Conflict as a Resource: An Anatomy of the “Turkmen Unrest” in Khorezm, 1914–1916

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Archives

Archive of the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, f. I-15, op. 3, d. 20.

Central State Archive of the Republic of Uzbekistan, Tashkent (TsGA RUz), f. I-1, op. 31, d. 429-а, 1104,

f. I-2, op. 1, d. 305, 314, 343, 348,

f. I-2, op. 2, d. 546,

f. I-125, op. 1, d. 594,

f. I-461, op. 1, d. 1889-a.

Institute of Oriental Studies, the Academy of Sciences of Uzbekistan (Tashkent). Manuscripts:Laffasī, Ḥasan-Murād. Gulshan-i saʿādat. MS Tashkent, Inv. No. 7797. Safarūf, Bābā-Jān. Khwārazmda būlūb ūtgān qūlchīlīq ahvāllārīnīng vāqi’alārī. MS Tashkent, Inv. No. 11254.

Karakalpak Research Institute for the Humanities, Nukus.

Safarūf, Bābā-Jān. Matiryāllār. MS Nukus, Inv. No. S-12.

Private Collection of Anvar Otaboev, Khiva.

Niyāz Ḥājī, Pahlawān. [Yāsh Khīvalīlār Tārikhī]. MS Khiva.

Notes

^1. See: G. M. Karpov and D. M. Batser, Khivinskie turkmeny i konets Kungradskoi dinastii (Materialy po istorii turkmen) (Ashkabad, 1930), p. 51.

^2. K. Maevskii, “Protokol doprosa,” 18 November 1916, Central State Archive of the Republic of Uzbekistan (TsGA RUz), f. I-461, op. 1, d. 1889-а, l. 132 ob. Ensign Maevskii commanded a platoon of the Cossack sotnia, which was sent to Khiva in March 1915.

^3. Manuscript by Pahlawān Niyāz Ḥājī [Yāsh Khīvalīlār Tārikhī]. The only known copy of this work is in the private collection of A. Otabaeva (Khiva). A copy was sent to me by K. Khudobergenov.

^4. Sbornik statei k desiatiletiiu Bukharskoi i Khorezmskoi revoliutsii (vospominaniia uchastnikov Bukharskoi i Khorezmskoi revoliutsii), (Tashkent, 1930); Vosstanie 1916 goda v Turkmenii (Dokumenty i materialy), ed. N. V. Litvinenko (Ashkabad, 1938).

^5. Alexander Morrison, “Review: The Revolt of 1916 in Russian Central Asia. By Edward Dennis Sokol,” Slavic Review, 2017, vol. 76, no. 3, p. 774.

^6. Karpov and Batser, “Khivinskie turkmeny,” p. 6. See also: P. Aliksejenkof, 1916-nchi Jьlda Bolqan Xьva Qozqalanь (Taskent, 1931), p. 7; Vosstanie 1916 goda v Turkmenii, pp. 3–25.

^7. Aliksejenkof, 1916-nchi Jьlda Bolqan Xьva Qozqalanь p. 6.

^8. Karpov and Batser, “Khivinskie turkmeny.”

^9. U. Tŭkhtakhonov, Sovet-Khiva munosabati va uning rivozhlanishi (1917–1920 iillar) (Tashkent, 1960); G. Nepesov, Iz istorii Khorezmskoi revoliutsii. 1920–1924 gg. (Tashkent, 1962); I. V. Pogorel’skii, Ocherki ekonomicheskoi i politicheskoi istorii Khivinskogo khanstva kontsa XIX i nachala XX vv. (1873–1917 gg.), (Leningrad, 1968); T. G. Tukhtametov, Rossiia i Khiva v kontse XIX – nachale XX v. Pobeda Khorezmskoi revoliutsii (Moscow, 1969); Revoliutsionnoe dvizhenie v Turkmenistane v 1907–1917 godakh (Sbornik arkhivnykh dokumentov), ed. N. N. Kanoda, Ashkhabad, 1970; A. S. Sadykov, Rossiia i Khiva v kontse XIX – nachale XX veka (Tashkent, 1972).

^10. Tŭkhtakhonov, Sovet-Khiva munosabati, p. 13; Revoliutsionnoe dvizhenie v Turkmenistane, p. 13.

^11. The main conclusion was that the “accession” (it was proposed that this term be used instead of “conquest”) of Central Asia to Russia was essentially “colonial,” bringing the local population under the “double oppression of the tsarist colonialists and local feudal lords,” though the event ultimately had “enormously objective progressive significance.” See.: A. P. Bazhova, “Ob”edinennaia nauchnaia sessiia, posviashchennaia progressivnomu znacheniiu prisoedineniia Srednei Azii k Rossii,” Voprosy istorii, 1959, no. 8, pp. 173-183.

