reviewer does not know neither Avestian, nor Sogdian languages. As to charge of the reviewer to the address of V.Sunderman, this is not other, that as slander. V.Sunderman used in his work data of written sources - "Аvesta", "Shah-nama", textual sources on the Pahlavi language, such as Šāyast n šāyast, Dādestān denīg, Book of Tobit, Mēnog xrad, Sūgar nask, and also the work "Ghurar akhbar muluk al-furs" by al-Tha‘alibi. If he did not use the data of the archeological researches, it still does not speak about anything. In the same way it is possible to accuse the reviewer that he uses data of primary sources in translation, instead of in language of the original. In the same way the reviewer accused M.N.Fedorov that he works with ancient coins of Central Asia only under books, photos and portrayals [Rtveladze, 2008: 66], and M.Ishakov and G.Babajarov that in a science they are "casual people" and "schoolboys" [Rtveladze, 2008: 67], badly understand paleography of the Sogdian inscriptions and "invent" Sogdian words [Rtveladze, 2008: 70]. All these above mentioned people dared to act with criticism of the works of E.V.Rtveladze. Now the same speed up has undergone also V.Sunderman though he, maybe, even did not read E.V.Rtveladze's works, but his opinion has appeared not pleasing to the last.
Further the reviewer writes, that in the Sogdian inscriptions from Kultobе the word Chach, "first, is not mentioned separately, and always in the form of c’c’n’p - Chachannap, secondly, it is mentioned in three of eight (instead of 14), and thirdly, that I should consider two works of the reviewer on these inscriptions" [Rtveladze, 2008: 60]. First, already known groundless applications of the reviewer rather Chachan - Chachannap are in detail considered by us in our recent publication [Iskhakov, Kаmoliddin, Babayarov, 2009: 34 - 40]7. Secondly, the alive report of the first researcher which has been carried out in 2007 in IFEAC with display of illustrations and use of distributing materials, has not smaller if not greater value, than small article published in little-known magazine in 2006. In this report on which the reviewer was absent, F.Grenet has acquainted listeners with translations of 14, instead of 8 Sogdian inscriptions from Kultobе. Thirdly, we are not obliged to consider work of the reviewer as into our problem does not enter to give the full review of all publications about these inscriptions. We only wished to note, that place-name Chach is mentioned in inscriptions from Kultobe, and not anything more. As to the "readings" of the Sogdian inscriptions of the reviewer, that, proceeding from our last publications8, we simply do not trust them.
Further the reviewer writes, that "in 1991 he has been invited as the official opponent in the defence of the M.Ishakov’s thesis for a doctor's degree, which has been devoted to the paleography of the Sogdian inscriptions and the Sogdian language" [Rtveladzе, 2008: 60]. First, defence of the M.Ishakov’s dissertation was not in 1991, but in 1992. Secondly, his dissertation has been devoted only to the paleography of the Sogdian script, and not to the Sogdian language. Therefore he has received a degree of the doctor historical, instead of philological sciences. Thirdly, participation as the opponent on the defence of the dissertation yet does not speak that the reviewer knows the Sogdian language. I should note, that in 1993 the reviewer represented as the opponent on the defence of my thesis for a doctor's degree written on the basis of the Arabic sources. But it yet does not speak that he knows the Arabian language. The knowledge of any language means not only knowledge of the alphabet and paleography, but, first of all, grammar and lexicon. Therefore the knowledge of paleography and the several words meeting in the Sogdian legends on ancient coins of Soghd and Chach, yet does not give the basis to the reviewer for the statement that he knows the Sogdian language. Knowledge at such level own many researchers of the early medieval coins, for example, A.Musakaeva, A.Naymark, A.Kamyshev, D.Biryukov, G.Babayarov, A.Kubatin, and even numismatists collectors V.Shagalov and A.Kuznetsov. All of them read Sogdian legends on coins, but for check of correctness of the readings they address to the experts, such as N.Sims-Williams, V.A.Livshits, M.M.Ishakov, P.B.Lurje, J.Yoshida, etc. the Same always is done also by the reviewer.
