K. Uskenbay - R. Hautala. Paired review, similar to Stalin's denunciations

Abstract

The work analyzes the review of K. Uskenbay and R. Hautala attended a lecture by Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor Burkitbay G. Ayagan “History of the Great Nation – the Golden Horde. Lecture course. – Almaty: Litera-M, 2020. – 224 p”. The author of the lecture course responds by expressing his position on the review of his lecture course, published in № 1 (138) / 2022 in the journal of the Bulletin of the L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University. The work considers the views of colleagues on scientific positions K.Z. Uskenbay, recommendations to the reviewer are made to improve the quality of his work. B.G. Ayagan fixes and substantiates the list of claims on the quality of reviews prepared by K.Z. Uskenbay and R. Hautala. It is indicated that reviewers do not possess knowledge of the work of the Timurid chronographer Yazdi (Yazdi) and Rashid-ad-Din, quotations from which works are used by the author of the course of lectures and those who do not like it. Besides, it is marked by their ignorance of the new scientific literature, where it is reported about the burial place of Urus-khan, the common ancestor of the founders of the Kazakh Khanate Zhanybek and Kerey. The author of the book also brings out a list of reviewers, whose works, which determine the scientific value of the course of the lecture B.G. Ayagan, were published earlier and were criticized by K.Z. Uskenbay and R. Hautala. It is noted that their work was not attended by the previous reviewers of the regalia and the work on the history of the Golden Horde and post-Golden Age states, which confirm their competence in the review of research papers. The author explains his position and the history of conflict with I.V. Erofeeva, which is often referred to as K.Z. Uskenbay in the criticism of labors of B.G. Ayagan. It is noted that the whole conflict is erased by amicable understanding. Evaluating the character of the notes written by K.Z. Uskenbay and R. Hautala, the author of the lecture notes that the passage in the text of the passage review that “in the whole book skips the anti-Russian Anti-Soviet position of the author” is similar in form to the denomination and labeling of the characteristics of the totalitarian system.