New Approaches to the Study of History of Kazakhstan in 19th century 9786010412293

Citation preview

Introduction

AL-FARABI KAZAKH NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

G. S. Sultangalieva

NEW APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF HISTORY OF KAZAKHSTAN IN 19th CENTURY Textbook

Almaty «Qazaq university» 2015

1

2

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

UDC 94 (574) (075.8) LBC 63.3 (5 каз) я 73 S 91 Recommended at the Methodical Council of the faculty of History, Etnology and Archeology and Editorial and Publishing Council of Al-Farabi Kazakh National University (protocol №4, 3 april 2015 y.) Reviewers: doctor of histories, professor A.Sh. Altayev candidate of histories, dozent T.T. Dalaeva

Sultangalieva G.S. S 91 New Approaches to the Study of History of Kazakhstan in 19th century: textbook / G.S. Sultangalieva. – Almaty: Qazaq universitety, 2015. – 152 p. ISBN 978-601-04-1229-3 The textbook includes practically unexplored problems in the historiography  on the New History of Kazakhstan. This questions reveal issues on intermediary functions of Tatar officials in the Kazakh steppe during the XVIII – first half of XIX century, construction of Novoilekskoy line, transitional forms of governance in the Steppe as a pristavstvo, involvement of representatives of the Kazakh elite to the service of Russian Empire.  Materials of the textbook will be useful for students on specialty of «History» and teachers of history.  В учебное пособие включены такие малоисследованные в отечественной историографии вопросы по новой истории Казахстана, как посреднические функции татарских служащих в Казахской степи в XVIII ������������������������������������������ ������������������������������������ – первой половине XIX ������������������ �������������� в., строительство Новоилекской линии, формы управления в Степи как институт приставства и механизм кооптации представителей казахской элиты на государственную службу Российской империи. Материалы учебного пособия будут полезны студентам специальности «История» и преподавателям исторических дисциплин.

UDC 94 (574) (075.8) LBC 63.3 (5 каз) я 73 ISBN 978-601-04-1229-3

© Sultangalieva G.S., 2015 © Al-Farabi KazNU, 2015

Introduction

3

Introduction

Discipline «New History of Kazakhstan» is the base for students majoring in «5В020300 - History» and therefore requires an extend study of fundamental historical processes that took place on the territory of modern Kazakhstan during XVIII and beginning of XX century. The decision to disclose the number of key questions on the New History of Kazakhstan were based on insufficiently explored in domestic historiography and  illumination of them in university books. This textbook comprises questions such as mediation of Tatar employees in the Kazakh steppe, the usage of the Russian government of transitional forms in the Steppe as a pristavstvo, construction of Novoileksk line ( 1811-1824),  the mechanism of co-optation of representatives of the Kazakh elite on the government service of the Russian Empire. The structure of this textbook is logically connected and expands students’ knowledge on the new history of Kazakhstan, forms the ability for scientific research in future. The first section of the textbook includes lecture materials, which are important for understanding the politics of imperial power during the first half of nineteenth century on the territory of the Kazakh steppe. It should be noted , from the first half of the eighteenth through the middle of the nineteenth centuries, Tatars of the Volga-Ural region played an important role in the political, economic, and cultural integration of the Kazakh Steppe into the Russian Empire. They served as translators and interpreters in the negotiations between Russian authorities and Kazakh elites, settled conflicts that arose between border residents and Kazakhs, served as official clerks for Kazakh khans and sultans, and were invited by influential Kazakh leaders to serve in their districts 3

4

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

as spiritual leaders (mullahs) and teachers. Furthermore, Tatars were actively involved in the process of drawing Kazakhs into regional, in particular Volga-Ural, Western Siberian, and Turkestani, and subsequently, all-Russian trading spaces. We need to explore this issue in greater detail in order to better understand and reconstruct the history of events in the Steppe. In the second half of the eighteenth and the first half of the nineteenth centuries, the Kazakh population formed their ideas about the Russian Empire and Russian legislation, their attitudes toward this new government, and their understanding of social reality through their interactions with Tatars. The Institution of Pristavstvo was introduced in the Kazakh steppe in the first decade of the nineteenth century. This institution had different meanings and functions from an individually-held position (e.g., a pristavto the Khān of the Junior Horde (1820), the pristavs who accompanied the Kazakh delegation to Saint Petersburg in the first half of the 19th century) to an administrative-territorial structure (e.g., the pristavstvo of the Senior Horde, the Mangyshlak and Zaisan pristavstvo). Studying the features of the pristavstvo institution in the territory of Kazakhstan and analyzing the transformation of the pristav’s function will provide new insights on how the multi-ethnic Russian empire was managed. It will also help students to better understand the forms and methods the Russian authorities employed to manage their nomadic populations. The Novoileksk frontier line was created in the first quarter of the 19th century. It pushed against the boundaries of the Bashkir and Kazakh populations and altered traditional nomadic migration routes. The Novoileksk line can be considered as a «transboundary» region since it is located at the intersection of different cultural worlds. This investigation of the features of this trans-border region, such as the history of ethnic relations and variegated forms of administration, will be of particular interest to scholars of frontiers and borderlands. The presented material is closely related with the content of materials of other blocks of the curriculum disciplines such as New History of Kazakhstan, the Modern history of Kazakhstan, Kazakhstan in the world community, thereby implementing the principle of

Introduction

5

interdisciplinary connections between sections of discipline History of Kazakhstan. The next section of the textbook includes materials on control and evaluation of students’ knowledge (tests, questions),   bibliography, which includes a list of basic and additional literature, chronological index.  In accordance with the designed structure of represented textbook the student of this specialty will obtain useful skills: to carry out a scientific analysis of the text, to make conclusion and apply sciencebased solutions in the historical materials research process of the first half of the nineteenth  century, see the prospects of development on the field of historical science, to utilize modern scientific information, to revise and use it to solve practical problems.

6

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

1. The Intermediary Role of Tatars in Kazakhstan from the second half of the XVIII-th to the early XX-th century

The incorporation into the Russian Empire of the Kazakhs of the Little and part of the Middle Hordes in the 1730s confronted the Russian state with the task of finding an optimal way of integrating into the imperial organism a population distinguished by its economic and cultural way of life (nomadic pastoralism), its language (belonging to the Kipchak Turkic group), and religion (Sunni Islam). the situatiion was aggravated by the fact that in the first half of the eighteenth century the Russian administration lacked adequate information about the economy, culture, customs, and language of the Kazakhs, as well as about the natural and geographical conditions in which they lived1. Therefore the efforts of the first adminsitrative heads of the region in mastering the new territory in establishing cooperation with representatives of the Kazakh elite encountered definitive complications. First of all, members of the Kazakh aristocracy did not know the written Turkic literary language, not to mention Russian, which naturally hampered official correspondence with them. State representatives viewed such correspondence as one of the levers of 1 The famous orientalist Vasili Vasil’evich Grigor'ev (1816-1881), who headed the Orenburg Border / Frontier Commission for eleven years, established that in the first half of the eighteenth century the government did not know the customs, language, and religion of the Kazakhs or «what makes them tick» [pruzhinu, privodiashchyy ikh v deistvie]. V.V. Grigor'ev, «Russkaia politika v otnoshenii k Srednei Azii: Istoricheskii ocherk», Sbornik gosudarstvennykh znanii, ed. V. P. Bezobrazova, vol. 1. – St. Petersburg, 1874. – Pp. 233-234.

6

The Intermediary Role of Tatars in...

7

control and «essential utility» in spreading the «influence neecessary to bring the Kirgiz [Kazakhs] into a state of complete subjecthood»2. Second, the task of supplying the administration of the new territories with the requisite number of translators, interpreters, and clerks from mamong Russian servitors was impossible in light of both their ignorance of the Kazakh language and the absence of salaries sufficient to compensate them for work involving all the difficulties of the empire’s borderland zone, in comparison to Russia’s internal provinces. In light of this situation and the role of the region in the eastern policy of the empire, the first administrators of the Orenburg region – Ivan Kirilovich Kirillov, Aleksei Tevkelev, Vasili Nikitich Tataishev, Ivan Ivanovich Nepliuev – considered it necessary to enlist Tatars, who knew the language and culture of the Kazakhs, belonged to the same confessional system, had a fairly long historical experience of intercourse with Kazakhs, and thus could naturally serve as intermediaries in the political integration of the steppe into the imperial system3. Official correspondence of the eighteenth and nineteenth century uses such terms as «Tatar mullahs», «teacher of Tatar literacy», «translator of Tatar», «tatar clerk», and «Tatar merchant». In this context the question of the ethnonym «Tatar» arises, since the Mishars, Bashkirs, and Teptiars who set out for the Kazakh steppe togetehr with Volga Tatars were defined as «tatar» mullahs, eve if they were of a Materialy po istorii politicheskogo stroia kazakhstana. – Alma-Ata, 1960. – P. 246. This problem is addressed in the following works: A. Vasil'ev Materialy k kharakteristike vzaimnykh otnoshenii tatar i kirgiz s predvaritel'nym kratkim ocherkom etikh otnoshenii. Orenburg. – 1898; V. Galiev Tatary-perevodchiki, puteshestvenniki i diplomaty // Kazan utlary / Ogni Kazan, no.1. – Kazan, 1975. – Pp. 147-151; V. Galiev Karavannye tropy (Iz istorii obshchestvennoi zhizni Kazakhstana XVII – XIX vv.). – Almaty, 1994; A. Frank Tatarskie mully sredi kazkhov i kirgizov v XVIII – XIX vv. // Kul'tura, iskusstvo tatarskogo naroda Kazan’, 1993. – Pp. 125-131; G. Kosach Gorod na styke dvukh vekov: Orenburgskoe tatarskoe men'shinstvo i gosudarstvo Moscow, 1998); G. Sultangalieva Tatarskaia diaspora v konfessional'nykh sviaziakh kazakhskoi stepi XVIII – XIX vv. // Vestnik Evrazii 4 (2000): 20-37; G. Sultangalieva Tatarskie i bashkirskie sluzhashchie i kazakhskoi stepi v XVIII – XIX vv. // Etnopanorama Yfa. 2000. – N3. – Pp. 48-54; G. Sultangalieva Seitovskii posad v novoi istorii Kazakhstana // Iz istorii tatar Orenburzh'ia (k 260-letiiu Tatarskoi Kargaly): Sbornik materialov nauchno – prakticheskoi konferentsii. Orenburg. 2005. – Pp. 56-62; A. Remnev Rossiiskaia imperiia i islam v kazakhskoi stepi (60-80-e gody XIXv.) // Rasy i narody. Sovremennye etnicheskie i rasovye problemy. – 2006. – N32. Pp. 238-277; A. Remnev Tatary v kazakhskoi stepi: soratniki i soperniki Rossiiskoi imperii // Vestnik Evrazii. – Moscow. 2006. – Pp. 5-32. 2 3

8

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

different ethnic origin. Here we see the identification of the ethnic conception with a religious one. Of significance for the authorities was not their ethnic origin, but rather the fcat that Bashkirs, Mishars, and Teptiars were Turkic speakers and – most importantly – Muslims. According to Aidar Nogmanov, up until the end of the eighteenth century Volga Tatars were the only face of the Muslim religion for Russian authorities4, and thus their ethnonym represented a general way to signify the bearers of an alien faith, language, and mentality. A sign of the confusion in the authorities’ conception was the name of the school under the Orenburg Expedition for the preparation of translators from Tatar and other eastern languages. It was called a «Tatar» school not because Tatar children studied there – on the contrary, this school was designed for Russian pupils, the children of parents with military rank. It is striking that in official documents of the second half of the nineteenth century granting permission for the construction of mosques in the Kazakhs steppe the term «Tatar mosque» is used with regard to the Kazakh population5. Likewise, the language of correspondence with the Kazakh aristocracy was defined unequivocally as «Tatar», more precisely as the old Tatar language known as «Tiurki»6, which was used in diplomatic correspondence with the Kazakh steppe and was taught in institutions of learning in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Which factors were central to the definition of the intermediary role of «Tatars», and what was the mechanism of cooperation of «Tatars» with with the state and the Kazakh elite? What were the consequences of their activity for the Kazakh people? These questions constitute the basis for the present analysis of the imperial policy of drawing Tatars into the role of intermediaries and of their activity ine the devlopment of political, economic, and socio-cultural ties between the empire and the Kazakh steppe. 4 A. Nogmanov Evoliutsiia zakonodatel'stva o musul'manakh Rossii (vtoraia pol. XVI – pevaia polovina XIX v. // Islam v tatarskom mire: Istoriia i sovremennost'. – Kazan', 1997. 5 Rossiiskii Gosudarstvennyi Istoricheskii Arkhiv [henceforward: RGIA], f. 821. op. 8. dd. 689 and 690. 6 See F. Khisamova, Tatarskii iazyk v vostochnoi diplomatii Rossii who investigates the stages in the development of the Tatar language in diplomatic and official correspondence from the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries. – Kazan’, 1999.

The Intermediary Role of Tatars in...

9

The Penetration of «Tatars» into the Kazakh Steppe In the eighteenth and early ninetenth centuries Russian authorities called upon «Tatars» to serve as a kind of buffer that could help to secure the integration of the Kazakh population into the imperial system7. In this regard one can identify two major phases of the penetration of «Tatars» into the Kazakh steppe. Characteristic of the first period, covering the 1730s to the 1780s, is the absence of a legislative foundation for the attraction of «Tatars» into the role of intermediaries as mullahs, clerks, interpreters, and traders. Yet there was a distinct experience of interaction between the regional administration and «Tatars», who served as partners of the state in the spread of its political authority into the Kazakhs steppe. State authorities in Orenburg officially received and administered the oath of allegiance to representatives of the Kazakh elite from the Little and Middle Hordes in 1838, 1740, and 1742, always with the presence of a «Tatar» mullah and translator. In the mid-1730s the chancellery of Orenburg province already had in its employ «Tatar» interpreters Araslan Bekmetev, Roman Urazlin, Urasai Abdullin, who were repeatedly ‘sent» into the steppe in order to clarify the situation within the two hordes. At the same time, until the end of the 1704s there was not government decree concerning the appointment of «Tatars» as mullahs and clerks as liasons with the Kazakhs. It was for good reason, then, that the khan of the Little Horde Abulkhair emphasized that the «Tatar» mullah Al’mukhammet Nurmukhammetov was serving as ascribe for him «not by decree and not by request of the generals», but had been transferred from Bashkiria by the khan to his nomadic encampments in 17378. Only with imperial confirmation of the title of khan for sultan Nuraly [yes!] on 13 April 1749 did the College of Foreign Affairs officially decree that mullah Al’mukhammet be appointed to 7 In principle Russian authorities were resurrecting a previous historical experience of using Tatars as translators in the country's initial contacts with Asia in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. V. Bartol'd Istoriia izucheniia Vostoka v Evrope i Rossii. – Leningrad, 1925. – P. 182. 8 Kazakhsko-russkie otnosheniia: Sbornik dokumentov i materialov. – Alma-Ata, 1961, document 108. – P. 279.

10

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

the khan of the Little Horde as a clerk9. Here one can see a basic principle of imperial rule in practice: Having been legitimated by imperial power, Kazakh khans accordingly needed to have a scribe, who would organize the bureaucratic affairs of the highest official figure in the steppe, and would conduct and translate correspondence with the Russian administration. In a parallel fashion, Russian authorities enlisted Tatars for intermediary roles in the realm of trade. As evidence for this, one can point to the Senate decree of 8 March 1744, «On the settlement of Kazan Tatars in Orenburg and permission for them to construct a mosque», and the protective customs policy of the Russian government, outlined in decrees of 11 February 1736 and 22 November 1776), which allowed Tatars «to conduct trade [torgovyi pormysel] throghout Russia» without hindrance10. The paradox of such actions by the state derives from the fact that they coincided the a violent campaign of «Christianization» of the Tatar population in the neighboring territory of the Middle Volga11. The policy of drawing «Tatars» into an intermediary role between the state and the Kazakh steppe acquired an organized character from the starts of Catherine II’s reign. This allows us to identify a second phase of «Tatar» penetration into the steppe, extending from the 1770s to the 1850s. Catherine II now produced legislation to define the role of «Tatars» as an instrument in the spread of imperial laws into the steppe and in the realization of extensive foreign-policy plans involving Kazakhstan and Central Asia. Here, once can note as evidence the decrees «On the appointment of translators and 9 «Ukaz Kollegii inostrannykh del ob opredelenii k khanu Nuraly dlia pis'mennykh del tatarina A. Nurmukhamedova i o vydache zhalovaniia. 1749 g. 2 noiabria», in Ivan Ivanovich Kraft, ed., Sbornik uzakonenii o kirgizakh stepnykh oblastei Orenburg, 1898. – P. 28. 10 Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii [henceforward: PSZ], first series, vol. 20, no. 14540, – P. 461. 11 In just the year 1744 in Kazan' province 418 of 536 mosques were destroyed. See V. Bartol'd Istoriia izucheniia Vostoka v Evrope i Rossii // Sobranie sochinenii. – Moscow, 1997. – Vol. 9, p. 409. In 1745 Russian autorities allowed the construction of a mosque in Seitov Posad, outside Orenburg and undertook all possible measures to prevent Orthodox missionary activity among Kazakhs and even, in the words of A. Dobrosmyslov, «feared giving even a hint that the promotion of Christianity among them was possible», in order not to antagonzie them. P. Rychkov Istoriia Orenburgskaia Orenburg, 1896. – P. 12; A. I. Dobromyslov Turgaiskaia oblast': Istoricheskii ocherk .Orenburg, 1898.– P. 220.

The Intermediary Role of Tatars in...

11

interpreters in Orenburg province (29 July 1770), «On Toleration of all faiths...» (17 July 1773), «On the construction of mosques...» (8 July 1782), «On measures for the curbing of the willfulness of the Kirgiz» (2 May 1784), «On supplying various Kirgiz clans with mullahs...» (25 November 1785 and 21 April 1787). A final important step int he realization of this program was the decree of 22 September 1788, «On the definition of Mullahs and other ranks of the Muslim law and on the establishment in Ufa of a Spiritual Assembly for the management of all religious figures of that law in Russia», which was accompanied by the appointment of Mukhamedzhan Kusainov as mufti12. Simultaneously, the printing house of the imperial Academy of Sciences printed a full Arabic-text version of the Koran13. One important aspect of all of these legislative acts draws one’s attention – namely the «summoning» of precisely «Kazan’» Tatars. Thus, the Orenburg mufti and the three members of the Spiritual Assembly had to be elected from among Kazan’ mullahs, and mullahs sent into the Kazakh steppe ere to hail «from Kazan’ province». These requirements were not always respected, but such insistence testifies to the Russian authorities’ purposeful tactic of enlisting Volga Tatars as partners in the empire’s Central Asian policy. First, there were now definitive conditions for their entry into state service. Thus decrees of Catherine II provided Volga Tatars with the possibility of entering the noble estate14, or of receiving compensation for service in the ranks of the Orenburg administration15. Second, Russian authorities believe that Volga Tatars, as representatives of settled agricultural life, could facilitate the inclusion of nomadic Kazakhs into a putatively more advanced – settled – way of life, which in turn would make Arapov D., ed., Islam v Rossiiskoi imperii. Zakonodatel'nye akty, opisanie, statistika. Moscow. 2001. documents 6-12. P. 45-51. 13 That publication was subsequently repeated in 1789, 1790, 1796, and 1798. In 1800 a decision was made to allow without limitation the publication of Islamic religious literature, something that was taken up the the Asiatic printing house of Kazan' University that was created precisely for this purpose. Lucian Klimovich, Islam v tsarskoi Rossii. – Moscow., 1936. 14 The career of the translator Mendiar Bikchurin (1740-1821) provides a clear example. 15 «O razreshenii priema na voennuiu sluzhbu i nagrazhdenie ofitserskim zvaniem tatarskikh murz i chinovnykh liudei» (1 November 1783) and «O pozvolenii kniaz'iam i murzam tatarskim pol'zovat'sia vsemi preimushchestvami rossiiskogo dvorianstva» (22 February 1784). // PSZ. 1-st series. Vol. 21. no. 15861; ibid., Vol. 22. no 15936. 12

12

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

them more «peaceful and governable». In essence, then Tatars were to offer Kazazhs the opportunity of peaceful conversion to settled life by giving them a clear example. It was presumably for this reason that Nikolai Il’minskii later noted that if a Kazakh «decides to adopt the convenience of settled life he always does this by adopting not the Russian way of life, but the Tatar or, more rarely, the Central Asia» 16. The reasons for Catherine’s of developing new forms of cooperation with «Tatars» and drawing them into an intermediary role were a product of the following circumstances. The first involved the resistance of non-Russian peoples in the region to state authority, most notably their participation in the Pugachev uprising of 1773-75 and the national liberation struggle of Kazakhs of the Little Horde under S. Datov in 1783-97. Second, the activities of Central Asian mullahs in the Kazakh steppe and their spreading of anti-Russian sentiments compelled the Russian government to take measures to assert control over mullahs17. Third, in April of 1783 Crimea became part of the Russian Empire, and this peninsula, whose principal population was Muslim, became an important bulwark on the Black Sea during Russia’s long wars with the neighboring Muslim state of Turkey. Naturally, the state had to react to this fact needed to find a more flexible mode of cooperation with Muslims in the last quarter of the eighteenth century18. Therefore the Russian authorities, having recognized Islam as a tolerated faith, now counted on the active participation of their Muslim subjects in the Volga-Ural region and the Spiritual Assembly in their foreign-policy projects in Kazakhstan and Central Asia. As the wellknown pre-revolutionary scholar A. Dobrosmyslov wrote, «Tatars and mosques constituted the bridge that the Kirgiz [Kazakhs] would initially cross in the process of rapprochement». Evaluating the results of this policy later, Aleksandr Ivanovich Dobrosmyslov expressed himself more openly: In the Kazakh steppe «Tatars» accomplished N. Il'minskii Vospominaniia ob I. Altynsarine. – Kazan', 1891. – P. 166. M. Viatkin Batyr Srym. – Almaty, 1994. – P. 244. 18 R. Khairutdinov Tatarskaia feodal'naia znat' i rossiiskoe dvorianstvo: Problemy integratsii na rubezhe XVIII – XIX vv. // Islam v tatarskom mire; istoriia i sovremennost' Kazan', 1997. – P. 84. 16 17

The Intermediary Role of Tatars in...

13

what the Russians proved incapable of «inculcating» [vnedrit’]19. At the same time one should note that mullahs were more limited in terms of their rights than were the religious servitors of the nonOrthodox Christian confessions, for example those of Catholicism or Lutheranism. The first to note this fact was Aidar Nogmanov, who investigated the attitude of the state to Muslims of the Volga-Ural region through the prism of legislation20. Tatar mullahs had a low social status, were ascribed to the category of state peasants, and were subject to both the soul tax and military service (until 1850), while Christian clerical figures constituted particular clerical estates and enjoyed definitive privileges. In documents concerning the history of the Kazakh people in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century it is very difficult to separate the activity of a «Tatar» clerk from that of a «Tatar» mullah or teacher. Often these were all one and the same person. One reason for this situation was the lack of funds sufficient to supply each member of the Kazakh aristocracy with its own clerk Furthermore in the view of the Kazakh elite a «tatar» mullah, in light of his «learning» [uchenost’], was need not only as a spiritual figure, but alos for «the reading of directives of the frontier authorities on various affairs and for writing responses to them», and beyond this for the teaching of their children «Tatar literacy and the Mohammedha law [religion]»21. For their part, Russian authorities saw no necessity specially appointing 19 Dobrosmyslov A. Turgaiskaia oblast'. – P.173; Zaboty imperatritsy Ekateriny II o prosveshcenii kirgizov // Trudy Orenburgskoi uchenoi arkhivnoi komissii. – Orenburg, 1915. – N32. – P. 170-173. 20 Nogmanov A., «Musul'mane Volgo – Ural'skogo regiona v Rossiiskom zakonodatel'stve XIX v. // Novaia volna v izuchenii etnopoliticheskoi istorii Volgo-Ural'skogo regiona: Sbornik statei, ed. Kimitaka Matsuzato. – Sapporo, 2004. – P.176-194. When mullahs were sent to the Kazakh steppe thier tax and labor obligations were ascribed to their local communities, and therefore on resolutions cocnernign thsi matter the governors of Orenburg would include the question 'Will his taxes be meticulously paid in his absence?» it is curious that the regional authorities were likewise worried that the children of such mullahs, accompanying their fathers into the steppe, «will be outside of their homeland and will be unfamiliar with the obligations of their status» and thus might not discharge them in the future. Many mullahs in fact went into hiding in the steppe and often did not register with the Spiritual Assembly. Clear evidence for this is the fact that «Tatar» mullahs lived by Zhantore khan (1805-09) and khan of the Bukei Nuraliev (1811-15) and fulfilled the corresponding religious obligations for 35 years without any written authorization. //GAOrO, f. 6, op. 10, d. 2060; ibid., d. 4655, l. 5; ibid., d. 864, l. 30. 21 GAOO, f. 6, op. 10, d. 105, l. 1ob.

14

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

clerks, since the Orenburg Assembly, as part of the Russian Empire’s state apparatus, was guided by the following criteria in the selection of «Tatar» mullahs: «reliability and assistance in furthering the government’s worthy goals». This defined the character and essence of their activity in the Kazakh steppe. Aside from fulfilling their primary duties as religious servitors, mullahs were also supposed to promote submission to the empire’s laws among their co-religionist, to aid in terminating their «predation and raids» [khishchnichestvo i nabegi] on the frontier line, to instill «silence and peace» among the Kazakh clans, and – most importantly – to keep tabs on the mood of the Kazakh aristocracy and to «provide information» on events in the steppe in a timely fashion22. Russian authorities promised a system of benefits and privileges «depending on the degree of loyalty and ardor» [po mere vernosti i tshchaniia] of their service23. In principle this was a mutually advantageous process: The interest of «Tatars» in serving int he Kazakh steppe was determined by their position within the empire, which did not allow for such a rapid and successful career and wellbeing in the central provinces of the Russian Empire. To determine the specific number of mullahs living in the Kazakh steppe is very complicated. Despite Catherine’s decrees the Orenburg Assembly could not completely control their departure for the steppe. P. Essen, who became Orenburg governor-general in 1817, drew attention to the purely formal character of confirmation of «Tatar» mullahs, who lived not only among the well-known Kazakh clan leaders, but also among the «entirely unkown and insignificant» elders. He came to the conclusion that in the steppe «tatar» mullahs were engaged not with fulfilling their formal obligations, but «more with promoting their own profits» – that is, through trade24. These observations were based on the postulate that the [primary?] purpsoe of «Tatar» mullahs was to effectuate the reconciliation of the interests of various groups in nomadic Kazakh society to the policies of the empire itself 25. GAOrO, f. 6, op. 10, d. 2096a, l. 208ob. GAOrO, f. 6, op.10, d. 2060, l. 304. 24 GAOrO, f. 6, op. 10, l. 2968, l. 367. 25 Of particular interest for understanding the functions that Russian authorities imposed on «Tatar» mullahs and clerks is the activity of the Mullah Nigmettulla Faizullin. He began 22 23

The Intermediary Role of Tatars in...

15

A collection of information now began in response to the demands of the Orenburg governor: How many mullahs and clerks were sent in the Kazakh steppe, and with how were they to be affiliated there? All received data was accumulated in the archival file «On the assignment of mullahs and clerks to the Kirgiz Horde, and about their compensation and discharging»26. The file includes lists of those mullahs who were assigned to influential Kazakh sultans and elders and who were confirmed in those positions by the Orenburg Assembly and the local provincial board. There were over twenty such persons, five from the third Mesheriak canton and seventeen from the ninth Bashkir canton. Naturally, there were actually many more of them in the Kazakh steppe, since «Tatar» mullahs and clerks were assigned in response to the private requests of Kazakh khans sultans, and elders, and in such cases appointments were not always handled in a strictly formal fashion. Usually members of the Kazakh aristocracy requested provision of mullahs who, first, enjoyed «particular respect before his peer religious servitors of the Mohammedan law», and, second, were familiar with the laws of the Russian Empire, which would allow them to better udnerstand the decrees and directives of the authorties27. Their petitions often pointed to a particular person whose activity was his career as a mullah for the influential batyr Bukenbai, who stood at the head of one of the largest tribal confederations of the Little Hord, Zhetyru. The Orenburg administration, seeking support from this notable batyr, emphasized that the mullah Faizullin «was distinguished by zeal and execute the necessary commissions with active success, soberly and dobroporiadochno, and with prudence admonished them [the Kazakhs] to turn to the true path». Later, as a «reliable»[blagonadezhnyi] person, we were assigned as a clerk to the khans of the Little Horde, Zhantore (1805-09) and Sergazy (1812-1824). Mullah Faizullin was able to establish good relations with both representatives of the Orenburg administration and the Kazakh khans, who more than once petitioned for his receipt of princely title [tarkhanskoe zvanie]. On 3 June 1820, Faizullin became the first «Tatar» mullah on the steppe to be rewarded with such an honorary title. The Orenburg administration's favorable attitude toward the mullah changed around 1822, when Faizullin began to boycott all demands of the local administration and , according to an officer [pristav] of khan Shirgaza of the Little Horde, colonel Goikhvostov, not only neglected documentation in the khan's chancellery, but also influenced the khan negatively as well. Terefore, his presence in the steppe became, in the eyes of the authorities, «not only usefuless, but even harmful». Authorities began to shadow Faizullin [ustanovili slezhku], since they believed that «important documents remain in his possession». Incidentally, his son Zilametdin Nigmetullin became a clerk and mullah for sultan Tauk Aishuakov in 1816. GAOrO, f.6, op. 10, d. 427, l.2; ibid., d. 2096, ll. 261-262. 26 GAOrO, f. 6, op. 10, d. 2060. 27 GAOrO, f. 6, op. 10, d. 2096, l. 262.

16

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

already familiar28. In 1809 Khan Uali of the Middle Horde requested asspointment of «Tatar» mullahs specifically from the first Mishar canton, based on the proposition that the clerks for his father, Ablai khan, had been Mishars from the Cheliabiansk district who «were distinguished by zeal and knowledge», and that the sultans of the Little Horde. Who had «learned» mullahs from Russia, were in many respects enjoying greater success than the sultans of the Middle Horde29. «Tatar» mullahs were also needed in conjunction with the establishment of the firts administrative unites in the Kazakh steppe, the border raspravy [how to translate?]. They were appointed as clerks with a salary of 100 rubles and travel funds of another fifteen rubles30. With the elmination o raspravy in 1804, these mullahs became confidants of the Orenbug Frontier Commission «for dispatching into the steppe on secret and important affairs», since they had experience and already existing contacts with representatives of the Kazakh elite31. Among other steppe regions, the Inner Horde was notable for the role and influence of «Tatar» mullahs. In 1853, Orenburg governor-general Vasilii Alekseevich Perovskii wrote, «The most harm for Russia was inflicted by the administration Dzhangir for its propagation of Mohammedanism. An entire falange of mullahs, the most zealous instigators of insubordination to Russian authority and Russian law Numbering 127, those mullahs were appointed by Dzhangir on his own authority32. An analysis of documents of the Orenburg Provincial Chancellery reveals the geographical originsof the appointed mullahs and clerks. 28 Likewise, 1816 sultan Arungazy requested the appointment, «for the conduct of wriiten affairs», of the mullah Rakhmetulla Murtazin, as a person who knew «the Russian system quite well» [rossiiskii poriadok]. Materialy po istorii Kazkhskoi SSR, 1785-1828. – Moscow and Leningrad, 1940. – Vol. 4, doc. 107. – P. 298. 29 GAOrO, f. 6, op. 10, d. 2060, ll. 2-3; GAOrO, f. 6, op. 10, d. 609. 30 Border raspravy were created in three large tribal confederations of the Little Horde (Alimuly, Baiuly, and Zhetyru), where bureaucratic affairs were conducted by the Tatar clerks Ibragim Iskhaov, Bektimir Sabitaev, Ishmukhamet Ishaliev, Nigmetulla Faizullin, and Gabdultanar Tuigunov. GAOrO, f. 6, op. 10, d. 105, l. 1ob. 31 GAOrO, f. 6, op. 10, d. 2060, l. 9; ibid., d. 858, l. 1; ibid., d.105. 32 Indeed, by the mid-nineteenth century Tatars constituted more than half of the population of Khanskaia stavka, Novaia Kazanka, and Talovka. In the opinion of Aleksandr Alektorov (1861-1918), these were «secret mullahs» [neglasnye mully] who had settled throughout the Inner Horde // RGIA, f. 1294, op. 84, d. 5, ll. 3-3ob; ibid., f. 1291, op. 82, d. 6, l. 2; A. E. Alek-torov Chem i kak my sposobstvovali ukrepleniiu musul'manstva v kirgizakh // Orenburgskii listok, 1890. – N48.

The Intermediary Role of Tatars in...

17

They were Tatars from Kazan’, Ufa, and Orenburg provinces; Mishars of the first and third Mishar cantons; and Bashkirs from the sixth, ninth, and twelfth cantons of the Bashkir host, who were close neighbors of the nomadic Kazakh clans Tabyn, Tama, Zhagalbaily, Zhappas. The status of «Tatars» in the steppe was also a function of various social statuses and educational levels. «Tatar» mullahs, clerks, and traders were primarily from the state-peasant estate, while the posts of interpreters and translators in the regional frontier administrations were held by representatives of the titled Tatar aristocracy (hereditary nobles or murzas). This was connected to the fact that by imperial Russia’s order of estates, one’s selection for state service and placement in the service ranks presumed the candidates’ belonging to one of the country’s privileged groups. Of course there were exceptions, but the local administration tried to place them in the first rank, since according to the Table of Ranks each person promoted out of the first and lowest rank was entitled to personal nobility. Different levels of education were conditioned by the particular functions that these «Tatars» were called upon to fulfill. For mullahs and clerks the main requirement was a basic literacy in the Tatar language, so that they could properly read correspondence and produce a response33. The activities of interpreters and translators, meanwhile, were conditioned by the role of those figures in the eastern policy of the empire: They needed to know not just Kazakh or Tatar, but also other eastern languages. Thus the chairman of the Orenburg Frontier Commission, Gavriil Petrovich Veselitskii, in requesting the appointment of Abdulla Amirov – a Tatar from the village of Sterlibashevo who knew Persian and other languages – as a translator, underscored that the local administration «needs people who know eastern languages, especially for written translations»34. Beyond this, in the course of their duties interpreters and translators produced detailed accounts of a political, economic, and 33 Not that such clerks were always able to do this. O. Iartsev, a trabslator in the Foreign Ministry's Asiatic Department, wrote about the scribe sultan Arungazy that he «knows neotehr Arabic nor Turkish ... and even has difficulty coherently writing anordinary document». Materialy po istorii Kazkhskoi SSR, vol. 4, document 124. – Pp. 377-380. 34 GAOrO, f. 6, op. 10, d. 209, l.3.

18

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

military character for Petersburg and Orenburg, which required the corresponding education, capacity to analyze information, and a certain set of intellectual horizons. As a rule, «Tatar» translators were graduates of Tatar schools and the Orenburg Military College. In essence, in the eighteenth and nineteenth century a dynasty of «tatar» scribes, interpreters and translators formed. These were people with well-known surnames – Salikh Biglov, Iskander Batyrshin, Mukhamed-Sharif Aitov, Temirbolat Enikeev, AbdulKadir Subkhankulov – who began their work as registrars and junior interpreters and then attained high rank and reward. The formation of this dynasty testifies to a distinct tendency of the creation of a distinct professional group of translators. More than this, service records show that marriages were concluded within this social group, which was distinguished by a cerain level of education, way of life, and system of values. I. M. Gvozdikova has noted the emergence of even a new social category of chancellery clerks «fromt he children of translators»35. In accordance with the theory of the American historian Gregory Freeze, these new social layers of society that had adapated to the existing order took on the form of traditional hereditary estates, or sosloviia36. «Tatars» as Informants for Russian Authorities From the perspective of Russian authorities, the activity of «Tatar» mullahs and clerks entailed «not so much the discharge of the primary duties», but rather «intelligence about circumstances there [in the steppe]» and the promotionof a spirit of loyalty to the Russian Empire among their coreligionists37. Thus the ensign Ivan Muravin, who was situated with khan Abulkhair of the Little Horde in 1742-43, reported that the mulla Al’mukhammet, «in accordance with his oath to H[is] I[mperial] M[ajesty], serves and quickly reports what he learns»38. In 35 I. Gvozdikova Bashkortstan nakanune i v gody krest'ianskoi voiny pod predvoditel'stvom E. Pugacheva. – Ufa, 1999. – P. 44. 36 Freeze, Gregory L. 1986. The Soslovie (Estate) Paradigm in Russian «Social History». American Historical Review 91 /1: n-36. 37 GAOrO, f. 6, op. 6, d. 172, ll. 1-1ob. 38 Ivan Muravin wrote that mullah Al'mukhammet constantky came to him and proivded information that he had acquired, among aother things about the khan's relations with Kalmyks, Bashkirs, Jungars, etc. Kazakhsko-russkie otnosheniia, vol. 1, document no. 108. – Pp. 278-279.

The Intermediary Role of Tatars in...