^12. A number of works that have proposed a radical rethinking of the uprising of 1916 in Central Asia have only been published in the last few years. However, almost none of them have considered the events in Khorezm. See, for example: G. Aitpaeva, et al. (eds.), Pereosmyslenie vosstaniia 1916 goda v Tsentral’noi Azii: Mezhdunarodnoe nauchnoe soveshchanie (Bishkek, 2017).

^13. O. Qŭshzhonov and N. Polvonov, Khorazmdagi izhtimoii-siësii zharaënlar va h’arakatlar (XIX asr ikkinchi iarmi – XX astr birinchi choragi) (Tashkent, 2007).

^14. Qŭshzhonov and Polvonov, Khorazmdagi izhtimoii-siësii zharaënlar, pp. 217, 224–225, 229–230, 254, 259. See also: Z. U. Choriev, “Khivinskoe vosstanie 1916 goda kak vazhnaia chast’ natsional’no-osvoboditel’nogo dvizheniia v Turkestane,” Vestnik NUU, 1999, no. 2, pp. 39–44.

^15. Qŭshzhonov and Polvonov, Khorazmdagi izhtimoii-siësii zharaënlar, pp. 235, 252, 254, 256, 257.

^16. Ibid., pp. 229, 254.

^17. See also: Q. Razhabov, “Khorazmda istiqlol harakati va Zhunaidkhon,” Zhamiyat va boshqaruv, 2000, no. 1, p. 42.

^18. M. Niiazmetov, Poisk konsensusa. Rossiisko-khivinskie geopoliticheskie otnosheniia v XVI – nachale XX v. (St. Petersburg, 2010), pp. 388–469.

^19. Ibid., pp. 404, 411, 413, 417, 418.

^20. The archives also contain a mass of similar documents about the uprising of Dukchi Ishan (in 1898), in which researchers noted that contemporary officials and investigators went on a wild goose chase to uncover the “Turkish and German agents” who were behind the disturbances. See.: Baxtiyar Babadzanov, “Dukci Ishan und Aufstand von Andizan 1898,” ed. Anke von Kügelgen, et al., in Muslim Culture in Russia and Central Asia from the 18th to the Early 20th Centuries, (Berlin, 1998), vol. 1, pp. 173-174.

^21. For more information, see: Iu. E. Bregel’, Khorezmskie turkmeny v XIX veke (Moscow, 1961), pp. 197–228; Akifumi Shioya, “Irrigation Policy of the Khanate of Khiva Regarding the Lawzan Canal, 1830–1873,” Area Studies Tsukuba, 2011, vol. 32, pp. 124–129.

^22. I discussed the results of my study of these topics at the following presentations: U. Abdurasulov, “Taking Stock of the Turkmens: The Many Forms of Khivan Sovereignty” (Eleventh Biennial Iranian Studies Conference, University of Vienna, August 2–5, 2016); U. Abdurasulov, “How to Manage Diversity? State Building Project(s) in Post-Nader Shah’s Khorezm” (presentation, Nader Shah Revisited. International Conference, Institute of Iranian Studies, Vienna, December 5–6, 2017).

^23. For more about the procedural nature of power exercised by authorities: Sanjay Subrahmanyam, “The Mughal State – Structure or Process? Reflections on Recent Western Historiography,” The Indian Economic and Social History Review, 1992, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 291–322.

^24. Seymour Becker, Russia’s Protectorate in Central Asia: Bukhara and Khiva, 1865–1924 (Cambridge, MA, 1968), p. 76.

^25. T. G. Tukhtametov, Amudar’inskii Otdel (Sotsial’no-ekonomicheskoe i politicheskoe znacheniia dlia Khorezmskogo oazisa) (Nikus, 1977), p. 64. “O vydelenii ADO iz sostava Syrdar’inskoi oblasti,” TsGA RUz, f. I-1, op. 27, d. 429-а, l. 3.

^26. Becker, Russia’s Protectorate in Central Asia, p. 64; Tukhtametov, Amudar’inskii otdel, p. 62.

^27. TsGA RUz, f. 11s, op. 3, d. 828, l. 3, Cited in: Tukhtametov, Amudar’inskii otdel, p. 59.

^28. N. S. Lykoshin, “Ego Vysokoblagorodiiu A. A. Semenovu,” 29 December 1913, TsGA RUz, f. I-2, op. 1, d. 348, l. 20.