In summary the reviewer marks, that he "has not at present and no in the further neither time, nor a desire" for analysis of "all of my and my companions9 of incompetent judgements on those or other questions and problems of archeology, history and numismatics of Central Asia" [Rtveladze, 2008: 61]. In his other article he writes, that he "does not have time and desires" to discuss these questions with "casual people" and "schoolboys" [Rtveladze, 2008: 67]. In our opinion, such statements have no anything general with a science and scientific ethics, and testify that this scientist suffers excessive arrogance and has too high opinion on himsels, that actually mismatches the validity. We consider, that the scientist, first of all, should be modest and respect with opinions of other scientists even if he does not agree with them [Ishakov, Kаmoliddin, Babayarov, 2009: 4].
In summary I would like to add from myself, that I too do not have any desire to deal with the reviewer and to answer at his groundless applications. But to force him to respect with opinions of other scientists, I will find a time.
Аlimova D.А., Filanovich М.I. Toshkent tarixi (qadimgi davrlardan bugungi kungacha). Istoriya Tashkenta (s drevneyshih vremen do nashih dney). Tаshkent: ARTFLEX, 2007.
Buryakov J.F. Tochka zreniya na recenziyu // O’zbekiston tarixi, 2008, Nr. 4, p. 61 - 68.
Giul E. Dialog kul’tur v iskusstve Uzbekistana. Аntichnost i srednevekovye. Tаshkent, 2005.
Giul E.F. Problema etno-kul’turnyh vzaimodeystviy v antichnom i srednevekovom iskesstve Uzbekistana. Аvtoreferat dissertatsii . . . doktora iskusstvovedeniya. Tаshkent, 2002.
аl-Isfahani, Аbu-l-Faradj. Kniga pesen / Perevod s arabskogo А.B.Khalidova, B.Y.Shidfar. М.: Nauka, 1980.
Ishakov М., Kаmoliddin Sh., Babayarov G. Zametki po istorii numizmatiki rannesrednevekovogo Chacha (III - VIII vvв.) // Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, edited by Th.T.Allsen, P.B.Golden, R.K.Kovalev and A.P.Martinez, 15 (2006/2007), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2008, p. 207 - 269.
Ishakov М., Kаmoliddin Sh., Babayarov G. Titulatura doislamskih praviteley Chacha. Tаshkent: Tаshkent State Institute of Oriental Studies, 2009.
Kаmoliddin Sh. Аrab ismlaridan yasalgan qadimgi joy nomlari // Imom al-Buxoriy saboqlari, 2006, 1, p. 38 - 43.
Kаmolissin Sh. Zametki po drevney i srednevekovoy istorii Chacha. Tаshkent: Tаshkent State Institute of Oriental Studies, 2009.
Kаmoliddin Sh. K voprosu o proishozhdenii nazvaniya Hashimjird // Вoпрoсы филoлoгии, 2005, Nr. 1 (19), p. 48 - 51 (Moscow, Institute of language and literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences).
Kаmoliddin Sh. K voprosu o proishozhdenii Samanidov // Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, edited by Th.T.Allsen, P.B.Golden, R.K.Kovalev and A.P.Martinez, 15 (2006/2007), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2008, p. 43 - 70.
Kаmoliddin Sh. K voprosu o proishozhdenii toponima Hashimjird // Moziydan sado, 2004, Nr. 2 (22), p. 25 - 27.
Kаvoprosu o razvitii konevodstva v Sredney Azii v srednie veka // Journal of Turkic Civilization Studies. No. 2 (2006). Bishkek, 2006, p. 79 - 99.
Kаmoliddin Sh. Novye dannye o rannem pohode arabov v Kitay // Kul’turnye cennosti. 2004 - 2006. Central’naya Aziya v proshlom i nastoyashem. St.-Peterburg, 2008, p. 187 - 190.
Kаmoliddin Sh. О metodah opredeleniya etnicheskoy prinadlezhnosti drevnih narodov po dannym pis’mennyh istochnikov // O’zbekistonda millatlararo munosabatlar: tarix va hozirgi zamon. Tashkent, 2003, p. 22 - 28.
Kаmoliddin Sh. О metodah opredeleniya etnicheskoy prinadlezhnosti drevnih narodov Sredney Azii po dannym pis’mennyh istochnikov // Tеzisy dokladov Mezhdunarodnogo kongressa vostokovedov (ICANAS - XXXVII). T. 2. М., 2004, p. 786 - 788.