19

1747, in a report to the College of Foreign Affairs, Orenburg governor Ivan Nepliuev likewise highlighted Al’mukhammet’s merits, in light of his provision of «necessary» information. In Nepliuev’s opinion this information was very valuable, since Al’mukhammet «has access to all [of Khan Abulkhair’s] secrets» [vo vsekh sekretakh upotrebliaetsia]. For his «loyalty and zeal» in the provision of information, the clerk received twenty rubles in 174739, and two years later, for providing a copy of a letter from Khan Nuraly to «the sovereign of Ziungor» to the Orenburg administration, he received a reward of thirty-five rubles as well as an annual pay increase «of fifteen rubles secretly from the others»40. A mullah of the first Mishar canton, Munasyp Mashmetov, upon his appointment to khan Ablai of the Middle Horde, «promises to provide, and does provide, information about the actions of the Kazakh leadership», among other things about the relations between sultan Ablai and China. He reported that sultan Ablai «shows himself zelous towards the Chinse disingenuously and only for the sake of profit. More than this, the informant emphasized that sultan Ablai «wishes to send his son to the Troitsk fortress as an amanat»41. For Mashmetov’s detailed and consistently provided information, the College of Foreign Affairs granted him a salary of twelve rubles, who were dispensed «secretly», so that Kazakhs «cannot have suspicions of the scribe»42. In all fariness, these were minimal sums, since by being the steppe such servitors often endangered their lives. Thus the scribe Al’mukhammet informed the regional authorities that he «lives in fear for his life», was frequently «abused» by Khan Abulkhair, and «can save himself only by leaving.» However, governor Nelpiuev exhorted on how «to continue his loyalty», and imposed upon him to remain with the khan at least «until the next summer», in 174843. Kazakhsko-russkie otnosheniia, 1961, document no. 142. – Pp. 362-363. I. Kraft Sbornik o kirgizakh stepnykh oblastei. – Orenburg, 1898. – P.28. 41 Kazakhsko-russkie otnosheniia, 1961. – document no. 271. – P. 689. Also important were the reports of a scribe under sultan Aishuak Seit Kasimov of the Little Horde, a Tatar trader from Seitov Posad in Orenburg provonce) about the relations of the Kazakhs of the Little and Middle Hordes wth China, Khiva, and the Karakalpaks // Kazakhsko-russkie otnosheniia, 1961, document no. 220.– Pp. 561-563; ibid., document no. 239.– Pp. 616. 42 Ukaz Kollegii inostrannykh del o naznachenii pisariu pri sultane Ablae godovogo zhalovaniia (14 January 1762). // Kraft I. Sbornik uzakonenii. – P. 89. 43 In this regard certain interesting parallels emerge. The murder of khan Abulkhair did indeed occur a year later, and the scribe went over into the service of sultan Nuraly. Kazakhskorusskie otnosheniia. Vol. 1. document no. 142. – Pp. 362-363. 39 40

20

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

There were also cases of «Tatar» interpreters being taken into captivity by Kazakhs. Thus from November of 1746 until June of 1747 Usman Araslanov, an interpreter for the Orenburg Chancellery, was in captivity under khan Abulkhair, having became a hostage of the worsening relations of the khan with the governor of Orenburg Nepliuev. Abulkhair demanded the return of the son of Kozhakhmet, who was then in Kazan’ as an amanat, in return for which he would release the interpreter from the steppe44. The information that «Tatars» provided was of varying sorts45, from data on relations of the Kazakh elite with neighboring people and countries to the situation among Kazakh Hordes themselves, the location of nomadic encampments, and so on. The «declarations» and «résumés», and reports provided by translators, clerks, and mullahs were handled in a special division of the Chancellery of the Orenburg governor-general, which testifies to the particular significance, importance and secrecy of the information in question46. On the basis of the sorted data, more substantive reports were produced, and an effort was made to produce a generalized picture of the internal political situation in the Kazakh steppe, as well as the contours of further actions and orientations of imperial policy. The Orenburg provincial board often made the following resolution on such dispatches: «Commend [them] for their composition of through reports, promise [them] the kindness of the 44 Kazakhsko-russkie otnosheniia, 1961. document no. 129. – Pp. 330-332; ibid., documents nos. 135, 139, 141, and 142. – Pp. 356, 358, 361. 45 Mulla Gubaidulla Fetkullin, serving under khan Esim of the Little Horde (1795-97), reported to Orenburg governor Sergei Kysmich Viazmitinov in 1796 about the intention of the Kazakh clan Baibakt to relocate their hereds [prikochevat'] to the frontier line in response to a harsh winter and the resulting ruin of many Kazakhs. Materialy po istorii Kazakhskoi SSR. vol., 4 document 56. – Pp. 186-187. At the beginning of the ninteenth century Abulfetikh Abdulsamialov, an akhun in the Middle Horde, reported to Orenburg governor Gergei Volkonskii about the dfifficult economic condition of the Kazakh population, among whom «peace and clam» had ended due to internecine [mezhdousobnaia] conflict, and who now, he believed, stood «on the verge of destruction», for «their efforts to ruin one another, the abduction of children, in suboridnation to their clan leaders [biis] and elders is leading inexorably to their fall». Presumably, the information provided by the akhun becae the basis for Volkonsii's proposal to Alexander I to end the practice of barymta, a method of dispute resolution among nomads by which an offended party would dive away another nomad's livestovk // Materialy po istori Kazakhskoi SSR, document no. 66.– Pp. 217-224. 46 GAOrO, f. 6, op. 10, d. 2060, ll. 45-49.

The Intermediary Role of Tatars in...

21

authorities, and so on…» 47 It is important to note that the activity of «Tatar» translators and interpreter was divided up among different parts of the steppe. If, for example, the «Tatar» translator Roman Urazlin gathered information on the activities of the khans and sultans of the Middle Horde48, then Usman Araslanov and Araslan Belmetov collected data on the Little Horde49. The dispatches of the authorities in the Orenburg region to the College of Foreign Affairs were based on they information that they provided. At the same time the dispatches tat Nepliuev sent to the Senate were distinct in that he described in a detailed fashion «for what purposes and with which instructions» he had dispatched the translators and what information he had accordingyl received. The dispatches of of Ufa and Simbirsk governor general Osip Igel’strom to Petersburg on the introduction of a new system of administration and on the Kazakh movement under Srym Datov (1783-97) were generally based on the reports of collegial assessor Mеndiar Bekchurin and the akhun Mykhamedzhan Khusinov of the mosque in Seitov Posad, who later became mufti. It was presumably or this reason that their careers flourished in the 1770s-1790s. With the introduction of pristavy for the khans in the first half of the nineteenth century, and then for ruling sultans and boards of guardians [popechitel’stva] among the Kazakhs along the empire’s defensive line, reports began to acquire a fuller and more systematic character. As an official representative of the Russian government and an advisor to the ruling sultan, the police officer had extensive authority, and he «thoroughly and vigilantly» supervised the morals and customs of the Kazakhs under his jurisdiction, guided the actions of the ruling sultan towards orientations beneficial to the empire, and gathered detailed intelligence. It was primarily translators – officials of the Orenburg Frontier Commission – that were appointed to this 47 Tsentral'nyi gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Respubliki Kazakhstan [henceforward: TsGA RK] f. 4, op. 1, d. 5594, l. 569. 48 Materialy po istorii Bashkirskoi Avtonomnoi Sovetskoi Sotsialisticheskoi Respubliki, chast' 1. Moscow & Leningrad, 1936, document no. 147.– Pp. 323-24; Kazakhsko-russkie otnosheniia. Vol. 1. document no. 103.– P. 268. 49 Materialy po istorii Bashkirskoi ASSR, document no. 164, pp. 360-61; document no. 166. – P. 365.

22

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

post. Often such officers had at their disposal confidants, whom they would send out into the steppe for the collection of information. As Dobrosmyslov emphasized, such «confidants were the same Tatars» [or were tatars as well]50. One of the first to have taken the position of a police officer’s confidant in 1818 was the Bashkir of the Ninth Bashkir canton Utdin Rakhmetullin, «who has turned out to have a talent for this position»51. «Tatars» as Representatives of the Russian Authorities The activity of «Tatars» in the steppe was determined by the fact that in the process of their interactions with the kazakh population they ascribed legitimacy to the actions of the Russian administration. They frequently served as arbiters of disputes both among Kazakh clans and between Kazakhs and the Russian population. Thus the mullah Jamaletdin Gismatullin, who was assigned to sultan Algazy (the brother of khan Shirgazy of the Little Horde), helped to terminate the «internecine pretensions and disagreements» that had appeared between two large tribal confederations of the Little Hord, Baiuly and Zhetru52. Mulla Iskhak Isbulatov, affiliated with sultan Shigai Nuralikhanov, resolved disputes between Russians and Kazakhs along the defensive line, «attaining justice for the offended group»53. Mullah Asfendiar Abdukhakinov, attached to sultan Medetgali, made «a particular effort to locate Bashkirs’ stolen horses in the steppe and to secure their return to their owners»54. Mullah Gabdulsamat Buliakov, assigned to khan Shirgazy of the Little Horde, showed «zeal in returning Russian prisoners» taken by Kazakhs, for which he was promoted to the rank of officer [uriadnik]. Mulla Seifulla Faizullin, affiliated with sultan Seidaly Nuralin, sorted out the mutual pretensions of Kazakhs and Russians. And akhun Nigmetulla Suiundykov, of the Ninth Bashkir canton, was able to convey to Kazakh clans migrating 52 53 l. 148. 50 51

Dobrosmyslov Turgaiskaia oblast'. P. 217. GAOrO, f. 6, op. 10, d. 1868, l. 1. GAOrO, f. 6, op. 10, d. 2060, l. 1-2. Iskhak Isbulatov was a mulla of the Third Mishar Canton //GAOrO, f. 6, op. 10, d. 2060,

54 For this the Mishar Asfendiar Abdukhaniev of the Second Maishar Canton earned the rank of lieutenant. TSGA RK, f. 4, op. 1, d. 212, l.328.

The Intermediary Role of Tatars in...

23

along the Ural river «an understanding of Russian laws» and thus facilitated «the maintenance among them of «peace and order»55. These cases once again confirm the intermediary role of «Tatars» in the resolution of issues that were important to the Russian administration at the turn of the eighteenth century into the ninteenth: the return of prisoners; the regulation of relations between Kazakhs along the line and Russians; land disputes between Kazakhs and Bashkirs, Kazakhs and Kalmyks, Kazakhs and Cossacks, etc. Many of the actions undertaken by «Tatar» mullahs produced the required result. But how was this attained? By means of «admonitions», «exhortation», and «suggestion» [uveshchevaniia, nastavleniia, vnusheniia] in the course of everyday interactions with representatives of the kazakh aristocracy and population, and of course also by the real power that had been granted to them by the Russian administration. «Tatars’» good knowledge of the nomadic lifestyle, and of the customs and language of the Kazakh people, and their experience acquired in the settlement of claims of Kazakhs and Russian authorities against one another were also used by the administration in the introduction of the first administrative institutions in the steppe. Thus Ufa and Simbirsk governor-general Igel’strom sent the akhun Khusainov56 and the translator Bekchurin into Kazakh encampments more than once during the creation of the Frontier Court [Pogranichnyi sud] and the Frontier raspravy [Pogranichnyi raspravy]. He was counting on the authority of Khusainov, who enjoyed «great respect» among Kazakhs on account of his spiritual office and had «excellent trust», while the translator Bekchurin, «as a most capable and reliable … Muslim», could, «more than anyone», resolve arising conflicts57. Indeed, Khusianov and 55 GAOrO f. 6, op. 10, d. 2096a, l. 208ob.; ibid., d. 2060, l. 83; RGIA, f. 1291, op. 81, d. 71, l. 37. 56 Khusainov distributed «open sheets» [otkrtyie listy] – that is, addresses of Ufa and Simbirk governor-general Baron Igel'strom to Kazakhs of the Little Horde. Despite the fact that Kazakhs «said all kinds of spiteful things and threatened him with death» [zloslovili i strashchali umershchvleniem], the akhun was able to fulfill his mission. On the basis of Igel'strom's request, Khusainov was granted a yearly salary of 150 rubles, which was raised to 300 rubles in 1786 on account of his «documented zealous service». Materialy po istorii Bashkirskoi, vol. 5. – Moscow, 1960. – P. 683; 57 Materialy po istorii Kazakhskoi SSR, document no. 9. – Pp. 65-66; TSGA RK f. 4, op. 1, d. 1223.

24

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

Bekchurin «subdued the tempers [of Kazakhs] by their conversations and admonitions», and induced them to take the desirable decision58. Khusainov was also enlisted for the purposes of counteracting Central Asian mullahs in the steppe59. Imperial authorities sough to attract «Tatar» figures not only for their «admonitions», but also for very real participation in newly created institutions for the administration of the steppe. Thus primary leadership of the Khan’s Council [Xanskii Sovet], opened on 6 June 1797m was given to Khusain, as mufti of the Orenburg Muslim Spiritual Assembly. Later the Council was joined by akhun Mukhametzhan Kaziev, a native of Kazan’ province who traveled throughout the encampments of the Kazakh clans and encouraged «order and [their] submission» to the laws of the empire60. In 1823 three «Tatar» mullahs were brought into a «special» commission established by Orenburg governor-general Petr Kirillovich Essen, sultans, and influential elders. Moreover, it was stated that the members of this commission should without fail include Abdrakhman Mukhametsharifov, a mullah from Seitov Posad who enjoyed «particular trust and respect» of the Kazakh people and would thus be particularly well suited for bringing the Little Horde into a «peaceful condition.» The goal of the commission was to examine complains, from bot Russians and kazakhs, on matters of «various abductions [thefts?]» [raznye pokhishcheniia] that had occurred of the previous years, and to secure the return of Russian prisoners, livetsok that had been driven away, etc61. 58 Materialy po istorii Kazakhskoi SSR, document no. 11.– Pp. 69-70; ibid., document no. 19.– Pp. 83 and 482. 59 He sent a «letter of admonition» into the steppe, which expressed the basic idea that the subordination [poddanstvo] of Muslims to a ruler of another faith did not contradict Muslim law, and that manifestations of opposition to the tsarist government constituted a very great sin for a Muslim. Khsuainov used selections from the Koran to justify this position. Viatkin Batyr Srym. P. – 247. 60 Kaziev's actions were highly valued by sultan Arungazy, who noted that «this akhun» had given «good admonitions in accordance with our religion» // GAOO, f. 6, op. 10, d. 2060, l. 113. 61 The commission was initiated by foreign minister Karl Nesselrode. Khan Shirgazy became its chairman, and its members were sultan Temir Eraliev, Meletgali Turladin, the elder Isiangil'dii Ianmurzin, and the akhuns hajji Nadyr Khabdulvagapov, Absaliam Gabdulrakhimov, and Mukhametamin Baikev.The khan's superintendent [pristav] was also required to participate

The Intermediary Role of Tatars in...

25

In the 1840s-60s «Tatars» – as both translators and experts were always included in commisions, created by both central and regional authorities, for the erection of administrative institutions in the steppe and the resolution of and disputes between Kazakhs and Cossacks62. More than this, the Russian administration exploited the experience and knowledge of the translator S. Batyrshina by appointing him to the position of ruling sultan [sultan-pravitel’] of the western portion of the Orenburg Kazakhs for four months – from 13 November to 13 March 186663. This was, in essence, the first attempt to replace members of the Kazakh population with a representative of Russian authority at the middle level of administration. The intermediary work of «Tatars» is also clearly evident int he first half of the nineteenth century, a period of desperate resistance of the Kazakh people to a process of deep reform of the Kazakh steppe. They served in the capacity of arbiters in relations between the Kazakh population and the regional authorities, and helped in the «explanation of the illegal acts of insurgent Kazakhs during the time of the liberation movement under I. Taimanov and M. Utemisov (in the case of translators Iskander Batyrshin and M-Sh. Aitov) and under Eset Kotebarov (in the case of translator S. Batyrshin)64. Such translators also managed to register the establishment of «illegal ties» between «certain Tatars» and the insurgent Kazakhs. Thus, they reported, a certain Tatar trader Ustankudai Shukurov was linked to the mutinous Kazakhs, among others with Kutebar, Aslan, and others who had engaged in «harmful and rapacious in the commission's work. In 1823 colonel Aleksei Zakharovich Gorikhvostov occupeid that position. TSGA RK, f. 4, op. 1, d. 262, l. 85-86; Materialy po istorii Kazakhskoi SSR, document no. 144. – Pp. 447-448. 62 Among the members of various committees were M.-Sh. Aitov (the commission for review of the payment of taxes by the clans of Adai, Shomekei, and Tabyn on nomadic tents –1845); Salikh Biglov (the commission on the administrative organization and division of Asiatic Russia and the Orenburg region – 1866); S. Batryshin (the commission on the distribution of land along the left bank of the Ural River between Kazakhs and the Ural Cossacks – 1866). Beyond this, there were consistently translators working with the Cossack detachments that were building military fortifications in the steppe. TsGA RK, f. 25, op. 5, d. 245, ll. 1-62; ibid., ll. 186192; TsGA RK, f. 4, op. 1, d. 2786; ibid., d.2728. 63 TSGA RK, f. 25, op. 5, d. 245, l. 58ob. 64 TSGA RK, f. 25, op. 5, d. 245, l. 47.

26

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

enterprises» [vrednye khishchnicheskie predpriiatiia]65. On the basis of these dispatches, on 3 July 1839 Orenburg military governor Vasili Perovskii instructed the head of the Orenburg customs «to prohibit in the sternest possible terms the visitation of the villages of rebellious Kirgiz [Kazakhs]» by Tatar bailiffs who are acquainted with «the mutinous clans and their leaders» and, under the guise of trade in the steppe, were providing them «with gunpowder and other supplies», giving them «information and directives of our government without permission», and encouraging in them «a spirit of enmity and insobordination» to Russian authorities. For violating this instruction, they were subjected to the empire’s general laws as «noxious spies and traitors» 66.

The Role of «Tatars» in the Formation of St. Petersburg’s Central Asian Policy

The proximity of Kazakh nomadic encampments to the Caspian and Aral Seas and to the borders of the khanates of Khiva and Kokand, and also Orenburg’s rule as a bulwark for the conduct of Russia’s Central Asian policy, had the effect of widening the sphere of activity of «Tatar» translators. The unique configuration of the region and its tremendous distance from St. Petersburg endowed the governors of Orenburg with a mission different than the one of Russia’s internal provinces. The government was in constant need of reliable information in order to develop a strategy with regard to Khiva and Kokand, and also in order to ascertain the intentions of the British in Central Asia67. Information was needed not just about this or that person, but also about the topography of a given locale, its geological relief, its flora GAOrO, f. 6, op. 10, d. 3748, l. 14. GAOrO, f. 6, op. 10, d. 4978, ll. 7-7b. 67 Particularly notable was the activity of the Orenburg governor V. Perovskii (17951857), who occupied that post twice (1831-41 and 1851-57) and who established a developed [nalazhennyi] network for the collection of «intelligence» [svedenii]. This allowed him to inform the foreign and war ministries regularly about "the border affairs here," about the intrigues of English agents in Central Asia, and so on. Important in this regard were of course the reports of Tatar servitors, who gathered information on the internal situation in the khanates of Bukhara, Kokand, and Khiva, on the penetration of the English, on their military strength and fortifications. // Materialy po istorii Kazakhskoi, vol. 4, documents nos. 182, 183, 185.– Pp.420-427. 65 66

The Intermediary Role of Tatars in...

27

and water resources. To the extent that even the geographical data about natural resources and climatic conditions were limited, it is not surprising that such information made its way to Russian authorities through translators, who were attached to the official embassies and trade caravans that visited Orenburg from Khiva, Kokand, and Bukhara. Contact with their retinues allowed for the acquisition of «the needed information» concerning the character of purpose of the embassies, the most influential officials, and the size and combat-readiness of the armies of those neighboring states68. «Tatar» merchants collected information by questioning the caravan heads, merchants, and bailiifs [prikazchiki] who arrived in Orenburg for trade. In their reports, they informed the local administration about what they had heard from those Kazakhs and residents of Tashkent who had come for trading purposes, among other things initial information about the diplomatic missions that were soon to arrive from adjacent khanates69. Moreover, Tatar merchants had a certain influence on their fellow Muslim colleagues. Thus Petr Ivanovich Demezon, a translator with the Orenburg Frontier Commission, and Ivan Viktorovich. Vitkevich, an ensign in Orenburg Line Battalion no. 10, reported that «the views of Bukharans are under the significant influence of Tatars who are Russian subjects living in borderland regions and who trade with the Kirgiz [Kazakhs] and the states of Turkestan»70. For their active cooperation in the empire’s Central Asian policy, a series of «Tatar» translators were promoted in the ranks and rewarded with medals: On 23 march 1811, «for zealous execution» of his duties, Abdulnasyr Sukhankulov was rewarded with a gold medal on a red ribbon and a one-time payment of 750 rubles71. In September of 1840, Mukhamed-Sharif Aitov, a translator for the Orenburg Frontier GAOrO, f. 167, op. 1, d. 2428, II. 1-28ob. Kazakhso-russkie otnosheniia, vol. 2. – Alma-Ata, 1964. document no. 53.–P.132; TsGA RK, f. 4, op. 1, d. 4910, ll.1-5; ibid., d.2467, l. 165. 70 Zapiski o Bukharskom khanstve: Otchety Petra Demezona i Ivana Vitkevicha Moscow, 1983. – P.21. 71 A. Subkhankulov was dispatched to Bukhara for the capture of Khamit Valitov, whose was making false coin. He not only fulfilled that mission, but also gathered information on the numebr of Russians and Karakalpaks in the khanate of Bukhara, and on the intrigues of the English in Afghanistan. V. Galiev. Karavannye tropy (Iz istorii obshchestvennoi zhizni Kazakhstana XVII-XIXvv.). – Almaty, 1994. – P. 51. 68 69

28

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

Commission, received the rank of lieutenant for his assistance in the liberation of more than 500 Russian prisoners in Khiva72. In 1862 S. Batyrshin attained the rank of court counsellor for his work in 18541859 accompanying Bukharan and Khivan embassies to Petersburg as a bailiff [pristav] and a Russian embassy to Khiva and Bukhara as a dragoman73. The Turning Point in Petersburg’s Steppe Policy: The Rejection of «Tatars» Already in the first decades of the nineteenth century, in response to the requests of some Kazakh leaders for permission to apply Sharia law to judicial practice in the steppe «for the resolution of internecine affairs», Russian officials declared that putting the principles of Muslim law into practice would complicate Kazakhs’ «adoption of the standards of the general state order.» Nonetheless, all the way down to the 1850s such tendencies could not take hold, on account of both foreign-policy considerations and a resulting inertia in the thinking of regional authorities. At the same time, a change in the position of the Kazakh steppes within the empire by the mid-1860s – whereby they now appeared to be a sufficiently well integrated part of the empire – inclined the state’s highest leadership and its regional representatives towards a radical reconsideration on the part of of the place and role of «Tatars» as participants in Russia’s imperial policy and conduits of imperial influence. Indeed, the mid-nineteenth century should be seen as a fundamental turning point in the relations of imperial authorities to «Tatars», who, as one document asserted, «cannot be considered useful accomplices in the matter of establishing Russian civilization [russkaia grazhdanstvennost’] in the steppe»74. This was connected to series of factors linked to the country’s foreign policy. First of all, by the mid-nineteenth century Russia had expanded very close to the borders of the Central Asian khanates, where the main population was Muslim. Moreover, the country also border Muslim states, which called forth the apprehension of the Russian administration about the behavior of the country’s own 72 GAOrO contains a file «On the imprisonment of the cornet M. Sh. Aitov in Khivaa»: f. 167, op. 1, d. 24, ll.1-28. 73 TsGA RK, f. 25, op. 5, d. 245, l. 47. «Dragoman» – from the Arabic «translator» – was a translator of eastern languages affiliated with diplomatic representations and consulates. 74 RGIA, f. 821, op. 8, d. 634, l.20.

The Intermediary Role of Tatars in...

29

Muslims. Secondly, the tendency to reconsider the intermediary role of «Tatars» was also strengthened as a result of the resettlement of a segment of the Crimean Tatar population from Russia to the Ottoman Empire. The government was concerned about the consolidation of the empire’s Turkic peoples under the aegis [ediga] of Turkey, since in the opinion of regional authorities Tatars working in the steppe had a channel for the dissemination of their influence on co-religionists75. This sense of danger was only strengthened by events in another borderland region: the Polish insurrection of 1863-64. Russian authorities saw in the «Tatarization» of the Kazakhs an analogue tot he process of Polonization in Russia’s western borderlands, as even within the framework of the Russian state Polish cultural expansion gradually encompassed groups of the population, that (like Kazakhs) might otherwise become the objects of Russification and eventually become part of the Russian nation76. Thirdly, in the 1860s Russian commercial expansion was directed toward the southeastern borderlands, where it encountered competition in the form of «Tatar» merchants who had already conquered the market of that territory77. Two legislative acts also played a distinct role in the government’s change of tactics. «The Statute on Bashkirs» (14 May 1863) and a provision «On the Transfer of the administration of Bashkirs from Military to Civilian Jurisdiction» 75 GAOrO, f. 6, op. 10, d. 2086, l.367. In this regard a series of directives by Orenburg governor-general V. Perovskii in 1853-55 is illustrative. One instructed the commander of the Bashkir-Mishar Military Host not to allow the release of Bashkirs and Mishars into the steppe as religious servitors or for the teaching of «Tatar» reading and writing to the children there (1853). Another directed sultan-rulers [сул­та­н ам-пра­ви­те­л ям] «that they not even dare enter into direction contect with the Mammedan Assembly [in Orenburg] bypassing the Frontier Commission» (1854). A third informed the chairman of the Provisional Council on the adminsutration on the Inner Horder that in the territory under his jurisdiction there «are many Tatars without passports who are capable of causing disorders», which necessitated the sending of agents [syshchiki] to the markets of the Horde togathr with a team of Cossacks «for assiatnce to those agents». А.А. Tsentrl'nyi gosudarstvenyi istoricheskii arkhiv Respubliki Bashkortstan [henceforward: TsGIA RB], f. 2, op. 1, d. 7956, l. 3; RGIA, f. 821, op. 8, d. 624, l.23; TsGA RK, f. 78, op. 2, d. 1097, ll. 10-10ob. Katenin continued the line of his predecessor and on 16 May 1860 published a directive allowing Tatars to travel to the kazakh steppe only for the purpsoes of trade. TsGIA RB, f. 2, op. 1, d. 10664, l. 1-2. 76 G. Kosach Kazakhskii 'obrazovannyi' klass v Rossiiskoi imperii // Kazakhstan i Rossiia: obshchestva i gosudarstva. – Moscow, 2004. – Vyp. 6. – P. 30. 77 GAOrO, f. 6, op. 10, d. 2086, l. 367.

30

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

(2 July 1865). Both of these concerned the Muslim Bashkirs living adjacent to Kazakhs, and both testified to changes in the region’s internal political situation. And finally, the formulation of a set of new national priorities concerning the creation of a «unified and indivisible Russia» by way of a common languge (Russian) and a common religion (Orthodoxy). In this context the question arose, as to whether a Muslim could become a citizen of an Orthodox state. The answer to this question was contested and seemed to require the study of «the Muslims’ world.» As a result, in 1854 the Kazan Ecclesiastical academy became a center for the scholarly study of Islam78. And as the orientalist Vladimir Bartol’d noted, the study of Islam occurred under the influence of Eurocentrism, which presupposed a fundamental distinction between East and West and the incompatibility of Islam with the conception of progress79. The knowledge of Russia’s state and public about Muslims was created through the work of missionaries, orientalists, and the regional administration, which were all in direct contact with Muslims or studied them on the basis of books by western scholars. Those western scholars ascribed to Muslims fanaticism, religious intolerance, exclusivity, ignorance, stagnation. And Muslims’ resistance to European – in this case, Russian – culture and influence was construed as «fanaticism», while varying degrees of «religious fanaticism» were ascribed to Russian Muslims. In this scheme the most fanatical – and thus the most dangerous – were the Volga Tatars, who extered cultural influence on other Muslims. By the mid-nineteenth century, Russian authorities saw the results of «Tatars’» activity as intermediaries in the Volga-Ura;l region and the Kazakh steppe as involving the creation of a unified space based on the «Tatar» language, Islam and a commonality of culture. Therefore official documents began to speak of «Tatar domination» [tatarskoe zasil’e] as essentially the main threat to Russia’s national interests in the southeast, which in turn supposed efforts both to limit the spread of «Tatar» culture and to weaken the influence of Islam. Hence the 78 Istoriia otechestvennogo vostokovedeniia s serediny XIXv. do 1917. – Moscow, 1997. – Pp. 35-40. 79 Bartol'd Istoria izucheniia Vostoka. – P. 226.

The Intermediary Role of Tatars in...

31

effort to contrast «fanatical Tatars» to Kazakhs, to their mentality and the specificty of nomadic life. Indeed, Kazakhs were graded as being on the least «fanatical», and accordingly needed to be «saved» by the efforts of the authorities. Officials of the Department of Spiritual Affairs of the Foreign Confessions that Muslims of the Volga-Ural region, who were «more advanced and more accustomed to fulfilling religious obligations by long-established order» would be able to attain complete spiritual domination over their nomadic neighbors. One could even hear dark predictions – that the kazakh people, as a people that was «capable of labor and having many pieces in place for a better future, but was still ... very weak», would lose these qualities «because of the strong development of fanaticism and the strengetheing of the power of the Mohammedan clergy.» Its «development may be choked off in its very embryonic stage» [mozhet byt’ zaglusheno v samom zarodyshe]80. According to these conceptions, the existence of Islamic culture within the framework of an Orthodox state did not correspond to the state interests of Russia, hindered the policy of rapprochement, and finally was simply dangerous. In the 1860s the Orenburg authorities regularly sent the interior ministry reports and proposals demanding the enhancement of the authorities’ control over the ulema. Most indicative in this regard were an 1865 report by Orenburg governor-general Nikolai Fndreevich Kryzhanovskii (1864-1881), «On the transformation of the Administration of the Spiritual Affairs of Muslims» and a follow-up presentation to the interior ministry in 1867. Kryzhanovskii proposed maintaining all correspondence in Russian; providing all mullahs with a state salary in order to «prohibit all requisition [pobory]» on their part and to put them «in a position of dependence on the government»; and forbidding all «Tatars» from teaching literacy to Kazakh children. The concern, in short, was to establish state control over them, since «predominant» among the Muslim clergy were «inclinations that are paralyzing the efforts of the government»81. In his report to the ministry of education «On the elimination of the harmful influence of Tatars and Bashkirs on the Kirgiz [Kazakhs]», 80 81

RGIA, f. 821, op. 8, d. 602, l. 34; GAOrO, f. 6, op. 10, d. 14005, l. 48. GAOrO, f. 6, op. 10, d. 14005, ll. 3, 38-48.

32

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

military governor of the Ural Region drew the government’s attention also to «the harmful influence of Tatar traders» and proposed a series of measures in response: 1) the abolition of the right of Tatars to exemptions from duties on the conveyance of goods into the steppe; and 2) the establishment of «special certificates» for Tatar traders, which would allow for surveillance [otslezhivanie] of their commercial actovity in the steppe82. Measures designed to «weaken Mohammedan fanaticism» in southeastern Russia (the Volga-Ural region and neighboring territories of the steppe), the source of which government circles saw in the «Tatar clergy», was becoming a reality. Evidence for this can be seen in the activity of the Steppe Commission of 1865-68, which, alongside issues of administration, taxation, and justice, exmained the confessional situation83. The introduction of the «Temporary Statute on the Administration of the steppe regions of the Orenburg and Western Siberian governor-generalships» on 21 October 1868 represented a fundamnetal revision in the government’s position on administration of Kazakhs’ religious affairs. They were removed from the jurisdiction of the Orenburg Muslim Spiritual Assembly and were transferred to civilian administration, and through it to the interior ministry84. Moreover, only one mullah and one mosque were now permitted in each canton [volost’]. That mullah had to be a Kazakh and was both confirmed and dismissed by the military governor. Consistently limiting the influence of «Tatars», Petersburg aspired to present itself as the champion of Kazakh interests and to solidify RGIA, f. 1291, op. 82, d. 33. The Steppe Commisson prepared two secret memoranda: «On Mohammedanism in the Kirgiz Steppe and On the Adminsitration of the Religious Affairs of the Kirgiz» and «On the Promotion of Christianity in the Kirgiz Steppe», both of which included proposals on the confessional question. The materials of those memoranda were based on the work of Chokan Valikhanov «O musul'manstve v stepi» // Ch. Valikhanov, Sobranie sochinenii v piati tomakh, vol. 4. – Alma-Ata, 1985. – Pp. 71-75. 84 Kazakhs later expressed disagreement with this arrangement. One manifestation was a Kazakh petition in 1905 to the chairman of a special commission of the interior ministry, Count A. Ignat'ev, considering the issue ofe stablishing either an independent Muslim administration for Kazakhs or subordinating Kazakhs, again, to the Orenburg Muslim Spiritual Assembly. In the petition kazakhs remarked they they, «as true Muslims, have earned the right to have their own special spiritual administration». However, the government regarded their claims to being «true Muslims» as unfounded and thought that staisfying their petition would facilitate the further spread of «Tatar» culture among them. RGIA, f. 821, op. 10, d. 29, l. 29ob. 82 83

The Intermediary Role of Tatars in...

33

Russian influence in that way. The Tatar language was regarded as one of the most powerful instruments of «Tatar» influence, and therefore authorities developed propositions about the need for the «defense» of the Kazakh language and the promotion of its spread as a transitional stage on the road to the Russification and Chrsitianization of the Kazakh population. At the same time there was no full agreement among the representatives of various regional state structures about the role of «Tatar» language in kazakh society. Lef Fedorovich. Balliuzek, the military governor of the Turgai Region (1869-77), openly expressed disagreement with the opinion of the head of the Kazan’ educational district, Petr Dmitrievich Shestakov, and the missionary Nikolai Il’minskii about the necessity of «strengthening Russian influence» by means of the eradication of the Tatar language. Balliuzek believed that at the initial stage the Tatar language «is a more effective conduit of the information, knowledge, and outlook [among Kazakhs] that are useful to the Russian cause» than was the Russian alphabet, which «is presently known to a paltry percent» of literate Kazakhs85. Il’minskii was also warned about the complications of transferring the Kazakh language to the Cyrillic alphabet by Ibrai Altynsarin in a letter of 31 August 1871: «One must keep in mind that a break of the Kirgiz [Kazakhs] from the Tatar reading and writing is impossible before the distant future, at a minimum…»86 At the same time Il’minskii and the education minister, Dmitrii Tolstoi (1866-80), believed that the process of Kazakhs’ «Tatarization» needed to be stopped, and that Kazakhs could be taught the Russian language «with the help of their natve Kirigiz [kazakh] language and textbooks in that language printed with Russian script, but by no means the Arabic»87. As we see, the authorities considered an accelerated policy of «rapprochement» to be a precondition for the weakening of the «harmful» influence of «Tatars»88, and placed its faith in the Russian GAOrO, f. 6, op. 10, d. 8330, ll. 5-10. N. Il'minskii, Vospominaniia ob I.Altynsarine.– Kazan', 1896. – P. 227. 87 GAOrO, f. 6, op. 10, d. 8330, l. 17-23. 88 It was proposed that the question of methods «for the weakening of Mohammedan fanaticism» in the Volga-Ural region would be examined at a special committee of the inerior minisry in 1876. And in 1910, a special conference was convened, known as the «Conference for the Elaboration of Measures for Countercating Tatar-Muslim influence in the Volga region». 85 86

34

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

language and the introduction of Russian classes in Muslim institutions of learning. In this matter interior minister Dmitrii Tolstoi (1882-89) wrote that the measure being adopted «does not concern the religious feelings and local way of life» among Kazakhs. The government’s fundamental goal was «to cut off the inroads of Muslim propaganda [into the kazakh milieu] by ourely administrative directive»89. The government’s plan of 1870, «On Measures for the education of non-Russian [inorodtsy] populating Russia.» laid the foundation for the creation of educational institutions of a new kind: «RussianKirgiz» schools, which were designed «to supplant the multitude of small schools» maintained by Tatars90. On the basis of this plan regional authorities worked out measures «for counteracting Tatar influence», which included prohibiting Kazakhs from studying in «Tatar schools», increasing the number of Russian-Kazakh schools, and the expulsion of «Tatar mullahs» from the steppe91. As a result the minister of education, after consultation with the interior ministry and the chief procuratot of the Orthodox Holy Synod, published a directive of 23 October 1888 prohibiting the teaching of «Mohammedan doctrine» [magometanskoe uchenie] in Tatar in the educational institutions of the Orenburg educational district92. The fundamental precondition «for pccupying a spiritual post» in the steppe became knowledge of the Russian language93. The government’s position also remained harsh with regard to the construction of mosques and houses of prayer in the Kazakh steppe. At the end of the 1870s the Kazakh population of the Turgai Oblast had not more than fifteen mosques for fifty cantons, so that there were between five thousand and thousand souls for each mosque, even as a decree of 23 August 1763 allowed one mosque for each five hundred TSGA RK, f. 25, op. 1, d. 592, l.18. GAOrO, f. 6, op. 10, d. 8330, l. 23. 91 RGIA, f. 1291, op. 84, d. 5, l.11ob. In a list of 1890, among the mulahs of the Turgai region who were not Kazkahs were: the Tatar Safautdin Shamsutdinov of the mosque in the Tatar quarter of Kustanai; the Tatar Gataulla Abdul-Vali of the SOBORNAIA mosque in Kustanai; the Bashkir Akhmetgarif Kulbaev at the mosque of the town of Chelkar; and the Tatar Vali Srumbantaev of the mosque of Karabutak. TSGA RK, f. 25, op. 1, d. 1406, ll. 9-55. 92 GAOrO, f. 10, op. 1, d. 73, l.1. 93 In 1890 rules were issued accoridng to which candidates for the position of mullah had to be literate in Russian. GAOrO, f. 6, op. 10, d. 14005, l. 32. 89 90

The Intermediary Role of Tatars in...

35

souls94. Even so, in 1883 interior minister Dmitrii Tolstoi published a directive noting that «given the goal of limiting further Islamization, the construction of new mosques for the Kirgiz [Kazakhs] is undesirable»95. In the case an equivalency was established between the term «Islamization» and the concept of «Tatarization», that had been introduced by the government. Therefore, in the 1870s to 1890s none of the Kazakh petitions requesting the opening of new mosques or houses of prayer had any consequence. In a parallel fashion, Russian authorities established control over the appointment of «Tatar» clerks to Kazakh clan leaders. In his directives to the military governor of Turgai Oblast, education minister Tolstoi underscored that Tatar clerks «can be very dangerous in the steppe in a political sense.» Therefore, he concluded, in order to eliminate «the important administrative mistake» of the eighteenth century, it was necessary to replace «Tatar» clerks with Kazakh or Russian servitors96. In 1876 the government accordingly issued a directive «On the replacement of Tatar translators in the steppe with native Kirgiz [Kazakhs]». In order to attract Kazakhs with a knowledge of Russian to the position of clerks at canton boards, the government develoepd a system of incentives that included rewarding such servitors with medals, certificates of merit, and gifts97. Simultaneously a list of Kazakhs studying in Russian schools was drawn up. Thus eighty-one Kazakhs were studying in Russian-Kazakh schools in Turgai Oblast in 188398. At the same time the government began contemplating the idea of replacing the Tatar language with Arabic script as the bureaucratic language of the steppe with the kazakh language written in Russian letters99. V.V. Radlov, the inspector of Tatar Bashkir, and Kazakhs schools for the Kazan’ educational district, supported this proposal 94 In 1870-1884, the Kazakhs Aitkul Alibaev and Suleiman Zhirneterov built mosques in villages numbers three and four of Mandagarin canton of Kustanai district without official permission. In 1895 those mosques were closed and those maintaining them were accused of illegal constrcution and subjected to a fine of twenty rubles. RGIA, f. 821, op. 8, d. 624, l. 23. 95 TsGA RK, f. 25, op. 1, d. 736, ll. 3-3ob. 96 TsGA RK, f. 25, op. 1, d. 2022, l. 20. 97 TsGA RK, f. 25, op. 1, d. 592, l. 17. 98 TsGA RK, f. 25, op. 1, d. 2022, l. 91. 99 TsGA RK, f. 25, op. 1, d. 592, l. 18.

36

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

since he thought that this would initiate a natural outflow [ottok] Tatar translators from the steppe100. A review of the bureaucratic organization of the canton boards of Turgai Oblast, under the direction of the military governor there in1882, revealed that at the lower levels of the administration of Kazakhs a replacement of «Tatar» clerks by Russian and Kazakh servitors had already occurred. Thus in thirty-seven cantons of Turgai Oblast the clerical staff, there were two Kazakhs, three Tatars, one Bashkir, and thirty-one Russians101. The reason for this change in the composition of the clerical staff was the transfer of bureaucratic correspondence in the districts of Turgai Oblast into the Cyrillic alphabet. At the first stage this affected the boundary districts of Aktiubinsk and Kustanai, where Russan laguage and literacy had received greater dissemination, while the remaining centers of population were affected in the next stage102. The logic of the government’s subsequent actions involved a prohibition for all structures of imperial power on publishing directives in Tatar, since doing otherwise would constitute indirect recognition «of the predominant significance of the Tatar language, as a dialect [narechie] supposedly common to all non-Russians of various ethncitities [vse raznoplemennye inorodtsy]»103. Newly arising conditions compelled the government, in its subsequent Steppe Statute of 1891, to limit the duties of mullahs and to define their functions to only «reachers of the faith» [verouchiteli], and to regard their interference in the affairs of family and property as an «unauthorized appropriation of power» [samovol’noe prisvoenie vlasti] subject to criminal punishment. National arkhiv Respubliki Tatarstan [henceforward: NA RT] f. 92, op. 1, d. 12349, l. 7. TSGA RK, f. 25, op. 1, d. 592, l. 18 ob. District heads [uezdnye nachal'niki] were the ones most willing to make a proviso for accepting Tatars into the system of Kazakh adminsitration. Thus the head of Irgiz district justified his acceptance of Tatars as clerksin Aranchii and Kzyldzhar cantons with the obsevation that their replacement by Kazakhs would be difficult, since only the Irgiz school could provide literate cadres, and «the impending graduating class is insufficient to supply the district with clerks» The head of Iletsk district requested that the Bashkir Baitiure Aznaev be left in his clerical position as an exception, since he «showed himself to be good and, aside from his primary duties, was a good draughtsman». TsGA RK, f. 25, op. 1, d. 2022, ll. 70-70 ob. 102 TsGA RK, f. 25, op. 1, d. 592, l. 18. 103 RGIA, f. 821, op. 133, d. 603, l. 49. 100 101

The Intermediary Role of Tatars in...