^29. U. Abdurasulov and P. Sartori, “Nepredelennost’ kak politika: razmyshliaia o prirode Rossiiskogo protektorata v Srednei Azii,” Ab Imperio, 2016, no. 3, pp. 118–164. For an interpretation of “strategic relativism” as an epistemological strategy that constitutes “the hallmark of the ideal form of empire” that creates “a situation of uncertainty, incommensurability, and indistinguishability,” see: I. Gerasimov, S. Glebov, Ia. Kusber, M. Mogil’ener, and A. Semenov, “Novaia imperskaia istoriia i vyzovy imperii,” Ab Imperio, 2010, no. 1, pp. 38–39.

^30. Kolosovskii, “Ego Prevoskhoditel’stvu N. V. Efremovu,” 31.91.1917, TsGA RUz, f. I-461, op. 1, d. 1899-a, l. 120 ob.

^31. Ibid., l. 103 ob.

^32. According to the estimates of M. Niiazmatov, by 1911, about 50 cotton ginning plants were operating in the Khanate. All in all, the “Russian commercial community” consisted of 293 employees, 154 authorized trading houses, and 19 merchants. See Niiazmatov, Poisk konsensusa, pp. 242–247.

^33. A. M. Kisliakov, “Protokol doprosa,” 19 October 1916, TsGA RUz, f. I-461, op. 1, d. 1889-а, l. 204 ob.

^34. It was responsible for the lion’s share of banking transactions in Khiva. Niiazmatov, Poisk konsensusa, p. 255.

^35. Kolosovskii, “Ego Prevoskhoditel’stvu N. V. Efremovu,” l. 105.

^36. Ibid., l. 112, 120.

^37. For more about the rising wave of “spy mania,” “pan-Islamism,” and “Germanophobia” in the years under consideration in Turkestan, see: T. V. Kotiukova, Okraina na osobom polozhenii. Turkestan v preddverii dramy (Moscow, 2016), pp. 282–332. In this regard, it is hard not to agree with A. Morrison that the very idea that the uprising was incited by the “invisible hand” of foreign agents was so popular because it allowed colonial officials to dodge the accusation that they were incompetent in carrying out their own duties. See: A. Morrison, “Bezhentsy, reabilitatsiia i ‘revoliutsionnoe’ nasilie posle vosstaniia 1916 goda,” in Pereosmyslenie vosstaniia 1916 goda v Tsentral’noi Azii, p. 147.

^38. Kolosovskii, “Ego Prevoskhoditel’stvu N. V. Efremovu,” l. 110 ob.

^39. V. Kolosovskii, “Upravliaiushchemu Kantseliariei Turkestanskogo general-gubernatora,” 18 July 1916, TsGA RUz, f. I-1, op. 31, d. 1104, l. 121–121 ob.; Kolosovskii, “Ego Prevoskhoditel’stvu N. V. Efremovu,” l. 108 ob.

^40. Kisliakov, “Protokol doprosa,” l. 204.

^41. The Khivan version of his name was “Mukhammad Vafa Iusuf ugli,” and I have also found references calling him “Matvafa Karvanbashi.”

^42. N. S. Lykoshin, “Sovremennoe raspredelenie vlasti v Khanstve Khivinskom,” TsGA RUz, f. I-2, op. 1, d. 314, l. 63 ob.-64.

^43. Ibid., l. 74–74 ob.

^44. Kisliakov, “Protokol doprosa,” l. 204 ob.-205 ob.; T.M. Chernikov, “Protokol doprosa,” 19 October 1916, Ibid., l. 210–211 ob.

^45. See Abdurasulov and Sartori, “Neopredelennost’ kak politika,” pp. 129-134. Asfandiiar Khan is also described similarly in the reports of officials in the colonial administration and in the writings of local writers from Khiva. See: Bobozhon Tarroh-Khodim, “Khorazm shoir va navozandalari,” in Podgotovka k izdaniiu A. Otamurodova i O. Abdurakhimova (Tashkent, 2011), p. 33.

^46. A bek, or hakim, is a ruler of a city or adjoining province in the Khanate of Khiva.

^47. V. S. Kovalev, “Protokol doprosa,” 09 October 1916, TsGA RUz, f. I-461, op. 1, d. 1889-а, l. 169.

^48. N. S. Lykoshin, “Sovremennoe raspredelenie vlasti,” l. 63 ob.–64.

^49. Pahlawān Niyāz Ḥājī [Yāsh Khīvalīlār Tārikhī], l. 23b–23b.