Kаmoliddin Sh. О rasprostranenii zoroastrizma sredi tyurkov // UzМU xabarlari (Vestnik NUUZ, Acta NUUZ). Tаshkent: Universitet, 2004, Nr. 4, p. 4 - 9.
Kаmoliddin Sh. О religioznoy prinadlezhnosti predkov Samanidov // Kul’turnye cennosti. 2004 - 2006. Central’naya Aziya v proshlom i nastoyashem. St.-Peterburg, 2008, p. 13 - 21.
Kаmoliddin Sh. Hoshimjird shahri nomining kelib chiqishi masalasiga doir // O’zbek tili va adabiyoti, 2004, Nr. 6, p. 30 - 34.
Kamoliddin S.K. New Data on an Early Arab Attack on China, in: Eurasian Studies, vol. 6 - 7. Proceedings of the International Conference on Ancient Central Eurasian and Chinese Civilizations. Peijing, 2007, vol. 1, p. 198 - 205.
Kamoliddin S.K. New Data on an Early Attack of the Arabs on China, in: SEPHIS e-magazine, 2007, 3, 14 р. (http://www.sephis.org/e-magazine/3/kamoliddin.html ).
Kamoliddin S.K. On the Religion of the Samanids ancestors, in: Transoxiana, 11 (2006), 16 р. (http://www.transoxiana.org/11/kamoliddin-samanids.html).
Kamoliddin S.K. To the question of the origin of the place-name Hashimgird, in: Transoxiana, 9 (2004) (http://www.transoxiana.org/9/kamoliddin-hashimgird.html ).
Kamoliddin S.K. To the Question of Origin of the Name Hashimgird, in: Ērān ud Anērān: Studies presented to Boris Il’ich Marshak on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, Edited by M.Compareti, P.Raffetta, C.Scarcia, Venezia: Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina, 2006, p. 333 - 341.
Kаmoliddin Sh., Babayarov G. Recenziya na knigu E.V.Rtveladze "Istoriya i numizmatika Chacha (vtoraya polovina III - seredina VIII v. n.e.)", 2006 // Universität Zürich. Orientalisches Seminar. International project "Trade in Central Asia". Zürich, 2007 (http://www.ori.unizh.ch/research/centralasia/TradeinCentralAsia.html).
Korogly H.G. Vzaimosvyazi eposa narodov Sredney Azii, Irana i Azerbaydjana. М.: Nauka, 1983.
Kuz’mina Е.Е. Rasprostranenie konevodstva i kul’ta konya u iranoyazychnyh plemen Sredney Azii i drugih narodov Starogo Sveta // Srednyaya Aziya v drevnosti i srednevekovye (Istoriya i kul’tura). М., 1977, p. 28 - 52.
Маrshak B.I., Raspopova V.I. Kochevniki i Sogd // Vzaimodeystvie kochevyh kul’tur i drevnih civilizatsiy. Аlma-Аtа, 1989, p. 416 - 426.
Nesterov S.P. Kon v kul’tah tyurkoyazychnyh plemen Central’noy Azii v epohu srednevekovya. Novosibirsk: Nauka SО, 1990.
Оssuariy // Sovetskiy enciklopedicheskiy slovar. М.: Sovetskaya Enciklopedia, 1979. С. 955.
Potapov А.А. Reliefy drevney Sogdiany kak istoricheskiy istochnik // Vestnik drevney istorii, 1938, Nr. 2, p. 127 - 137.
Rapoport J.А. Iz istorii religii drevnego Horezmа (ossuarii). М.: Nauka, 1971.
Rapoport J.А. Оssuarii // Sovetckaya istoricheskaya enciklopedia. T. 10. М.: Sovetskaya Enciklopedia, 1967, p. 651.
[Rapoport J.А.] Оssuariy // Bol’shaya sovetskaya enciklopedia. 3-ed. T. 18. М.: Sovetskaya Enciklopedia, 1974, p. 579.
Rtveladze E.V. Bol’shie pretenzii k malen’koy broshure. Оbisnovany li oni? // O’zbekiston tarixi, 2008, Nr. 4, p. 54 - 61.
Rtveladze E.V. Gorod demona Aešma // O’rta Isiyo tarixi nambashunosligi masalalari. Tashkent, 2003, p. 17 - 22.