37

And finally, in the 1890s, the issue arose as to whetehr there was even a legal basis for the residence of Tatars in the steppe. By the Temporary Statute of 1868, Tatars had the right to be asbribed to towns and settlements in the Kazakh steppe, but could not make use of the «privileges» that were granted to the Russian population there. By the «Steppe Statute» of 1891 those rights were now withdrawn, and by article 136 Tatars were forbidden from settling in the steppe and having real property there104. Tatar petitions to regional and central state institutions about the limitation of their rights serves as clear evidence for their changing legal status. Among others, the Tatars of Seitov Posad emphaszied that almost two hundred years earlier the government had regarded them as subjects with full rights, «in both a civil and a religious sense», but now, even as they had made substantial contributions to the development of the Orenburg region, «[our] rights are being limited more and more»105. Petitions from Tatars living in Irgiz and Karabutak remarked that trade in those settlements had developd thanks to their efforts and that they accordingly had the right to maintain property and to settle there106. Thus we see that at the end of the nineteenth century there was a rejection of «Tatars» as agents of an intermediary mission with which the Russian government had previously endowed them. Conclusion Thus, in the eighteenth century the Russian state actively assisted the introduction of «Tatar» mullahs clerks, translators, and merchants into the Kazakh steppe. Endowing them with clearly articulated intermediary functions, with their help the state strengthened its position. In essence, «Tatars» became an element of imeprial adminsitration of the steppe, serving as intermediaries between the authoritie and the local population. But later on that course was abandoned. The reforms of the second half of the nineteenth century narrowed the functions of «Tatars», initially by limiting the scope Kraft, Sbornik uzakonenii. – P. 432. RGIA, f. 821, op. 8, d. 632, l. 28. 106 TsGIA RK, f. 25, op. 1, d. 1433. 104 105

38

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

of their duties as intermediaries, and subsequently by seeking to displace those Muslims who originated in the Volga region and the southern Urals from the territory inhabited by Kazakhs altogether. The administration increasingly became a system in which Russian officials occupied the leading position. What, then, were the consequences for Kazakhs of the mediation providd by «Tatars»? The foregoing material allows us to identify six basic answers to this question. First of all, Tatar translators and interpreters, in light of their specific functions, kept service records and «travel registers» [putevye zhurnaly]107. Their knowledge of the Kazakh language, and of their culture and way of life, and their extensive missions, lasting often for a year or more, facilitated better and more thorough collection of various information about the Kazakh steppe and the actvities of the Kazakh elite, and thereby assisted the accumulation of historical and ethnographic material about the Kazakh people. That material is valuable because it was produced by eyewitnesses of events in the Kazakh steppe in the eighteenth and ninetenth centuries. Moreover, the personal relationships that these «Tatars» had with khans, sultans, biys, and elders, and the fact their observations were enhanced by the Kazakh elite’s explanations of various aspects in Kazakh life enhances the significance of this material. And it was, in part, on the basis of their reports that regional authorities worked out proejcts and plans for the development of trade, administrative and policy initiatives, and changes in the nomadic society108. 107 In GAOrO there is such a regsiter for the translator Mendiar Bekchurin during his secret expedition to Bukhara. GAOrO, f. 6, op. 10, d. 494; E. Masanov Ocherk istoricheskogo izucheniia kazakhskogo naroda v SSSR. Alma-Ata. 1966. pp. 77-78. For such a resgister produced by mufti Khusianov of the Orenburg Muslim Spiritual Assembly, which includes rich factual material about the political situation in the Little Horde in the last quarter of the eighteenth century, see Mukhametshin Khusainov «Zhurnal Orenburgskogo muftiia» // Istoricheskii arkhiv. – M., 1939. – Pp.117-220. Viatkin Batyr Srym. – Pp. 26-27. 108 The guardian of Kazakhs along the defensive line [при­ли­ней­ных ка­за­хов] M.-Sh. Aitov gathered interesting material on the property and family relations of Kazakhs, which were regulated by the norms of customary law. Collegiate secretary of the Orenburg Frontier Commission Salikh Rakhmatullievich Biglov presented detailed data about the biy courts and about forms of punishment by customary law, includign also the names of the biys more famous for their intelligence and experience from the Shomekei, Tortkara and Shekty clans, as well as the locations of their summer and winter encampments – information that enhances the significance

The Intermediary Role of Tatars in...

39

Secondly, we might ask: how did representatives of the Kazakh elite and rank-and-file nomades perceive the activity of these «Tatars» – as those of a «Russian official», a «co-religionist», or an «enemy»? The surviving documents speak above all about the attitude towards them of the elite, for whom they were in service and with whom they naturally had constant interactions. Here there is a very wide range – from «good-for-nothing» and «traitor»109, to recognition as a «son»110, and finally to «a religious leader and respected akun»111 and «a guide in all our affairs»112. Relations of the kazakh elite with «Tatars» were also reflected in their many petitions for the reward of mullahs and clerks with ranks, official deed, and gifts. These petitions reflect the Kazakh elite’s understanding of these rewards as symbols of power of the Russian Empire, while also demonstrating their establishment of trusted relations with those «Tatars» and their gratitude for the latter’s services. Recognizing «Tatar» mullahs and clerks as conduits for the government’s policy, the Kazakh elite justified their requests for reward by noting that the «Tatars» had provided «instructions and advice»; had clarified the content of the Russian Empire’s «laws» to all Kazakh «nomadic clans»; had encouraged «good behavior and submission to the authorities placed over of his work. Materialy po kazakhskomu obychnomu pravu. – Almaty, 1998. – Pp. 96-112; TsGA RK, f. 4, op. 1, d. 3466, ll. 16-16ob. 109 Khan Abulkhair of the Little Horde used exactly these words to describe mullah Al'mukhammet when he leraned that the latter had reported everything to the Orenburg administration. On 23 February 1743 the khan called Al'mukhammet once again, forgave him and orderd him «not to go anywhere again», not to write any letters» // Kazakhsko-russkie otnosheniia, vol. 1, document no. 108. – Pp. 280. 110 Khan Aishuak of the Little Horde wrote of the Abdulnasyr Subkhankulov, a clerk serving him with, that he trusted him completely, gave him «the right to bear a stamp» and «regarded him as a son». GAOrO, f. 6, op. 10, d. 249b. 111 Here the person in question was Abul-fetkhu Abdu-Selam uly, a Tatar from Seiutov Posad and an akhun for the Lttle Horde wo participated in all events of Kazakh nomadic society in the last quarter of the eighteenth century and the fiorst part of the nineteenth. This description of the akhun's activities was given by the sultans, biys, and elders of the Little Horde in 1803 during the taking of a «vow» on the termination of internecine struggle. Materialy po istorii Kazakhskoi SSR, vol. 4, document no. 65. – P. 212. 112 This was the assessment of the Kazakh elite with regard to the translator Mendiar Bekchurin. Elders, biys, and Khan Aishuak of the Little Horde emphasized Bekchurin's acute and sharp mind. Materialy po istorii Kazakhskoi SSR, vol. 4, document no. 65. – P. 212.

40

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

them»; had «indefatigeably sought to admonist the people», so that «peace and order» had reigned among them; and that they «had fulfilled their service obligations vigilantly and with complete loyalty»113. At the same time, in the consciousness of the rank-and-file nomads in the first half of the nineteenth century the image of the «Tatar» translator was less the image of a co-religionist, and sooner that of a representative of Russian authority, to whom one could appeal and give a petition. Kazakhs had a different attitude towards Tatar traders, whom they regarded as «cunning», «swindlers», «dangerous», etc. A reflection of this were Kazakh proverbs, which have remaiend im popular memory. Thirdly, Tatars of the Volga-Ural region, who had been incorporated into the administrative institutions of imperial administration earlier, undoubtdly exerted influence in the gradual alteration of the system of values and models of bahavior among the kazakh elite. Working in administrative institutions, Tatars presented in the consciousness of their Kazakh co-religionists the image of a non-Russian official who was working in Russian service and who enjoyed influence and respect among his fellow people and with the authorities. For the Kazakh elite it was important to retain influence in the changing circumstances, and thus the «Tatar» translator offered a model of a non-Russian [inorodets] who had made a career for himself and has usd his position to improve his condition and the service opportunities of his children. It was for this reason that Nikolai Il’minskii wrote that «Tatars» exerted greater influence on members of the Kazakh clan aristocracy than on poor Kazakhs114 – and not just because the children of Kazakh khans and sultans studied reading and writing with a Tatar mullah or were enrolled at a medrese in Seitov Posad, Kazan’, or Ufa. By the end of the eighteenth century a situated had emerged in which only someone who knew how to read and write «in Tatar» could become an influental and vostrebovannym. Moreover, they understood that «especially zealous execution of the demands of the 113 GAOrO, f. 6, op. 10, d. 3264, ll. 4-7; ibid., 2096a, l. 262; TsGA RK, f. 4, op. 1, d. 2126, l9. 114 Il'minskii Vospominaniia ob Altynsarine. – P. 167.

The Intermediary Role of Tatars in...

41

authorities here» would always be rewarded by imperial authorities.115 It is notable that in the first half of the ninteenth century Kazakhs who had finished Russian education institutions in Orenburg and Omsk appeared alongside «Tatars» as officials in the state’s administrative structures. For the most part they were all memebers of the Kazakh elite, who had earlier adapted to new corcumstances and who, by the strength of tradition, their level of education, and their administrative skills, were able to preserve their influence over Kazakh society all the way down to 1917. Fourthly, Tatar traders became the fundamental communication link in the establishment of an internal market for the Kazakh steppe and the development long-distance trade between Russia and Central Asia. The distribution of Tatars in almost all more or less economically significant regions of the steppe played a definite role in the urbanization and cultural modernization of Kazakh lands. Toward the end of the nineteenth century Tatars constituted. 34% of Kazakhstan’s population, primarily in villages, towns, and cities, where they occupied a solid position in trade116. The distinguishing feature of their settlement was its compact nature. Tatars districts [slobody] were created in all cities of pre-revlutionary Kazakhstan, and to this day, with the name «Tatarka», they remain a part of the toponymy of the cities of Kazakhstan117. Fifthly, one may speak separately about the specifici acts of Tatar merhcnats in the kazakh steppe in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in the real of charity. Many mosques and newmethod mektebs and madrasas in the Kazakh steppe were built on the basis of the contributions of Tatar merchants118. Finally, the activities of «Tatar» mullahs, clerks, and translators were evaluated in various ways by their contemporaries. It is well Materialy po istorii Kazakhskoi SSR, Vol.4, document no. 66.– Pp. 219. Bekmakhanova N. Mnogonatsional'noe naselenie Kazakhstana i Kirgizii v epokhu kapitalizma (60-e gody XIX v. 1917g.) Moscow. 1986.– P. 232; I. Erofeeva Formirovanie tatarskoi, nemetskoi, pol'skoi i drugikh diaspor // N. Masanov, et al., Kazakhstan: narody i kul'tura. Almaty, 2000. – P 230-244. 117 Today, Tatars constitute 1,7% percent of Kazkhstan's population, making them the sicth-largest group of the population. 118 Sultangalieva G. Istoriia Aktiubinskogo uezda, 1869-1917. – Aktobe, 2005. – Pp. 106109. 115 116

42

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

known that Chokan Valikhanov viewed Tatar-Muslim influence negatively, seeing it as an obstacle to Kazakhs’ communion with Russian culture. Of course he was under the influence of those academic and government circles with which he had contact – ones that came out as defenders of the Kazakh language from its «Tatarization.» This was something that clerly impressed him, although Russian authorities ascribed a different signifcant to that language, seeing it as a transitory phase on the road towards the kaakhs’ Russification119. The preservation of the Kazakh language was one of the foundations for Kazakh identity and thus was an issue of import to Kazakh enlighteners. The Kazakh intelligentsia took an especially keen interest in this question at the end of the ninteeenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries. The importance of establishing a Kazakh literary language free from «Tatarisms» was also addressed on the pages of the first Kazakh-language newspaper, Dala Walayatynyng Gazeti (1888-1902)120 an in the discussions of Tatar and Kazakhs shakirds of the new-method [jadid] schools «Galiia» and «Khusainiia»121. At the same time, when members of the kazakh intellectual elite perceived a danger of Russification for the Kazakh people at the start of the twentieth century, then tendencies towards Turkic and Muslim unity against the Russification policies of the empire took shape. And Tatar teachers, merchants, and entrepreneurs played an organizing role in that movement. At the beginning of the twentieth century, an intense cultural and philosophical [mirovzzrencheskoe] rapprochement of the national intelligentsias of these Tuskic peoples in the Russian empire was on hand.

119 At the same time one should keep in mind that the anti-Tatar criticism of Chokan Valikhanov was also directed against the policy of the Russian government, which patronized "Tatar" mullahs. Ch. Valikhanov O musul'manstve. – Pp. 71-75. 120 Uyama Tomohiko A Strategic Alliance between Kazakh Intellectuals and Russian Administrators: Imagined Communities in Dala Walayatïnïng Gazetí (1888-1902). // Hayashi Tadayuki, ed., The Construction and Deconstruction of National Histories in Slavic Eurasia. SRC. Hokkaido University. – Sapporo, 2003. – P. 237-259. 121 G. Sultangalieva Zapadnyi Kazakhstan v sisteme etnokul'turnykh kontaktov, XVIIInachalo XXv. Ufa, 2001. – Pp. 164-178.

The Pristavstvo Institution in...

43

2. The Pristavstvo Institution in the Kazakh Steppe in the 19th century

On January 31, 1819, the Orenburg Military Governor P. Essen (1817-1830) proposed that a main pristav be appointed to Sultan Shigai Nuraliev in the Bukei Khanate. This pristav was to function in a manner «similar to those [pristavs] that existed among the Kalmyks»1 Almost a year later, on February 19, 1820, at a session of the Ministry of Foreign Affair’s Asian Department, Russian authorities decided to assign a pristav to the Khān of the Junior Horde.2 Similarly, the locallevel Russian officials who accompanied Kazakh delegations to Saint Petersburg in the first half of the 19th century were called pristavs. Later still, in 1848 the position of pristav was introduced in the Senior Horde in order to govern the Kazakhs in the southern region of Kazakhstan. This institution was responsible for the administrativeterritorial governance of the Trans-Ilisky (Zailisky) krai, or region. Then, on February 2, 1870, the Mangyshlak pristavstvo was founded to govern the Kazakhs of the Adai tribe. These aforementioned facts underscore how one term – pristav – was used in a variety of ways within the territory of Kazakhstan. These various uses raise a number of questions, in particular: Why 1 1819 y., January 31. Pis’mo orenburgskogo voennogo gubernatora generala P.K. Essena sultanu Shigau s predlozheniem o naznachenii polkovnika, knyazya A.I.Bagrationa pristavom v Bukeevskuyu. Istoriya Bukeevskogo khanstva 1801-1852. Sbornik dokumentov I materialov. – Almaty: Daik-Press, 2002 – P. 201. 2 1820. February 19. Journal of the Asian Committee on inexpediency division by 2 Juz Khānate prescribing measures to strengthen the power of the Juz Khān Shirgazi. MIK. – P. 349351.

43

44

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

did Russian authorities name the official appointed to the Khān of the Junior Horde a pristav rather than an advisor or an assistant? How did the functions of the pristav for the Khān of the Junior Horde differ from those of the pristavs for the Kazakh delegations to Saint Petersburg? How did their functions differ from those of the pristavs appointed to the Kazakhs of the Senior Horde? And, finally, what gave rise to the administrative structure of the pristavstvo, such as it existed in the Senior Horde, Zaisansk and on the Mangyshlak peninsula? As these questions underscore, the pristavstvo institution in the territory of Kazakhstan operated on a variety of levels – that is, from an individual state official to a larger, administrative-territorial structure. The questions also indicate that we need to explain the term pristav in greater detail. Though today the term is strictly associated with police functions, in the 19th century it had a much broader spectrum of meanings3. According to V. Dal’, the famous Russian linguist, the word pristav came from the old Slavonic verb stavit’, that is, to place something or someone close in order to tutor or give counsel4. Perhaps based on this interpretation, Russian authorities began to use the term pristav to describe the officials appointed in regions that had been newly incorporated into the Russian empire. In the first half of the 18th century, pristavs were appointed in Kabardia (1769)5, «to the Kalmyk deputies»(1782)6, and to the Nogais that pastured in the territory that stretched between the Kuma and Kalaus rivers to the Caspian sea (1793). And, at the beginning of the 19th century, a pristav was appointed to the «Karanagais and other nomadic peoples» of the North Caucasus7. On the one hand, the appointment 3 The word «pristav» today is associated with police and judicial functions and typically translated as bailiff. In accordance with the legal reforms of 1864, only court pristavs, or bailiffs, were recognized – these were officials responsible for executing a court's decision in civil cases. Bailiffs included those appointed to the mirovoi s''ezd, the district courts, appellate courts (sudebnye palaty), and the cassation department of the Senate. In this form the court pristavs continued to work through the beginning of the 20th century. They were abolished by the First Decree of the Council of People's Commissars on November 24, 1917. 4 Dal’,V. Tolkovyi slovar’ zhivogo velikorusskogo yazyka .Мoscow, 1998. V.3.p. 445. 5 Butkov, P. Materialy dlia novoi istorii Kavkaza s 1722 po 1803 gg. St-Peterburg. 1869. p. 75. 6 Komandzhaev E. Razvitie kalmytskoi gosudarstvennosti v sostave Rossii v XVII-XIX vv.’ Kaspiiskii region: politika, ekonomika, kul'tura 2010. №1(22).P.72-76. 7 Arsanukaeva М.Vvedenie rossiskoi sudebno-pravovoi sistemy v gorskih raionah Severnogo Kavkasa v pervye desyatiletia XIX v’Vestnik Rossiskoi pravovoi akademii., 2010. – № 2. – P.12-18.

The Pristavstvo Institution in...

45

of the pristav, who was initially required to perform the functions of a mentor or guardian, allowed the Russian authorities to establish a permanent Russian administration in these areas. On the other hand, the appointment of the pristav helped to prepare the conditions necessary for indigenous peoples in these regions to adapt to Russian subjecthood (poddanstvo). This was a so-called «transitional system of governance,» which permitted the Russian administration to take into account the particular traditions and lifeways of the peoples of the North Caucasus and thereby create the proper conditions for their full integration into the empire. Less than a century after the pristavstvo institution was approved in the North Caucasus, the Russian authorities decided to use this same system of governance in an entirely different region - the Kazakh steppe. What impelled the Russian administration to use an identical system of governance in a different region? Perhaps the most important factor in this case was that the Kazakhs, like the Kalmyks, Nogais, and Kabardians, were pastoral nomads. The Russian imperial administration viewed the economic and social particularities of pastoral nomadism as defining characteristics that would shape the implementation of their policies. Also important was the fact that the pristavstvo institution was introduced among peoples in the North Caucasus (Nogais, Kumyks, Ingush, Chechens) who, like Kazakhs, practiced Islam8. Third, in the 1820s, the Kazakhs, like the formerly nomadic peoples of the North Caucasus, were in the process of transitioning to a system of general imperial governance. It was precisely in this period that administrative reforms related to the Kazakhs of the Junior and Middle Hordes were introduced as part of the broader legal administration of inorodtsy9 and the Russian administration had to use this system of governance in order to be 8 In the first half of the nineteenth century, the first form of government in Karchai were the pristavstvs. Abaikhānova I. Normativno-pravovaya adaptaziya institutov administrativnogo upravlenia vo vtoroi pol. ХIХ veka v Karachae. Nauchnye problemy gumanitarnyh issledovanii. V. 2011.– Pp.6-20. Imennoi ukaz «О uchrezhdenii osobogo pristava nad karabulakami I chechenzami», 10 October, 1848 Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov. Sobr. II. V. XXIII. № 22641.– StPeterburg, 1849. 9 Slokum,Dzh..Kto i kogda byli «inorodtsami»? Evolyutsiya kategorii «chuzhiye» v Rossiyskoy imperii Rossiyskaya imperiya v zarubezhnoy istoriografii. Raboty poslednikh let: Antologiya Moscow. Novoe isdatel’stvo, 2005. – S. 502-534.

46

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

gradually incorporated into the empire’s administrative-legal system. At the end of the 1850s, the North Caucasus had already entered into the general civil administration, while the territory of the Great Horde was still a part of the empire’s frontier strategy. That is to say, relations between the Russian empire and this part of the steppe were carried out under the umbrella of foreign relations and were often irregular. And a final reason why a similar pristavstvo institution was introduced in both the North Caucasus and the steppe concerned the fact that, in the first half of the 19th century (in 1859), the territory of Kazakh steppe was the responsibility of the Ministry of Foreign Relation’s Asian Department. Accordingly, the introduction of some form of governance in the steppe was the responsibility of this agency10. These similar systems of governance in different regions were nonetheless distinct. The process of their introduction was influenced by geographic and historical conditions; in particular, the administration employed different methods to preserve the balance between the local population and the colonizers. As Burbank and Cooper have noted in their brilliant, recent monograph, these local conditions are what influenced the formation of different imperial repertoires11. Furthermore, the authors’ argument about the need to conduct comparative studies has drawn my attention to the need to identify the general and particular dimensions of the formation and development of the pristavstvo institution in its relation to the nomadic peoples of the empire (i.e., the Kazakhs, Kalmyks, Nogais, Kabardians, and so forth). Accordingly, then, we must also ask particular questions about whether the activities of the pristav to the Kalmyk deputy differed from those of the pristav to the Kazakh Khan. Additionally, we must analyze how the pristav’s activities in the North Caucasus and in the Senior Horde differed. Such an approach will provide an «understanding» of the logic and motivation of those involved in forming the imperial policies for establishing Russian administration in newly subjected territories. Marshall A. The Russian general staff and Asia. 1800-1917. – London Routledge, 2006. Burbank J.& Cooper,F. Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press, 2010. 10 11

The Pristavstvo Institution in...

47

It will similarly establish new goals for the study of the practices of imperial governance. After all, the Russian empire varied – administrators used similar systems of governance in different regions and at different points in time, such as the pristavstvo institution in the North Caucasus and the Kazakh steppe; the Governors-General (in the Volga-Ural region, the Kazakh steppe, and the Caucasus); and the «guardianship» (popechitel’stvo) institution in the Lower Urals and Kazakh steppe. Especially relevant here is the work of Dominic Lieven, which singled out the fundamental differences in the Russian imperial administration in those territories that bordered Europe and those that bordered what he described as the «southern Asian belt» (i.e., the Caucasus, Kazakh steppe, and Central Asia), where, as noted above, the administration often used similar forms of governance12. Also pertinent is the work of the Japanese historian, Tomohiko Uyama, which has compared the paths of different imperial polities, such as the British in India and the Russians in Central Asia13. Uyama has shown the degrees of cooperation formed with the local population and how this helped them perceive the benefits of staying within the imperial structure and imbued them with respect for the symbols of imperial power. Lastly, it is important to highlight that all of these territories were located on the frontier. It is thus methodologically crucial to draw on the works of those who have studied the particularities of the Russian frontier, especially Thomas Barrett and Michael Khodarkovsky14. Also significant for this research is the work of Ronald Robinson, which exposed the mechanisms of collaboration between the local population and the imperial authorities in the British Empire15. Granted various powers, the pristav in the North Caucasus and the Senior Horde Lieven D. Empire. The Russian Empire and Its Rivals. Pimlico, 2003 Uyama, Tomohiko, 2012. Mutual Relations and Perceptions of Russians and Central Asians: Preliminary Notes for Comparative Imperial Studies. Empire and After: Essays in Comparative Imperial and Decolonization Studies Sapporo: Slavic Research Center, 2012. – Pp. 19 – 33. 14 Barrett, Th.At The Edge Of Empire: The Terek Cossacks And The North Caucasus Frontier, 1700-1860 Westview Press.1999; Khodarkovsky M. Where two worlds meet: The Russian State and the Kalmyk nomads in the 17 and 18 th centuries. Ithaca N.Y. 15 Robinson, R,1972 ‘Non-European foundations of European Imperialism: sketch for a theory of collaboration’Studies in the theory of Imperialism, ed. Roger Owen & Robert Sutcliffe London: Longmans, – P. 117-142. 12 13

48

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

was able to develop different forms of collaboration with the local population (through correspondence, receptions, awards, etc.) and thereby laid the foundation for establishing permanent administrative links with theme local population. Of course, the process of building cooperation with the local population depended on the success of the measures the pristav introduced to ensure order and stability in his territory, especially considering the fact that the peoples of the North Caucasus, the Kalmyks, and the Kazakhs had an ambiguous perception of the pristav’s actions. These actions, which were designed to help build relations between the empire and the Kazakh steppe in the 19th century, have hardly been explored in the Kazakhstani historiography. An exception is the publication of a series of documents that chronicle some of the pristavs’ activities – these documents the journal (dnevnik) of the pristav Gorikhvostov, who served Shergazy, the khan of the Junior Horde and the opinion of L. Plotnikov, who accompanied the Kazakh delegation to Saint Petersburg in 186016. At the same time, the study of the operation (funktsionirovanie) and evolution of the pristavstvo institution in the territory of the Kazakh steppe, along with its role in the policies of the Russian administration in the region, remains virtually undeveloped. The objective of this article is to therefore analyze the pristavs’ activities in the steppe by exposing their functions, determining their status, and assessing how they were perceived by the Kazakh elite and the general population. The study of the particularities of the pristavstvo institution will broaden our understanding of the diversity of the Russian empire’s strategies of governance and administration.

The pristav to the Khān of the Junior Horde: Mechanisms of Interaction and Rejection

The first decade of the nineteenth century was one of the most difficult in the history of the Junior Horde. The first implementation 16 Plotnikov.L., 1860. Po povodu stat'i: Puteshestvuyushchiye kirgizy Russkiy vestnik. T.30. Dekabr'.– Pp.246-277; Shakhmatov,V., Kireyev, F.,1957. Zhurnal polkovnika A.Gorikhvostova – pristava pri khane Malogo zhuza Shirgazy Aychuvakove Izvestiya AN Kazakhskoy SSR. – № 2(5).

The Pristavstvo Institution in...

49

of reforms in the steppe in the last quarter of the 18th century, namely the introduction of the Border Court (pogranichnyi sud) and Border Councils (pogranichnaia rasprava) under the Orenburg Governor O. Igel’strom, had not been effective. Russian authorities returned to the Khānate system of governance in the Junior Horde. In a twenty-year period (1790-1810), four different rulers occupied the seat of the Khān of the Junior Horde: Eraly (1790-1794), Esim (1794-1797), Aishuak (1797–1805), and Dzhantore (1805-1809). These Khāns had little authority over or influence on the Kazakh population. Furthermore, they were not able to act as arbiters or guarantors of internal peace or in external conflicts with the frontier population. Evidence of this situation is the fact that both Eraly Khān and Dzhantore Khān were murdered by their fellow clansmen for political reasons. Acts like these assassinations incited struggle for the Khān’s throne and increased inter-clan conflicts17. In this difficult situation, the position of the Orenburg regional administration rose in importance. Orenburg Governor P. K. Essen and the chairman of the Orenburg Frontier Commission, G. Veselitskii (1817–1820), believed that the causes of the situation at the time stemmed from the weakness of Khān Shergazy (1812–1824). These Russian officials wanted to appoint the influential sultan Arungazy Abulgaziev18 to the position of Khān19. Furthermore, violating the «Rules for the Khān’s Council», Essen and Vesilitskii appointed sultan Arungazy as its chair, and ipso facto publicly demonstrated to the sultans and elders that sultan Arungazy (rather than Khān Shergazy) had the Orenburg administration’s support20. However, after a prolonged debate at a session of the Asian Department on February 19, 1820, the Russian administration rejected 17 In 1806 sultan Karatai showed up to claim the throne and encouraged activities against both Khān Dzhantore and the Russian authorities. 18 In 1816, the majority of the Kazakhs from the Alimuly and Baiuly tribes (about 100 thousand auls) acknowledged him as Khān. At that time Khān Sergazy's power spread through about 4,000 auls. Erofeeva I. Kazakh khans and kazakh dynasty in XVIII –half of XIXc. Culture and history of Central Asia and Kazakhstan: problems and prospects of research. – Аlmaty, 1997. 19 Report of Orenburg Military Governor P.K. Essen to Emperor Alexander 1 on the need to approve sultan Arungazy as Khān MIK. – P. 327. 20 Gorbunova S. Orenburgskaya Pogranichnaya komissia. Dissertatsiya kandidata nauk. – Nizhnevartovsk, 1998. – P.73.

50

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

Essen’s proposal to replace the Kazakh khan or introduce the post for a second khan in the Junior Horde. The department believed that such government actions in the region could be a «source of great unrest and strife»21. It was thus decided that, in order to maintain the tranquility between the frontier line and the Kazakh nomadic encampments, the administration had to support the legal Khān who had been elected by Kazakhs22. This naturally leads to the question of why, in this same time period, the center pursued a different policy in the Middle Horde. The situations in the Junior and Middle Hordes were substantially different. In the 1820s, the Russian administration did not confirm anyone as khan in the Middle Horde. The Khan, Vali, had died in 1819 and, upon the insistence of the General-Governor of Western Siberia, M.Speranskii, no one had been appointed to replace him. Instead, the Russian administration undertook steps to reform the system of governance in the territory by introducing the «Regulations for the Siberian Kyrgyz [Kazakhs]» in 182223. In the Junior Horde, by contrast, Shergazy Khan was alive and well, though the Russian government clearly understood that he did not possess any real authority. And, for his part, Shergazy Khan understood that his authority was «insufficient without the help of the frontier command;» he would therefore agree to any terms to preserve his power, minimal as it was. For this reason the Russian government appointed a special official to Khan Shergazy24. This official was named a pristav and he was placed in charge of a staff «similar to the Kalmyk [one],» that is, a Cossack detachment. The pristav himself was to remain in the Khan’s encampment. In contrast to the pristav in the territory of the RGIA F 1291Op 81D.44a. L. 90-91. Journal of the Asian Committee on inexpediency separation of Junior Horde in two Hordes with a prescription of measures to strengthen the power of the Khān Shirgazi. MIK. – P. 351. 23 1819, avgust 17. Vypiska iz zhurnalov Glavnogo upravleniya Zapadnoy Sibiri o netselesoobraznosti ostavleniya khanskoi vlasti v Srednem zhuze v svyazi so smert'yu khana Vali // KRO-2,doc.105. 24 An analogous situation occurred among the Kalmyks when Catherine II, in her ukase from October 19, 1771, eliminated the khan's authority and appointed managers for the uluses and accompanying pristavs. Later a Main pristav was appointed to the Kalmyks.Komandzhaev Kaspiiskii region: politika, ekonomika, kultura. – №1 (22) P.74. 21 22

The Pristavstvo Institution in...

51

Kalmyks and Kabardia, he was not named «main pristav» and he had no administrative authority. As an observer and guardian, the pristav’s main duty was to «inspire in the Khan’s soul the confidence that the frontier administration would always attend to the strengthening of his power»25. Additionally, the pristav was required to keep a diary (dnevnik) in which he would report in detail on the daily life of the Khān and include notes on his interactions with sultans, petty officers (starshiny), and the Kazakh rank and file. Symptomatically, the instructions for the pristav to the Kazakh Khan were developed by the Chairman of the Orenburg Frontier Commission, Vasilii Timkovskii (served 1820-1822), who was among those who spearheaded the creation of the Ministry of Foreign Affair’s Asian Department and, thus, the political strategies of the empire in the eastern regions. It thus seems that the Russian administration used a pristavstvo institution in the Steppe that incorporated some aspects from the pristav’s work among the Kalmyks (i.e., an identical staff) and some from the pristav that had operated in Kabardia in the second half of the 18th century (i.e., observer functions). The pristav to the Kazakh Kahn was under the authority of the regional administration (i.e.,the Chairman of the Orenburg Frontier Commission and the Orenburg Military Governor),while the pristavs to the Kalmyks, Kabardians, and Nogais were under the authority of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs until 1802, at which point the position was placed under the military command in the Caucasus and granted more explicit military-police functions26. In the steppe, however, the pristav to the Kazakh Khan had neither military nor civil authority; his duties were concerned with intelligence and reconnaissance rather than administration. Furthermore, it is important to note that Timkovskii supported a «soft» form of governing the Kazakhs that is, through the means of so-called «adaptations to the local circumstances». He therefore thought that the presence of a pristav to the Khan of the Junior Horde was the optimal variant given the socio-economic conditions of the steppe at that time. TSGA RK F.4op.1D.263. L.4 Kudashev V. Istoricheskiye svedeniya o kabardinskom narode. Reprint Nal'chik, 1990. – S.84. 25 26

52

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

According to the information from the documentary materials of the Central State Archive of the Republic of Kazakhstan from 1820 to 1822, the pristav attached to Khān Shergazy was Cossack Sargeant (uryadnik) Karsakov. On August12,1822, a new pristav arrived in the encampment of the Khān, Colonel Aleksandr Gorikhvostov27. He was the last pristav to the Khān and served in that position until 1824. Both of the pristavs were military men and had combat experience, but they did not know Kazakh; they therefore relied on interpreters (tolmachs). A. Gorikhvostov’s primary translator was Dolgoarshinov28, but Sultan Mendiyar Abulgazin occasionally assisted Gorikhvostov in this respect as well. Thus, we see that the figures appointed to serve as pristavs knew little about the Kazakh elite and lacked the political experience and the authority to guarantee order in the Junior Horde. Additionally, since the pristav did not have close interactions with his Kazakh subjects, he «did not gain the trust and love» of the Kazakh population. Indeed, how did the Khan, his elite entourage, and the local population perceive the appearance of a Russian officer in the Khan’s camp? First of all, Khān Shergazy believed that the pristav’s constant presence with his military detachment in the encampment served to undermine – rather than strengthen – the Khan’s power in the eyes of his clansmen29. Shergazy Khan thought that the military detachment (voennyi otryad) should not be under the command of the pristav, but Shergazy himself. This would not only help strengthen his authority in the eyes of his fellow clansmen and rivals (e.g., sultan Arungazy and sultan Karatai), but would also help pacify Kazakhs and restore harmony in the steppe30. In fact, however, granting the Khan a military detachment would not have given him the possibility to strengthen his 27 A. Gorikhvostov was a graduate of the Cadet Corps in Saint Petersburg and participated in the Patriotic War of 1812.Volkov R. Generalitet Rosiiskoi imperii Enziklopedicheskii slovar’ generalov i admiralov ot Petra I do Nicolaya II. – Moskva: Zentropoligraf,2009. – T.I.– Pp. 384-385. 28 Mukhamet-Rakhim Dolgoarshinov was a provincial registrar and an interpreter for the Orenburg Frontier Commission from 1808 y. 29 TSGA RK F.4op.1d.261а Journal diary of pristav colonel Gorihvostov under khan of the Little Juz Shirgazi Aychuvakov L.21. 30 Report of the Military Governor of the Orenburg S.Vyazmitinov to the Minister about sending reinforcements for defense of Shirgazi Khān from attacks of sultans Arungazy and Karatai. MIK. – P.229.

The Pristavstvo Institution in...

53

authority; Shergazy Khan lacked the respect of his people and was, furthermore, under constant threat of invasion by certain Kazakh clans that pastured in his aul. Twice, in 1817 and 1819, other influential foreman in the Junior Horde requested that the Russian government dismiss Shergazy and appoint Arungazy31. Against the backdrop of these events, the Orenburg administration directed the pristav to conduct a variety of tasks. First, he was to secure prorect the Khān and his family from the intrusion of different Kazakh clans and rivals. The pristav was also responsible for conducting «sustained observation» over the Kazakh population with the aim of inhibiting their illegal travels across the Novoilekskii line. Such Kazakh incursions on across the line, which involved the theft of horses as well as the abduction of Iletsk salt mine workers and Russian settlers, had increased from 1821 to 182432. Third, the pristav was required to immediately inform the Orenburg administration of the location of the rebellious Kazakhs who supported Zholaman Tlenshi. Last, the pristav was asked to «secretly» conduct an inquiry in order to ascertain which Kazakh clans (and, ideally, to determine the names of the clan’s starshiny) participated in the theft of horses and the abduction of people into slavery. The pristav was supposed to involve Khan Shergazy, influential sultans, and starshiny in these searches for the Kazakhs who had attacked the line. All of the pristav’s attempts to find such guilty parties were unsuccessful; a picture formed of the pristav as «ineffective» at preventing Kazakh incursions on the line. In the opinion of Governor Essen, the pristav was most often in the position of a «quiet spectator», observing what occurred on the line, rather than an officer carrying out necessary service. Essen’s dissatisfaction with the pristav’s activities, however, was unfounded: in reality, the pristav was not granted certain administrative powers. In particular, he did not have the right to prosecute or arrest individuals. Instead, he was supposed to report in a timely manner his assumptions about which 1817,August 16; 1819, July 27 – August 5 petition of sultans, biys, foremans and «elder people» of Junior and Middle Hordes was sent to Orenburg military governor P. Essen about submission of the approval of the Sultan Aryngazy as khan of the Junior Horde instead of Shirgazy khan.MIK. – P. 314, 316, 322. 32 TSGA RK F4 op1d.268 Instructions to pristav of the Junior Horde for November 1823L. 2-5. 31

54

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

Kazakhs were guilty and where they camped. This contradiction likely stemmed from the expectations that the regional administrations had for the pristav’s duties, which were to indeed serve as advisor to the Khan and an observer of the events that unfolded in the territory of the Junior Horde. The pristav’s reports to the regional administration from April through December 1823 bear out this interpretation of his responsibilities. In these reports he used terms such as «convinced (ubidel)», «presented (nastoyal)», «saw (uvidel)», and «heard (uslyshal)»; not once did he use administrative terms such as «sentenced (naznachil nakazanie)», «arrested (arestoval)», or «decided (vynes reshenie)». Kazakhs’ incursions on the frontier line, nonetheless, remained a thorny issue. Thus, in June 1823, a «special», and ultimately unsuccessful, commission was founded in order to examine complaints from Russian and Kazakh populations about the theft of livestock by Kazakhs between 1821 and 182333. Of further interest is the fact that, at the moment of the Commission’s convocation, the Asian Department was actively discussing the «Project on the Administration of the Junior Horde Kazakhs» that had been compiled by Essen. The main point in this project included the liquidation of the khan’s power. Pristav Gorikhvostov himself thought that it was impossible to «eliminate disturbances and install tranquility» by strengthening the khan’s authority since the influence of the khan only extended along the frontier line34. In August 1823, pristav Gorikhvostov ended his service in Khān Shergazy’s encampment. He had spent more than a year there and, on the basis of his observations on the Khan’s role in the administration of nomadic Kazakh society, he presented a series of recommendations to the regional administration. These can all be found in his journal. First, he believed that «to this day, [the Kazakhs] do not recognize Sultangalieva G.The Russian Empire and the Interemediary Role of Tatars in Kazakhstan: The Politics of Cooperation and Rejection, from the second half of the eighteenth to the early twentieth century. Asiatic Russia: Imperial Power in Regional and International Contexts. London: Routledge, 2012. – Pp.52-81. 34 Based on the pristav's observances, wealthy Kazakhs tried to pasture farther from the line and poorer ones had to pasture along the line with the mercy of the khan. 33

The Pristavstvo Institution in...