^50. See Niiazmetov, “Poisk konsensusa,” pp. 394–395.

^51. Efremov, “Upravliaiushchemu Kantseliariei Turkestanskogo general-gubernatora,” l. 3

^52. Bregel’, Khorezmskie turkmeny v XIX veke, pp. 26-27.

^53. N. S. Lykoshin, “Raport,” 04 January 1913, TsGA RUz, f. I-2, op. 1, d. 305, l. 8; A. N. Samoilovich, “Kratkii otchet o poezdke v Tashkent i Bukharu i v Khivinskoe khanstvo komandirovannogo SPb. Universitetom i Russkim Komitetom privat-dotsenta A. N. Samoilovicha v 1908 g.,” in Izvestiia Russkogo komiteta dlia izucheniia Srednei i Vostochnoi Azii v istoricheskom, arkheologicheskom, lingvisticheskom i etnograficheskom otnosheniiakh (St. Petersburg, 1909), no. 9, pp. 11–12.

^54. Contemporary authors from Khiva attributed extraordinary strength, courage, honesty, and determination to Sheikh Nazar. See Tarroh, “Khorazm shoir va navozandalari,” p. 77.

^55. Ḥasan-Murād Laffasī, “Gulshan-i saʿādat,” Institute of Oriental Studies of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Uzbekistan (IVANRUz), Manuscript Collection, Inv. No. 7797, l. 100б; Pahlawān Niyāz Ḥājī [Yāsh Khīvalīlār Tārikhī], l. 30b.

^56. Bābā-Jān Safarūf, “Matiryāllār,” Karakalpak Research Institute for the Humanities, Nukus, Manuscript Section, Inv. No. S-12, l. 41b.

^57. Iu. Bregel’ believes that the most accurate calculation basis is five people per kibitka. See Bregel’, Khorezmskie turkmeny v XIX veke, p. 35.

^58. Lykoshin, “Zapiska,” l. 24 ob.; Girshfeld and Galkin, “Voenno-statisticheskoe opisanie Khivinskogo oazisa. Sostavleno General’nogo shtaba kapitan Girshfel’dom. Pererabotano Nachal’nikom Amu-Dar’inskogo otdela General-maiorom Galkinym” (Tashkent, 1903), Part 2, pp. 66–69.

^59. At the beginning of the twentieth century, there were about 15,000 families of Iomuds in the Khanate. See: Girshfeld and Galkin, “Voenno-statisticheskoe opisanie,” Part II, pp. 66–70; V. Lobachevskii, “Voenno-statisticheskoe opisanie Turkestanskogo voennogo okruga. Khivinskii raion” (Tashkent, 1912), pp. 54–55; Bregel’, Khorezmskie turkmeny v XIX veke, p. 42 ⁶° Akifumi Shioya, “Povorot and the Khanate of Khiva: A New Canal and the Birth of Ethnic Conflict in the Khorazm Oasis, 1870s–1890s,” Central Asian Survey, 2014, vol.

^60. Akifumi Shioya, “Povorot and the Khanate of Khiva: A New Canal and the Birth of Ethnic Conflict in the Khorazm Oasis, 1870s–1890s,” Central Asian Survey, 2014, vol. 33, no. 2, p. 223.

^61. See: “Polevoi dnevnik G. P. Vasil’eva,” in Khorezmskaia arkheologo-etnograficheskaia ekspeditsiia. Turkmenskii etnograficheskii otriad, Archive of the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, f. 15, op. 3, d. 20, l. 24–32.

^62. N. N. Murav’ev-Karsskii, “Puteshestvie v Turkmeniiu i Khivu v 1819 i 1820 godakh gvardeiskogo General’nogo Shtaba kapitana N. Murav’eva, poslannogo v sii strany dlia peregovorov” (Moscow, 1822), part 1, p. 56; G. S. Karelin, “Zhurnal ili dnevnye zapisi ekspeditsii 1836 g.,” in Zapiski Imperatorskogo Russkogo geograficheskogo obshchestva po obshchei geografii (St. Petersburg, 1883), vol. X, p. 303.

^63. Bregel’, Khorezmskie turkmeny v XIX veke, p. 139.

^64. Individual Turkmen groups undertook such initiatives in the late nineteenth century, for example. See Shioya, “Povorot and the Khanate of Khiva: A New Canal and the Birth of Ethnic Conflict in the Khorazm Oasis, 1870s–1890s,” pp. 236–237.