Rtveladze E.V. Istoriya i numizmatika Chacha (vtoraya polovina III - seredina VIII vv. n.e.). Tашкент, 2006.
Rtveladze E.V. K ranney istorii Chacha (novye numizmaticheskie i epigraphicheskie istochniki) // Оbshestvennye nauki v Uzbekistane, 2008, Nr. 4, p. 64 - 74.
Rtveladze E.V. Nekotorye zamechaniya po povodu novyh chteniy sogdiyskih legend na monetah Chacha // Numizmatika Central’noy Azii, vypusk. 8. Tаshkent: Nihol, 2008, p. 65 - 71.
Slovar inostrannyh slov. 19-idanie, stereotipnoe. М.: Russkiy yazyk, 1990.
Urna // Enciklopedicheskiy slovar, ed. F.А.Brokhaus i I.А.Еfron. T. ХХХIV (68). St-Peterburg, 1902, p. 914.
Urna pogrebal’naya // Sovetskaya istoricheskaya encuklopedia. T. 14. М.: Sovetskaya enciklopedia, 1977, p. 222 - 223.
Urny pogrebal’nye // Bol’shaya Sovetskaya enciklopedia. T. 14. М.: Sovetskaya enciklopedia, 1973, p. 866.
1 Thus the editor-in-chief of the magazine " O’zbekiston tarixi " (D.A.Alimova) so hastened to publish them quickly (primitive cleanly female psychology: to revenge quicker), that has overlooked the admitted chronological anachronism: reviews of the book which has published in 2009, are published in the issue of the magazine for 2008.
2 Here we deal with a typical case of an administrative method of the decision of the arisen problem - authors of the both reviews are employees of the institute of history of the Uzbek Academy of Sciences over which D.A.Alimova is director.
3 Here it means the review: Iskhakov, Kаmoliddin, Babayarov. "Zametki po istorii numizmatiki rannesrednevekovogo Chacha (III - VIII centuries) // Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, edited by Th. T.Allsen, P.B.Golden, R.K.Kovalev and A.P.Martinez, 15 (2006/2007), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2008, p. 207 - 269. To this I can add, that earlier I had to act with criticism of one of E.V.Rtveladze's works on the toponymics [Ртвеладзе, 2003, c. 17 - 22], when I in a few of publications have shown his incompetence in this area [Kаmoliddin, 2004: 30 - 34; Kаmoliddin, 2004: 25 - 27; Kаmoliddin, 2005: 48 - 51; Kаmoliddin, 2006: 38 - 43; Kamoliddin, 2004; Kamoliddin, 2006: 333 - 341].
4 Therefore he tries to accuse the Academic council of Tashkent State Institute of Oriental Studies (Rtveladzе, 2008: 55) and the director of the IFEAC Mr. Bayram Balchi (Ртвеладзе, 2008: 60, n. 9) that they have admitted the publication of these critical remarks, which are objectionable to him and his female companions. For this reason he reminds my "performances in a press" (Rtveladzе, 2008: 54) which in due time have not been accepted for publication.
5 Authors of the book (D.A.Alimova and M.I.Filanovich) as well as their "defenders" (E.V.Rtveladze and J.F.Burjakov), emphasize, that it is not scientific, but only the popular scientific edition. Therefore it is not necessary to make such strict demands to it.
6 It is enough to specify, that he writes the name Аsаd in the form of Аsād, and the nisba is al-Fargānī in the form of al-Fārgani.
7 I am surprised only with J.F.Burjakov's position who always opposed this opinion of the reviewer, and in the review actually agrees with him [Buryakov, 2008: 68]. It seems to me, that a scholar as well as any educated and intelligent person, should have his own opinion and a vital position, and firmly to adhere it, instead of depend on a situation and submit to influence of fleeting currents.
8 In our last work [Iskhakov, Kаmoliddin, Babayarov, 2009] we not only have considered, but also have in detail examined one of specified articles of the reviewer [Rtveladzе, 2008: 64 - 74].
9 Имеются в виду М.Исхакoв и Г.Бабаярoв.
© The Author(s) -- Los artículos son propiedad de sus autores. (Ley 11.723 de la Republica Argentina)