55

the authorities above them» and would not stop their incursions on the frontier line if the Russian administration did not place barriers (predragy) to their actions in the steppe. In particular, reinforced fortresses were the only means to «completely control» the Kazakhs. Second, considering the possibility of expecting order and organization with the participation of the imperial government, A. Gorikhvostov believed that eradicating disturbances and establishing peace inside the Junior Horde «through the power of one leader [i.e., the Khan] would never be possible [given his] insignificant influence». Third, the pristav noted that the regional administration was limited in their «correspondence» with representatives of the Kazakh elite in the Junior Horde. According to Gorikhvostov, this correspondence remained «without benefit», for all record-keeping (deloproizvodstvo) in the steppe was conducted by Tatar clerks. An illustrative example was the clerk Nigmetulla Feizullin, who, in Gorikhvostov’s opinion, kept the office of Khān Shergazy «in disorder». This had a «harmful» effect on the Khān35. What were the reasons behind the pristav’s statements about Feizullin – a man who had served more than 25 years in the steppe, had been awarded a silver medal from the Order of St. Anna in 1818 and, two years later, was granted the tax-free status of tarkhan by Tsar Alexander I36? The root of the pristav’s concern was the fact that, on March 29, 1823, Shergazy Khān attempted to complain about him to Saint Petersburg through this same clerk Feizullin. The khan was not pleased with the pristav’s presence in his encampment and the pristav’s ineffectiveness at strengthening the khan’s authority37. This complaint did not gain any traction. The Chairman of the Orenburg Frontier Commission informed the pristav, that, «knowing his [the pristav’s] great diligence toward His Imperial Majesty, I agree with you, that the complaint is not well-founded». Furthermore, the Chairman expressed doubt that the complaint could actually be sent to Saint Petersburg38. However, the very fact that the clerk was not in the 35 TsGA RK F.4op.1D.261a L.30,38,43. 36 Tatar of Seitov Posad N. Faizullin began his service under the Khan Jantore TsGA RK F 4op1d243. L.4. 37 TsGA RK F.4 op.1 d.267. L.3. 38 TsGA RKF.4op.1d.263a.L. 8.

56

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

Khan’s encampment at that time troubled the pristav; he attempted to secure support from the regional administration and expressed his general opinion about the «futility» of the Tatar clerks in the steppe, whose role the Russian administration began to discuss in great detail in the 1820s. Shergazy Khan, fearing the consequences of the clerk’s actions, took a dual position, telling the pristav that Feizullin could slander both the Khan and the pristav since he was a truly «sly person and could not really be trusted by any side.» Nonetheless, the Khan believed that Feizullin «deserved respect» because of his age and his long service record39. This latter opinion perhaps most accurately reflected the truth; Feizullin remained with Shergazy Khan even after the abolition of the khan’s position in the Junior Horde. And, furthermore, in 1835, more than 10 years after he was removed from power, Shergazy Khan again employed this same Feizullin when he attempted to complain to Count K. Nesselrode about other officials in the Orenburg Frontier Commission. Here Shergazy’s actions demonstrate not only that he did not understand the unity between the center and the regional administration, but also that he possessed a naïve hope that the political situation could be altered by sending complaints against the pristav, the Chairman of the Orenburg Frontier Commission (G. F. Gens), and others. The Pristavs for the Kazakh delegations to Saint Petersburg The work of M. Fisher examined the early 19th century visits of Indian diplomats and elites to London, where they were sent in order to demonstrate their loyalty to the ruling dynasty and, at the same time, have their concerns about maintaining the authority of the Indian elite and receiving privileges for their service in the East Indian Company resolved40. In the mid-19th century, similar delegations of elite Kazakhs were received in Saint Petersburg, where they not only expressed their loyalty to the tsar, but also requested privileges in the form of ranks, medals, and awards. TsGA RK F. 4op1d. 261a. L.30. Fisher M. Counterflows to Colonialism: Indian Travelers and Settlers in Britain 16001857. New DelhiOrient Blackswan, 2004. – P.243-298. 39 40

The Pristavstvo Institution in...

57

Such awards and the personal visits to Saint Petersburg and Moscow, where elite Kazakhs were received by the emperor and other officials (e.g., the Ministers of Foreign and Internal Affairs), served as a way for them to try to assert and boost their authority in the eyes of their clansmen41. Thus, in the first half of the 19th century, the journey to Saint Petersburg became an important activity for many sultangovernors (sultany-pravitely) and honorable Kazakhs. For instance, sultan Akhmet Dzhantiurin, in his request to visit Saint Petersburg, wrote that «it would be a great pleasure to be in Saint Petersburg and to share this feeling with those people under his power». The catalyst for Dzhantiurin’s request was the fact that the ruler of the Western Division of the Orenburg Kazakhs, General-Major Baimukhamed Aichuakov, had the honor to be in Saint Petersburg in 1846 and was presented to Tsar Nicholas I42. Russian authorities supported the Kazakh elites who wished to visit Saint Petersburg; they viewed it as one method of convergence (sblizhenie) between Kazakhs and the empire – that is, a way for the Kazakh elite to understand the empire’s grandeur and wealth while also having their service recognized by imperial authorities. The Russian authorities carefully monitored the composition of the Kazakh delegations and assigned a special role to the officials who accompanied them. These officials were called pristavs. Thus, on January 14, 1830, the commander of the Cossack detachment at the outer district of Karkaralinsk, Lieutenant Ivan Karbyshev, was appointed pristav to the Kazakh sultans of the outer districts of Karkaralinsk and Kokchetav who were dispatched to Saint Petersburg43. Similarly, from December 20, 1846, the Provincial Secretary Nikolai Kostromitinov accompanied the Kazakh delegation of the sultan-ruler of the Western Division of Orenburg Kazakhs, Baimukhamed Aichuvakov, to Saint Petersburg44. From Decem41 Remnev A., Sukhikh O. Kazakhskie deputatsii v tsenariakh vlasti:оt diplomaticheskikh missi k imperskim representatsiam’ Ab Imperio 2006. – № 1. – P.119-154. 42 TSGA RK F.4op1d.3519.L1. 43 Ivan Karbyshev was in this position for 6 months and the delegation returned to the Kazakh steppe at the end of July 1830 TSGA RK F338op1d.41.L.238. 44 Collegiate assessor Kostromitinov served as a counselor on the Orenburg Frontier Commission. He carried out the duties of the pristav twice.GAOrO F6op10d6057/b L.5-6,22-27.

58

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

ber 21, 1849, an official from the Orenburg Frontier Commission who served in the administration of Kazakhs on the frontier line, Staff Captain Mukhamed-Sharif Aitov45, was appointed pristav for the Kazakh delegation of the sultan-ruler of the Eastern Division of the Orenburg Kazakhs, Akhmet Dzhantiurin46. Lastly, in August 1860 the official Lev Plotnikov accompanied a delegation of Kazakhs from the Orenburg region. All of the candidates for pristav to the Kazakh delegations were proposed by regional administrations (e.g., the Orenburg Frontier Commission and the Omsk Regional Administration) and confirmed by the Ministry of Foreign Affair’s Asian Department. The main criterion for this assignment included experience and knowledge of Kazakh language and culture. Generally, all of the candidates were either senior translators or interpreters who had established positive reputations for their critical service in resolving disputes between Kazakh tribes, Kazakhs and Cossacks, and so forth. Most importantly, the Kazakh elite knew them well, which helped create an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect along the prolonged journey to Saint Petersburg. The directions for these officials to fulfill their assignments were issued early since the pristavs had to «attend to the preparations for the journey» by finding a suitable, ready, and reliable crew and getting money for the whole delegation’s travel expenses47. The pristav was further responsible for maintaining an official log (shnurovaia kniga in the original Russian) in which he would write all expenses and then draw up an official report. The instructions formulated by the regional administration included not only details about the pristav’s duties but also his conduct, which was meant to ensure the safe and secure travel of the Kazakh deputies to Saint Petersburg48. First of all, the pristav had to consistently and promptly notify the Asian Department and the 45 Мukhammed-Sharif Aitov was from a family of Tatar nobles in the Orenburg gubernia. From 1820 to 1856 he served as an interpreter for the Orenburg Frontier Commission. See: Sultangalieva G. Karatolmach,shtabs capitan M–Sh. Aitov v Kazakhskoi stepi. (perv. pol. Х1Хv.) Panorama Eurorasii. Ufа. – 2008. №2. – P.13-22. 46 TsGA RK F.4op1d3519.L.49-50. 47 TSGA RK F4op1d3519.L.49-54. 48 TsGA RK F4. op1.d. 2983. L.89-94.

The Pristavstvo Institution in...

59

Regional Administration about every point of the planned route. The Kazakh delegations could either take the Siberian or Kazan routes to Saint Petersburg. The pristav had the right to be immediately received by the Governors of the provinces through which the delegation traveled since he held an open order (otkrytyi list) from the Minister of Internal Affairs. Additionally, two days prior to the delegation’s departure from cities such as Kazan and Moscow, the pristav had to send a dispatch to the Asian Department. This would allow the Minister of Foreign Affairs to successfully prepare apartments and crews for the Kazakh delegation in Saint Petersburg. Lastly, upon arrival in Saint Petersburg, the pristav had to be at the immediate disposal of the director of the Asian Department, K. K. Rodofinikin49. All along the journey, the pristav had to secure all of the necessary provisions for the Kazakh delegation and be willing to halt their long travel at the sultans’ demand. A second important aspect of the pristav’s duty was that he had to demonstrate respect and even «cater to all of the [sultans’] whims», so that he could be seen a person, and not just an official figure, to whom they might be able to openly express their needs and desires. In turn, he would satisfy their requests to the best of his abilities. In accordance with the instructions, pristavs had to escort Kazakhs to stores and ensure that Kazakhs did not overpay or leave behind debts. Additionally, he was supposed to advise them about their purchases and suggest, for instance, where they could buy better and cheaper goods. L. Plotnikov, who accompanied a Kazakh delegation in 1860, believed this an absolute necessity since 6 of the 10 Kazakhs in his delegation did not know Russian at all. Moreover, many of them had never even visited Orenburg or the Russian settlements along the line50. Of course, the most important project during the trip was to acquaint Kazakhs with the empire’s grandeur, power, and wealth. They therefore employed a variety of forms of transport – from horse carriages to railways to large ships that had neither sails nor oars. As clearly outlined in each official instruction the pristav had been given by the regional administration, the route of each TSGA RK F338.op.1.d.410.L.175. Plotnikov Russkiy vestnik. – P. 266.

49 50

60

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

journey and the places for the Kazakh delegates to visit could change. The administration typically evaluated the pristav highly for successfully accompanying Kazakh delegates to Saint Petersburg; the administration often believed that they «impeccably» fulfilled their obligations. For their diligence, these pristavs were awarded higher ranks, orders, medals, or monetary incentives. For instance, M. Sh. Aitov was favored with the order of St. Anna at the third rank51; N. Kostromitinov with the order of St. Anna at the second rank52, and Karbyshev with 1,000 rubles in banknotes53. Still others held opposite opinions about the pristavs’ activities with the Kazakh delegations. The famous researcher, Pavel Nebol’sin, met with a Kazakh delegation in Saint Petersburg in 1860; the visit left him with the impression that the pristav’s tasks should be altered for future journeys. In particular, Nebol’sin found the need to entrust pristavs with initiating Kazakhs «into the secrets of the greatness and prosperity of Russia» and to vigilantly supervise them excessive . In his opinion, it was petty to enforce such strict supervision over free, independent adults who should have been able to freely dispose of their time. Moreover, Nebol’sin compared the duties of the pristav to that of a tutor (guverner) and repeatedly underscored the pristavs’ «tutor-like (guvernerskii) instructions and restrictions. Instead, he believed that the pristav should have conducted more educational work and explained in detail what the Kazakh delegates saw during their excursions to cultural and historical sites. Based on his observations from his communicating with Kazakh delegates, Nebol’sin determined that they were more «upset than pleased» with their experiences. As a consequence, the Kazakhs fell into «apathy». This was evident in the fact that «some stopped leaving their rooms, some said that they were sick, and some gave themselves up to sound sleep»54. Nebol’sin argued that, during their visit, the Kazakhs should have been acquainted with new forms of raising livestock (skotovodstvo), TSGA RK F.4 op.1 d.3519 . L. 138. Artem'ev A. Neskol'ko zametok o kirgizskoi stepi Orenburgskogo vedomstva Zhurnal MVD.T.38. St-Peterburg. 1859. – P. 13. 53 TSGA RK F. 338 op.1d.410. L.238. 54 Nebol'sin, P,1860Russkii Vestnik. – P.46. 51 52

The Pristavstvo Institution in...

61

agriculture (zemledelie), and methods for supplying electricity, gas, and so forth. Furthermore, he thought that the delegates’ visit to Saint Petersburg should be organized in a manner that would not only benefit their intellectual development, but would also change their livestock raising practices. Lev Plotnikov, the pristav who accompanied that particular delegation of Kazakhs, responded to Nebol’sin’s arguments on the pages of the «Russian Herald (Russkii Vestnik)». He argued that he completely fulfilled his obligations as a pristav to that delegation: he observed precisely the requirements of the instructions that he had received from the Russian administration, which included «neither direct nor indirect tips on the visitation of model farms, agricultural machines, [or] gasworks». According to Plotnikov, these tips were not included because of the results of a journey of Kazakh delegates that had occurred more than 10 years ago, in 1846. The instructions for this trip, which was supervised by pristav N. Kostromitinov, included visits to the kinds of institutions that Nebol’sin suggested. Kazakhs on that particular journey found such visits tiresome (utomitel’nyi) and requested that the pristav, «as a favor», save them from such demonstrations. Additionally, Plotnikov highlighted that Kazakhs’ greater familiarity with agricultural implements did not have any practical results – that is, no one from the delegation improved their economy (khoziaistvo) on the basis of agriculture and industry55. And, in principle, up to 1860 such agricultural practices had not been developed in the Junior Horde’s territory. In fact, the pristavs’ service to the Kazakh delegations was difficult even if it was only temporary. The pristavs carried all of the financial responsibility during the delegation’s journey from Orenburg to Saint Petersburg. Additionally, since the whole trip was organized at the public’s expense (kazennyi cchet), they prepared detailed financial estimates for the delegation’s support. For example, the pristav N. Kostromitinov, who accompanied the Kazakh delegation in 1859, received cash in the amount of 7,095 rubles and 17 kopeks. This sum had to be divided between all of the members of the delegation56. Plotnikov Russkiy vestnik. – P. 268. TsGA RK F4op1d. 2983. L.89-94.

55 56

62

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

Of course, the presence of such a large amount of cash could provoke unwanted behaviors from those around the pristav. On May 29, 1830, the room of pristav I. Karbyshev, who was accompanying a delegation from the Karkaralinsk and Kokchetau okrugs, was robbed. 6,300 rubles were stolen and Gavrill Kostyletskii, the Cossack sargeant (uryadnik) who had been guarding the room, had been murdered. During the investigation, Sargeant first class Anton Lebedev confessed to the theft57. What motivated this Cossack from the Siberian Cossack detachment to engage in a criminal act while the delegation was still in Omsk? Most likely, his conduct (аvarice, desire for gain, etc.) was not evident to anyone earlier; according to the report of the sultan from the Karkaralinsk okrug, Tursun Chingisov, to the director of the Asian Department, Lebedev had been included on the list of those presented rewards – he had been offered the rank of officer for the service he rendered on the journey. A month before the theft, on April 29, 1830, this request had been confirmed and Lebedev had been granted 300 rubles from the state treasury58. What qualities compelled him to take this step? This question remained unanswered – all of the Cossacks (Lebedev, Furaev, and Kostyletskii) included in the delegation’s escort knew Karbyshev well as the commander of the Siberian Cossack detachment. Similarly, Karbyshev knew them and invited these particular candidates since he believed he could rely on their mutual support during the long journey. The pristav to the Senior Horde In the 1840s, the Russian Empire annexed part of the territory of the Senior Horde, the southern frontiers of which were located on the Ili River. The main areas of Semirech’e and southern Kazakhstan remained beyond the influence of the Russian empire and the majority of the tribes of the Senior Horde were under the authority of the Khoqand Khānate. In order to strengthen its position and to 57 O pochetneyshikh i vliyatel'neyshikh ordyntsakh. Istoriya Kazakhstana v russkikh istochnikakh XVI-XX vekov. Almaty: Daik-press, 2006. – T.8. ch.2. – p.523. 58 1832, July 22. Iz otnosheniya general-gubernatora Zapadnoy Sibiri vitse-kantsleru o pros'be sultana S. Ablaykhanova otkryt' okrug v yego kochev'yakh. KRO-2 dok. № 162.

The Pristavstvo Institution in...

63

displace the Khoqandi and Khivan Khāns, the Russian regime began to organize territorial-administrative units in this region. Nesselrode, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, believed that, since the Senior Horde was far from the frontier line and «for many other considerations», it could not be administered «in the same manner as the Middle Horde», even though S. Ablaikhanov, a sultan, and other biys from the Senior Horde had twice (in 1832 and 1843) sent requests for the introduction of the district (okrug) system of administration that operated in the Middle Horde59. Nesselrode’s opinion was based on reports that the GovernorGeneral of Western Siberia, P. D. Gorchakov, had sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In these reports, Gorchakov noted that it would be premature to introduce the okrug system in the Senior Horde; he suggested instead that a «trustworthy staff officer, in the form of a pristav» should be appointed to conduct «political supervision» among the Kazakhs of the Senior Horde60. Most likely, Gorchakov’s opinion about the use of a pristav in the Senior Horde was influenced by the experience he had gained serving in the Caucasus from 1820 to 1826, where he had become familiar with the pristavstvo institution that had been used in Dagestan and Chechnya. That is to say, what occurred is what the historian A. Remnev has described as the «imperial administrative transit»: when administrative methods and technologies learned in different frontier situations travel from one region to another61. Graph Karl Nesselrode also considered the pristavstvo system the most convenient for the Senior Horde because it had already been approved as a «transitional» system among the Kalmyks62 and in the Northern Caucasus. Furthermore, Nesselrode believed that «gradualness» and «carefulness» in this context were necessary given the Senior Horde’s strategic location, from which ran «main trade routes to the western regions of China, to Kashgaria and Khoqand»63. TsGA RK, F.374, on.1,d.1669 L.108-113. Remnev A. Imperial governance of Asian regions of Russia in the XIX - early XX centuries: some results and prospects of research http://zaimka.ru/remnev-imperium. 61 In the mid-1830s, Kalmykia was transferred to the general civil administration and the pristavstvo institution was transformed into a trusteeship institution. 62 1847, April 17. Iz predstavleniya upravlyayushchego MID grafa K. Nessel'rode imp. Nikolayu I o vvedenii osobogo upravleniya v Starshem zhuze. KRO-2. Dok. №212 63 On April 1847 graph K. Nesselrode wrote the draft of instructions for the pristav of Great Horde TSGA RK, f. 374, on. 1, d. 1669 L. 108-113. 59 60

64

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

Thus, in 1848 at the fortification of Kopal, the position of pristav to the Senior Horde was established under the commander of the Siberian Corps, i. e., the Governor-General of Western Siberia, P. D. Gorchakov (1836-1851)64. In fact, the pristav to the Senior Horde was a part of the military apparatus for administering the Kazakh steppe. This was the first administrative unit the Russian authorities created in the territory of the Senior Horde. The attempt to develop permanent administrative connections with the local population required the creation of a pristavstvo bureau65 headed by the pristav with a staff of three senior sultans66, an interpreter, and a clerk67. The composition of this staff, in particular the positions of the senior sultans, clearly reflected the pristav’s need to enlist the support of influential sultans and, through them, as Nesselrode underscored, to «bind (priviazyvat’) more and more Kazakhs of the Senior Horde to the Russian government»68. The first pristav to the Senior Horde, the commander of the ninth division of the Siberian Cossack line, Stepan Abakumov69, attempted to draw into service a great number of representatives from the Senior Horde’s influential elite and strong clans, such as the Dulat and Uisun. The possibility of cooperating with the local population depended on the success of the pristav’s actions. He therefore attempted to organize appointments and meetings with biys and sultans from different volosts. Abakumov paid particular attention to the sultan Rustem70, who, according to the pristav, exerted significant influence on neighboring Kazakhs as well as those located within the Dulatov volost’, his home region. In the pristav’s opinion, sultan Rustem’s «noticeable influence» was due to his shrewdness, good sense, fairness, and valor. Accordingly, the pristav believed that Rustem’s council to his fellow Kazakhs could be «useful to our government, 64 2,021 rubles were for the salary of the pristav while the sultans were allocated 1,023 rubles and the interpreter 142 rubles TSGA RK F.3 op.1d.342. L.19 65 Im 1853 the following senior sultans were a part of the administration: Ali Adilov, Tezek Nuraliev, Dzhangazy Siukov, clerk Neratov and interpreter Bardashev. TSGA RK F.3 op.1 d. 341 l.1-2. 66 TSGA RK F.3 op.1 d.342. L.19-20. 67 Moiseev M. Rossiya i Kitay v Tsentral'noy Azii, 2003. – S.28. 68 TSGA RK F.3 op.1d.324. L.1. 69 TsGA RK F.4op.1d 2512. L.25. 70 TSGA RK F.3op.1d.335. L.9.

The Pristavstvo Institution in...

65

since he [Rustem] was able to prevent unauthorized departures from different volosts that were displeased with one another and were prepared to riot»71. Russian authorities thought that Kazakh leaders’ qualities could be successfully «used to benefit the government» and help them in further tactical actions in the advance toward the Central Asian khanates, for the «monitoring of order,» for the «quick transfer of information about all occurrences» in the steppe»72. In annual reports, the pristav was additionally required to include information about key issues such as the location of the Dulat and Uisun clans’ encampments, the Kazakhs’ nomadic routes, their interclan relations, and the possibilities of maneuvering among them73. This information was critical not only for assessing the possibility of advancing Russian troops into the territory of the Senior Horde and the Central Asian Khanates, but also in order to prepare the conditions for other aggressive state actions in the region. For instance, the pristav attentively studied the geographic conditions of the terrain in order to make the right choice for constructing new, strategic military fortifications that might serve as springboards for Russian military incursions74. On this basis, the pristav had to gather information about the location of the encampments of the tribes of the Senior Horde, inter-tribal conflicts and the possibilities of maneuvering among them and attracting influential sultans into service so that they could be leaders of the Russian state’s policies in the region. In 1851, captain of the Siberian Corps, Mikhal Peremyshl’skii, was appointed pristav of the Senior Horde. His name is associated with the regulation of relations with China, which considered the land along the Ili River part of its territory75. On September 12, 1851, more than fifty delegates from China arrived at the Karatal’skii picket, wishing to pass along the territory of the Lepsy River. The pristav explained to them that those lands were already «Russian property, upon which TSGA RK f.3op.1d.2.L.6-7. The Chinese government, know about the construction of Kopal and other fortifications in Semirech'e, sent a note of protest to the Russian government, claiming that the territory was under the control of the Qing Empire. See: Moiseev M.,2003 Rossiya i Kitay v Tsentral'noy Azii. – S.28. 73 TSGA RK F.3 op.1d.330. L.1-7. 74 Ledenev N. Istoriya Semirechenskogo kazach'yego voyska. – Vernyy, 1909. 75 TSGA RKF.3 op.1d.546. L.7-8. 71 72

66

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

the subjects of Russia pastured» and he refused to let them pass inside the territory of the Senior Horde. In connection with this event, the pristav received instructions from the State Chancellery of Foreign Affairs. The Chancellery noted that the pristav should «observe the old system of affairs since they [the Russian administration] had not yet strengthened their influence [ in the territory of the Senior Horde], and to act as cautiously as possible without having any clashes with them that would lead to new reasons to complain. If they reappear in Karatal, do the same as before». Most importantly, in his conversation with the Chinese delegates, the pristav was not to be concerned with the question of borders. Instead, he should continue to watch the movements of Chinese subjects in the steppe and track the frequency of their visits to Semirech’e76. In the mid-1850s, the political situation in Semirech’e changed. Perovskii’s successful military march and seizure of the fortress at Ak-Mechet in 1853 opened a new route for advancing into the TransIli territory and the General-Governor of Western Siberia, G. Gasfort (1851-1861), proposed to unite the Syr-Darya and Siberian military lines. In spring 1853 construction on a new picket between the Kok-su and Ili Rivers began and, in the same year, the pristav Peremyshel’skii founded the Ili picket on the site near the confluence of the Talgar and Ili Rivers. In spring 1854, Verny fortress was founded on the river Almatinka; this became the main point for spreading Russian influence in the Chu and Talas River valleys77. Then, on May 19, 1854, the Kopalsk external district (okrug) was founded, which later became part of the Semipalatinsk region (oblast’). At that time, the pristav came under the authority of the Governor of the Semipalatinsk region and could only appeal to the Governor-General of Western Siberia or the Commander of the Siberian Cossacks in special circumstances78. On November 3, 1856, Emperor Nicholas I signed a decree redesignating the post of pristav of the Senior Horde to the head of the Polnoe sobraniye zakonov Rossiyskoy imperii (PSZ). S-Peterburg, 1856. – V.31. N.31095 – P.973. 77 Kirgiskii krai. Rossia Polnoe geograficheskoe opisanie nashego otechestva. ed. Semenov. V.18. S-Peterburg. 1903. – P.416. 78 Kirgiskii krai. Rossia Polnoe geograficheskoe opisanie nashego otechestva. ed. Semenov. V.18. S-Peterburg, 1903. – P.416. 76

The Pristavstvo Institution in...

67

Alataevskii county (okrug) and thereby demonstrated the strength of Russia’s position in the Trans-Ili territory. In this case, the pristavstvo institution fulfilled the role as an intermediate link to the general imperial system of governance. At the end of the 1860s, the Russian authorities once again used the pristavstvo institution in the trans-boundary regions of Kazakhstan. On August 8, 1867, the Russian imperial administration created the Zaisansk pristavstvo and removed Chinese officials from among the nomads. This paved the way for the Kurchumskii and Bukhtarminskii Kazakhs to become Russian subjects. In fact, the creation of the Zaisansk pristavstvo was the result of the success of Russian diplomacy, in particular the signing of the Chuguchakskii Agreement with China in 1864. According to this agreement, the precise demarcations of the Russian-Chinese border in Central Asia were determined to lie at Lake Zaisan79. In 1869, the southern part of Kokpektinsk county (uezd) became a part of the Zaisan pristavstvo and only after twenty five years (in 1892) was the Zaisansk pristavsto itself converted into an uezd, or county. In 1870 the Mangyshlak peninsula was separated into the Mangyshlaksk pristavstvo within the Urals region of the Orenburg Governor-Generalship. The reason for this was the particular militarystrategic importance of the Mangyshlak peninsula, which bordered Russia across the Caspian Sea, Khiva in the south, and the Caucasus in the west. The Mangyshlak pristavstvo existed for eleven years, from 1870 to 1881. Specific instructions determined the rights and duties of the pristav in this territory. For instance, the civilian and military population were managed according to the «Regulations on the Military Administration in the Regions of the Orenburg and Western Siberian Districts». Similar regulations existed in the Zaisan pristavstvo. On February 2, 1870, under the threat of revolt from the Kazakhs in the territory of the Mangyshlak pristavstvo, military control was introduced. Through a special decree, the pristavstvo moved from the Ural region to the commander of the Dagestan region. On March 9, 1874, in accordance with the «Provisional Regulations 79 Stepanov E. Granitsy Kitaya: history formirovaniya. Moscow: Pamyatniki istoricheskoi mysli, 2001. – P.157-158.

68

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

on the Administration of the Transcaspian Krai», the Mangyshlak pristavstvo became a part of the Caucasus Military District. With the establishment of the Transcaspian region on May 6, 1881, which included the Caucasian Military District, the Akhalteke oasis (a part of Turkmenistan) and the Mangyshlak pristatvstvo were converted into the Mangyshlak uezd. Thus, in the 19th century, in both the territory of the Kazakh steppe and the northern Caucasus, pristavs decided issues of a political and ideological nature. And, most importantly, they instilled thoughts about «tranquility, the elimination of theft, and obedience to higher authorities» and were generally responsible for supervising the territory under their authority, commanding troops located there, and settling Cossacks. Once it became evident that the pristavstvo that had been the primary mechanism for governing the mountaineers of the North Caucasus and the Senior Horde had become obsolete, the Russian administration created new institutions in the form of okrug (as in the Alatauskii okrug) and uezd (as in the Zaisanskii and Mangyshlakskii uezds) systems. Conclusions Throughout the first half of the 19th century, the pristavstvo institution was gradually transformed in the Kazakh territory – i.e., a pristav transformed from a special official into the manager of a particular region. It can be said that the pristav’s functions expanded over time from diplomatic missions (such as conveying Kazakh delegations) to special assignments (such as serving as pristav to the khan of the Junior Horde) and, finally, to an administrative post such as the pristav to the Senior Horde and the Zaisansk and Mangyshlaksk pristavstvos. Here it is important to note that the pristav system could not become an independent administrative-governmental institution in relation to the populations of the North Caucasus, the Kalmyks, and the Kazakh steppe. The transformation of the pristav’s functions in the steppe reflected the stages for realizing Russian imperial policies.

The Pristavstvo Institution in...

69

First of all, in the first decades of the 19th century, when the Russian authorities began struggling to find effective and acceptable methods of administration in the steppe while they still had a weak effect on the Kazakh population, the solution was found in the appointment of the pristav to the Khān of the Junior Horde. This was an intermediate link necessary for introducing administrative reforms that would change the khan’s power in 1824. The pristav to the Khān fulfilled administrative functions (e.g., giving directions, conducting surveillance, controlling the activities of the Khān, and attending sessions with the Khān’s Council), political functions (e.g., completing directions, sustained surveys, and gathering data), and, finally, police functions (e.g., conducting inquiries and sending guilty Kazakhs to the frontier line). From 1848 to 1856, the pristavstvo of the Senior Horde reflected the intermediate stage of incorporating southern Kazakhstan into the empire. Creating this territorial-administrative structure, the Russian authorities attempted to secure the Russian administration’s influence and role in the governance of the region. They did this by appointing a special official, the pristav. Administrative, judicial, and diplomatic functions were all placed within the hands of the pristav in order to fulfill the mission of merging southern Kazakhstan with Russia. The strategic location of the Zaisan region, which bordered China, and the Mangyshlak region, which bordered Khiva and the North Caucasus, had an effect on their territorial and administrative characteristics. In particular, these pristavstvos played a key role in the formation of the Russian empire’s new state boundaries. The territorial-administrative structure of the pristavstvo was a temporary model for governing separate regions of Kazakhstan in the process of creating a single administrative system of provinces (guberniias), regions (oblasts), and counties (uezds). As a form of indirect governance in the North Caucasus and the Kazakh steppe, the pristav system did not develop into a strong administrative institution. It was rather a «soft» variant adapted to the nomadic populations who had become Russian subjects. Ultimately, in the interest of quickly advancing the institutions of governance, Russian authorities used the same techniques in the steppe

70

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

that they had tested elsewhere, in the different regions of the multinational Empire. These institutions were not carbon copies – that is, pristavstvo institutions were not simply mechanically implemented. Rather, the authorities took into account specific differences such as the level of Russian influence in the region. It was for this reason, then, that the pristavstvo system had different durations – from about a century in Kabardia (1763-1860), a half-century in Kalmykia (17821834), nearly 40 years in Chechnya (1817-1857) and Dagestan (18191857), 25 years in the Zaisanskii pristavstvo to a mere 10 years for the pristavstvo to the Senior Horde. The duration of the pristavstvo institution in various regions draws attention to the fact that the very longest experience was in Kabardia, which was the first springboard for realizing the different aspects of the pristav’s activities. This is where, in other words, the Russian administration realized the possibilities of introducing this transitional system as a step in the process of integrating various regions into the general imperial system. The pristav system was a necessity in the empire; it reflected the emerging political forms and levels of relations between Russia and the mountain and nomadic populations of the North Caucasus, the Kalmyks, the Senior Horde, and the Mangyshlak peninsula in the transitional process of including them in the legal and administrative system of the empire.

The Novoileksk line: construction...

71

3. The Novoileksk line: construction and Russian state policy

The appearance of new state boundaries in the post-Soviet era profoundly altered what was once an economically and culturally united space. This new situation has revived research into trans-border or trans-boundary zones that were once centers of conflict as well as peaceful, cross-cultural interactions. In this respect, the Novoileksk frontier line, which Russian authorities created in the 1810s near the confluence of the Ural and Ilek rivers1 as a means for protecting the Ileksk salt-works from incursions by Kazakh and Bashkir nomads, has become a topic of significant interest. The frontier line moved the borders of the Bashkir and Kazakh populations in the South Ural steppes to the Ilek, Berdianka2, and Kuraily3 rivers. This, in turn, disturbed the nomads’ traditional migratory routes, in particular, the movement of Bashkirs to the transIleksk steppe and the movement of Tabyn and Tama Kazakh tribes to the pasture between the Ilek and Ural rivers. Today, the former «Novoileksk frontier line» serves as a state border between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Kazakhstan. It is one of Eurasia’s many transborder, multi-ethnic regions, where the state border does The Ilek River is a left tributary of the Ural River and flows in the Orenburg region of Russia and Republic of Kazakhstan. 2 The Berdianka River is left tributary of Ural river and flows in Orenburg region. It is 65km long. 3 The Kuraily River is a left tributary of the Ilek River and flows in the territory of Kazakhstan's Aktobe region. 1

71

72

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

not correspond with the location of different ethnic groups. Russians, Kazakhs, Tatars, Bashkirs, Ukrainians and others live on both sides of the line, creating a unified and unique space. Historians of Russia and Kazakhstan have examined the construction of reinforced frontier lines in the Russian Empire’s southeast as a support zone for expanding deeper into the steppe and launching attacks on the territory of Southern Kazakhstan and Central Asia. Historian A. Remnev, for instance, considered the creation of buffer zones as crucial moments of the strengthening of the empire in newly conquered territories. The boundaries served the specific purpose of consolidating and mastering imperial zones4. In this case, Remnev’s concept of the frontier as a «transition zone» corresponds to how the topic has been studied in the United States, where there is a long history of studying the frontier5. In these studies, the frontier has traditionally been associated with the idea of expansion toward an «empty» territory. In the case of the Russian empire, the idea of the frontier reflects the process of the interactions (vzaimodeistviia) between the local population and the colonial authorities and the use of the natural landscape in the region (in this particular case, the Ural and Ilek rivers) to advance deep into a territory and develop it. Another interesting aspect in this case is the «social frontier», or how Kazakhs in the steppe perceived imperial power and how the Russian government understood the traditional behavior of the local population. The concept of the «social frontier» between different ways of life opens an understanding into how Kazakhs were understood as representative of nomadic culture, while the Russian administration was understood to represent the sedentary4 A. Remnev, Geographicheskie, administrativnye and mentalnye granitsy Sibiri v 19th – nachalo 20th vv. http://zaimka.ru/082002/remnevborder/; Ibid., «Regional’nye parametry imperskoi «geographiya vlasti» (Sibir’ i Dal’nii Vostok)», Ab Imperio 3-4,2000. – P. 343-358. 5 O. Lattimore Studies in Frontier History: Collected Papers, 1928-1958 London: Oxford University Press, 1962; W. McNeill Europe's Steppe Frontier, 1500-1800. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 1964; William H. McNeil, The Great Frontier: Freedom and Hierarchy in Modern Times Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. 1983; M. Bassin, «Turner, Solov'ev, and the «Frontier Hypothesis»: The Nationalist Signification of Open Spaces» Journal of Modern History, 1993. – N 65. – P. 473-511; M. Khodarkovsky, Russia's Steppe Frontier: The Making of a Colonial Empire, 1500-1800 Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2002.

The Novoileksk line: construction...

73

agricultural population. This is reflected in the administration’s use of such terms as «development», «use» and «possession» (osvoenie, pol’zovanie, sobstvennost’). This understanding of Russian authority can be found in a report by Orenburg Governor Vasily Perovskii (1833-1842; 1851-1857) from the 1830s. Arguing that the frontier line needed to be moved further into the steppe, he highlighted how the «Kazakhs did not grant any value to the places in the steppe that have irreplaceable benefits for us [the settled population]»6. For the Kazakhs who are «herding cattle» and leading a «nomadic life», the «arable lands were completely useless» and «rivers flowed without purpose, waiting for dams, windmills, and other establishments (zavedenie)». Furthermore, Perovskii claimed that Kazakhs «did not consider the traders and manufactures who came to the steppe everyday as violators (narushitely) of their property (sobstvennost’)». In fact, they «did not even think to demand some kind of retribution (vozmezdie) for the forests, salt, and fish that Russians (Russkii) extracted from the steppe». Based on this view, the governor concluded that Kazakh as nomad couldn’t be called as owner of land because pasture belonged nomadic tribe7. At the same time, the governor realized that shifting the boundary in the steppe could disturb Kazakhs. He stressed that «we [the Russian authorities] should not think that Kazakhs who had pastured on that territory will be indifferent». Yet, he added that «their distress» would only be limited by «leaving [them] traditional nomadic places». He also claimed that the establishment of a new frontier line deeper in the steppe should not be considered a «conquest or acquisition», but should instead be understood as a form of «conventional economical regulation». In particular, he stressed that the migration of Russians to the steppe should be understood as resettlement from provinces with land shortages to sparsely-populated territories. Perovskii also explained that the frontier lines were needed by Kazakhs as well. In his opinion, the Kazakhs along the new frontier lines would be able «to exchange their cattle for our bread and get protection from inter-tribal cattle-rustling (baramty)»8. TsGA RK   F.4. Op.1. D.312 L.2. TsGA RK F.4. Op.1. D.312 L.3. 8 TsGA RK. F.4. Op.1. D.312. L.5-5оb. 6 7

74

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

This raises a question about whether Kazakh nomads considered the construction of frontier lines as borders (granitsy) or as barriers to traditional winter pastures. And, more generally, this requires us to examine what the frontier line symbolized for Kazakhs in the first third of the 19th century. Here it is important to note how the term «border» has evolved in recent historiography. Breaking from its original, narrow meaning – that is, as a political division between states – scholars have more recently examined «borders as socio-territorial constructs»9. In the historiography of Kazakhstan, the construction of fortified frontier lines has been studied as the initial stage of the process of Kazakhstan’s annexation (prisoedinenie) to the Russian empire10. The construction of the Orenburg, Yaik, Uisk, and Irtysh frontier lines has been considered a logical step for maintaining security in the southeastern borders of the Russian Empire. According to the Bashkir researcher, R. Rakhimov, the frontier lines in the 18th century served as Russia’s de facto borders in the southeast and provided security from nomadic raids on Russian possessions. Rakhimov has also argued that the formal, military discourse on the frontier line had a powerful influence on how Kazakhs perceived Russia as a strong military state11. In the past decade, Kazakhstani historians have focused in particular on the construction of the frontier lines in Syr-Darya and at Ishimsk as part of the larger context of the political, socio-cultural, and economic changes in the Kazakh steppe in the 19th century12. This H. Houtum An Overview of European Geographical Research on Borders and Border Regions. Journal of Borderlands Studies 2000. N 15. – P. 57-83; A. Rieber Changing concepts and constructions of frontiers: a comparative historical approach. Ab imperio. 2003. – N.1. – P. 23-45. 10 N. Appolova, Prisoedinenie Kazakhstana k Rossii v30-godah XVIIIveka.Alma-Ata: Academiya nauk KazSSR. 1960; V. Basin Kazakhstan v XVI-XVIII vv. (Kazakhstan v sisteme bneshnei politiki Rossiskoi imperii). Alma-Ata: Nauka. 1969; E. Bekmahanov Prosoedinenie Kazakkhstana k Rossii Moskva: Academiya nauk SSSR. 1957; N. Bekmakhanova Prisoedinenie Kazakhstana k Rossii (XVIII-XIXveka). Sbornik dokumentov s istoricheskim I arkheographicheskim vvedeniem. Мoskva: IRI RAN. 2008; I. Erofeeva Khan Abulkhair: polkovodez, previtel’ i politik. Almaty: Sanat, 1999. 11 R. Rahimov Otdel’nyi Orenburgskii korpus: proekty I realii voyuyushei okrainy. http:// www.reenactor.ru/ARH/PDF/Raximov_00.pdf. 12 A. Baikhozaev Syrdar’inskaya voenno-politicheskaya liniya v sisteme kolonizatsionnoi politike tsarisma v Severnom Priaral’e i Yuzhnogo Kazakhstana (40-60-h XIX v.). Avtoreferat dissertatsii kandidat istorii nauk. Almaty, 1999; E. Toraigyrov, Sotsial’no-ekonomicheskoe I kul9

The Novoileksk line: construction...