^65. “Diplomaticheskii chinovnik pri Turkestanskom general-gubernatore,” 12 April 1912. Cited in: Karpov and Batser, “Khivinskie turkmeny,” p. 49.

^66. Samsonov, “G. Ministru inostrannykh del,” November 1913, TsGA RUz, f. 2, op. 1, d. 343, l. 10.

^67. V. Kolosovskii, “Raport,” 08 January 1915. Cited in: Karpov and Batser, “Khivinskie turkmeny,” p. 55.

^68. Abdurakhman Bakkalov, “Protokol doprosa,” 17 October 1916, TsGA RUz, f. I-461, op. 1, d. 1889-а, l. 193.

^69. Pahlawān Niyāz Ḥājī [Yāsh Khīvalīlār Tārikhī], l. 24-b; A. Bakkalov, “Protokol doprosa,” l. 194 ob.

^70. Kolosovskii, “Raport,” Cited in: Karpov and Batser, “Khivinskie turkmeny,” p. 56; Bakhshi Shah Murad, “Protokol doprosa,” 13 October 1916, TsGA RUz, f. I-461, op. 1, d. 1889-а, l. 176.

^71. Laffasī, “Gulshan-i saʿādat,” l. 23b-24a; Pahlawān Niyāz Ḥājī [Yāsh Khīvalīlār Tārikhī], l. 24b; Volkov, “Ego Vysokoprevoskhoditel’stvu,” l. 71.

^72. Karpov and Batser, “Khivinskie turkmeny,” p. 57.

^73. A. Bakkalov, “Protokol doprosa,” l. 195.

^74. Laffasī, “Gulshan-i saʿādat,” l. 24a.

^75. Bobozhon Tarroh-Khodim, “Khorazm shoir va navozandalari,” p. 78.

^76. Bābā-Jān Safarūf, “Matiryāllār,” l. 46b–47b. For a more detailed account of Junaid’s biography, see: Q. Razhabov, “Zhunaidkhon,” in Ŭzbekiston millii entsiklopediiasi, (Tashkent, 2002), vol. 3, p. 639.

^77. Nepesov, Iz istorii Khorezmskoi revoliutsii, p. 64.

^78. Pahlawān Niyāz Ḥājī [Yāsh Khīvalīlār Tārikhī], l. 25b

^79. Laffasī, “Gulshan-i saʿādat,” l. 25a.

^80. Karpov and Batser, “Khivinskie turkmeny,” p. 58.

^81. Martson, “Telegramma.” Cited in: Karpov and Batser, “Khivinskie turkmeny,” p. 58.

^82. Karpov and Batser, “Khivinskie turkmeny,” pp. 58–59.

^83. Pahlawān Niyāz Ḥājī [Yāsh Khīvalīlār Tārikhī], l. 26b; [A. Bakkalov, “Protokol doprosa,” l. 196.

^84. Hussein Mohammed Bek Divanbegi, “Protokol doprosa,” 16 October 1916, TsGA RUz, f. I-461, op. 1, d. 1889-а, l. 184; Volkov, “Ego Vysokoprevoskhoditel’stvu,” l. 72.

^85. Kisliakov, “Protokol doprosa,” l. 207.

^86. The fact that Matvafa thought that his life was in danger during these days, fearing that “enemies could easily kill him,” is confirmed by the testimony of his nephew Sharif Bai Bakkalov. See the recorded minutes of his interrogation: TsGA RUz, f. I-461, op. 1, d. 1889-а, l. 250.

^87. Volkov, “Ego Vysokoprevoskhoditel’stvu,” l. 73.

^88. Khadzhi Bai Aminbaev, “Protokol doprosa,” 20 October 1916, TsGA RUz. f. I-461, op. 1, d. 1889-a. l. 256.

^89. Volkov, “Ego Vysokoprevoskhoditel’stvu,” l. 196 ob.

^90. Pahlawān Niyāz Ḥājī [Yāsh Khīvalīlār Tārikhī], l. 26-b.

^91. Niiazmetov, Poisk konsensusa, pp. 407–408.

^92. V. F. Minorskii, “Zametka o polozhenii v Khive,” 14 January 1916, TsGA RUz, f. 1, op. 31, d. 1104, l. 141.

^93. Kolosovskii, “Ego Prevoskhoditel’stvu N. V. Efremovu,” l. 109 ob.

^94. V. F. Martson, “G. Voennomu ministru.” Cited in: Karpov and Batser, “Khivinskie turkmeny,” pp. 64–65.

^95. Cited in: Karpov and Batser, “Khivinskie turkmeny,” pp. 65–66.