75

approach contributes to the development of the concept of the frontier and aids the study of methods and forms of regulation deployed in the steppe as well as the interaction of Kazakhs and Cossacks. Scholars have in general focused more on the construction of the New Frontier Line on the territory between Orsk and Troitsk in 1835 under the Orenburg Governor-General, Perovskii, than the Novoileksk frontier line13. The reason for constructing the New Frontier Line can be found in the shift in Russian political strategy, which began to emphasize active incursions in the steppe in the 1830s, rather than simple «border control». Pervoskii’s personality also played a decisive factor; as Governor-General of Orenburg, he was more interested in employing military tactics in the region (e.g., campaigning in Central Asia in 1839 and 1853) than studying the local population. However, the establishment of the Novoileksk line was one of the first major instances of Russian confiscation of Kazakh lands in the first quarter of the 19th century and the creation of Cossack villages deep inside the steppe. This paper is based on the theory that a particular culture of interaction between Slavic and Turkic peoples formed in a particular frontier region caught up in the political influence of the empire. In spite of the regulatory power of the Russian authorities, the frontier’s local communities were not simply objects of influence but also active participants in the historical process. In this paper, I will therefore attempt to explain the logic behind the construction of the Novoileksk line, the regional administration’s perspective of Cossack-Kazakh interactions, and the specifics of trading and cultural interaction across the line. The construction of the fortified frontier line and Russian state policy In the early 1800s, the Military Governor of Orenburg, G.S. Volkonskii (1803-1817), noted that controlling the mining and trade of turnoe rasvitie raiona Irtyshskoi desyverstnoi polosy (vtoraya polovina ХVШ-nachalo ХХ vv.) Avtoreferat dissertatsii kandidat istorii nauk. – Karaganda: Kargu, 2010. 13 V. Kobzov Novaya liniya. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo university Seriya History Orenburg, 1992. – N.1. – P. 12-26.

76

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

Ileksk salt was vital for increasing the Orenburg treasury’s revenue. According to his directive from April 18, 1805, a new salt mine was to be established at Ileksk, and four months later an expedition for managing the salt-works was created. The new directive also permitted the «unrestricted sale» (vol’naia prodazha) of «up to 1.5 million poods»14 of salt. (This was in contrast to the 500,000 poods that had been allowed previously.) The number of exiled workers at the saltmine nearly doubled (from 173 to 300) and the salary provided for those «breaking and transporting» salt increased15. Furthermore, the directive introduced new measures for the development of the Ileksk salt mine. These included new, protected tracts for the transportation of salt (solevoznye trakty). As a result of the increased production of salt in the region, on August 28, 1810, the Russian State Council approved colonel G. S. Strukov’s16 proposal on the «Organization of the salt-transporting tract» from the Iletsk Zashchita)17 to Samara. The essence of the proposal was to change the route for delivering salt; it would be transported straight through the Ilek River rather than through Orenburg18. It was therefore necessary to build a new borderline on the right bank of the Ilek River from the Iletsk Zashchita to the Iletsk Cossack town19. The proposed route passed through the territories of the ‘Little Horde’ (Kishi Juz) Kazakh tribes such as the Tama and the Tabyn. This inconvenience to them did not stop the Russian authorities. 14 Pood is a unit of mass equal to 40 funt . It is approximately 16.38 kilograms (36.11 pounds). 15 V. Semenov, V. Semenova, eds, Gubernatory Orenburgskogo kraya Orenburg: Orenbugskoe knizhnoe isdatelstvo, 1999. 16 Strukov Grigoryi Nikanorovich (1772-1846) actual state counselor, bearer of the orders of Saint Ann 3rd degree and Saint Georgii 4th degree, participant of Caucasus and MiddleAsian routes. In 1816 -1841 – ruler of Iletsk salt mining establishment. 17 A settlement of salt miners was established in 1744 and the Iletsk Zashchita was built in 1754. 18 L. Yavonova Ustroitel’ Iletskoi Zashity. Iletskaya Zashita, September 26, 2012. 19 In February 1737, on the order of the head of the Orenburg expedition (I. K. Kirillov), the Iletsk town settlement was established on the left shore of the Yaik River near the mouth of the Ilek. The first inhabitants were Cossacks who later served in the Yaik Cossack army. E.V. Danilevskii, K.V. Rudnickii, Uralo-Kaspi region (Ural province and former – the land of Ural Cossack army and Ural region) .Uralsk: Edition GuBONO, 1927. – P. 166-167.

The Novoileksk line: construction...

77

In 1811, 600,000 desiatins of land between the Ural, Kuraily, and Berdianak rivers, which included the winter pastures of the Tama and Tabyn tribes, was demarcated for the protection of the Iletsk Zashchita. At the same time, authorities began constructing outposts at Izobilnyi, Novoiletskii, Ozernyi, and Zatonnyi; these outposts extended across 131 versts and comprised the first chain of the Novoileksk line. To create the fortifications, ditches were dug along the embankment, barns were built inside outposts, and holes were dug to make temporary garrisons in the winter20. With a decree from Tsar Alexander I, this land between the Ilek and Ural rivers became a part of the Ileksk saltmine. It took nearly 15 years to construct the Novoileksk frontier line. Construction was delayed by the Patriotic War of 1812, in which Cossacks and Bashkirs participated, and the complicated economic situation in the Steppe. Orenburg Military Governor Volkonskii noted that, in the first decade of the 19th century, «the disorder and widespread disarray in the steppe» of the Little Horde (Kishi Juz) Kazakhs had reached new levels of confusion: «Kazakhs are engaging in theft – if not external, than internal, between themselves»21. The Orenburg Governor reported to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Karl Nessel’rode, that armed detachments of Kazakhs were scattered in the steppe and «mutually harassing each other» by stealing cattle22. The extent of the economic crisis is also reflected in the fact that a number of Kazakhs began to appear at the frontier line. Some were recorded as members of Bashkir cantons, others were employed as workers in Cossack villages, and still others were recorded selling their children into slavery23. From 1817, construction on the Novoileksk frontier line was carried out under the authority of the Orenburg Military Governor Petr Essen. Through 1824, new Cossack outposts were established at Suchorechensk, Linevsk, Vetliansk, Burannyi, Boguslavsk villages, 20 Aleksandr Krukov described the service of summer guards on the line. See: A. Krukov. Kirgizskii nabeg (drus’yam moim. Severnye tsvety, 1829. – P. 117-119. 21 Materialy po istorii Kazakhskoi SSR,1785–1828, vol. 4. – Moskva: Akademiya nauk SSSR, 1940. – P. 218-224. 22 TSGA RK. F.4. Op.1. D.1810 l. L.5-5, 7-8. 23 N.Moiseeva Rasselenie I chislennost’ Bashkir v XVII-nachalo XX vv. Dissertatsiya kandidata nauk. – Ufa, 1985. – P. 136.

78

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

and at Berdianka fortress. The line began at the mouth of the Ilek and followed it along the Berdianka and Kuraily rivers, where it was called the Bеrdiano–Kuralinsk line. Near Blagoslovlennii station it crossed the Ural river and merged with the Orenburg frontier line. This line essentially moved the borders of Orenburg south of the Iletsk post and promoted the development of salt mining and the salt transport tract24. The question of settling the outposts arose during the process of constructing the line. The outposts had few inhabitants and settling Cossacks at the new frontier line was not proceeding as smoothly as had been expected. Many Cossack families refused to leave their old homes and property and settle in an unfamiliar territory or, as they would say, «into the wild steppe, to see death». The reluctance to set up a new household in a new territory was exacerbated by the fact that Cossacks did not want to live near Kazakhs, who they viewed as «predators» and «barbarians». Distressed by the confiscation of their winter pastures, Kazakhs had been known to attack frontier lines, capture horses, and abduct people. Thus, settling Cossacks at the outposts had to proceed through administrative decree. In 1817, Governor Essen entrusted Ural Cossacks to settle at Zaton and Ozernyi. The new settlers were granted fishing privileges, the use of forest resources, and even a three-year service exemption for developing their household (khoziastvo). According to a document preserved in the Orenburg regional archive, Tsar Alexander I sought to settle the Novoileksk line to the southeast from Iletsk Zashchita, starting from the top of the Ilek river down along its right bank. To fulfill this aim, military outposts were also constructed at Prokhladnyi, Grigorievskii, and Ugolnyi toward the eastern side of the Iletsk Zashchita. Additional sites for outposts on the borders of the Ural region were identified at Mertvesk, Velianovsk, Izobilnyi, Burannyi, Novoiletsk, and Linevsk. Cossacks from the Orenburg Cossack army served at these outposts, and intensive resettlement of Cossacks to the area began in 1823 with 289 settlers25. L. Futoryansky ed., Istoria Orenburzh’ya. Orenburg: Orenburgskoe knizhnoe isdatelstvo,

24

1996.

25 Istoricheskaya sapiska o zaselenii Novoilekskoi linii kazakami, voennymi poselentsami I drugimi litsami in GAOrO F.169. Op.1. D.44. L.3-3оb.

The Novoileksk line: construction...

79

In the 1820s, the Cossacks of the abolished Krasnoufimsk village were administratively transferred to the Novoileksk line26. Between 1823 and 1829, 749 people were moved to the Novoileksk and Orenburg lines. This included 519 Cossacks, or 200 families. Thirtyfive families were located at the Linevsk outpost, 65 at Novoiletsk, 15 at Burannyi, 25 at Izobilnyi, 30 at Vetliansk, and 30 at Mertvetsovsk. Each family was granted 159 rubles to construct a shelter and develop farms27. In 1832, some Cossacks from the Orenburg village, living on the outskirts of Forshtadt, were invited by the Military Governor P. P. Sukhtelen to settle in the area near the 1st Berdiansk outpost and found the new village, Blagoslovensk28. The Novoileksk line was primarily managed from the Burannyi village (a former outpost). The Cossack captain Stepan Arzhanukhin served as the head of the line from 1820 to 183029. The construction of the Novoileksk line was completed in the 1820s and new projects were developed to promote the spread of the Orenburg and Siberian frontier lines into the Kazakh steppe30. Patterns of Kazakh and Cossack actions on the Novoileksk line From the 1750s until the construction of the Novoileksk line, the Iletsk Zashchita on the lower portion of the Ilek River was the only fortress that bordered the nomadic camps of the Jetyru tribe of the Kazakh Little Horde (Kishi Juz). An early historian of the Orenburg region, P. Rychkov, noted that the Iletsk Zashchita was situated «right 26 F. Starikov Istoriko-statisticheskii ocherk Orenburgskogo kazach’ego voiska . Orenburg:Tipographiya B.Breslina. 1891. In 1820 Krasnoufimsakya stanitsa (Perm region) was abolished, Cossacks had to move to Novoileksk line. However they denied to move and appealed to tsar and began to rebel. In 1826 year Cossacks were forced to move by regional authority. 27 GAOrO. F.6. Op.4. D.7892. 28 U. Zobov Novye pereselenzy in Istoriya Orenburzh’ya, ed. Leonid Futoryanskii. Orenburg, P. – 96-108. 29 A. Abramovskii, V. Kobzov Arzhanukhin Stepan Dmitrievich // Chelyabinskaya oblast’: Encyclopedia, ed. K. Bochkarev. vol.1 Chelyabinsk: Kamenny poyas, 2003. – P. 171. 30 See: Zapiska kollezhskogo sovetnika Demidova na imya imperatora Aleksandra I o perenose Sibirskoi I Orenburgskoi pogranichnyh linii vglub’ stepi 1825 in Kazakhsko-russkie otnosheniia v XVIII–XIX vekakh (1771–1867 gody): Sbornik dokumentov i materialov. Almaty: Nauka, 1964. – P. 217-221.

80

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

in the Kirgiz-Kaisak steppe... near the place where Kazakhs used to settle»31. From the 18th century to the first quarter of the 19th century, Kazakhs also bordered the land of the Bashkir nomadic tribes that pastured along the lower half of the Ilek River to the middle of the Yaik River32. This continued proximity aided the development of a long-term relationship. Following the construction of the Novoileksk line, it is possible to delineate two periods based on different forms of political and ethno-cultural interactions. The first period, from 1811 to 1828, was characterized by open confrontation as Kazakhs fought for the right to pasture on the fertile steppe lands located on the right bank of the Ilek River. In August 1819, the Orenburg Frontier Commission sent orders to Shergazy, the khan of the Little Horde (Kishi Juz), and sultan Arungazy, requesting that they inform Kazakhs that pasturing within the boundaries of the Novoileksk line was forbidden. This directive led Jolaman Tlenshi, a foreman (starshina) from the Tabyn tribe, to lead an insurrection against the regional administration. The years between 1821 and 1824 were also characterized by Kazakh attacks on the fortresses and outposts along the Novoileksk line. During these attacks, horses were stolen. Additionally, Russian inhabitants and Cossack salt-mine workers were abducted33. On August 19, 1821, the Kazakhs captured the Cossacks Vasilii Ivanov, Grigorii Alekseyev, and Petr Melnikov from the Rassypnaia settlement. Additionally, canton leader Filipov’s house serfs were robbed of property that totaled 578 rubles and 50 kopeks34. On September 5, 1822, about 100 Kazakhs attacked the Suhorechensk fortress on the Novoileksk line, capturing three Iletsk Cossacks, six Bashkirs, and 73 horses35. On September 4, 1822, another group of 50 Kazakhs from the Tabyn and Akkete tribes attacked the Iletsk settlement and captured three Cossacks, two girls, and two Bashkirs36; and, on May P. Rychkov Topografiya Orenburgskoi gubernii Ufa: Kitap. 1999, – P. 179. Istoriya Bashkortostana s drevneishih vremen do nashih dnei,vol.1.– Ufa: Kitap, 2004. – P. 111. 33 TSGA RK. F.4. Op.1. D.265; D.268. L.1-3. 34 TSGA RK. F.4. Op.1. D.4694. 35 TSGA RK. F.4. Op.1. D.4698. L. 3. 36 Ibid., TSGA RK. F.4. Op.1. D.4698. L. 30, 55. 31 32

The Novoileksk line: construction...

81

8, 1823, Kazakhs captured 12 horses along with some people from the Sakmarsk settlement37. The scale of these attacks was so enormous that the prerevolutionary scholar I. Blaramberg wrote that «the Cossacks had to pay the price of their own blood to own the fertile coast of the Ilek River. Under the leadership of their batyrs [Kazakh warriors], the former owners would gather in huge crowds and fight to the death, preferring to die than to lose the lands of their nomadic ancestors. All kinds of damage was done to the new settlers. To this day, Jolaman’s raids are remembered by the Novoileksk Cossacks»38. At this point it is important to investigate how Russian authorities attempted to prevent these attacks and rescued captured Cossacks. First, S. Arzhanukhin, the head of the Novoileksk line, tried to attract Kazakh sultans and foremans (starshiny) who were «committed to Russia», such as sultan Algazy Aishuakov, the assessor (zasedatel’) of the Khan’s Council; Gabdulmuklin Agymov; Tyauki and Baimukhamet Aishuakov; and the foremen Kurbaba Yantuov and Igibulay Duysin. These sultans and foremen were enlisted to help find guilty Kazakhs. They uncovered the locations and the names of the Kazakhs responsible for capturing Cossacks; the guilty parties were from the Aydar sub-division of the Tabyn tribe. The sultans collaborating with the head of the Novoileksk line requested military assistance from the Russian authorities in order to catch the Kazakhs responsible for the disturbances. Without military assistance, the sultans were too «frightened to act». Furthermore, without this form of help, the Kazakhs would not cease their attacks on the Novoileksk line39. However, according to an 1816 decree of the Council of Ministers on «not sending military commands into the Kazakh steppe», the regional administration had no authority to send military troops to the steppe. As stated in the document, «the main source of abuse in the region is barymta (cattle rustling), [which is] no pretext for sending a military command abroad in order to return stolen property». This TSGA RK. F.4. Op.1. D.265; D. 268. L.1-3. I. Blaramberg, Voenno-statisticheskoe obosrenie semel’ Kirgiz-kaisakov Vnutrennei (Bukeevskoi) I Zaural’skoi (Maloi) Ordy Orenburgskogo vedomstva po rekognostsirovkam I materialam, sobrannym na meste. Sankt- Petersburg, 1848. – P. 95. 39 TSGA RK. F.4. Op.1. D.4694. L.12-13. 37 38

82

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

decision was based on the fact that the use of military commands often lead to the abuse, murder, and plundering of innocent Kazakhs in addition to the guilty ones. This was one of the reasons behind the «revenge (mshchenie) from their [the Kazakh] side»40. After this decision was confirmed, V. F. Timkovsky was sent to Orenburg in 1820 to investigate the current situation among the Kazakhs of the Little Horde (Kishi Juz). In his report to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, he wrote that «the devastating barymtas, or, in fact the incredible pillage, which occurred in the Little Horde under the leadership of General-Major Bakmetev resulted in a disastrous state… In this respect, many of the most audacious and harmful attacks carried out by Kazakh riders should be considered retributive searches for their lost autonomy by using revenge as repayment for suffering»41. As a result, in 1820 the Asian Department (of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) recognized that the «mutual territorial claims [prityasaniya] arising between Russian frontier residents and Kazakhs» are the «main cause», leading to «willful retribution quests», of barymta42. In these situations, the regional authorities sent R. Chanyshev43, an interpreter (tolmach) from the Orenburg Frontier Commission, to chief S. Arzhanukhin. Chanyshev was tasked with insisting on the «execution of law, the return of the captured Cossacks», and the use of a non-military detachment to catch the perpetrators. When a sultan from the Khan’s Council and the interpreter Chanyshev reached the camp of Sultan Karatai Nuraliev, where the Kazakh suspects lived, it became evident that the suspects had no connection with the abduction of the Cossacks. As Sultan Karatai stated, the Kazakhs from the Aydar sub-division had been on islands in the Caspian Sea on the day of the abduction44. In his report, Chanyshev wrote that, based on his discussions with different foremen, he believed that the Cossack prisoners had already Materialy po istorii Kazakhskoi SSR, 253-254. RGIA F.1291. Op.81. D.44а. L. 267-268. 42 19 February, 1820, Zhurnal Asiatskogo komiteta o netselesoobrasnosti rasdela Ordy na dva kanstva s predpisaniem mer dlya ukrepleniya v Orde blasti khana Shiergasy in Materialy po istorii Kazkhskoi SSR, 351 (document 116). 43 M. Havrin, a Cossack from the Novoiletsk line, accompanied Chanyshev. The sultans and foremen who accompanied the interpreter were obliged to be responsible for «Chanyshev's security». 44 TSGA RK. F.4. Op.1. D.4694. L.23-41. 40 41

The Novoileksk line: construction...

83

been sent to Khiva to be sold into slavery. There was no way to have them returned; the only recourse left was to arrest the six people from the Akkete tribe, «because they have always had encampments near those who participate in the abduction of Cossacks and their leader is the known thief Suiunkara»45.The Orenburg Frontier Commission informed Khan Shergazy that the Jetyru Kazakhs kept invading the territory of the Novoileksk line and capturing its residents. The Commission requested that Khan Shergazy take strict measures to prevent «impudent Kazakhs from preying on manufacturers and to reduce their power with the authority» he had been granted by the Russian administration. The Orenburg Frontier Commission also requested that the bailiff (pristav) Aleksandr Gorikhvostov46, who served with Khan Shergazy, conduct a «secret» investigation. He was also supposed to aid Khan Shergazy in tracking down the Kazakhs that attacked frontier inhabitants. None of the bailiff’s attempts were successful47. Evidence that the goal behind this was to strengthen the boundaries of the Novoileksk line can be found in the fact that cordon guards sent proposals about preventing Kazakh invasions of the line. Colonel G. Okunev48, the head of the summer guard, emphasized the need to place outposts and strong pickets across the Ilek River, as they had done on the Ural line. This would allow the guards to observe the Kazakh’s actions from as far away as 15 versts. He also argued that the Orenburg and Iletsk Cossacks should serve at these posts. From his perspective, they were «more agile than the Bashkirs». The Bashkirs were best to keep «on this side» of the line, «in reserve», so that they could be used for Kazakh detachments across the Ilek when they were needed. At the same time, he noted that Bashkirs needed to be supervised, so that they «would not depart from abuse, [since] it would otherwise be hard to maintain stability on the line»49. Ibid., TSGA RK. F.4. Op.1. D.4694. L.41-42. Materialy po istorii Kazkhskoi SSR, 349-351 (document 116). 47 TSGA RK. F.4. Op.1. D. 263. 48 Commander of 1-st Teptyarskogo Cossack guards. A. Podmaso Shefy I kommandiry regulyarnyh polkov russkoi armii (1796-1825) (1997) http://www.museum.ru/1812/library/podmazo/intro.htm. 49 TSGA RK, F.4. Op.1. D. 4698. L. 3. 45 46

84

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

Okunev’s perspective on the service of Bashkirs and Kalmyks on the frontier line reflects a larger trend in Kazakh-Bashkir and KazakhKalmyk50 relations in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. It also underscores how the Orenburg administration incorporated existing «turmoil and strife between nomads» in their regional policy. On September 28, 1828 the sultan of the western division of the Little Horde Kazakhs, Karatai Nuraliev, informed the military governor P. K. Essen that Jolaman Tlenshi (who belonged to the abyn tribe and Jaimbet subtribe) had asked for Karatai’s forgiveness and expressed his desire to be under the authority of sultan Karatai51. After the 1820s, the situation on the frontier line changed, marking a second stage in the relationship between Kazakhs and Cossacks. A number of factors contributed to this change. The fertile lands along the Ilek River had been so important for the Kazakh nomads that they continued to try to pasture their herds along the Ilek in spite of the bans introduced by Russian authorities. The Russian state and the Orenburg authorities decided to grant some concessions and allow those tribes who had «retained the goodwill of Russia» to pasture their herds along the river. Evidence of this decision can be found in the reports the head of the Novoiletsk line sent to the Orenburg Frontier Commission between 1828 and 1835 regarding Kazakh sultans and biys. On November 30, 1828, S. Arzhanukhin, the head of Novoileksk line, reported that 46 Kazakh sultans, foremen, and biys, and Kazakhs under their authority, had approached the line and given their guarantee that they would winter on the left bank of the Ilek River and that «they would not do any harm to the officials and salt workers on the line, not take their herds to the right bank of the Ilek, and not destroy forests». They would live «quietly and in harmony» with the new line. Additionally, if Kazakhs from either side of the Ilek River «spoiled the forests, wasted bread (grains), or stole anything», the sultans, foremen, and biys would be committed to «investigating» the case and, in accordance with a general decision, would have the accused 50 In 1771, when most Kalmyks returned to their historical homeland in Central Asia through the steppe of the Middle Horde, they were attack by some Kazakhs, which deepened the conflict between the two populations. 51 TSGA RK. F.4. Op.1. D. 1341. L.2.

The Novoileksk line: construction...

85

«repay the residents of the Novoileksk line». This commitment was guaranteed by requesting a hostage, or amanat. The regional administration required one amanat for every 50 nomadic tents and one for each outpost at Novoileksk, Linevsk, Ozersk, Suhorechensk, and Zatonn52. On November 8, 1828, Iusup Nuraliev, the ruler of the Tama tribe, requested that the regional administration not take any amanats from the Kazakhs under his jurisdiction. Highlighting his loyalty and his «good service to his superiors», he vowed to be responsible for all of the «illegal actions undertaken by the Kazakhs under his authority»53. For the most part, however, Arzhanukhin noted that fewer Kazakhs were coming to the line than in years past. This can be explained in part by the fact that more Kazakhs had migrated to the «other side, having [been granted] permissions (bilety) to serve as workers for newly settled peoples». Still other Kazakhs pastured with Sultan Kydrali Aishuakov about 30 versts away from the line, on the Jirenkop and Kaymas tracts and at the mouth of the Kuraily and Utva rivers54. Two years later, in 1830, the outpost chiefs informed the Orenburg Frontier Commission that the sultans Abdulmukmin Agimov and Baimukahmet and Tauke Aychuakov had pastured their herds on the border of the Ilek river in the winter and returned in the summer to sow grass and harvest crops. They committed to behaving «in a friendly manner and living in agreement with their neighbors, and would use for fuel and small shelter repairs only the deadwood and plants that were useless for building». They agreed to pasture 15 versts away from the Ilek River and to provide the required one amanat for every 50 tents55. The sultans emphasized that they and the «Kazakhs under their authority» had «always wintered along the Novoileksk line and prepared hay» for their cattle56. Another sultan, Asfandiyarov Sugalin, noted that his grandparents and great-grandparents had lived a nomadic life between the stations at Zatonnyi and Suhorechensk, 54 55 56 52 53

TSGA RK. F.4. Op.1. D.1432. L.8-10. TSGA RK. F.4. Op.1. D.1432. L.15. TSGA RK. F.4. Op.1. D.1432. L.7. TSGA RK. F.4. Op.1. D.1468. L.1-8. TSGA RK. F.4. Op.1. D.1468. L.15.

86

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

and that he pastured his herds in the exact same place, that is, on the steppe side of the Ilek river57. These sultans did not perceive the Novoileksk line as a frontier but rather as the site of the winter pastures that their tribes had kept and passed down through generations. As these sultans’ requests underscore, they saw the Novoileksk line as dividing traditional pastures rather than defining a border. In the 19th century, the Novoileksk line essentially became a moving boundary of Cossack settlements or an aggregate of divisions between Kazakh winter camps and Cossack settlements that were situated close to one another along the frontier line. According to I. Blaramberg’s research from the 1840s, the Kazakhs of the Kadyrbek division of the Tabyn tribe (a total of 570 tents), had winter camps across from Iletsk town, Zatonn outpost, Suhorechenk, and Ozersk; the Karamukan division (a total of 360 tents) had winter camps opposite the Novoileksk fortress; the Abyz division (145 tents) had winter camps opposite the Linevsk outpost, Iletsk town, and at the top of the Ilek River. All of these Kazakhs lived along the line peacefully and Russians could «move safely among them»58. Cross–cultural interactions on the frontier line The organization of trading posts along the fortified lines and the creation of favorable conditions for exchange between nomads and visiting traders played an important role in the Russian state’s trade policy. The Novoileksk line was not an exception: it became an intensive zone of commercial cooperation. That said, only the kinds of goods that Kazakhs needed for daily life were traded along the line. In 1830, the sultans Abdulmukmin Agimov, Tauke and Baimukhamed Aisuakov informed the regional authorities that an exchange yard, were Kazakhs arrived with their cattle, had been arranged behind the Ilek river and across from the Podgorn outpost59. TSGA RK. F.4. Op.1. D.1463. Blaramberg, Voenno-statisticheskoe obosrenie, 105. 59 TSGA RK. F.4. Op.1. D.1468. L.15. 57 58

The Novoileksk line: construction...

87

The largest trade turnover occurred at the bazaar on the Berdianka River near the Novoileksk border-line. Here nomads traded livestock that had passed through inspection at a veterinary post. A. Dobrosmyslov, a veterinarian from the Turgai region, noted the rise in the number of goods purchased: in 1896, 8,117 livestock were sold while, in the following year, this had increased by 2,75560. The trade of raw animal products, hides, and wool that had been brought to Tamar-Utkul from the Tuz-Tiubinsk, Iletsk, Khobdinsk, and Karatugaisk volosts of the Aktiubinsk district, as well as the Kalmytskii district and the Ural’sk region, was managed by Tatars from the Iletsk Zashchita61. These traders would purchase skin in small batches and store it in a special location; after accumulating a significant amount, they would send the skins off to be sold in Orenburg. They traded wool in a similar fashion. Kazakhs, Tatars, Bashkirs also worked together at the Iletsk salt mines. P. Nebol’sin, who visited the salt mine, highlighted that most workers were Tatars, Bashkirs, and Kazakhs. Four hundred people would arrive in May, when the salt mining would begin62. In 1846, 67 salt-workers and 718 civilians, most of them Tatars from the Orenburg region, mined salt at the Iletsk Zashchita63. In 1847, Kazakhs were granted employment permissions (bilety) to work at the Iletsk Zashchita: 161 were issued for one month, 110 for two months, 42 for four months, and one for six months64. In the first half of the 19th century, approximately 3,000 Kazakhs worked at the Iletsk salt mines65. Kazakhs and Bashkirs would often use camels to transport salt from the Iletsk Zashchita to Orenburg, Troitsk, and Samara66. Around the area of the Novoileksk frontier line, a single cultural space of Turkic peoples began to form. This is evidenced by the TSGA RK. F.25. Op.1. D.4250. L.29-50. Pamyatnaya knizka Turgaiskoi oblasti 1899. – Orenburg: Turgaistatcomitet, 1900. – P. 120-121. 62 Nebolsin P. Iletskie solyanye kopi. Geograficheskie isvestiya Imp.RGO. 1854. N. 1. P.409. 63 Voenno- statisticheskor obosrenie Rossiskoi imperii. Orenburgskaya guberniya, vol.14, P.2. Sankt-Petersburg: Departament General’nogo shtaba, 1848. – P. 83. 64 TSGA RK. F.4. Op.1. D.5407. L.3-87. 65 Istoriya Kazakhskoi SSR v 5-tomah, vol.3. – Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1979. 66 Orenburgskii krai,1892. – N7. 60 61

88

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

construction of mosques, the use of mekteps and madrasas, and the mutual assistance offered in difficult economic situations. Most mosques were built in the first half of the 19th century along the frontier lines. These construction projects were usually initiated by Tatars. No mosques were built in the Kazakh steppe until the beginning of the 1830s. However, archival records indicate that the sultan Orman Nuraliev petitioned the local authorities in 1809, requesting that a mosque be constructed near the Sarachikovsk fortress. A similar request was submitted by the sultans A. Ashimov and T. and B. Aishuakov in 1825. According to these figures, a mosque would help Kazakhs «abandon their [bad] inclinations, pranks, and misdeeds». Nonetheless, the tsarist government rejected their request; the construction of a mosque required expenses that «would not be understood by the steppe population». Additionally, since Kazakhs did not own stationary homes, they were not «able to preserve wooden constructions»67. After these earlier failures, Kazakhs and Tatars worked together in 1832 to raise funds for the construction of a mosque at Iletsk since it was «a place where they focused on trade». The sultan Tauke Aishuakov «volunteered to be in charge of collecting offers from Kazakhs», who emphasized that the «mosque would include a school that would teach their children Tatar and Muslim law (magometanskiii zakon)». Baimukhamed Aishuakov, a sultan from the western division of the Little Horde (Kishi Juz), donated 20 gold coins (400 rubles) to construct the mosque. Kazakhs pastured near the territory of the salt mines provided 9 lambs68. The mosque was built in 1833 and Gainulla Gadilshin, a Tatar from Kazan province, was appointed mullah69. Evidence of the support that the Turkic-speaking populations in the region provided for one another can be found in their responses to the natural disasters which seriously affected Kazakh nomadic society. One specific example was the devastating jute that occurred during the winter of 1879-1880. As the veterinarian, A. Dobrosmyslov, noted GAOrO. F.6. Op.10. D.495. D.3265. GAOrO. F.6. Op.10. D.3922. L.11-37. 69 GAOrO. F.6. Op.10. D.3922. L.37. 67 68

The Novoileksk line: construction...

89

Kazakh livestock was reduced by 42% due to the disaster70. At the same time, a large group of Kazakhs arrived at the Iletsk Zashchita, requesting to be hired out to different craftsmen71. The administration in Orenburg noted that impoverished Kazakhs were often supported by Tatar merchants who provided food until all of the impoverished Kazakhs were hired72. A strong tradition of inter-cultural interaction continued in the following years, especially as Tatar merchants began to open new madrasas and Muslim charity organizations as part of the larger jadid movement. Conclusion The historical conditions that led to the establishment of the Novoileksk line are connected with the larger processes of colonizing and developing Kazakhstan’s western and southern Ural regions in the first third of the 19th century. The frontier line reflects the complex situation that Russian authorities and Kazakhs faced in the process of constructing a single mechanism for governing and promoting coexistence between these different groups, which included the various layers of Kazakh society, the Russian administration, the Cossacks, and the Tatar and Bashkir subjects of the Russian state. Furthermore, it is important to note that the Novoileksk line was not a zone of long-term, open confrontation between different ethnic groups. According to Governor-General V. A. Perovskii’s note about the results of constructing the line, «in the first few years there [were several] cases of Kazakh border raids and cattle-rustling, which still sometimes happens», but, in the end, the «possession of land is determined by politics, government perks, and personal benefits»73. If from 1811 to 1826 the Ileksk frontier line served as a social frontier74 between settled and nomadic populations that led to A. Dobrosmyslov Turgaiskaya oblast’. Istoricheskii ocherk, vol.1-3:Tver’, 1902. – P. 254. RGIA. F.1291. Op.82. D.10. L.12оb. 72 TSGA RK. F.4. Op.1. D.296. L.17. 73 TSGA RK. F.4. Op.1. D.312. L.6. 74 A. Kapeller Yuznyi i vostochnui frontier Rossii v XVI-XVIII vekax. Ab Imperio, 2003. – N1. – P.48. 70

71

90

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

open confrontations, then, in the following period, the line could be described as a transitional or contact zone of intensive cultural exchange that continued for centuries. It could also be described as a territory of cross-cultural communication and complementary economic interaction. By the end of the 1820s, the Novoileksk line stayed as boundary line, but in comparison to emerging new boundary lines: the Embensk (built along the east bank of the Emba River to the Caspian Sea in 1826), and the Novotroitsk (constructed along the borders of Orsk and Troitsk between 1835 and 1837) this line became adopted territory by Orenburg and Ural Kazaks and Kazakh people. As a result, Kazakh tribes were allowed to cross the Novoileksk frontier line, Kazaks military invasions on line were stopped, they accepted the fact of building of fort posts and started interaction with Russian inhabitants along the line.Today, the Novoileksk line serves mostly as a mental construction with a symbolic character that has emerged from the long history of Kazakh-Russian, Kazakh-Tatar, and Kazakh-Bashkir cross-cultural encounters and exchanges. This symbolism and the historical and cultural specificities of the Ileksk and Sol-Iletsk regions are today reflected in their flags, which include frontier symbols. The Ileksk region’s flag represents the merger of the Ural and Ilek rivers with a forked dark blue cross; these reflect two parts of the world: the left coast of the Ural in Asia and the right coast in Europe. The walls of the fortress serve as a symbol of the reliable protection of these borders for centuries. The flag of the Sol-Iletsk region portrays Cossack pikes, symbolizing the first inhabitants of the region along with the trans-boundary position of the land between Russia and Kazakhstan. Additionally, the crimson and white colors (introduced for the Orenburg Cossack army in 1803) indicate that the Sol-Iletsk Cossacks were a part of the Orenburg Cossack troops.

Kazakh perceptions of Tatar officials in...

91

4. Kazakh perceptions of Tatar officials in the Russian [Imperial] administration in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries

From the first half of the eighteenth through the middle of the nineteenth centuries, Tatars of the Volga-Ural region played an important role in the political, economic, and cultural integration of the Kazakh Steppe into the Russian Empire. They served as translators and interpreters in the negotiations between Russian authorities and Kazakh elites, settled conflicts that arose between border residents and Kazakhs, served as official clerks for Kazakh khans and sultans, and were invited by influential Kazakh leaders to serve in their districts as spiritual leaders (mullahs) and teachers. Furthermore, Tatars were actively involved in the process of drawing Kazakhs into regional, in particular Volga-Ural, Western Siberian, and Turkestani, and subsequently, all-Russian trading spaces. Tatars’ roles as intermediaries in the Russian empire has been discussed by the historians A. Vasil’ev, A. Frank, V. Galiev, G. Sultangalieva , A. Remnev, P. Werth and M. Hamamato. However, Kazakhs’ regard for the activity of Tatar officials has been overlooked. We need to explore this issue in greater detail in order to better understand and reconstruct the history of events in the Steppe. In the second half of the eighteenth and the first half of the nineteenth centuries, the Kazakh population formed their ideas about the Russian Empire and Russian legislation, their attitudes toward this 91

92

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

new government, and their understanding of social reality through their interactions with Tatars. But how did Kazakh elites and regular nomads perceive the activities of these Tatar officials? How peoples perceive those from different economic, cultural, and linguistic systems has been thoroughly investigated in the historical literature. Researchers have used concepts such as «Other», «Different», or «Stranger» to discuss the systematic images, stereotypes, and perceptions one group develops about another1. My question, however, is as follows: How are these paradigms applicable to a case in which ethnic difference is not one of the dominant factors in one group’s perception of the other? The relation between Kazakhs and Tatars is quite evident – both groups shared a similar language (Kipchak Turkic), a belief in Sunni Islam, and centuries of history in the same socio-cultural space. Essentially, the process through which Kazakhs perceived Tatars grew out of their co-existence in adjacent territories as well as the cultural patterns they shared as co-religionists and kin. However, the mechanism through which Kazakhs perceived Tatars began to change in the 1830s, with the process of joining the Kazakh steppe to the Russian empire. This was because of politics of Russian authorities, which legislatively defined the role of «Tatars» as instruments in the dissemination of imperial laws in the Kazakh steppe and in the realization of far-reaching foreign-policy plans in Southern Kazakhstan and Central Asia. This is evident in decrees (ukases) such as «On translator and interpreter’s estates in the Orenburg province» from July 29, 1770; «On the tolerance of all faiths» from June 17, 1773; «On the construction of mosques» from July 8, 1782 and May 2, 1784; and «On the provision of Tatar mullahs for Kazakh tribes» from November 25, 1785 and April 21, 1787. From this time, Tatars were heavily recruited to serve in the Russian empire, in particular in regional administrations as interpreters, translators, and clerks. At the same time, Tatars were invited to serve as intermediaries in trade. The Senate ukase from March 8, 1774 «On the settlement of Kazan tatars 1 Erofeev N  Tumannyi Albion:Angliya i anglichane glazami russkikh. 1825-1853. Moscow. Nauka.1982 Russia and Europe v  XIX – XX vv. Problemy vsaimovospriyatia narodov, soziymov, kultur. – Moscow: RAN, 1996. O.Sukhih  Obraz Kazakha – kochevnika v russkoi obshestvenno-politicheskoi mysli v konze  XVIII – pervoi polovine XIX vv. Avtoreferat kandidatskoi dissertazii  Omsk, 2007. 

Kazakh perceptions of Tatar officials in...