^96. Volkov, “Ego Vysokoprevoskhoditel’stvu,” l. 73.

^97. Karpov and Batser, “Khivinskie turkmeny,” p. 91.

^98. “Nachal’nik Zakaspiiskoi oblasti. Turkestanskomu general-gubernatoru,” TsGA RUz, f. I-1, op. 31, d. 1104, l. 19 ob.–20.

^99. “Nachal’nik Zakaspiiskoi oblasti. Turkestanskomu general-gubernatoru,” l. 19 ob.–20.

^100. Qurbān Muḥammad Sardār b. Ḥājī, “‘izzat wa sa’ādat nishān barādar-i karām Karwānbāshī Ᾱghā,” TsGA RUz, f. I-125, op. 1, d. 594, l. 6-6 ob.

^101. Safarūf, “Matiryāllār,” l. 47b.

^102. Laffasī, “Gulshan-i saʿādat,” l. 29b; Pahlawān Niyāz Ḥājī [Yāsh Khīvalīlār Tārikhī], l. 28b.

^103. One year later, the new Turkestan chief Kuropatkin was forced to admit that a few hundred rifles might have made a difference in avoiding such a “shameful” humiliation of the khan. See.: Kuropatkin’s marginal notes to Kolosovskii’s explanatory note, l. 109 ob.

^104. Minorskii, “Zametka o polozhenii v Khive,” l. 142.

^105. Bakhshi Shah Murad, “Protokol doprosa,” l. 176 ob.

^106. Volkov, “Ego Vysokoprevoskhoditel’stvu,” l. 75.

^107. S. D. Sazonov, “Telegramma.” Cited in: Karpov and Batser, “Khivinskie turkmeny,” p. 72.

^108. Minorskii, “Zametka o polozhenii v Khive,” l. 142 ob. In the words of Seymour Becker, this allowed for “the realization after two centuries of Peter the Great’s ambition.” Becker, Russia’s Protectorate in Central Asia, p. 233.

^109. Kisliakov, “Protokol doprosa,” l. 20; Kornilov, “Protokol doprosa,” l. 188–188 ob.

^110. Hussein Mohammed Bek Divanbegi, “Protokol doprosa,” l. 184 ob.-185. ¹¹¹ The Khivan administration later provided a detailed list of the dates and amounts transferred by the Khivan ruler to V. Kolosovskii, head of the ADO. See.: “Ob”iasneniia Khana Khivinskogo, dannye polkovniku Volkovu na audientsii v g. Khive,” 16 October 1916, TsGA RUz, f. I-461, op. 1, d. 1889-а, l. 88–91.

^111. The Khivan administration later provided a detailed list of the dates and amounts transferred by the Khivan ruler to V. Kolosovskii, head of the ADO. See.: “Ob”iasneniia Khana Khivinskogo, dannye polkovniku Volkovu na audientsii v g. Khive,” 16 October 1916, TsGA RUz, f. I-461, op. 1, d. 1889-а, l. 88–91.

^112. A. Bakkalov, “Protokol doprosa,” l. 200–201 ob.

^113. Dzhan Mamed Bek, “Protokol doprosa,” 13 October 1916, TsGA RUz, f. I-461, op. 1, d. 1889-а, l. 180.

^114. “Nachal’nik Zakaspiiskoi oblasti. Turkestanskomu general-gubernatoru,” l. 19 ob.–20.

^115. Kisliakov, “Protokol doprosa,” l. 206 ob.; A. Bakkalov, “Protokol doprosa,” l. 198.

^116. A. A. Andreevskii, “Protokol doprosa,” 13 October 1916, TsGA RUz, f. I-461, op. 1, d. 1889-а, l. 172–172 ob.

^117. Maevskii, “Protokol doprosa,” l. 134.

^118. Maevskii, “Protokol doprosa,” l. 134; Volkov, “Ego Vysokoprevoskhoditel’stvu,” l. 74 ob.-75.

^119. Mukhammad Amin Darga Irnazarov, “Pokazaniia,” 20 January 1916, f. I-2, op. 2, d. 546, l. 63; Laffasī, “Gulshan-i saʿādat,” l. 35a–35b.

^120. Pahlawān Niyāz Ḥājī [Yāsh Khīvalīlār Tārikhī], l. 29b.; Laffasī, “Gulshan-i saʿādat,” l. 35a–35b.

^121. Laffasī, “Gulshan-i saʿādat,” l. 40b.

^122. Avaz Khodzha Murtaza Khodzhaev, “Pokazaniia,” 20 January 1916, TsGA RUz, f. I-2, op. 2, d. 546, l. 62.

^123. Qŭshzhonov and Polvonov, Khorazmdagi izhtimoii-siësii zharaënlar, p. 222.

^124. V. Kolosovskii, “Nachal’niku Khivinskogo otriada,” 18 January 1916, TsGA RUz, f. I-2, op. 2, d. 546, l. 58; Qŭshzhonov and Polvonov, Khorazmdagi izhtimoii-siësii zharaënlar, p. 221.

^125. Khadzhi Bai Aminbaev, “Protokol doprosa,” l. 254 ob.

^126. V. Kolosovskii, Turkestanskomu general-gubernatoru,” 21 January 1916, TsGA RUz, f. I-2, op. 2, d. 546, l. 44; Qŭshzhonov and Polvonov, Khorazmdagi izhtimoii-siësii zharaënlar, pp. 222–223.

^127. Ibid., l. 46–46 ob.

^128. Kolosovskii, “Turkestanskomu general-gubernatoru,” l. 46 ob.

^129. Kolosovskii, “Telegramma.” 23 January 1916, TsGA RUz, f. I-2, op. 2, d. 546, l. 21.

^130. Kolosovskii, “Turkestanskomu general-gubernatoru,” l. 47.

^131. Laffasī, “Gulshan-i saʿādat,” l. 45a.

^132. Laffasī Gulshan-i saʿādat, l. 45б; Pahlawān Niyāz Ḥājī [Yāsh Khīvalīlār Tārikhī], l. 31b–32b.

^133. A. Galkin, “Telegramma,” 13 March 2016, TsGA RUz, f. I-2, op. 2, d. 546, l. 132.

^134. Ivan Friuling was the manager of the Novyi Urgench branch of the Russo-Asiatic Bank. Grigorii Dumbadze was the agent of that bank.

^135. V. S. Kovalev, “Protokol doprosa,” 09 October 2016, TsGA RUz, f. I-461, op. 1, d. 1899-a, l. 170.

^136. V. Kolosovskii, “Telegramma.” 01 February 1916, TsGA RUz, f. I-2, op. 2, d. 546, l. 30.

^137. V. Kolosovskii, “Turkestanskomu general-gubernatoru,” l. 46 ob.

^138. Pahlawān Niyāz Ḥājī [Yāsh Khīvalīlār Tārikhī], l. 32b.

^139. Laffasī, “Gulshan-i saʿādat,” l. 46b–47a; 41a–41b. 45b.

^140. Grishin, “Protokol doprosa,” l. 247 ob.

^141. Kolosovskii, “Telegramma.” 26 January 1916, TsGA RUz, f. I-2, op. 2, d. 546, l. 24.

^142. F. V. Martson, “Telegramma.” 28 January 2016, TsGA RUz, f. I-2, op. 2, d. 546, l. 25.

^143. F. V. Martson, “Telegramma.” 01 February 2016, TsGA RUz, f. I-2, op. 2, d. 546, l. 31 ob.

^144. F. V. Martson, “Telegramma.” 04 February 2016, TsGA RUz, f. I-2, op. 2, d. 546, l. 36.

^145. Pahlawān Niyāz Ḥājī [Yāsh Khīvalīlār Tārikhī], l. 32b.

^146. F. V. Martson, “Voennomu ministru,” 04 July 1916, TsGA RUz, f. I-1, op. 31, d. 1104, l. 108 ob.

^147. “Raport Aktushina,” Cited in: Karpov and Batser, “Khivinskie turkmeny,” pp. 113–114.

^148. F. V. Martson, “Voennomu ministru,” 04 July 1916, TsGA RUz, f. I-1, op. 31, d. 1104, l. 109.

^149. See Kŭshzhonov and Polvonov, Khorazmdagi izhtimoii-siësii zharaënlar, p. 234; Niiazmetov, “Poisk konsensusa,” p. 427.

^150. Pahlawān Niyāz Ḥājī [Yāsh Khīvalīlār Tārikhī], l. 35b.

^151. Laffasī, “Gulshan-i saʿādat,” l. 52b.

^152. A. S. Galkin, “Telegramma.” 15 March 1916, TsGA RUz, f. I-2, op. 2, d. 546, l. 132.

^153. A. S. Galkin, “Telegramma.” 17 March 1916, TsGA RUz, f. I-2, op. 2, d. 546, l. 153 ob.

^154. “Telegramma i.o. Diplomaticheskogo chinovnika,” 01 April 1916, TsGA RUz, f. I-2, op. 2, d. 546, l. 142.