93

in Orenburg and permitting them to build a mosque outside the city» and the permission to «freely carry out trade business throughout all of Russia» as allowed by the ukase from February 11, 1736 and November 22, 1776 serve as evidence of this trend. Moreover, the Russian authorities considered Kazan Tatars to be representatives of a high, settled-agricultural culture and believed that they could help influence Kazakh nomads to assimilate this high, settled culture, and thereby make become «more peaceful and manageable». Thus, we must examine how Kazakhs regarded Tatars in this new role; that is, we must considered how Kazakhs assessed Tatars’ activities, how they built relations with them, and how these relations were influenced by their prior experience interacting with Tatars. Additionally, how did the experience of interacting with Tatars affect how the formulation of some of the Kazakh population’s identifying traits in the 19th century? To investigate the aforementioned questions, it is first necessary to analyze the term perception. This article uses the term «social perception»2, which encompasses ones’ motives, purposes, goals, and values and depends on different social factors. Tatars who served the empire essentially created their own «cultural experience», which carried a social character and was caused by concrete historical contexts, in particular the imperial politics regarding Volga-Ural Tatars in the 18th and the first half of the 19th centuries. In turn, the Kazakh population, in the process of their interactions with Tatar officials, mullahs, and traders, acquired a notion of the empire that reflected Tatars’ understandings of the «rules and values» of Russian society. On the other hand, through the «admonitions» of the Tatars who served in the empire, Kazakhs learned the demands that the Russian authorities placed on this or that stage of Kazakh nomadic society. When we use the term «social perception», it is also important to highlight that this process involved the interaction between the one being perceived and the perceiver. Perception is not simply about 2 The term social perception has been proposed by Jerome Bruner in 1947 to describe the phenomena of social determination of perception. See: Bruner J. and Goodman C. Value and need as organizing factors in perception Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1947. – vol. 42. – Pp.33-44.

94

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

being perceived; in this case, it is also about how Tatars understood their roles in the Steppe and how this influenced the way they desired to be perceived. On the one hand, the long history of Tatar-Kazakh interactions helped the Tatars to quickly and sufficiently adjust to life in the Steppe, thereby enabling them to develop a more adequate understanding of Kazakh culture. On the other, Tatars’ service obligations affected their behavior in the Steppe in particular ways. It is also necessary to consider the framework of intercultural interaction in order to better understand the ways in which the values of Kazakh society were evolving in the nineteenth century. Throughout the nineteenth century, Kazakh nomadic society was undergoing a socio-cultural transformation that wrought changes on the nature of governance and the patterns of internal and external social relations. At that time, Kazakhs were aware that it was no longer possible to follow traditional administrative principles and that new principles were needed as the Steppe became more integrated into the Empire. Tatars played a key role mediating between the Steppe and the Empire during this transformation. In fact, Tatars affected Kazakhs’ awareness of the need to understand the rules of appropriate conduct in relations with Russian authorities and to develop knowledge about the symbols of imperial Russia. Tatars also displayed the tools of influence and subordination that were the sources of actions, decisions, and changes. Keeping in mind the social situation at this time and the concept of «social perception», the goal of my article is to trace how Kazakhs’ perceptions of Tatars evolved in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. To do this, I analyze petitions, applications, and reports by Kazakh representatives about Tatar officials who served in the Russian administration. «… his service among our people got us fairly acquainted…» The numerous petitions filed by Kazakh khans, sultans, and elders to award Tatar mullahs and  clerks with   ranks, certificates, and gifts demonstrates the degree of trust between Kazakhs and Tatars;

Kazakh perceptions of Tatar officials in...

95

this trust affected the perception of the latter’s activities. The close interaction between Kazakh sultans, elders, and biys (elders or heads of the tribe) and Tatars is highlighted in the following descriptions: Muhammed Sharif Abdrakhimov, a mullah from the Kokchetav outer district (vneshnyi okrug), «attained absolute trust from the Kazakhs»; the service of Seyfullah Usmanov, a mullah from the same district, «was committed to us»; Abubakir Kongurbay uly, another mullah, knew» all the affairs of our Kazakh people»; Yusuf Musin, a mullah from the Bayan-Aul district (volost’), «deserved recognition in the affairs of the Kazakh people». The activities of other Tatar officials were evaluated positively in the requests filed by Kazakh leaders. Sirazitdin Seifullin, the akhun (mentor, the head of the Muslim clergy) of the Petropavlovsk mosque, «never offended the Kazakhs» ; Mukhamedzhan Khusainov, the akhun of Seitovsky Posad and later the first mufti of the Orenburg Muslim Spiritual Assembly, served «faithfully, with diligence and without hypocrisy»; and the clerk Rahmetulla Islanov was «vigilant» and served with «complete, sincere devotion»3. Ayshuak, the khan of the Junior Juz [Horde] (r.1797-1805), wrote that he fully trusted the Tatar clerk Abdulnasyr Subhankulov, «honored him as a son», and gave him «the right to carry a stamp»4. The life of the clerk Rahmatulla Murtazauly Islanov, mentioned above, underscores the creation of close relations between Kazakhs and  Tatar officials.  Islanov was assigned to serve sultan Arungazy (1786-1833), who wrote that Islanov was not only a loyal «assistant, [who] properly conducted all written business», but also attempted to provide «good advice and mentoring» to Kazakh nomads. A translator for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, O. Yartsev, provided an alternate perspective on the clerk. According to Yartsev, Islanov was «uneducated»; he «did not know any Arabic or Turkish, any Muslim laws  and even found it difficult to  write a plain document neatly». Nevertheless,  Yartsev stressed the degree of trust between the Tatar clerk and the Kazakh sultan: Islanov could be called «a confidant of the sultan rather than of the [Imperial] government». This evaluation 3 TsGA RK  f. 338. op. 1. d. 184. p. 6. , Materialy po istorii Kazakhskoi SSR 1785–1828 M., 1940. Vol.4. Document 62, 140. – Pp. 201, 442. 4 GAOrO f.6. op.10. d.249.

96

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

is not entirely surprising – Islanov shared all of the sultan’s hardships in exile in Kaluga5. The Kazakh elders’ positive evaluation of the activities of Tatar employees is evident in the fact that their requests often presented Tatars as leaders and mentors. Consider, for instance, the career of Abu Selam uly Abdulfetih, a Tatar from Seitov Posad. From 1785, Abdulfetih served as a mullah for Srym Datov, an elder of the Baybakty clan. Afterward, he became an akhun for the Junior Juz. He participated  in all the significant events in Kazakh  nomadic society in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. In letters sent to the regional administration at the beginning of the nineteenth century, sultans, biys, and elders from the Junior Juz called him a «respectable akhun» and a «leader in all of our affairs» who «gave good advice» and provided «clarifications for our aristocrats and ordinary people [narod]»6. Mufti Mukhamedzhanov Khusainov (1756-1824) also provides a striking example of the ways that Kazakh elites recognized the activities of Tatar  officials in  the Steppe.  Khusainov’s career began in that period when the Kazakh Steppe was enveloped by the national liberation movement under the leadership of the Srym Datov (r. 17831797). In 1785, Khusainov was appointed the akhun of the Frontier Expedition (the structure involved in Kazakh affairs)7. Given the situation at that time (the political crisis in the Steppe, the weakening of Khan Nuraly’s position in the Junior Juz, the Kazakh population’s confusion about electing a new khan, and etc.), the Governor-General of Ufa and Simbirsk, O. Igel’strom, considered it useless for the Russian administration to seek support from the Kazakh aristocracy (khans and sultans). Instead, he suggested that the administration use the internal struggle to alter the Kazakhs’ traditional administrative structures and strengthen Russia’s position in the Steppe. The essence of Igel’strom’s reforms included the elimination of the khan’s power and the redistribution of powers to the Frontier Court organized in 5 Materialy po istorii Kazakhskoi SSR 1785–1828, vol. 4 doc. 129. – Moscow: Academiya nauk SSSR, 1940 – P.405. 6 Materialy po istorii Kazakhskoi SSR, 1785–1828. – P.120, 212. 7 Zhurnal Orenburgskogo muftiya Journal Istoricheskii arhiv, – 1939. – T. 2. – Pp.117220 Tekst, kommentarii M Vyatkina.

Kazakh perceptions of Tatar officials in...

97

Orenburg (October 1786) and to the Border Commissions (divided into three parts that corresponded to the tribal structure of the Kazakh Junior Juz, namely the tribal unions Alimuly, Bayuly, Zhetru), which were collegial Councils with court functions subordinated to the Frontier Court (September1787). Khusainov was assigned to serve as the mediator of talks between the elders and S. Datov regarding the governmental reforms in the Steppe. He fulfilled this assignment brilliantly. In September 21, 1785, he also participated in the meeting of the elders near the Zheneshke river (a tributary of the Ilek river), where he took the oath of allegiance to empress Ekaterina II from 208 elders of the Middle Juz. The Kazakh Elder (Starshina) Srym Datov wrote to Khusainov that «we hope and rely only on you in all of our matters»8. Governor O. Igel’strom stressed the close relations between Kazakhs and Mufti Khusainov, who was shown «great deference» and held in the Kazakhs’ «superb trust»9. Kazakhs referred to the Tatar translator Mendiyar Bekchurin (1740-1821) as the «head in all of our affairs».Khan Ayhsuak’s letter from 1803 to the Minister of Internal Affairs, V. P. Kochubei, stated that, through «his penetrating and rare wit», Bekchurin had won the love and confidence of the Kazakh people. Other elders and biys from the Junior Juz frequently commented upon Bekchurin’s sharp mind10. It is notable that  Kazakh  officials only described Tatars as the «heads of our affairs» in documents from the last quarter of the eighteenth century. Presumably, the Kazakh elders used these descriptions at that time because it was one of the most difficult periods in Kazakh history. It was at this time that the traditional system of governance among Kazakhs was being transformed by the khan’s weakening authority, the growth of inter-clan struggles, and an increase in the practice of barymta11 (the armed raid of livestock used as revenge for perceived injustices). This was also when the regional Vyatkin M. Batyr Srym. – Almaty: Isdatelstvo Akademii nauk, 1947. – P.123. TSGA RK, f. 4, op. 1, d. 1223. 10 Materialy po istorii Kazakhskoi SSR. 1785-1828. – Moscow: Academiya nauk SSSR. 1948, document 65. – P.212. 11 See: Martin V. Law and custom in the Steppe. The Kazakh of the Middle Horde and Russian colonialism in the nineteenth century London: Curson Press, 2001. 8 9

98

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

administration first attempted to change the system of rule over the Kazakhs through Governor Igel’strom’s reforms. These circumstances made members of the Kazakh elite more aware of the need for strong leadership in the Steppe with the support of both Russian authorities and local communities. Thus, it is not surprising that, in the 1790s, the Kazakh biys KaraKobek and Shubar came to believe that Kazakhs could be controlled by Mufti Khusainov12.  It is also in this period that Tatars were seen by Kazakh elites as models for interacting with Russian authorities. In the  first half of the nineteenth century,  there was  a somewhat different trend in how the Kazakh nobility characterized Tatar  officials.  Instead of emphasizing the officials’ knowledge and leadership in Kazakh affairs, they noted how the officials’ activities inspired understanding of the «concept of Russian laws» [among Kazakhs] and helped to «maintain peace and quiet between them [Kazakhs]», and so on13. In other words, Kazakh elites no longer  saw Tatars as «leaders», but rather as mediators who could resolve conflicts between Kazakhs, Russians, and the Russian administration. For example, the khan of the Inner Horde, Jangir (r. 1825-1845) wrote in a petition that the work of qazi, and later akhun, Jabir Khammatov (1790-1875), contributed to the moderation of «the morals and manners» of the Kazakhs in a way that aided their «submission and loyalty to the Russian government»14. All of the documents discussed above highlight how Tatar officials, as the Kazakhs’ co-religionists and officials of the Russian Empire, began to serve as models for Kazakh nobles who were in the process of formulating their loyalty for the Empire. This is underscored by the fact that members of the Kazakh elite considered it important to teach their children Tatar, the language of official correspondence between the Empire and Steppe. It was only in the second half of the nineteenth century that Kazakhs needed to know Russian in order to advance their careers in the Russian service. Sultans Almuhamed and Tleymuhamed Materialy po istorii Kazakhskoi SSR. 1785-1828. T. 4 document 51. – Pp.132-135. GAOrO f.6, op.10, d.2096а. p.208об.; f.6, op.10 d.2060. P.83; RGIA f.1291. op.81. d.71. – P.37. 14 TsGA RK f 4, op 1. d. 2126. – Pp. 6-9. 12 13

Kazakh perceptions of Tatar officials in...

99

Seydalin are two of the best examples of Kazakhs who were able to make a career in Russian service in the second half of the nineteenth century due to their excellent knowledge of both Tatar and Russian15. In spite of this general positive attitude toward Tatars, Kazakhs occasionally rejected some of these officials. For example, when Khan Abulkhair (Junior Juz, 1693-1748) learned that mullah Almuhammet reported everything to the Orenburg administration, he decried him as a «traitor» and placed him in custody for forty days. Later, in February 1743, the khan forgave him, recalled him to service, and ordered that, in the future, he «not go anywhere» and «not show zeal for the Russian state»16. Temir Uraliev, a sultan in the Junior Juz, found it necessary to request the removal of imam Ismail Urazmetev (appointed on May 12, 1817) since he had lost his «good name and moral standing» among the Kazakhs. Uraliev’s opinion was based on the fact that, once appointed, the imam refused to obey the sultan’s orders or perform the assigned duties17. Members of the Kazakh elite had a different assessment of the activities of M.-Sh. Adrakhimov, a mullah from the Kokchetav outer district. On November 30, 1828 a senior sultan of the district, Ablai Gabbasov(r.1828-1832)18, his brother, Abulkhair, biy Altybai Mardanov, and the elder Jandai Toktamyshev submitted a petition to the governor of Omsk province, V.I. de Saint-Laurent (1827-1835), requesting that this mullah be removed since his trips to the volost had caused «offence and frustration» among elders and ordinary Kazakhs. De Saint-Laurent resolved «to dismiss M.-Sh.Abdrahimov from the position of clerk and remove him from the district»19. Yet not all members of the Kazakh elite agreed with the regional governor’s decision. Sultan Seitkul Chinghisov, head of the Karacha Zhavlybaivsk volost, along with biys of the Karaulsky GAOrO, f 6.op.10.d.1400. – P.28. Kazakhsko-russkie otnosheniia v XVI-XVIII vekakh. Sbornik dokumentov i materialov document 108 .Alma-Ata: Nauka. 1961. – p.280. 17 TsGA RK f.4 op.1 d. 243. – P.55. 18 About Ablai Gabbasov see: Zhanaev B. O pochetneishikh i vliatelnukh ordyntsakh. Istoria Kazakhstana v russkikh istochnikakh XVI-XX vekov Tom VIII Ch.1 Almaty: Daik Press, 2006. – P. 29,41,51. 19 TsGa RK f.338 op.1d.484. L. 10-11. 15 16

100

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

volost,  testified that mullah  Abdrakhimov «was a very  kind man», had caused «no harm to anyone», hated «evil deeds», and had never been considered «with a bad opinion» in the Kazakh auls. Sultan Utenia Kambarov and biys of the Idykbay-Koshkarsky volost were confident that Abdrahimov  held «no adverse thoughts» toward the law. Shankhai Kuchukhanov, the sultan of Naisansky volost, considered the mullah trustworthy and «the best in his rank», because in 1822 he gave «guidance» and led the «oath» for the sultan and his children among subordinate Kazakhs20. In the Karkarala outer district, Kazakhs complained about the repeated «embarrassments» caused by the appointed mullah, F akhrutdin Fatkullin, and his son, both of whom were from the village Kiklovoy in the Tsarekokshalsky district of Kazan province21. These «embarrassments» were caused by the mullah’s repeated practice of extortion. Examples such as these were numerous in other regions of the Kazakh Steppe. They were likely caused by the personal relationships that developed between official Tatars and Kazakhs and the fact that mullahs were often simultaneously engaged in usurious trade in the Steppe, a point that will be discussed further in another section of this article. Kazakhs also gave Tatar officials different nicknames. For example, an interpreter from the Orenburg Frontier Commission, MuhammedSharif Aitov, was called ������������������������������������������� «������������������������������������������ Karatolmach» (black interpreter) and mullah Gabdrahman Bakiyev (from the village Kilyuma in the Belebinsky district of Orenburg province), who served in the Neiman-subansky volost with sultan Bopa Abdulfeizov, was called «Kyzylmullah» (red mullah). These nicknames may have derived from the fact that their beards were black or red22. However, it is likely that these nicknames signify something else about both of these figures.  In Kazakh, the word «kara» (black) has many meanings; a Kazakh explanatory dictionary lists more than 50 meanings for this one word23. First of all, TsGa RK  RK f.338 op.1d.484 – Pp. 7, 21-22. TsGa RK  f.374.op.1 d. 1852. Pp.1-3. 22 TsGa RK  f. 338 op.1 d.625. – P 34. 23 See. Explanatory dictionary of the Kazakh language [Қа­зақ ті­лі­нің тү­сін­дір­ ме сөз­ді­ғі] Authors: A.Balgimbaev, S.Murzabekov and others. – Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1982 – T.6. – Pp.36-59; Қа­зақ ті­лі­нің сөз­ді­ғі (Kazakh dictionary). Almaty: Gylym, 1999. – Pp. 376-378. 20 21

Kazakh perceptions of Tatar officials in...

101

black could be used to describe appearance, for instance, black eyes, hair, and complexion. Figuratively, the word «kara» also means a competent person who can persuade others and express their thoughts correctly. Furthermore, ���������������������������������������������� «��������������������������������������������� kara» could be used to describe a man’s personality as simple, harsh, cruel, and etc. Kazakhs did not simply give Aitov the nickname Karatolmach without reason. The nickname likely described various aspects of his position as an expert and interpreter. Most importantly, the name reflected the attitude of the Kazakhs who saw him as an educated, humble man. This is supported by the fact that the sultan-governor [sultan-pravitel’] of the Western division, majorgeneral Baimuhamed Aichuakov (r.1830-1847), and sultan-governor of the Eastern division, the colonel Araslan Dzhantiurin (r.1841-1851) stayed in Aitov’s house during a business visit to Orenburg24. That Aitov received a second name demonstrates that he was a prominent figure in the Steppe. How Kazakhs perceived Tatars as farmers The collections of the central archives of Kazakhstan contain petitions from Kazakh sultans and elders of the Middle Juz to the regional administration concerning the invitation of Tatars to permanently settle in the Steppe and serve as representatives of a settled, agricultural lifestyle. These residents could serve as examples for motivating Kazakhs to grow accustomed to arable farming and the settled life. For example, in 1827, the senior sultan of Kokchetav outer okrug, collegiate assessor Toktamysh Yanuzakov  wrote that, «wishing to involve Kazakh population in arable farming and construction of houses», he invited Sabit Kurbangaliev and Izatulla Gibatullin, two Tatars from the village Tashkina in Kazan province, «to show»  Kazakhs the benefits of farming and the skills needed to sell livestock and purchase necessary goods. In addition��������������������������������������������������������������� , the sultan noted that the Tatar Hasametdin Huseinov (of Orenburg province) had previously performed these functions well while also serving as a teacher and mullah25. Tatars who settled in the Steppe were typically aware of their mission; in their petitions to regional authorities, they drew attention to TsGA RK f.4 op.1.d.382. – P.6-7. TsGA RK f. 338 op1. d.396 – Pp.155-156.

24

25

102

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

the fact that their «settlement among the Kazakhs would be useful» since Kazakhs would trust them «as brothers in faith» and would therefore be able to learn from them �������������������������������� «������������������������������� the art of tillage and the construction of permanent housing»26. The life of Usman Mavliutov27, a Tatar of Tobolsk province, is a striking example of how Kazakhs perceived some Tatars as able to help them become accustomed to arable farming. On April 3, 1830, Abdulmamet Valiev, the senior sultan of Kokchetav outer district, invited Mavliutov to settle on the  Tasybek-Togai tract (about 40 versts from Fort Novonikolaevsk in Kokchetav outer district) for the purpose of «making arable land».The sultan believed that Kazakhs who had not had experience with tillage would be able to learn appropriate farming practices by living in the same area; they would also become convinced of the «essential benefits of a settled life». The sultan stressed that Mavliutov’s family could serve as an example for the occupation that had previously been «strange to people who were not able to use farming implements or not used to sowing seeds, and to this day had not become accustomed with these skills». Furthermore, the sultan offered to build on the allotted land «a school house and a mosque» at his own expense. He proposed appointing Mavliutov’s son, Seifulmulliuk, to the position of mullah and teacher and Mavliutov’s brother, Baktash, as the muezzin (the leader of the call to prayer). At the same time, Kazakh elders appealed to the regional authorities, noting that Mavliutov and his five sons were known to all of the Kazakhs of the district and that they would like to see «this useful person be our guide, mentor, and teacher»28.  It is important to note that the decision to allot land for permanent settlement to Usman Mavliutov’s distinguished family was supported by other Kazakhs in the volost. TsGA RK f. 338 op. 1 d.797 – Pp. 1-8. He knew the steppe and the Kazakhs well, because July 22, 1822 by the order of the general-governor of the West Siberian general-governorship he was sent to the Kazakh nomads camps with Russian officials as an interpreter to explain the content of the «Charter of ..», then he served as the he mullah of the sultan Itek Yandosov, governor of Balta-Kirevskaya volost. [TsGA RK f.338, op.1.d.396.p.204.]. 28 TSGA RK f. 338op.1 d. 834 – Pp.1-58. 26 27

Kazakh perceptions of Tatar officials in...

103

The khan of the Inner Horde, Jangir had the same opinion as the aforementioned elders  of the Middle  Juz. He believed that Tatars could share knowledge of their agricultural practices by living amongst Kazakhs. In his view, marriage between Kazakhs and their settled co-religionists, particularly Bashkirs and Tatars, would help strengthen Kazakhs’ attachment to land. According to him, every Kazakh with a Tatar wife who was accustomed to settlement ���������� «��������� will himself arrange a permanent [place for] wintering and will build the house where his wife will care for the household»29. One of the mechanisms or ways to address this issue, Jangir khan believed, was to abolish Empress Elizabeth’s ukase from May 17, 1747 that forbid Bashkirs and Tatars from Kazan and Orenburg to enter into marriages with Kazakhs. In fact, this ukase was often ignored and marriages between Kazakhs and their settled co-religionists had not been eliminated. This was evident in the fact that the late khan of the Inner Horde, Bukei (r. 1812-15), had supported marriages between Kazakh sultans and Tatar women. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the akhun Jabar Khammatov, a Tatar from the Kazan province, was one of the largest landowners in the Inner Horde. He owned approximately 12,000 acres of land near the capital, Khanskaia Stavka30. In his well-known essay «Gaklii», the famous Kazakh poet Abai Kunanbaev (1845- 1904) welcomed Tatars who, as models for agricultural occupations, worked  for the benefit of  the Kazakh people. He often characterized Tatars as hard working. Abai wrote with conviction that, with hard work, Tatars were able to make a fortune, learn new crafts, take care of mullahs  and madrasas; such people, he noted, would never be lost (Word 2). As representatives of settled, agricultural lifestyle, Volga Tatars were thus the first to demonstrate to Kazakhs the possibility of gradually settling and engaging in agricultural work. Tatars were able to serve as an example in this way because their interactions with Kazakhs were easy History of Bukei Horde (1801-1852) Sbornik materialov i dokumentov. document 294. Almaty: Daik Pressб 2002. – pp. 400- 4001.A decree (ukaz) on May 17th of 1747 on the Prohibition to Bashkirs and Tatars, as from Kazan and Orenburg district to marry with the Kazakhs was functioned in over a century, and was repealed in 1846 as « ... the measure is unnecessary» RGIA 1291,оp.81.d.178. p.1; , GAOrO f.6.оp.10.d.5280. P.18-19. 30 TsGA f 4, op 1. d.5440. – P 54-55. 29

104

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

and peaceful, shaped as they were by shared membership in an ethnolinguistic group (Kipchak Turkic) and religious system (Sunni Islam). Kazakh’s perception of the Tatars as traders The Tatar-merchant in the Steppe was known more as the deliverer of the manufactured goods required by the nomadic Kazakhs. Often, the Tatar merchant was also the embodiment of the mullah and teacher of Tatar language. As C. Valikhanov wrote, «our Tatar merchants should be recognized as the main drivers of this (Muslim) education»31. This is confirmed by the regional administration, which noted that many Tatar mullahs were simultaneously occupied with commercial business in the Steppe. As the pre-revolutionary scholar A. Krasovskii wrote, «If there is an opportunity to engage in commerce, then, of course, a mullah will easily do it … because the title of mullah among the Kyrgyz [Kazakhs] is less honorable than the title of merchant»32. As the  researcher  K. Noack has noted, one out of every five merchants who lived in the Steppe was a merchant33. In accordance with the commercial nature of this activity, most of the Tatar population was concentrated in the cities, towns, and settlements in the Kazakh Steppe. To this day, the areas where Tatar settlements were established are evident in the use of the toponym «Tatarka» for some cities in Kazakhstan34. In these places, the Tatars had their own homes, trade shops, or stores. Moreover, as Mashkhur Zhusip Kopei-uly has underscored, as traders, Tatar mullahs could use their own ша­кир­дов (?) as allies in commerce35. 31 Valikhanov Ch. О musulmanstve v stepi. //Sobranie sochinenii v piatu tomakh .AlmaAta: Nauka, 1985. – T. 4. – Pp.118-124. 32 Krasovsky N. Oblast sibirskih kirgisov. Materialy dlya geografii I statistiki Rossii, sobrannyae ofizerami Generalnogo shtaba. Sankt Peterburg. 1868. Chast’ 1-3. – P.457. 33 Noack K. Nekotorye osobennosti sozialnoi structury povolzhskih tatar v epohy formirovaniya nazii (konez XIX – nachalo XX vv.) Journal Otechesvennaya istoriya, 1998. – N 5. – Pp.147-158. 34 See: Sultangalieva G. Torgovyi rynok Uzhnogo Urala i Zapadngo Kazakhstana: voprosy  mezhregionalnogo vzaimodeistviya (vtoraya polovina XVIII-XIX vv.) Volgo-Uralskii region v imperskom prostanstve XVIII-XX vv. Moskow: Vostochnaya literature, 2011. – P. 14-38 35 Kopeiuly, Mashkur Zhusip, Sochinenia (Shygarmalary). – Almaty: El-Shchezheres., 2010. – P. 279-81.

Kazakh perceptions of Tatar officials in...

105

According to the Astrakhan regional statistical committee, at the end of the nineteenth century, Tatars comprised half of the population of Novaia Kazanka in the Inner Horde and 30% of the population of Talovka. In general, these Tatars were merchants. At this same time, some Tatars of Talovka reported that Kazakhs were «��������������� gradually growing closer to us», had received from them skills in «trade relations», and had even become «civilized in the sale of cattle and the purchase of required goods». In addition to this, some Kazakhs had «����� ������ them36 selves begun to engage in trade in [their] auls» . Kazakh perceptions of Tatar merchants are reflected in Kazakh proverbs that often described as crafty and wily. Consider, for instance, the saying that «Tatar jurgen zherde kater bar», or «there is always danger where a Tartar walks».  Another illustrative example is the proverb contained in Kopei-uly’s Collected Works, that «Tatar kolyna deneme tuspese, atasy da bolsa, satar», or ��������������������� «�������������������� If a Tatar has noth37 ing, then he might even sell his father» . Influencing these perceptions was the usurious  nature of Tatars’ commerce in the Steppe. The pre-revolutionary researcher I. Anichkov wrote that Kazakhs, with their «flocks  and herds», have ������������������������������������������������������������� «������������������������������������������������������������ long been the object Tatars’ deals, especially in the northern part of the Steppe, [where] they acted as intermediaries between primary producers and representatives of the manufacturing industry» 38. One way for these merchants to become rich was through the distribution of goods «under various pretexts, at high prices and on credit».  The interest charged on this credit could be so high that Tatars received returns from 40 to 100% on the original loan39. The archives include numerous reports from creditors concerning Kazakhs’ failures to pay debts. Debtors were expected to pay these loans mainly in cattle. In one case, a debt in the amount of 23,142 horses was paid to A. Abdrashitov, a Tatar merchant of the third guild. This instance substantiates the claim that Tatars charged Kazakhs high interest rates. RGIA f.1291 оp.82.d.4. – P.26. Ibid. 38 Anichkov  I  Upadok narodnogo hosyaistva v kirghizkih stepyah Journal  Russkaya mysl’. –1902. – N.5. – P.50-73. 39 GAOrO f.6, op.10.d.1009.p.11, TsGA f.4, op.1.d.290. – P.54. 36 37

106

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

As a result, the Orenburg administration began to dismiss Tatar merchants from the steppe, so that they could only receive payments «with the voluntary agreement of the residents of the Horde. «Thus, a Tatar, having accumulated a certain amount of capital, usually tried to stay in the Steppe. A well-known Kazakh saying is that a wealthy Russian builds a house, but «a wealthy Tatar marries». A translator from the Governor-Generalship of Turkestan, Sh. Ibragimov, noted that, having married a Kazakh woman, a Tatar was able to gather reliable patrons from his wife’s family. This made his path to becoming an official mullah that much easier40. Famous merchants in the Kazakh steppe who owned shops, restaurants, hotels, and rooming houses included the Gabasovs, Yaushevs, Shagadullins, and Alyukovs. Another thing that affected Kazakh perceptions of Tatar merchants in the beginning of the twentieth century is the fact that they not only led the creation of trading companies, but also sponsored the opening of new method schools [mektebs], religious colleges [madrasas], and Muslim charitable organizations in the Kazakh Steppe.     Conclusion Kazakh perceptions of Tatars changed throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The extent of these changes varied depending on political events, the awareness of Kazakhs, and their ability to conduct an unbiased analysis. This system of perception was multilayered and influenced by various aspects of social reality. The first layer of this system reflects the attitude of Kazakh elites toward Tatar  officials (interpreters, translators, clerks, and mullahs), who had been in constant, close interaction with Kazakhs. Elite Kazakh perceptions of Tatar officials were based on several processes that operated simultaneously: emotional assessments, attempts to understand the pattern of Tatars’ behaviors, the recognition of these behaviours as strategic, and the construction of a strategy to alter their own behaviour accordingly.  Perceiving Tatars’ behaviors and actions in this 40 Ibragimov Sh. O mullah v Kirghizskih  stepyah  Materialy  dlya statistiki Turkestanskogo kraya  V.3 Sanct - Peterburg, 1874. – P. 353-361.

Kazakh perceptions of Tatar officials in...

107

way was key for members of the Kazakh elite who sought to preserve their power and influence, which were no longer determined by genealogical descent from a certain clan. Instead, they were determined by swearing one’s loyalty to ����������������������������������������� «���������������������������������������� the tsar and the fatherland»,  developing one’s personal skills, and the ability to draw one’s family, group, or tribe into the empire’s service. Kazakh sultans and elders came to see Tatars as models for how to adapt to the new political culture, for these co-religionists had become officials in the Russian administration, been successfully promoted, attained high ranks, and accrued benefits and privileges for their diligence and efficiency. In other words, through their work, Tatar officials showed the Kazakh nobility how to adapt to the new regional administrations (the Orenburg and Western Siberian Governor-Generalships), to manoeuvre between regional administrations and the center, and to establish personal contacts with Russian authorities. They also demonstrated the methods that could be used to persuade the Russian administration to reach certain decisions. Most importantly, Kazakhs came to see the Tatar official as a representative of the new [imperial] power with the means to influence people. Of course, Kazakhs’ perceptions of Tatars were selective. Kazakh elders usually solicited the administration on behalf of the particular Tatars they wanted to serve as mullahs or clerks in their nomadic encampments. When they did this, they would also draw the administration’s attention to the fact that they knew of the Tatar’s personal qualities, prior experience, knowledge, and etc.  The members of the Kazakh elite also understood the importance of teaching their children to become literate in Tatar. There is a reason that the Kazakhs have a saying, «tatarga tilmash kerek emes», or «a Tatar does not need an interpreter»). This saying reflects the idea that, because a Tatar is literate and knows other languages (especially Russian), he is powerful in his ability to freely express demands during negotiations with Russian authorities. Second, Kazakh perceptions of Tatars also reflected the views of ordinary nomads, who had more contacts with Tatar merchants and mullahs. Here Kazakhs’ perspectives on Tatars varied widely, from

108

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

the fear of being in debt to Tatar merchants to the desire to establish friendly relations. On the one hand, Kazakhs characterized Tatars as cunning, prudent, and dangerous. This is clearly displayed in the works of Kazakh poet Mashkur Zhusip Kopei-uly (1858-1931). In his view, Kazakhs perceived Tatars as litigious [daukes], seeking only quarrels [zhanshyl] and presenting claims on Kazakhs, and so forth41. Consonant with Zh. Kopei-uly’s ideas are the findings of Russian ethnographer, Vladimir von Gern, who noted that, in contrast to Tatars, Kazakhs did not love to slander and disputes. Tatars lived in the Steppe for profit and winning lawsuits against the clumsy Steppe inhabitants, the Kazakhs42. And, in his poem «���������������������� ����������������������� Okhaivaiushchie (plokho otzyvaiushchie) o Kazakhakh», Kopei-uly wrote that Tatars viewed Kazakhs and the Steppe only as a means of enrichment43. On the other hand, Tatars were also often called «tamyr» (blood brothers). This is explained by a the fact that Tatars and Kazakhs shared a common historical origin and belonged to the same system of Turkic languages, so that it was easy to develop kin relations, especially through marriage. In this context the term «shalakazah» 44 (half-Kazakh) is interesting in that it reflects the children born from marriages between Tatar men and Kazakh women or Kazakh men and Tatar women. Most of these �������������������������������������� «������������������������������������� shalakazakh» were descendants of Tatars who settled in the Steppe. Even before outer districts were open to settlement, Tatars settled in some areas of the Steppe with the permission of Kazakh sultans and khans. Here they shared in the hardships of nomadic life to an old age; here they gave their daughters in marriage, in the process establishing new families and dynasties. More than 465 Tatar children were born in the Steppe in the 1830s. All of them were later enlisted in the outer districtof the West Siberian General-Governship on equal terms with Kazakhs. This meant they performed all 41 Kopei-uly Nogai-Kazak Shezheresinin zhazyly // Sochineniia (Shygarmalary). – Almaty, El-Shezhere, 2010. – P. 279-81. 42 Von Gern, V. K., Kharakter I nravy Kazakhov. – Astana: Altyn Kitap, 2007. – P. 10. 43 Kopei-uly M. Kazakty zhamandaushylarga / Tandamaldy. – Almaty: Khalykaralyk abai kluby, 2008. – P. 114-15. 44 See: Zhanaev B. Shala-kazakhi v XIX- nachalo XXv.: proishozhdenie,rasselenie,sanya tie. Rol’ nomadov v formirovanii kulturnogo nasledia Kazakhstana. Nauchnye chtenia pamyati N.E. Masanova. Almaty: Print-S, 2010. – P. 272-305.

Kazakh perceptions of Tatar officials in...

109

of the obligations of the Kazakh population, particularly the payment of tribute to the imperial treasury. This was first described by Khalid Kurbangali in the Aiaguzsky district45. In turn, Tatars began to see themselves as mentors in the Steppe who were able to provide knowledge about settled life and to aid Kazakhs in the process of adapting to the structure of Russian imperial rule. It is not coincidental that M. Zh. Kopei-uly highlighted that Tatars only conversed with Kazakhs in a didactic manner [nakliia]46. Even though Tatars considered Kazakhs Muslims, they nonetheless underscored that, unlike Kazakhs, they were more adept in «religious rituals and beliefs» since they had come to Islam sooner. As a document from the Central State Archive of the Republic of Kazakhstan highlights, the Tatars of the city Kokchetava did not want to attend the primary mosque since its official mullah was the Kazakh Nauryzbai Talasov. The Tatar population, totaling 228 (д. м. п.?) appealed to the Tatar mullah, Mukhamed-Sadyk Karimov, rather than the Kazakh one for all of their Islamic rituals. Furthermore, one two occasions (on March 12 and July 4, 1887) they requested permission to build a Tatar mosque since only Kazakhs attended the existing primary mosque. In most cases the image of the Tatars in the minds of the Kazakh people is positive. Specifically, Tatars were perceived by Kazakhs as hardworking, educated, and clean. Typically, if a Tatar mullah lived in a Kazakh village [aul], then Muslim schools were opened so that Kazakh children could study. In this schools, Tatar language books served as basic textbooks. It is not surprising then that the initiative of Tatar traders led to the opening of new method mektebs and madrasas were among the Kazakh population in the late 19th century.

Tavarikh khamsa (Bez Tarikh). – Almaty: Kazakhstan, 1992. – P.155. Kopei-uly Nogai-Kazak Shezheresinin zhazyly Sochineniia (Shygarmalary. – Almaty: El-Shezhere, 2010. – P. 279-81. 45 46

110

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

5. Junior officials on special assignments in the administration of the Kazakh steppe in the second half of the 19th century: ranks, functions and areas of activity

The intention of the policy of the Russian Empire in the Kazakh steppe during the 19th century was not only to create a single administrative-territorial system (guberniya, uezd, and volost), but also to see the involvement of representatives of the Kazakh elite in the service of the emperor and thus the formation of a new class: Kazakh officials. The strategic policy of the Russian authorities in this area includes the following measures: The creation of positions in the local government for representatives of the Kazakh population The dissemination among the Kazakh nomadic society of the «Table of Ranks» of Peter I, which was laid down as a mechanism for rank and career advancement; The introduction of prestigious orders and medals. (St. Anne and St. Stanislaus of the 1st to 3rd degree). August 9, 1844 the government issued a decree that «in giving Orders, we shall award Muslims under the image of the Imperial Eagle instead of the under the image of St. George’s cross». The appointment of certain salaries and pensions; The inclusion of Kazakhs into a single national system of accounting officials at all levels of government, namely the preparation of service records. 110

Junior officials on special assignments in...

111

As a result, the Kazakhs appointed to posts received all the attributes of an official of the administrative apparatus of the Empire: a state salary, an officer’s rank, the right to wear a uniform with insignia, as well as medals, Orders, and gifts. The issues of state service in the multi-national regions of the Russian Empire have become subjects of study only in recent decades1. However more prevail works exclusively on activities of the Governors-General in the regional governments of the Russian Empire. This is explained by the value of the top officials of the regional administration (the Governor-General) and interest of historians to representatives of the Russian officials who contributed to the development of strategy of the government, who carried out the decisions of the supreme power in the region, who regulated the interactions of members of different social strates, religions, and ways of life in such multi-national regions as Siberia, the Caucasus, and Kazakhstan. Meanwhile, representatives of the Kazakh population in the first half of the 19th century were represented in the middle layer (Sultan-rulers) and from the second half of the 19th century were seen only in the lower levels of management (at the volost and aul level). In Kazakh historiography, more attention was paid to the issues of the formation of the Kazakh intelligentsia2, and their scholarly and social-political activities in the Steppe3, although many of them were serving in the regional governments (in Orenburg, West-Siberia, and Turkestan Governor-Generalship), but their activities were not considered as part of the process of entry into the common space of 1 Remnev A. Regional’nyye parametry imperskoy «geografii vlasti» ( Sibir’ i Dal’niy Vostok ).// Ab Imperio. – № 3-4.2000. – S.343-358.; N.P. Matkhanova Sibirskiy administrativnyy apparat v XIXv. – Novosibirsk: Nauka, 2003; Ona zhe: General - gubernatory Vostochnoy Sibiri serediny XIXv. – Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1998 Gubernatory Orenburgskogo kraya. Orenburg. Orenb.kn.izd – vo, 1999.; K.Matsuzato General – gubernatorstva v Rossiyskoy imperii: ot etnicheskogo k prostranstvennomu podkhodu. // Novaya imperskaya istoriya postsovetskogo prostranstva. – Kazan’: Izd-vo Kazanskogo un-ta, 2004. – S. 427-458; Alex Marshall The Russian general staff and Asia. 1800-1917. – London: Routledge, 2006. 2 Sozakbayev S.U. Peterburgskiy universitet v istorii politicheskoy i pravovoy mysli Kazakhstana (vtoraya polovina XIX – nachalo XX vv.). Avtoref. diss… k.yu.n. Alma-Ata, 1985; Kenzhetayev B.A. Kazanskiye uchebnyye zavedeniya i protsess formirovaniya kazakhskoy intelligentsii v ser. KHIKH – nachale KHKH vv. – Kazan’: «PIF», 1996. 3 Zimanov S.Z., Idrisov K.Z. Social and political views Mukhamedzhan Seralina. – Alma-Ata, 1989.