^155. A. S. Galkin and V. Kants, “Turkestanskomu general-gubernatoru,” 11 August 1916, TsGA RUz, f. I-1, op. 31, d. 1104, l. 78.

^156. Pahlawān Niyāz Ḥājī [Yāsh Khīvalīlār Tārikhī], l. 37b.

^157. Niiazmatov, “Poisk konsensusa,” pp. 432–433.

^158. For a more detailed account of Junaid Khan’s escape and attempts to catch him, see: Kŭshzhonov and Polvonov, Khorazmdagi izhtimoii-siësii zharaënlar, pp. 246–249.

^159. For an account of the eventual fate of Junaid Khan, see: Razhabov Khorazmda istiqlol harakati, pp. 36–43.

^160. Volkov, “Ego Vysokoprevoskhoditel’stvu,” l. 82–83.

^161. Karpov and Batser, “Khivinskie turkmeny,” pp. 125–128; Nepesov, Iz istorii Khorezmskoi revoliutsii. p. 62; Niiazmetov, Poisk konsensusa, p. 433; Kŭshzhonov and Polvonov, Khorazmdagi izhtimoii-siësii zharaënlar, pp. 238–245.

^162. Quoted in: Niiazmatov, Poisk konsensusa, p. 429.

^163. “Zhurnal Osobogo Soveshchaniia po Khivinskim delam ot 9-10 iiunia 1916 g.,” TsGA RUz, f. I-1, op. 31, d. 1104, l. 129 ob., 131, 132, 135. See also: F. M. Martson, “Voennomu ministru,” 4 July 1916, Ibid., l. 109 ob.–110; A. S. Galkin, “G. Turkestanskomu general-gubernatoru. Doklad,” 12 July 1916, Ibid., l. 161, 162 ob.

^164. “Zhurnal Osobogo Soveshchaniia,” l. 131–131 ob.

^165. A. N. Kuropatkin, “Nachal’niku Turkestanskogo Raionnogo Okhrannogo Otdeleniia,” 04 October 1916, l. 143–145. Obviously, the investigation was also in part prompted by deeper problems related to the arrest and investigation of high-ranking imperial officials, including the former Minister of War A. S. Sukhomlinov.

^166. M. Volkov, “Ego Prevoskhoditel’stvu I. K. Smirnovu,” 06 October 1916, TsGA RUz, f. I-461, op. 1, d. 1899-a, l. 7.

^167. M. Volkov, “Ego Vysokoprevoskhoditel’stvu G. Turkestanskomu general-gubernatoru,” 04 November 1916, TsGA RUz, f. I-461, op. 1, d. 1899-a, l. 68 ob.–87 ob.

^168. Interrogations of Kolosovskii and Geppener (see Karpov and Batser, “Khivinskie turkmeny,” pp. 61–63; 76–77).

^169. Seid-Mukhamed Ushak-begi, “Protokol doprosa,” 13 October 1916, TsGA RUz, f. I-461, op. 1, d. 1899-a, l. 178 ob.–179 ob.

^170. Karpov and Batser, “Khivinskie turkmeny,” p. 138.

^171. See: Narbut, “Komanduiushchemu voiskami Turkestanskogo voennogo okruga Raport,” 14 May 1916, TsGA RUz, f. I-2, op. 2, d. 546, l. 220–221; P. Sekretarev, “Otgoloski Khivinskikh sobytii 1916 g.,” 16 July 1916, Ibid., l. 231–232.

^172. Karpov and Batser, “Khivinskie turkmeny,” p. 53; Nepesov, Iz istorii Khorezmskoi revoliutsii, p. 54; Niiazmetov, Poisk konsensusa, pp. 370–372; Shioya, “Povorot and the Khanate of Khiva: A New Canal and the Birth of Ethnic Conflict in the Khorazm Oasis, 1870s–1890s,” p. 240; Idem., “Who Should Manage the Water of the Amu-Darya? Controversy over Irrigation Concessions between Russia and Khiva, 1913–1914,” in Paolo Sartori (ed.), Exploration in the Social History of Modern Central Asia (19th–Early 20th Century) (Leiden, 2013), pp. 133–134.

^173. Lykoshin, “Zapiska,” l. 26 ob.

^174. Ibid., l. 40-43; Shioya, “Povorot and the Khanate of Khiva: A New Canal and the Birth of Ethnic Conflict in the Khorazm Oasis, 1870s–1890s,” pp. 234–238.

^175. A. S. Galkin, “Telegramma.” 27 April 1916, TsGA RUz, f. I-2, op. 2, d. 546, l. 146.