112

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

the Russian bureaucracy in the empire. Recently, we have seen more work on the formation of Kazakh officialdom in the Orenburg region4 and the formation of local government in the Turkestan region5. At the same time, there are important questions of historiography in identifying regional features and general trends in the formation of bureaucracy in the Russian Empire. Naturally, the principle of formation of the bureaucratic apparatus on the non-Russian territories (the Kazakh Steppe, the Volga-Ural region, the Caucasus, etc.) differs from that in the interior provinces of the Empire. The socio-political processes of integration required by the supreme power enhanced both its ability to control and monitor. However, there were general criteria for the formation of the Russian bureaucracy, namely the mechanism of placing non-Russian elites within the upper class of the Russian empire – hereditary and personal nobility. Based on this, some historians focused on the Muslim nobility in the Russian Empire, in particular of the Tatars, Bashkirs, and Kazakhs6. Also noteworthy is the fact, that the staffing of the management apparatus, in both the interior Russian provinces and in the non-Russian governor-Generalships (Ukraine, Caucasus, Kazakh Steppe) was established position of official on special assignments. On November 20, 1835, Nicholas I approved the order of the State Council «About officials on special assignments in various departments», where it was emphasized that their duties did not fit within the normal» range of behavior for staff, because their function was to execute secret orders of the regional or supreme imperial power. In accordance with the decree, the number of officials on special assignments could not be the same, as it depended on the cases which were trusted to them. But most importantly, they were included in the number of representatives of the civil service and were 4 Sultangalieva G.S. Kazakh officials Orenburg agencies: the formation and activity (XIX century) // Acta Slavica Japonica. – Sapporo, 2009. – T 27. – S.77-101. 5 Abashin S. Empire and the local government: the ideology of reforms in Russian Turkestan in the late XIX - early XX centuries.// Space power: Russia’s historical experience and challenges. – M., 2001. – S.391-413. 6 Arapov D.I. Muslim nobility in the Russian Empire // International historical zhurnal. №3. May-iyun.1999. Aznabayev B.A.Ufimskoe nobility at the end of the sixteenth century - the first third of XVIII. (agriculture, social composition, service). – Ufa, 1999; Enikeev S. Essay on the history of the Tatar nobility. Ufa, 1999.; Ilyasova A.Y. Formirovaniye bashkirskogo dvoryanstva.// Natsional’nyye i yazykovyye protsessy v respublike Bashkortostan: istoriya i sovremennost’. Informatsionnyy byulleten’. – Ufa, 2006. – S.138-144.

Junior officials on special assignments in...

113

to be placed under ministers, administered by the Departments, also under the Governor-Generalship, military, and civilian governors7. On the basis of this decree and by the introduction of «Provisional Regulations on the Management of the Steppe Regions of Orenburg and West Siberian Governor-Generalships» of October 21, 1868 was included post of (1) senior and (2) junior officials on special assignments to the staffing of the Governor-Generalship and military governors. Representatives of the Kazakh population could qualify as junior officials on special assignment. This raised a range of questions for me. What was the principle of co-optation of Kazakhs for the positions of junior officials on special assignments? What duties they received on these positions? How were they different from similar officials in other regions of the empire? What was the level of education of these officials? What kind of social welfare (salaries, pensions, awards, etc.). had the junior officials on special assignments? This essay is based on a set of documentary materials extracted from TsGARK, the Central State Archive of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The first interest is in the service records of official on special assignment. There are documents reflecting the complaints of the Kazakh population at the oblast and uezd level. This study raises the issue not only of a new layer of personalities in the history of Kazakhstan, but also poses new challenges to the comparative study of imperial management practices in the steppe with other regions of the Empire, in particular the Caucasus, Volga-Ural region, etc. Mechanism for the appointment of Special Officials From the 60s of XIX c. started new stage in the policy of the government. Firstly, the process of integrating the Kazakh steppe into the empire war completed. The government faced challenges to unify system of administration. In July of 1867, Alexander II issued a decree on the establishment of a Turkestan Governor-Generalship, which was to include Semirechie and the SyrDarya oblast (including the territory of the Senior Horde, 7 Polnoye sobraniye zakonov Rossiyskoy Imperii. T.10.Ch.2. – Sankt-Peterburg, 1835. – № 8595. – S.115-117.

114

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

the northern Kyrgyz, and part of the Central Asian Khanates), and on October 21, 1868, based on the «Provisional Regulations for the Management of the Steppe Regions of Orenburg and West-Siberian Governor-Generalship», the government created the Ural, Turgai, Akmolinsk, and Semipalatinsk oblasts. At the head of the regional administration was a military governor endowed with military and civilian authority. When the military governors were established in the regions, they included the relevant structural units. Officials on special assignment, directly subordinate to the military governor and included in a Secret detachment. The criteria for appointment to this position was complete trust of the governmental powers based on previous service that was illustrated by candidates on the post. They began their service in the 1820s and 1830s, during the beginning of administrative reforms in the Steppe and the desperate resistance of the Kazakh population against the newly-arrived power of the Russian Empire. They earned the trust of the government because by the 1860s, they already had experience in serving the Emperor and participated in activities from opening outside district among the Siberian Kirgiz (I. Dzhaikpaev), marking distances among the oblasts of the Orenburg Kirgiz (B. Kiyikin), promoting Russian troops on the territory of the Senior Horde (I. Dzhaikpaev), accompanying Russian troops through the Steppe during the Khiva campaign by Governor-Generalship V.Perovskii (D. Berkimbaev), control of kibitz tax from Kazakh population (D. Berkimbaev and B. Kyikin). Also they were members of the organizing committee for the introduction of the «Provisional Regulations on the Management of Orenburg and WestSiberial Governor-Generalships» of October 21, 1868 (S. Dzhantiurin, I. Dzhaikpaev, D. Berkimbaev, S. Dzhigangerov, and others). In fact, they were already administrators who had acquired skills as officials of the Oblast administration of Orenburg Kazakhs (T.Seydalin), Senior sultan of outside district (Ibrahim Dzhaikpaev), the assessor of the Regional Board of Orenburg Kazakhs (B.Kiykin), assistant of Sultan ruler (B. Kiykin), and distance Chief (D.Berkimbaev, B.Keykin). All of them by the time of appointment on post of officials on special assignment were already awarded by the Order of

Junior officials on special assignments in...

115

St. Stanislaus, 3rd degree, specially designed for Muslims. Moreover they had high military rank as Colonel (6th class, I. Dzhaikpaev), Lieutenant Colonel (7th class, S. Dzhantiurin), and civilian ranks, like Collegiate Assessor (8th class, T. Seidalin), and Titular Counselor (9th class, B. Syrtanov). On January 29, 1870, at the request of the military governor of Turgai oblast Lev Balliuzek to the Ministry of the Interior affairs extended the scope of article 792 of the Civil code (published in 1857 ) to the Turgai and Ural oblasts, which were granted the right to enter in the state office of supernumerary officials on special assignments, as in internal ethnic-Russian areas. They differed from regular officials on special assignment in that they did not receive a salary, but enjoyed the benefits of public service and could achieve ranks, Orders and medals. The military governor of the Turgai region L. Balliuzek believed it was important to involve the Kazakhs in government service. Those Kazakhs who, «…didn’t need for tangible rewards, but valued the title of an official» could be «useful figures, able to deliver accurate information and to execute orders» 8. An important principle of the appointment of representatives of the Kazakh population on the post of supernumerary official on special assignments was their high degree of influence on their. They should have been, according to Russian officials, representatives of the Kazakh elite, who «developed by the impact, from generation to generation elements of hereditary power» and for ordinary nomads « was unusual to see them out of post»9. The Kazakh junior and supernumerary officials on special assignment belonged mainly to the Kazakh elite, namely sultans and biys. Their level of education was different from the graduates of the Oriental studies department of the St. Petersburg University (B. Syrtanov), the Orenburg Kadetskii Korpus (T. Seidalin, S. Dzhantiurin), the Siberian military gymnasium (I. Ablaikhanov), the Kazakh school under the Orenburg border commission (B. Urunbaev, A. Tiul’kubaev) and to persons who received their education at home, though perfectly fluent in Russian and Tatar languages. 8 9

TsGA RK. F. 25. Op.2. D.103. L.2-3. TsGA RK. F. 25. Op.2. D.103. L.2-3..

116

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

Activities of Junior Officials on Special Assignment

The officials on special assignment had the status of state councilors, the right hand men of the military governors. Accordingly,

the priority of state officials on special assignment was to gather and provide information to the governor and adequately reflected the social process of introduction of reform of empire’s policy. Thus, the military governor of Turgai region L. Balliuzek, during the appointment of D. Berkimbaev to the post of officials on special assignment, wrote that he could collect the «permanent, accurate, and detailed information about affairs in the Steppe, and the mood of the minds of the population», and this was important, because each case of nomadic society «had great importance for the success of measures taken by Russian authority in the oblast». On the other hand, an official on special assignment in collected date gave own point of view of the situation in the steppe to the regional authority, suggesting ways to resolve tensions, and tracking the effectiveness of the measures already taken in the Steppe by the imperial power. The chief of Turgai district colonel Iakovlev emphasized exactly this factor of their activities, he wrote that officials «…could always and everywhere insert their beneficial opinion»10 The field of activity of the officials on special assignments were varied: made revisions ​​ in the volost and aul administration, led investigations of kazakh’s complaints on abuse by representatives of local authorities, resolved land disputes between tribes, took measures to preserve peace and security in the Steppe. In addition, they were members of the regional commissions on the allocation of pasture between newly created administrative structures as uezds, volost and auls, as well as the definition nomadic routes, watering places among the tribes (B.Karpykov, T.Seydalin). They took part in the opening of Russian-Kazakh schools, not only at the uezds, but also at the volostand aul (D.Berkimbaev, S.Dzhantyurin, T.Seydalin). Another feature of activity of the official on special assignment was the fact that they almost always stayed out in the Steppe, being TsGA RK F.25 Op.2 D.74 L.1.

10

Junior officials on special assignments in...

117

in daily interaction with the Kazakh population, providing thereby the legitimacy of actions of the Russian administration. Usually the Governor-General gave the secret instructions to officials limiting with the following phrase «...go to this places for the gathering of information known to you ...». However, their activities may have been under risk. For example, Baikadam Urunbaev, in December of 1884, was in «aul number 6» as a supernumerary official on special assignment «…knowing the order and the laws», and oversaw the elections in Dambarskii volost in Nikolaevsk uezd, but was subjected to insults and physical violence by the other candidate. This incident reflects the difficult conditions of service for Kazakh officials, but on the other hand, when investigation process began, the Government faced the question: «Which court has jurisdiction over cases of officials originating from the Kazakhs, who are on service or retired?» As a result, on December 23rd, 1885, Alexander III approved the decision of the Governing Senate that Kazakh officials, like Urunbaev, «orinated from rural inhabitants and obtained the rights of other estates of the Russian Empire», and had rank, medals, Orders accordingly should be considered on the basis of the laws of the Empire11. It is noteworthy that the younger officials on special assignments were actively involved in public life as members of scientific societies, in particular, as members of the Orenburg branch of the Russian Geographical Society (T.Seydalin, D.Berkimbaev), as full members of the regional statistical Committee (D.Berkimbaev), and assisted in the collection of exhibits of Kazakh life for the Russian Exhibition of 1896 in Nizhny Novgorod (B.Karpykov, D.Berkimbaev). Others also helped conduct the 1-st Overall Census of the Russian Empire 1897 (T.Seydalin, D.Berkimbaev) and became Honorary Guardians of Russian-Kazakh schools (D.Berkimbaev). However, despite the different vectors of their actions, the duties of Kazakh officials were limited mostly to specific assignments from the regional Russian administration. In principle, none of the Kazakh officials initiated this or that project, although they participated in the development of government documents. TsGA RK F.25 Op.1 D.2658 L.1-24.

11

118

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

Conclusions Kazakhs in the service of the Russian Empire were significant figures and official guides of imperial policy in the Steppe. Often, the main motive of service of Kazakh nobility was not the material security for themselves and their families, but rather an «entry into power», that’s why they agreed to serve without salary, but with rank and medals,etc. The activities of the junior and supernumerary officials on special assignment under the military governor of the region belongs to the period when the success of administrative reforms depended from their «skill and tact». They were popularizers of actions the Russian authorities in the Steppe. In particular, they raised awareness of the importance of Russian education among the Kazakhs and opened many Russian-Kazakh schools in the Steppe. Reflection of the process of joining the Steppe to the allRussian space is the fact, that most junior officials on special assignment earned the Order of St. Stanislaus and St. Ann 2nd degree, St. Vladimir 3-rd degree. Moreover, D.Berkimbaev for achievements in public service received hereditary nobility by Governing Senate’s decision on December 13, 1900, and this was recorded by the Orenburg Assembly under number 229. The next sign of Kazakhs entering into all- Russian officialdom was the fact that the government rewarded them not only orders and medals, but also pieces of land and rights on property12. By the end of the 19th century, many of the officials on special assignment had property as wooden houses on the Suiargan tract ( A.Tyulbkubaev, S.Dzhigangerov), on the Burte river (B.Kiykin), a stone house on the river Or’ (D.Berkimbaev), and 6000 desiatin of land in Novouzensk uezd in the Samara guberniya (S.Dzhantyurin). The rich experience of administrative service, excellent knowledge of the life and culture of the Kazakh people, and the impact that they had on their fellows determined the further career growth for the junior officials on special assignment. For example, the career service of Tileu-Mohammed Seidalin was so successful, he had the rank of TsGA RK F. 369. Op.4 D.106. L.28-47.

12

Junior officials on special assignments in...

119

a collegiate councilor (6th class) and contrary to the Regulations on Administration in the Steppe regions he was appointed as chief of Turgay uezd twice (July 8, 1890 – April 5, 1891; August 1, 1896 – April 26 – 1897) and Aktobe uezd (September 17, 1892 – January 11, 1893). However this post was supposed to be only for Russian officers.

120

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

6. The Place of Kazakhstan in the Study of Central Asia

Among the republics of Central Asia13, Kazakhstan represents a distinct geographical, geopolitical, cultural, and historical entity. In the west and north, Kazakhstan constitutes a borderland belt [poias prigranich’ia] with Russia and its territories of the lower Volga, southern Urals, and Siberia. In the east, the region borders on China, while the southern and southeastern portions can be considered part of Central Asia. As a territory inhabited historically by nomads, Kazakhstan has seen its historical and cultural significance rise and fall, periodically becoming either the center or the periphery of ethno-political and ethno-cultural processes in the region. In this light a series of questions arise: What place does Kazakhstan occupy in Central Asia? Has Central Asia existed as a single and coherent region? What role has the study of Central Asia and Kazakhstan played in attempts to understand the state organization, history, and culture of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union? In my view, exploration of these questions should broaden academic interest in the history of Central Asia������������������������������������������������������ – a��������������������������������������������������� history that occupies a critical place in any effort to make sense of historical processes in neighboring countries such as China, Russia, Iran, and Afghanistan. A Complex Nomenclature Any attempt to answer these questions must begin with nomenclature, which proves to be especially complicated in the case of Ka13 Translator's Note: Since both Sredniaia Aziia and Tsentral'naia Aziia are often translated into English as «Central Asia», I have distinguished between the two by translating the first more literally as «Middle Asia» and the second as «Central Asia».

120

The Place of Kazakhstan in the Study of Central Asia

121

zakhstan and Central Asia. Indeed, considering the history of the term «Central Asia» [Tsentral’naia Aziia]14 allows us not only to see that there have been various names for the region and disagreement concerning the definition of its borders, but also to understand the significance of Kazakhstan within a broader regional system. Such a consideration also shows that the meaning of «Central Asia» has changed over time, depending on such factors as the political context, the attitude of authors to particular geographical and historical phenomena, and so on. The term «Central Asia» first became a part of geographical and historical scholarship in the nineteenth century, thanks to the German natural scientist Alexander von Humboldt15. Although his travels in the Russian Empire included only the middle and southern Urals, the Altai, the Volga delta around Astrakhan, and the nearby Kazakh steppe, Humboldt nonetheless defined the boundaries of the entire region, characterizing it as an internal space of the Asian continent extending from the Caspian Sea in the west to an indefinite border in the east. The German geographer Ferdinand von Richthofen offered a more exact definition of «Central Asia», while also dividing the region into two parts. «Central Asia» proper, according to Richthofen, encompassed the space from Tibet in the south to the Altai in the north, and from the Pamir Mountains in the west to Khingan range in the east16. Richthofen described the lowlands between the Aral and Caspian Seas – which in the 18th and 19th centuries were dominated economically and culturally by Kazakhs of the tribal confederation of the Аlimuly of the Little Horde17 – as a transitional zone. The intermediate space 14 The term «Central Asia» [Tsentral'naia Aziia] was formally adopted on 4 January 1993 at a conference of the five countries of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, and it has become a thoroughly accepted element of scholarly discourse in the postSoviet space. 15 Alexander von Humboldt, Central-Asien: Untersuchungen űber die Gebirgsketten und die vergleichende Klimatologie, 2 vols. (Berlin: Klemann, 1844), translated into Russian as A. Gumbol’d, Tsentral’naia Aziia: Issledovaniia o tseliakh gor i po sravnitel’noi klimatalogii. – Moscow: Tipo-litografiya I.N.Kushnereva, 1915. 16 Ferdinand Freiherr von Richthofen, Führer für Forschungsreisende: Anleitung zu Beobachtungen über Gegenstände der physischen Geographie und Geologie (Berlin: R. Oppenheim, 1886), 745. 17 V. V. Vostrov, M. S. Mukanov, Rodoplemennyi sostav i rasselenie kazakhov, konets XIX – nachalo XX vv. – Alma-Ata: Izdatel’stvo Nauka, 1968. – 140-142.

122

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

of the Kazakh steppe that Richthofen identified reveals a distinct geopolitical feature of Kazakhstan, which linked different parts of Central Asia into a regional system. For similar reasons, one may suppose, Russian researchers of the first half of the nineteenth century characterized the territories of the Little and Middle Hordes (the northern, western, and central parts of Kazakhstan) as the «KirgizKaisakh Hordes and Steppes»18, but regarded the southern portions of the Kazakh steppe, controlled by the khanates of Kokand and Khiva and the emirate of Bukhara, as part of «Middle Asia». It is significant that if in the first half of the 19th century the term «Kirgiz steppe» was used with the qualifiers «of Western Siberia» or «under the jurisdiction of Orenburg», then from 1882 Russian authorities used the more encompassing toponym «The Steppe», once they had created the «Steppe Governor-generalship» [Stepnoe generalgubernatorstvo] and decisively separated the northern, western, and eastern parts of the steppe zone of Kazakhstan from the southern portions. This kind of territorial division reflected the fact that the steppe transcended the boundaries of Kazakhstan: The northern territories of the steppe represented, in Peter I’s figurative expression, «the keys and gates… to all Asiatic countries and lands»19m but did not themselves represent «Middle Asia»20, in contrast to the southern and southeastern territories. Russian intellectuals used this distinction not only to highlight the economic and cultural differences of the two regions – the sedentary and agricultural character of Middle Asia, on 18 A. Levshin, a well known scholar of the history of Kazakhstan in the first half of the nineteenth century, wrote that the term «Kirgiz-kaisak» had been in use since the eighteenth century, and the expression «Kirgiz-Kaisak steppe» was understood to constitute to space between the rivers Uil, Ural, Tobol, and Irtywh (in the north), the Caspian and Aral Seas (in the northwest), and the Altai range and the Qing Empire (in the east). A. A. Levshin, Opisanie kirgiz-kazach'ikh ili kirgiz-kasaitskikh ord i stepei. – St. Petersburg: Tipografiia Karla Kraiia, 1832. Part 1. – P. 63. 19 «Iz zapiski A. Tevkeleva po povodu vyskazyvaniia Petra I o privlechenii kazakhov v rossiiskoe poddanstvo», Kazakhsko-russkie otnosheniia v XVI – XVIII vekakh: Sbornik dokumentov i materialov. Alma-Ata, Izdatel’stvo AN KazSSR, 1961. – P.31. 20 L. F. Kostenko, Sredniaia Aziia i vodvorenie v nei russkoi grazhdanstvennosti (St. Petersburg: Isdatel’stvo A.F.Basunova. 1871); V. V. Grigor’ev, Russkaia politika v otnoshenii Srednei Azii Sbornik gosudarstvennyh snanii. pod. redaktsiei. V.P. Besobrasova (St. Petersburg: Isdanie D.E.Kozhanchikova, 1874), 233-262; M. A. Terent’ev, Istoriia zavoevaniia Srednei Azii (St. Petersburg: Tipo-litographiya V.V. Komarova, 1906).

The Place of Kazakhstan in the Study of Central Asia

123

the one hand, and nomadic society of Kazakhstan, on the other – but also the degree of social and political integration of the territories in question within the Russian Empire by the 1860s – complete integration in the case of the steppe but only the initial stages of that process for southern Kazakhstan and the Middle Asian khanates21. In short, from early on Kazakhstan was effectively both within and beyond Central or Middle Asia. At the same time, the appearance of the term «Middle Asia» still generated confusion concerning territorial definitions. The second edition of the Brockhaus and Efron Small Encyclopedic Dictionary of 1909 used the mixed term «Central Middle Asia» [Tsentral’naia Sredniaia Aziia] as a way of defining the internal part of the Asian continent: the Iranian plateau and the basin of Turkestan. That same dictionary also referred to Russia’s «Middle Asian possessions» [Sredneaziatskie vladeniia], a concept that united the northern territories of the Kazakh steppe along the borders of the Ural, Turgai, Akmolinsk, and Semipalatinsk oblasts, with its southern part (Semirech’e and Syrdar’ia oblasts), along with Samarkand and Fergana oblasts, Khiva, and Bukhara22. One consequence of this terminological confusion was the appearance of the term «Turkestan» in Russian historical literature of the second half of the nineteenth century23. Thus the renowned geographer V. P. Semenov-Tianshianskii construed «the Turkestan region» to include the territories of the Transcaspian, Samarkand, Syr-Dar’ia, Fergana, and Semirech’e oblasts and the khanates of Khiva and Bukhara – hat is, the oasis parts of Middle Asia and the south of Kazakhstan24. Thus by the late 19th 21 «Kirgizskii krai», in V. P. Semenov, ed., Rossiia: Polnoe geograficheskoe opisanie nashego otechestva, vol. 18. St. Petersburg: Isdanie A.F.Devriena, 1903. – P.477. 22 Malyi entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ Brokgauza i Efrona, vol. 2, vyp. 4 (St. Petersburg: Izdatel’skoe obshchestvo F. A. Brokgauz i I. A. Efron, 1909), 1987. 23 An example is I. V. Mushketov, Turkestan. Geologicheskoe i orfograficheskoe opisanie po dannym, sobrannym vo vremia puteshestvii s 1874 po 1880, 2 vols. (St. Petersburg: Tipografiia M. M. Stasiulevicha, 1886-1906). The term «Turkestan», meaning «land of Turkic peoples», was applied in the Middle Ages to various territories depending on the migrations of Turkic peoples, and appeared in scholarly literature at the end of the eighteenth century. Already in the first half of the nineteenth century this term had taken root in the scholarly milieu in the West, and it then found currency in Russian academic circles. 24 «Turkestanskii krai», in V. P. Semenov, ed., Rossiia: Polnoe geograficheskoe opisanie nashego otechestva, vol. 19. St. Petersburg: Isdanie A.F. Devriena, 1913. – P.1.

124

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

century there were three competing and partially overlapping terms – Central Asia, Middle Asia, Turkestan – designed to describe roughly the same territory. The conceptual and actual division of Kazakhstan’s territory continued by inertia into the first years of Soviet power. On 30 April 1918 Soviet authorities created the Turkestan ASSR, with its capital at Tashkent, incorporating the southern part of Kazakhstan and the Middle Asian khanates. Some two years later, on 26 August 1920, the Kirgiz ASSR appeared. With its capital at Orenburg25, it included the the northern western, and central parts of Kazakhstan. In essence the Soviet government simply adopted the administrative-territorial devision in the region that had existed in the Russian Empire (from 1882-1918) – that is, the Steppe governor-generalship (for the central, northern, and western steppe) and the Turkestan governor-generalship (for southern Kazakhstan). The national delimitation of the Turkestan region in 1924-25 and the establishment of new union republics within the USSR created the foundation for the reunification of the southern part of Kazakhstan with the main territory of the Kazakh ASSR26. Furthermore, the ASSR’s capital was moved from Orenburg in the southern Urals to the city of Kzylorda (previously Akmechet’ and Perovsk) on the right bank of the river Syr-Dar’ia. Simultaneously, the concept «Turkestan»27, which Soviet authorities previously associated with separatist ideas 25 Amanzholova D. A. «Tsentrom vremenno namechaetsia Orenburg», ili kak Orenburg stal stolitsei Kazakhskoi ASSR», Etnopanorama,A3-4 (2003): 8-17; L. I. Futorianskii, «Orenburg –stolitsa Kazakhstana Istoriya Orenburz’ya. Orenburg: Orenburgskoe knizhnoe izdatel’stvo, 1996. – P. 231- 233. 26 In April of 1925 the Fifth All-Kirgiz Congress of Soviets adopted a resolution that including a call for the «reestablishment of of the name Kazakhs for the Kirgiz nationality». On this basis the name of the Kirgiz ASSR was changed to the Kazakh ASSR. See document no. 43, in Sobranie uzakonenii i rasporiazhenii rabochego i krest’ianskogo pravitel’stva RSFSR (Moscow: Narodnyi komissariat Iustitsii RSFSR, 1925), 321; and Rezoliutsiia 5-go Vsekazakskogo (Vse kirgizskogo) S»ezda Sovetov: Organizatsionnyi otdel TsIK Kazakskoi SSR (Orenburg: Kirgosisdat, 1925), 3. The term «Kazakskaia ASSR» was deployed in the first constitution of Kazakhstan, which was formally adopted in February of 1926. Ten years later, in a new constitution for the Kazakh SSR in 1937, the word «Kazak» was replaced by «Kazakh». 27 Paradoxically, the term «Turkestan» was retained in the Soviet period to designate the region’s military district [Turkestanskii voennyi okrug] – i.e., not a state entity but a military-administrative one that encompassed several national republics. In the 1980s this was Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmeniia; Kazakhstan and Kirgiziia were meanwhile part of the Middle Asian Military District [Sredneaziatskii voennyi okrug].

The Place of Kazakhstan in the Study of Central Asia

125

of Panturkism, was excluded from Soviet scholarly literature and replaced by the term «Middle Asia». A distinction between the terms «Central Asia» and «Middle Asia» reappeared later, in Soviet scholarly literature. The 1976 edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia defined «Central Asia» as the territory of the People’s Republic of Mongolia and a large part of China, while «Middle Asia» was defined as the territory occupied by the Uzbek, Kirgiz, Tajik, and Turkmen SSRs28. Kazakhstan was not construed as a part of either of these two regions, and its position in Soviet scholarly discourse was resolved by introducing the compound concept «Middle Asia and Kazakhstan» [Sredniaia Aziia i Kazakhstan]. This compound underscored the mutual connections across its two constituent parts – the northern steppe region and southern part linked to sedentary regions – but also upheld a clear distinction between the two in terms of both space and history, based on three key characteristics. The first was the nomadic economy that distinguished Kazakhstan’s main population from that of its southern neighbors up until the 1930s. Second, whereas northern Kazakhstan had come under Russian influence as early as the 1730s, St. Petersburg had established protectorates over the Middle Asian khanates only some 150 years late. And finally, beginning in the second half of the 19th century and in contrast to the more southern territories, Kazakhstan saw significant colonization by non-Turkic (mostly Slavic) elements. This last process continued into the Soviet period and reached its peak in the late 1950s, when Slavs – mostly Russians and Ukrainians – constituted 50.9% of the Kazakhstan’s population, while Kazakhs themselves constituted only 30%29. None of the republics of Middle Asia faced a similar situation. Scholars in the West used the term «Central Asia» to designate what their Soviet counterparts called «Middle Asia and Kazakhstan»30. Moreover in the 1980s, under the aegis of UNESCO, 28 Bol’shaia sovetskaia entsiklopediia, vol. 24, book 1. – Moscow: Sovetskaia entsiklopediia , 1976), 377; ibid., 3rd edition, vol. 28. – Moscow: Sovetskaya entsiklopediia, 1978. – P.498. 29 N. Masanov, Zh. Abylkhozhin, I. Erofeeva, A. Alekseenko, and G. Baratova, Istoriia Kazakhstana: Narody i kul’tury. – Almaty: Daik-Press, 2000. – P.403. 30 E.E. Bacon, Central Asians under Russian Rule (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1966); Edward A. Allworth, Central Asia: A Century of Russian Rule. – New York: Columbia University Press, 1967.

126

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

a scholarly collective produced a six-volume work entitled «History of Civilizations of Central Asia»31, which presented the region as a historical, cultural and geographical space distinguished by a relative internal unity, a shared high culture, and linguistic similarities32. To complicate matters further, the term «Inner Asia» appeared as well. The Russian imperial geographer I. V. Mushketov proposed that «Inner» and «Central» Asia were not synonyms. He understood the first term to include the aggregation «of all the enclosed regions of the Asian continent from which there is no drainage to the open sea»33. In this way he emphasized the continental nature of the region, its comparatively closed character, the absence of an outlet to the sea, the difficulties of connecting it to the worldwide communication networks and thus to broader processes of modernization. It is noteworthy that in 2012 a new journal appeared in the postSoviet space, Humanities Research on Inner Asia [Gumanitarnye issledovaniia Vnutrennei Azii], which includes in that region the Republic of Mongolia, the Xinjiang-Uighur autonomous region of the People’s Republic of China, Inner Mongolia, Tuva, and Buryatia, regardless of existing state borders. «Inner Asia» is construed even more broadly in literature produced outside of post-Soviet countries34. In 1969 the American historian Denis Sinor, in the foreword to his lexical course for students at Indiana University, defined «Inner Asia» as a synonym of «Central Eurasia», the homeland of both Altaic peoples (Mongolian, Turkic, and Manchu-Tungus) and Uralic 31 The International Scientific Committee for this project included two scholars from each of the seven Central Asian countries – Afghanistan, China, India, Iran, Pakistan, Mongolia and the USSR – as well as five experts from other countries: Hungary, Japan, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. 32 See: L. I. Miroshnikov «A Note on the Meaning of the Term ‘Central Asia’ as Used in this Book», History of Сivilizations of Central Asia, vol. 1. Paris: UNESCO Publishing, 1992. – p.470. For more on the project, see http://www.unesco.org/culture/asia/index-en.html. This work construed Central Asia as the territories within the borders of Afghanistan, northwestern Iran, Pakistan, northern India, western China, Kazakhstan, and the Middle Asian republics of the USSR. 33 Mushketov I.V. Turkestan. Geologicheskoe i orfograficheskoe opsainie po dannym, sobrannym vo vremia puteshestvii s 1874 po 1880, 2 vols. – St. Petersburg: Tipografiia M. M. Stasiulevicha, 1886-1906. – P.6. 34 The names of many contemporary scholarly centers in the US use the concept «Inner Asia»for example, The Sinor Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies at Indiana University and Inner Asian and Altaic Studies at Harvard University.

The Place of Kazakhstan in the Study of Central Asia

127

ones (Finno-Ugrian and Samoyed)35. He furthermore proposed that this term encompassed the Middle-Asian republics of the USSR. In effect, then, Sinor was among the first to introduce the concept of «Central Eurasia» into historical scholarship. In general the term «Central Eurasia» has been used in recent years to emphasize that a full appreciation of the historical, ethnic, cultural and linguistic inheritance and the historical experience of Central Asia in both the Russian Empire and the USSR requires wider study of the region in relation to Russia, China, Iran, and Afghanistan. The proponents of «Central Eurasia» consider crucial the inclusion of the Turkic-speaking regions of the Caspian Sea, the Volga-Ural, and southern Siberia. This is because the Soviet inheritance is now gradually being erased, and new geopolitical configurations are coming to the fore. Scholars are transferring their core research focus to the history of borderland regions, such as Kazakhstan and VolgaUral region, Central Asia and Caucasus36, and to overcoming the barriers between post-Soviet national historiographies. In short, more than many areas of the world, the region including and adjacent to Kazakhstan still lacks a standardized nomenclature that would allow scholars clearly to specify the object of their study. The definition of the region in many cases depends on the questions being asked about it, which is reasonable enough. But the absence of agreement about the territorial definition of the region in question and even what to call it also represents both a symptom and a cause of the relative neglect of Kazakhstan as an object of historical inquiry. Kazakhstan as an Object of Study: Challenges and Prospects There are still other reasons for such neglect. One, in my view, is the fact that historical knowledge and organized structures for historical scholarship began to appear even in Kazakhstan itself only in the mid-1930s. Only then was a Historical and Archaeological 35 Denis Sinor Inner Asia. A Sillabus. 2nd edition. Uralic and Altaic Series Volume 96. – London and New York: Routledge Curzon, 1987. – P.5. 36 An example is journal Tsentral’naia Aziia i Kavkaz, which has been published since 1998.

128

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

Sector established at the Kazakh Institute of National Culture and began systematically to collect and study historical and archaeological materials on the history of Kazakhstan. Only some ten years later, in 1946, was an institute of history, language, and literature created as part of the Kazakh branch of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. In essence, professional historical scholarship in Kazakhstan did not begin until the 1930s and 1940s, when the first wave of trained historians emerged. Indeed, a specialized department focusing on the history of Kazakhstan was created only in 1958, at S. M. Kirov Kazakh State University of (now Al-Farabi Kazakh National University). The founder and first chair of that department was Dr. Ermukhan Bekmakhanovich Bekmakhanov (1915-1966), a Kazakh. Strictly speaking, his was the only department of Kazakh history in the entire Soviet Union, and the course of study it offered construed the history of Kazakhstan as an inalienable part of the history of the USSR – as was true of the other republics of Central Asia. It is furthermore revealing that in the republic’s middle schools the time devoted to the history of Kazakhstan was minimal – just one hour per week – and in some cases the topic was not even mandatory. It is also revealing that it was only some twenty years later, in 1973, that a department of Kazakh history opened in the republic’s first institution of higher education – the Abai Kazakh Pedadogical Institute (founded in 1928). The situation changed in the 1990s. Kazakhstan’s independence and the beginning of socio-economic reforms and political changes there made it imperative for historians to produce new conceptual approaches for studying the country. Firstly, departments devoted to the specialized study of Kazakhstan’s history were opened in all institutions of higher education. The history of Kazakhstan appeared in all of the country’s such institutions as an obligatory subject in all programs of study, and the establishment of a state examination to ensure students’ mastery reflected the topic’s special status. In 1995, a plan to develop the historical consciousness of Kazakhstan’s citizenry was implemented; it accentuated the desirability of investigating Kazakhstan’s history in the broader context of world history, the history of Eurasia, and the history of nomadic civilizations, Turkic

The Place of Kazakhstan in the Study of Central Asia

129

peoples, and countries of Central Asia. The public’s heightened interest in the past and in the broadening of methods and modes of studying the country’s history – from antiquity up to the present – shaped the preparation and publication of a new fundamental five-volume History of Kazakhstan (1996-2010), which was prepared by scholars at the Chokan Valikhanov Institute of History and Ethnology37. These fundamental changes in historical research manifested themselves in the marked expansion of historical topics, the posing of new historical questions, and the elaboration of new ways of answering them. One impulse for this was the President’s «Cultural Heritage» program, which was designed to create a mass of new historical material from archival repositories throughout the world38. This program was also designed to addresses another problem facing researchers of Kazakhstan’s history: the difficulty of accessing documentary material. Historical sources pertaining to Kazakhstan in the 18th and 19th century are dispersed across archives in Russia, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan – i.e., the cities of Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kazan, Ufa, Elista, Tashkent, Askhabad, Omsk, Orenburg, Tomsk, Samara, etc. The search for such documents requires time, patience, assiduousness, and financial resources. Similarly problematic is the linguistic preparation required for work on the history of Central Asia. From the 13th all the way down to the beginning of the 20th century, a large portion of the sources for the history of the region were written in Chagatai, and a recent article by Talant Mawkanuli and Virginia Martin has shown the importance of reading original texts, as opposed to the translations by tsarist administrators39. Students of Central Asia accordingly require not only professional – level knowledge of the history of the region but also specialized 37 Istoria Kazakhstana s drevneyshikh vremen do nashikh dney, 5 vols. – Almaty: Atamura, 1996-2010. 38 Over the course of 2004-2011 scholars working within the framework of this program published documentary materials taken from central archives of various countries of the world in the series «The History of Kazakhstan in Russian Sources» (ten volumes), «The History of Kazakhstan in Chinese Sources» (five volumes), «The History of Kazakhstan in Arab Sources» (three volumes), ‘the History of Kazakhstan in Persian Sources» (five volumes). 39 Talant Mawkanuli and Virginia Martin, «Nineteenth -Century Kazak Correspondence with Russian Authorities: Morphemic Analysis and Historical Contextualization», Central Eurasian Studies Review 8, 1 (2009): 21-29.

130

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

linguistic skills. Unfortunately, historical training in the universities of Kazakhstan still does not formally include the study of such languages as Chagatai, Persian, and Arabic, which are necessary for the study of the most important sources in Central Asian history. Ultimately, studying the history of both Kazakhstan and Central Asia requires new approaches and ways of thinking. Even today, most of the works on the region continue to reflect a set of stereotypes rooted in colonial and Soviet thinking about Central Asia. In the 19th century that region was studied by western and Russian authors through the prism of geostrategy – as territories implicated in the Great Game and as an important transit territory for the expansion of trade with other countries of the East (Persia, India, and China). These approaches have continued to shape research in the early 21st century. Thus Central Asia continues to be perceived as a zone crisscrossed by energy pipelines and similar conduits, and the region accordingly seems to occupy a more prominent place in contemporary world politics and economics than in history. At the same time, certain problems in the region’s history have the capacity to generate more interest among scholars, as well as new thinking and the search for new sources. One involves developing a greater appreciation for Central Asia’s critical historical place in the worldwide system of trade prior to the early modern Age of Exploration. Andre Gunder Frank, one of the founders of world-systems analysis, has argued that for a long time the peoples of the region played a central role in world history40. It is noteworthy that this idea was first proposed by the Kazakh scholar Sanzhar Asfendiarov (1889-1938), who offered a hypothesis that until the Age of Exploration nomadic peoples exerted profound influence on social, political, and cultural processes in Europe and Asia41. The transformation of nomadic Central Asia into an isolated zone is explained by this theory as a consequence of those great discoveries and the replacement of transcontinental trade from overland routes to maritime ones. This development pushed the region 40 Andre Gunder Frank. The Centrality of Central Asia. – Аmsterdam: VU University Press, 1992. – P.52. 41 S. Asfendiiarov, Istoriia Kazakhstana s drevneishikh vremen T.1.– Alma-Ata: Kazkraiisdat, 1935.

The Place of Kazakhstan in the Study of Central Asia

131

to the periphery of world-historical processes and strengthened the sedentary civilizations that could encircle and enclose the steppe when nomadic societies were in crisis. Going back to that earlier history could help to «re-center» Central Asia, thereby offering a new angle from which to investigate the history of Russia and other neighboring polities. Another possibility for new historical research would entail a comparative analysis of the social and political position of nomadic peoples in Russia – Bashkirs, Kalmyks, Kazakhs, Nogais, etc. – including their mutual interaction in the context of Russian policies towards them. There have been some efforts to engage in such comparative study – for example in the works of the French scholar Roger-Antonin-Robert Portal and the American historians Alton Donnelly and Michael Khodarkovsky42. Yet their studies center on a political process that began in the 16th century and ended in the 18th century – the conversion and integration of Russia’s southeastern borderland into a part of the country itself. Important issues remain beyond their purview, such as the transformation of life within those nomadic societies over the course of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and their acceptance by their inhabitants of the cultural values of the empire. New approaches would allow us to expand our gaze beyond the territory of Central Asia itself and to see a wider field of interaction among various historical actors, as well as systematic differences between policies designed for nomadic populations and those for the empire’s sedentary populations. The chronological gap between 42 R. Portal, Rossiia i Bashkiriia v XVII-XVIII vv., 1662-1798, trans. L. Sakhibgarevva (Ufa: TsEI UNTs RAN, 2000); Alton S. Donnelly The Russian conquest of Bashkiria 1552-1740: A Case Study in Imperialism (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1968), translated into Russian as Zavoevanie Bashkirii Rossiei, 1552-1744 gg.: Stranitsy istorii imperializma, trans. L. R. Bikbaeva (Ufa: Isdanel’stvo Bashkortostan, 1995); Michael Khodorkovsky, Russia’s Steppe Frontier: The making of a Colonial Empire, 1500-1800 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2002). In this regard one may single out the research of the Soviet Bashkir scholar R. G. Kuzeev, whose work featured a wide-ranging historical and cultural approach to the analysis of ethnocultural development and tendencies of gradual rapprochement and ethnic interaction and interpenetration of the peoples of the Middle Volga and the southern Urals from the sixteenth to the early twentieth century. See for example R. G. Kuzeev, Narody Srednego Povolzh’ia I Iuzhnogo Urala: Etnogeneticheskii vzgliad na istoriiu. – Moscow: Nauka, 1992.

132

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

starting points for the inclusion of different nomadic groups into the political system of the Russian Empire explains why certain principles of imperial policy towards nomadic societies were first tested on Bashkirs and Kalmyks, and then applied in a modified form to the Kazakh steppe. The first stage saw a policy featuring both non-interference in the traditional organization of nomadic life and cooperation with the local elite. This was applied first to Bashkirs (from the mid-16th century to the 1730s), then to the Volga Kalmyks (from the mid-17th to the 18th century), and then later to the Kazakhs of the Little and Middle Horde (from the 1730s to the 1820s). Over the course of almost a century the Russian government constructed relations with nomadic societies with care and calculation. The Russian administration faced greater difficulties creating a basis for cooperation with the representatives of nomadic cultures, whose way of life differed substantially from that of settled non-Russian groups, such as Tatars, and was defined by traditions of tribal (clannic) organization. In some cases, administrators were able to overcome these obstacles. For example, taking account of the specific nature of the role of elders in nomadic society, tsarist authorities created the post of «chief elder» [glavnyi starshina] among Bashkirs (in the mid1730s) and Kazakhs (at the end of the 1780s). Although that post endured for only a limited time, the efforts of Russian authorities to take account of the traditional system of rule in local societies are nonetheless revealing for understanding its mode of interaction with the empire’s new subjects. Further, Russian authorities implemented a single transitional form of rule, the institution of «supervisors» [pristavy], applying it to their nomadic subjects in places as diverse as the North Caucasus and the Kazakh steppe. Thus «supervisors» were appointed in Kabarda (1769), among the Kalmyks (1782), for the Nogais in the steppes to the west of the Caspian Sea (1793), for the «Karanogais and other nomadic peoples»43 of the North Caucasus (in the early 19th century), and – finally – for the Kazakh khan of the Little Horde Aishuak. The 43 M. S. Arsanukaeva, «Vedenie rossiskoi sudebno-pravovavoi sistemy v gorskikh raionakh Severnogo Kavkaza v pervye desiatiletiia XIX veka», Vestnik Rossiiskoi pravovoi akademii, 2 (2010): 12-18.

The Place of Kazakhstan in the Study of Central Asia

133

appointment of such a supervisor, who was in the first instance to serve as a mentor or tutor to the representatives of traditional authority of nomadic societies, permitted Russian authorities to establish a permanent administrative presence in those territories, but also to create the conditions gradually integrate nomads of those regions into the Russian Empire. Similarly interesting for the study of imperial practice is the institution of guardianship [popechitel’stvo], introduced in the first half of the nineteenth century for Kalmyks, Kazakhs, and Bashkirs. This institution may be considered a transitional form of rule, given that the main goal of guardians, who were appointed from among military officers, consisted in fulfilling intermediary functions between nomads and the inhabitants of frontier lines and in gathering information on the activities of local nomadic groups. In effect, guardianship became a supplementary element of control and regimentation in the lives of the empire’s nomads44. The application of such forms of administration as «chief elders», «guardianship», etc. to Bashkirs and Kazakhs can be explained by the fact that for over a century – from the 1740s to the 1860s – both peoples were under the authority of a single administrative structure, the Orenburg governor-generalship. At the same time the system was not introduced entirely uniformly in those territories, responding to specific geographical and historical conditions, and to differing conceptions of the ideal relationship between the local population and the Russian administration. In short, here as elsewhere, the Russian Empire varied internally, using similar systems of administration in various territories and at various points of time. The initiators of similar forms of rule were often the authorities of different borderland regions, who had already observed the success of those forms in other parts of the empire. It is precisely the comparative approach that permits us to see how methods and technologies of administration circulated, with experiences acquired in one borderland transmitted to another. The larger point is that there have been few attempts to analyze these 44 Istoriia Kazakhskoi SSR s dreveishikh vremen do nashikh dnei v 5-ti tomakh T.3. – Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1979; Istoriia Bashkortostana s drevneishikh vremen do 60-kh godov XIX veka. – Ufa: Kitap, 1997.

134

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

institutional arrangements systematically across different nomadic groups. Yet given the range of nomadic societies with which Russia interacted, and given the several centuries over which such interactions occurred, this actually represents a core historical problem precisely for Russian history. Closely related to the foregoing question is a more complicated one concerning cultural communication: on what basis could two fundamentally different societies – nomadic and sedentary – meet, and to what extent were they capable of socio-cultural interaction? Nomadic society’s conception of power was completely distinct from the Russian Empire’s conception. At the same time, over the course of almost a century one can discern a process by which Kazakh society gradually adapted to changing conditions and the realization on the part of its elite that they could retain their power only by converting themselves into officials of the tsarist regime. The incorporation of representatives of nomadic society into the ranks of Russian officialdom is therefore a question of considerable interest for explaining the transformation of Kazakh elite’s thinking, aims, and habits. The role of Muslim Tatars as intermediaries is another critical aspect of intercultural communication in the steppe. Who after all was in the best position to effectuate the gradual and painless accommodation of nomadic society to the new political culture if not people of the same faith, ones who had acquired experience in serving the Russian Empire? Even as the existing literature has quite effectively identified the role of Tatars as intermediaries on the steppe45, significant aspects of their activity continue to evade scholarly research. For example, what was the nature of everyday interactions between Tatar servitors (translators, interpreters, and scribes) and the Kazakh population, and how did the latter interpret the activities of the former? Perhaps most importantly, Kazakhs could observe the actions of these Tatar 45 See for example Allen Frank, «Tatarskie mully sredi kazakhov I kirgizov v XVIII–XIX vv». in Kul'tura, iskusstvo tatarskogo naroda: Istoki, traditsii b vsaimosvyasi. – Kazan: IIaLI imeni Sh. Mardzhani, 1993. – P.125. Anatolii Remnev, «Tatary v kazakhskoi stepi: soratniki i soperniki Rossiiskoi imperii», Vestnik Evrazii, 4 (2006): 5-32. Gul’mira Sultangalieva, «The Russian Empire and the Intermediary Role of Tatars in Kazakhstan: The Politics of Cooperation and Rejection, From the Second Half of the Eighteenth to the Early Twentieth Century», in Tomohiko Uyama, ed., Asiatic Russia: Imperial Power in Regional and International Contexts. – London: Routledge. 2012. – 52-81.

The Place of Kazakhstan in the Study of Central Asia

135

representatives of the new authorities and see a model of sorts: an official of the same faith (Islam) and a subject of the Russian Empire who had risen up the ranks of officialdom, attained a certain rank, received certain privileges alongside Russian officials, and now had the opportunity to exert influence on the population. In other words, the transformation of Kazakhs’ conception of power and their adaptation to new conditions is discernable in their relations with Tatar servitors. Examination of these kinds of relationships could easily be brought into larger discussions about governance in Russia itself. Conclusion A series of factors significantly conditioned the place of Kazakhstan in Central Asia. First, our consideration of the term «Central Asia» and its variants in relation to the role of Kazakhstan in that region reveals the peculiarities of the historical development of the northern and eastern parts, which are located nearer to the Russian borders, and the southern part, which connects sooner to Middle Asian culture. These particularities in turn underscore the erroneous nature of the tendency, more characteristic of western European and American scholarship than Russian, to regard Kazakhstan as a homogeneous region. Indeed, Kazakhstan comprises several distinct regions, and their existence raises a series of research questions about the characteristics of the peoples who reside there. Moreover, these regions allow one to perceive the distinctive role of Kazakhstan as a connector in a system of inter-regional cultural, economic, and trade ties involving Central Asia, Russia, and China. An understanding of the changes that have occurred on the territory of Kazakhstan over the course of centuries expands our knowledge of the history of such contemporary oblasts of Russia as Astrakhan, Orenburg, Samara, Omsk, and the of the states of Central Asia. Despite all these opportunities, few scholars in the humanities have created centers to study of these connections and interactions, and for the time being research seems to be limited to merely sporadic conferences46. Systematic interaction among scholars 46 For example, Kazakhi Orenburzh'ia: istoriia i sovremennost' (Orenburg: ORGPU, 2005); Vmeste na odnoi zemle. Etnicheskaia kul'tura kazakhov Orenburzh'ia. – Orenburg: Isdatel’stvo OGAY, 2006.

136

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

of Kazakhstan, Russia, Uzbekistan, and other nearby states remains weak. Second, Kazakhstan’s regional diversity is itself a reason for its uneven study. Western and Russian historiography take greater interest in Turkestan than they do in the steppe region of Kazakhstan. There is a paradox in the fact that even as Russia’s longest land border is with Kazakhstan (7513 kilometers), Russian history textbooks have almost nothing to say about the borderland character of that country’s territory. Anatolii Remnev proposes that in terms of disciplinary nomenclature the study of Kazakhstan’s history in Russia has become stuck somewhere between world [vseobshchaia] history and Russian history [otechestvennaia istoriia]. No schoolchild or even university student in contemporary Russia will find much in his or her history textbooks pertaining to Kazakhs aside from a brief account of the «entry» of the Kirgiz-Kaisakh horde in the mid-18th century and the rare reference to Kazakhs in connection with the conquest of Central Asia47. Yet, because of its character as a borderland zone, the territory of Kazakhstan has seen remarkable historical developments, ones that permit a fruitful juxtaposition of historical processes unfolding in the Steppe region to historically similar developments in the southern Urals, southern Siberia, the lower Volga, and southern Kazakhstan involving the acquisition of sedentary and agricultural oases, the development of irrigation and urban culture, etc. On these bases, Kazakhstan offers an excellent foundation for the study of regional history in imperial, Soviet, and post-Soviet space.

47 Anatolii Remnev, «Kolonial’nost’, postkoloniali’nost’ i ‘istoricheskaia politika’ v sovremennom Kazakhstane», Ab Imperio, 1 (2011). – 191.

Introduction

137

References

1. After Empire. Multiethnic Societies and Nation-Building. The Soviet Union and the Russian Ottoman, and Habsburg Empires (1997). – New York, Westview Press. 2. Asiatic Russia: Imperial Power in Regional and International Contexts. Edited by Tomohiko, Uyama (2012). – London: Routledge. 3. Barrett, Thomas (1999) At The Edge Of Empire: The Terek Cossacks And The North Caucasus Frontier, 1700-1860. – Westview Press. 4. Borders and Transborder Processes in Eurasia (2013), edited by Sergei V. Sevastianov, Paul Richardson, and Anton A. Kireev. – Vladivostok: Dalnauka). 5. Explorations in the Social History of Modern Central Asia offers new insights on the continuities and changes in the history of Muslim rural and pastoral societies in Central Asia under Russian rule (19th - early 20th century).  Ed.: by Paolo Sartory (2013) (Leiden – Boston, Brill). 6. Peter Golden Studies on the Peoples and Cultures of the Eurasian Steppes. Edited by Cătălin HRIBAN (2011) (Bucureşti – Brăila). 7. Islam, State, and Society Across the Qazaq Steppe (18th - early 20th centuries). Ed.: Niccolò Pianciola and Paolo Sartori (eds.) (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2013) 8. Burbank J. & Cooper F.Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference (2010) (Princeton University Press). 9. Empire, Islam, and Politics in Central Eurasia (2007) Edited by Uyama Tomohiko (Sapporo Slavic Research Center Hokkaido University). 10.Imperial Russia: New Histories for the Empire (1998) (Bloomington Indiana University Press). 11. Khodarkovsky M.,(1992) Where two worlds meet: The Russian State and the Kalmyk nomads in the 17 and 18 th centuries. (Ithaca N.Y.). 12.Martin V (2001) Law and custom in the Steppe. The Kazakhs of the Middle Horde and Russian colonialism in the nineteenth century. – London: Curzon Press. 13.Robinson, Ronald (1972) ‘Non-European foundations of European Imperialism: sketch for a theory of collaboration’ Studies in the theory of Imperialism, ed. Roger Owen & Robert Sutcliffe. – London: Longmans. – Pp. 117-142. 137

138

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century 14.Russian Empire: Space, People, Power, 1700-1930 (2007) eds. Jane Burbank, Mark von Hagen, Anatolyi Remnev (Bloomington Indiana University Press). 15.Russia’s Orient: Imperial Borderlands and Peoples, 1700-1917. edited by Daniel R. Brower and Edward J. Lazzerini (1997) (Bloomington Indiana University Press). 16. Sultangalieva G S (2002) Zapadnyi Kazakhstan v sisteme etnokul’turnykh kontaktov (XVIII – nachalo XX vv.). – Ufa Goskomnauka Respublika Bashkortostan. 17.Vasil����������������������������������������������������������������� ’���������������������������������������������������������������� ev�������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������� AV����������������������������������������������������������� (1898) Materialy������������������������������������������ ��������������������������������������������������� k���������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������� kharakteristike������������������������ ��������������������������������������� vsaimnyh��������������� ����������������������� otnoshenii���� �������������� ta��� tar i kirgis s predvaritelnym kratkim ocherkom etikh otnoshenii Orenburg 18.Galiev B Z (1975) Tatary-perevodchiki, puteshestvenniki i diplomaty Journal Kazan utlary/Ogni Kazani (1 ). – Pp. 147-151. 19. Galiev B Z (1994) Karavannye tropy (Iz istorii obshestvennoi zhisni Ka zakhstana XVII –XIXvv.). – Almaty: Nauka. 20.Empire, Islam, and Politics in Central Eurasia (2007) Edited by UYAMA Tomohiko (Sapporo Slavic Research Center Hokkaido University). 21.Frank AJ (1993) Tatarskie mully sredi kazakhov i kirgizov v XVIII–XIX vv. Kul’tura, iskusstvo tatarskogo naroda Kazan: Akademiya nauk Tatarstana. – Pp. 125-131. 22.Frank AJ (1998) Islam and ethnic relations in the Kazakh Inner Horde: Muslim Cossacks, Tatar merchants, and Kazakh nomads in a Turkic manuscript, 1870-1910 In Muslim Culture in Russia and Central Asia from the eighteenth century to the Early 20th Centuries, vol. 2, Inter-Regional and Inter-Ethnic Relations. Anke von Kügelgen et al., eds. (Berlin Klaus Schwarz Verlag). – Pp. 211-245. 23.Frank AJ ���������������������������������������������������������������� (��������������������������������������������������������������� 2001����������������������������������������������������������� ) ��������������������������������������������������������� Muslim Religious Institutions in Imperial Russia: The Islamic World of Novouzensk District and the Kazakh Inner Horde, 1780-1910. (Leiden Brill). 24. Frank AJ ������������������������������������������������������������������ (����������������������������������������������������������������� 2007������������������������������������������������������������� )������������������������������������������������������������ Popular Islamic Literature in Kazakhstan: an Annotated Bibliography (Springfield Dunwoody Press). 25. Remnev A P (2006) Rossiiskaia imperiia i islam v kazakhskoi stepi (60–80-e gody XIX v.) Rasy i narody: Sovremennye etnicheskie i rasovye problem: Pp. 238–277. 26.Remnev A P (2006) Tatary v kazakhskoi stepi: soratniki i soperniki Rossiiskoi imperii Journal Vestnik Evrazii (4). – Pp.5-32. 27.Sultangalieva G.S (2000) Tatarskaia’ diaspora v konfessional’nykh sviaziakh kazakhskoi stepi (XVIII-XIX vv.) Journal Vestnik Evrazii. –Moskow (4). – Pp 20-36. 28.Sultangalieva G S (2002) Zapadnyi Kazakhstan v sisteme etnokul’turnykh kontaktov (XVIII-nachalo XX vv.). ���������������������������������� – Ufa Goskomnauka Respublika Bashkortostan. 29.Werth P (2002) At the Margins of Orthodoxy: Mission, Governance, and Confessional Politics in Russia’s Volga-Kama Region, 1827-1905 (Ithaca Cornell University Press).

Introduction

139

Quiz

1. The Russian ambassador to deliver a certificate of Anna Ionanovna’s admis sion to citizenship of the Kazakhs of the Junior Horde: 1) M. Tevkelev; 2) Kirillov; 3) Abulhair; 4) Tatischev; 5) Ablay. 2. Sultan of Junior Horde who opposed to Syrym Datov: 1) Ayshuak; 2) Nuraly; 3) Yesim; 4) Yeraly; 5) Bukei. 3. The leader of the national liberation uprising in 1783-1797 in Kazakhstan: 1) SyrymDatov; 2) I. Taimanov; 3) M. Utemisov; 4) Sultan Aryngazy; 5) K. Kasymov. 4. Sultan of Junior Horde, who was announced the Khan in 1796 and was killed by a rebel of Syrym: 1) Yesim; 2) Nuraly; 3) Bukei; 4) Jahangir; 5) Ayshuak. 5. The companion of Abylai, poet-improviser: 1) Buhar; 139

140

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century 2) Asankaygy; 3) Kurmangazy; 4) Sherniyaz; 5) Mahambet. 6. The city, where the Asian school was opened in 1789: 1) Omsk; 2) Orenburg; 3) Orsk; 4) Semipalatinsk; 5) Uralsk. 7. The term «biy» means: 1) the judge; 2) a rich man; 3) the foreman; 4) official; 5) warrior. 8. The term «Jatak» means: 1) sedentary, engaged in agriculture; nomad; 2) the hunter; 3) nomad; 4) trader; 5) warrior. 9. The Kazakhs - nomads had: 1) tribal guards; 2) a permenant army; 3) squad; 4) mercenary army; 5) units. 10. The most disenfranchised social group of Kazakh society in XVIII century .: 1) slaves; 2) tolenguts; 3) sharua; 4) konsy; 5) zhataks. 11. By the «Zhetyzhargy» law vendetta could be replaced by the payment of: 1) qun; 2) sogym;

Quiz

141

3) ushur; 4) zakat; 5) kalym. 12. Khans on the Kazakh land could only be elected from: 1) the descendants of Genghis Khan; 2) bies; 3) batyrs; 4) representatives of the nobility; 5) Beks. 13. Impoverished sharua, who has become dependent on ruleaders was called: 1) kons; 2) quls; 3) tyulenguts; 4) zhataks; 5) sarts. 14. Specify the meaning of sauyn: 1) relative assistance; 2) cattle rustling; 3) tax yield; 4) tax claim; 5) sale of livestock. 15. Under the Charter « the Siberian Kazakhs» khan power was eliminated: 1) Middle Zhuz; 2) Junior Horde; 3) Bukei horde; 4) Elder Zhuz; 5) Zhetysu. 16. The administrative-territorial reform in 1822, defined the administrative area of ​​the Siberian Cossacks: 1) Omsk; 2) Orenburg; 3) Tyumen; 4) Semipalatinsk; 5) Orsk. 17. Kazakh woman’s wedding headdress called: 1) saukele; 2) takiya;

142

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century 3) kimeshek; 4) zheyde; 5) tymak.

18. According to the «Charter» in 1822, in the Middle zhuz were created admin istrative units. 1) okrug; 2) oblast; 3) wezd; 4) part; 5) raion. 19. According to the «Charter» in 1822, tax levy was determined: 1) yasak; 2) kibitochnyh podat; 3) obrok; 4) barshina; 5) qun. 20. Education in Bukei Horde in 1801 was the result of: 1) the Russian royal policy on fragmentation of Kazakh lands; 2) announcement of Syrym about state independence; 3) the struggle for the independence of the Kazakhs; 4) fight for the land with the Kalmyks; 5) fight for the land with the Bashkirs 21. Kibitochny tax collection, entered by the royal administration in 1837 was 1) 1 rub. 50 ks; 2) 15 rubles; 3) 5 rubles; 4) 3 rubles; 5) 10 rubles. 22. Orenburg Province, in charge of the Kazakh steppe, established in: 1) 1744; 2) 1734; 3) 1765; 4) 1801; 5) 1822. 23. the Great disaster years: 1) 1723-1725; 2) 1723-1730;

Quiz

143

3) 1735-1740; 4) 1710-1718; 5) 1638-1710. 24. The famous battle with the Kazakh militia with Dzhungars «Kalmak-Kyryl gan» took place in: 1) on the bank of the river Bulanty; 2) on the bank of the river Irgiz; 3) on the bank of the river Ural; 4) in the Zhetisu; 5) on the bank of the river Shu. 25. Construction of the fortified lines of royalty in the 40s of the XVIII century started along: 1) river Yaik; 2) river Or; 3) the Irtysh River; 4) river Ilek; 5) river Kargala. 26. When the decree was issued forbidding Kazakhs night near the river Yaik: 1) October 19, 1742; 2) October 10, 1731; 3) June 19, 1750; 4) 20 August 1749; 5) July 15, 1755. 27. A special layer of the Kazakh nomadic society of the XVIII century, tyulen guts are: 1) the Sultan or Khan’s courts’ survants; 2) judges; 3) slaves; 4) farmers; 5) traders 28. 5 September 1740 Russian Embassy directed to rate of Abulhair: 1) headed by D. Gladysheva; 2) headed by D. Kestle; 3) headed by Ivan Kirillov; 4) headed by M. Tevkelevym; 5) headed by I. Nepluef. 29. Sultan Ablay was returned from captivity of Zhungars: 1) 1743;

144

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century 2) 1746; 3) 1751; 4) 1735; 5) 1758. 30. Sultan Nuraly was approved by Empress Elizabeth in Khan’s rank: 1) 1748; 2) 1745; 3) 1744: 4) 1750; 5) 1752. 31. Dzhungar Khanate ceased to exist: 1) 1758; 2) 1745; 3) 1760; 4) 1744; 5) 1731. 32. Sultan of Junior Horde, a member of the Peasants’ War Pugachev: 1) Dosaly; 2) Ayshuak; 3) Ablay; 4) Yeraly; 5) Djangir. 33. Institute of sultanate existed in the Kazakh steppe in the period: 1) 40-60s XIX; 2) 20-60s of the nineteenth century; 3) 30-40s of the eighteenth century; 4) 60-90s of the nineteenth century; 5) 50-70s of the eighteenth century. 35. «Charter of the Siberian Kyrgyzs» in 1822 has been elaborated: 1) by Speransky; 2) by I. Kirillov; 3) by V. Grigoriev; 4) by Ch.Valikhanov; 5) by T. Seidalin.

36. The Chairman of the district ministry on the «Charter of the Siberian Kyr gyzs» was: 1) senior sultan;

Quiz 2) 3) 4) 5) 5)

145

the Sultan; Khan; Bii; Starshina; H. Gens.

37. «A note on judicial reform» was written by Shokan Valikhanov in: 1) 2 February 1864; 2) 3 March 1863; 3) 4 September 1864; 4) March 1865. 38. What direction of royal policy criticized Ch.Valihanov in «About Islam in the steppe?» 1) Russification; 2) the imposition of Islam; 3) Christianization of Kazakhs; 4) did not criticize. 39. In conquest of the territory of the Senior Juz the troops participated under the leadership of: 1) Peremyshelskii and Chernyaev; 2) Goeke and Gutkovskii; 3) Lebedev and Radionov; 4) Perovsky and Kaufman. 40. Khiwa invasions of V.A.Perovskii held: 1) 1839 and 1853; 2) 1848 and 1851; 3) 1859 and 1861; 4) 1859 and 1860.

146

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

Chronological index

1730, June – Embassy of Khan Abulhair headed by S. Koydagulov and K. Koshtaev to Russia. 1731, February-1732 – Russian embassy headed by A.I. Tevkelev, an interpreter of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs . 1731, October 10 – Signing the act of political allegiance by Khan Abulkhair and 30 Kazakh starshins. 1731, December 19 – Semeke, khan of the Middle zhuz signed an act of political citizenship. 1734, May – The Orenburg expedition, which headed by I.Kirillov. 1735, August 15 – The establishment of Orenburg town in the estuary of the river Or (later - fortress Orsk). 1739/1740 – Invasion of Jungars in Kazakhstan. 1739-1771 – The reigning of Abulmambet, the khan of the Middle Horde. 1740, August 28 – the Oath of Abulmambet, the khan of the Middle Horde (1739-1771) and the influential sultan Abylai (1711-1781) 1742, October 19 – The decree of Russian government forbidding Kazakhs to nomadize near the river Yaik, Yaitsk town and building fortresses. 1748, April 13 – The decree of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna on the approval of sultan Nuraly on the post khan of the Junior Horde. 1748-1786 – The reigning of Khan Nuraly in the Junior Horde. 1752 – Foundation of the Petropavlovsk town. 1755, March 6 – Decree of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, forbidding Kazakhs of the Middle Horde to cross to the right side of the Irtysh river. 1758 – The defeat of the Jungar khanate. 1761 – Foundation of Bukhturma fortress. 1771-1781 – The reigning of the Kazakh khan Abylai . 1771 – Migration of Kalmyks to Jungar khanate («Dusty hike» ). 1773-1775 – Peasant war led by Y. Pugachev. 1781-1821 – The reigning of Khan Wali in the Middle Horde. 1783-1797 – The national-liberational movement led by Syrym Datuly. 1786 – Creating Border Court in Junior Horde. 146

Chronological index

147

1791-1838 – The years of life of batyr Junior Horde Isatai Taimanuly. 1791-1797 – The reigning of Khan Yeraly in the Junior Horde. 1796-1797 – The reigning of Khan Yesim in the Junior Horde. 1797-1805 – The reigning of Khan Ayshuak in the Junior Horde. 1805-1809 –The reigning of Khan Zhantore in the Junior Horde. 1801 – Establishment of the Bukei Khanate (Inner Horde). 1802-1847 – The years of life of a Kazakh poet Makhambet Otemisuly. 1803 – Regulations on the Ural Cossack troops. 1807-1888 – The years of life of a Kazakh batyr of shekti tribe Yeset Kotibaruly. 1808 – The beginning of formation of the Siberian Cossack troops. 1811-1824 – Construction of Novoiletsk line. 1822 – Acceptance of the «Charter on the Siberian Kyrgyzs» and the abolition of the khan’s power in the Middle Horde. 1823-1845 – The reign of khan Zhangir in the Bukei Khanate. 1824 – Introduction of the «Opinion of the Committee of Asian Affairs under the management transformations in Orenburg region». 1824 – Creation of the outer Karkaraly ‘s okrug 1826 – Creation of the outer Bayanaul’s okrug. 1830 – Founding of Akmola (current Astana). 1832 – Creation of the outer Akmola’s okrug. 1831-1868 –Intoduction of a distance system management in Junior Horde. 1834 – Founding of fortification New Petrovsk on Mangistau (moved in 1846 and renamed Fort Alexander, current Aktau) 1834 – Opening of Kushmurynsk’s outer prikaz 1835 – Construction of Novotroitsk line 1835-1865 – The years of life of a Kazakh enlightener Shokan Walikhanov 1836-1837 – National-Liberational Movement under the leadership of Isatai Taymanuly and Mahambet Utemisuly in the Bukei Khanate. 1836-1857 – The national-liberational movement led by Zhankozha Nurmuhameduly. 1837-1847 – The national-liberational movement led by sultan Kenesary Kasymuly. 1838 – Initiation of the «Regulation on the separate control of the Siberian Kyrgyzs» . 1838 – Foundation of Akmola fortress. 1839 – Khiwa military expedition of General -gubernator of Orenburg province V.A.Petrovsky. 1841 – Election of sultan Kenesary as a Khan of Kazakh khanate. 1841-1889 – The years of life of a Kazakh enlightener, teacher Ibrahim Altynsarin. 1844 – The introduction of «Regulations on the Administration of Orenburg Kazakhs». 1845 – Orenburg and Ural fortresses were built. 1845 – Abolition of khan’s power and the introduction of the «Provisional Council for the Department of Inner (Bukei) Horde».

148

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century 1845-1904 – The years of life of a Kazakh poet, philosopher Abai (Ibrahim) Kunanbaiuly 1846 – Creation of Atbasar’s and Ayagoz’s outer prikaz 1846 – Karabutak fortress was built. 1847 – Fortress Kapal was built in Zhetisu. 1847– Construction of the fortress Raimsk. 1847-1857 – Exile of T.G. Shevchenko in Kazakhstan. 1847-1858 – National-Liberational Movement of the Aral Kazakhs under the leadership of Eset Kotibaruly. 1850-1859 – Exile of a Russian writer Fyodor Dostoevsky in Omsk and Semipalatinsk. 1853 – Ak-Meshit was conquered by Russian troops and renamed as Perovsk (current Kyzylorda). 1854, May 9 – «Regulations on the management of the Semipalatinsk region» . 1854 – Founding of Vernyi fortress (current Almaty). 1855-1856 – Acceptance of the «Instructions on the governing of Syr-Darya Kirghizs». 1861 – «The Regulations of the military arrangement of the Kazakh steppe of Orenburg region and Syr-Darya line». 1862 – «Regulations of management of Alatau Okrug». 1860, October – The defeat of Kokand troops in Zhetysu, in the district of UzunAgash. 1864 – Conquer of the fortresses Merke, Turkestan, Aulie-Ata, Shymkent by the tsarist troops. 1865, June – Formation of Steppe Commission. 1867, July 11 – «Provisional Regulations on Administration in Semirechensk and Syr-Darya regions. 1868, October 21 – «Provisional Regulations on Administration in the steppe regions of Orenburg and West Siberian governor-governorship.» 1869-1870 – National-Liberational Movement of the Kazakhs in Ural and Torgai regions. 1869 – Foundation of Aktobe town. 1870 – National-Liberational Movement of Kazakhs Aday tribe in Mangistau. 1872 – Transfer of the former Bukei Khanate in the Astrakhan province. 1872-1929 – The years of life of a Kazakh writer, editor of the first magazine in the Kazakh language «Aikap» , Muhamedzhan Seralin. 1873 – Conquest of Khiva khanate by Russian Empire. 1873-1938 – The years of life of a Kazakh scientist linguist, editor of the first Kazakh newspaper «Kazakh» , Ahmed Baitursynuly. 1873-1919 – The years of life of a Kazakh batyr, leader of the rebellion of Kazakhs in Torgai region in 1916 year, Amangeldy Imanov. 1879 – Founding of Kostanai town. 1881, July 11 – The abolition of the Orenburg general-governorship.

Chronological index

149

1881-1884 – Resettlement of Uighurs and Dungans in Zhetysu. 1883-1918 – years of edition of the newspaper «Terdzhiman» (Translator). 1883 – «Regulations on the land organization of settled population of the region» (Zhetysu). 1885-1935 – The years of life of a Kazakh writer, philosopher, Mirzhakyp Dulatov. 1886, June 12 – «Regulation on governing Turkestan region» . 1889, July 13 – Regulation «On the voluntary resettlement of rural inhabitants and burghers on public land and on the procedure for individual chargeability the marked classes, settled in former times». 1891, March 25 – Regulations of Administration in Akmola, Semipalatinsk, Uralsk and Torgai regions. 1893 – Acceptance of the «Provisional Regulations for the formation of Migrants and spare areas near Siberian Railway». 1896-1901 – Construction of the Siberian railway. 1897 – The 1-st All-Russian Census of the population of the Russian Empire. 1898, June 2 – «Law on the Organization of the judiciary in the Steppe regions» . 1899-1905 – Construction of the Orenburg - Tashkent railway. 1903 – Rules «On the voluntary resettlement on public lands in the Syr-Darya, Ferghana and Samarkand regions». 1904-1906 – Formation in five resettlement areas: Torgai-Ural, Akmola, Semipalatinsk, Syr-Darya and Zhetysu in the Kazakh Steppe. 1905-1907 – The first Russian revolution 1905, October 17 – The Manifesto on the Improvement of the State Order 1905, August 16 – The first All-Russian Congress of Muslims of Russia, which took place in Nizhny Novgorod. 1905, August – The creation of the party «Ittifak al Muslimin» (Union of Muslims). 1906 April-June – 1-st State Duma in Imperial Russia. 1911-1915 – years of edition of the first Kazakh magazine «Aikap» 1913-1918 – years of edition of the first newspaper «Kazakh» 1914-1918 – World War I 1916, June 25 – Decree of the Russian government to mobilize Kazakhs, Kyrgyzs, Uzbeks, Turkmens, Uighurs and Dungans for rear works . 1916, July – The beginning of the national-liberational movement in Kazakhstan. 1917, February 28 – February bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia. The overthrow of tsarism. 1917, March 8 – Formation of the Provisional Government. 1917, Spring-Summer – Activities of Military-Industrial Committee. 1917, May 1 – the 1st All-Russian Muslim Congress was opened in Moscow. 1917, July – The first All-Kazakh Congress. 1917, 21 July to 2 August – All-Russian Muslim Congress II, which was held in Kazan.

150

New Approaches to the study of history of Kazakhstan in 19th century

Content

Introduction...................................................................................................3 1. The Intermediary Role of Tatars in Kazakhstan from the second half of the XVIII-th to the early XX-th century...........................................................................................6 2. The Pristavstvo Institution in the Kazakh Steppe in the 19th century..........................................................................43 3. The Novoileksk line: construction and Russian state policy...................................................................................71 4. Kazakh perceptions of Tatar officials in the Russian [Imperial] administration in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries..........................................................................91 5. Junior officials on special assignments in the administration of the Kazakh steppe in the second half of the 19th century: ranks, functions and areas of activity........................110 6. The Place of Kazakhstan in the Study of Central Asia..............................120 References.....................................................................................................137 Quiz...............................................................................................................139 Chronological index......................................................................................146

150

Introduction

Educational issue

Sultangalieva Gulmira Salimzhanovna

NEW APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF HISTORY OF KAZAKHSTAN IN 19th CENTURY Textbook

Computer page makeup N. Bazarbaeva Cover designer K. Umirbekova www.psu.kz ortcom.kz

IS No. 8370

Signed for publishing 31.07.15. Format 60x84 1/16. Offset paper. Digital printing. Volume 9,5 printer’s sheet. Edition 50. Order No. 1788. Publishing house «Qazaq university» Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, 71 Al-Farabi, 050040, Almaty Printed in the printing office of the «Qazaq universitety» publishing house

151

НОВЫЕ КНИГИ издательского дома «ҚАЗАҚ УНИВЕРСИТЕТІ» Жумагулов К.Т. История и современная организация архивного дела Казахстана: учебное пособие. – 2015. – 160 с. ISBN 978-601-04-1212-5 В учебном пособии рассмотрены вопросы истории и современной организации архивного дела в Казахстане. Подготовлен в соответст-вии с учебным требованием подготовки специалистов специальности «Архивоведение, документоведение и документационное обеспечение». Пособие предназначается для студентов вузов, а также всем, кто интересуется данной темой. Хабижанова Г.Б. Древнетюркская мифология в контексте изучения традиционного мировоззрения и цивилизации номадов Евразии: учебное пособие. – 2015. – 134 с. ISBN 978-601-04-1139-5 В предлагаемом учебном пособии рассматриваются основные вопросы изучения мифологии древних тюрков с позиции новых теоретических подходов, раскрывающих формирование, сущность и содержание традиционного мировоззрения тюркоязычных народов, влияние и отражение древнетюркских архетипов в унаследованных ими социокультурных и материальных комплексах. Учебное пособие рекомендуется для студентов и магистрантов, обучающихся по специальности «История». Қартабаева Е.Т. Шығыс елдерінің ежелгі және орта ғасырлар тарихы: оқулық / Е.Т. Қартабаева. – 2015. – 330 б. ISBN 978-601-04-1023-7 Оқулықта Шығыстың б.з.д. ІV мыңжылдықтың соңында Ніл мен Евфрат – Тигр Қосөзені аңғарларындағы алғашқы таптық қоғамдар мен мемлекеттік құрылымдардың пайда болуынан бастап ХVІІ ғасырда Шығыс елдерінің Еуропа отарлауына ұшырауына дейінгі Аралықтағы тарихы қамтылған. Бұл кітап Шығыс елдерінің ежелгі және орта ғасырлардағы негізгі тарихи үдерістерін өзара сабақтастықта қарастырады, жалаң фактілер ғана келтірілмей, тарихи оқиғалар мен үдерістерге талдау жасалып, себеп-салдарлы байланыстары ашылады. Шығыстың ежелгі және ортағасырлық қоғамдары дамуындағы жалпы мен ерекшенің арақатынасына, тарихи дамудың негізгі, жалпыға ортақ қозғаушы күштеріне көңіл аударылған. Оқулық жоғары оқу орындары тарих мамандығының студенттеріне және жалпы көпшілікке арналған. Калыш А.Б., Касымова Д.Б. Репатрианты Казахстана: Казахстан в системе транснациональной миграции в условиях глобализации: учебное пособие. – 2015. – 364 с. ISBN 978-601-04-1041-1 В учебном пособии рассмотрены проблемы этнической репатриации как особого вида транснациональной миграции. Данное пособие предназначено для студентов, магистрантов, PhD докторантов гуманитарных вузов и преподавателей высших учебных заведений. В нем представлены главы, в которых описаны репатриационные процессы как часть транснациональных потоков в условиях глобализации под разными углами зрения: общетеоретическим, дисциплинарным и междисциплинарным. Кітаптарды сатып алу үшін «Қазақ университеті» баспа үйінің маркетинг және сату бөліміне хабарласу керек. Байланыс тел.: 8 (727) 377-34-11. E-mail: [email protected], cайт: www.read.kz, www. magkaznu.com.