A New Kazakstan: four books reconceptualize the history of the Kazak Steppe

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

In addition to the works discussed in this review, see Allen Frank, Muslim Religious Institutions in Imperial Russia: The Islamic World of Novouzensk District and the Kazakh Inner Horde, 1780–1910 (Leiden: Brill, 2001); Shoshana Keller, To Moscow Not Mecca: The Soviet Campaign against Islam in Central Asia, 1917–1941 (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2001); Adeeb Khalid, The Politics of Muslim Cultural Reform: Jadidism in Central Asia (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998); Terry Martin, An Affirmative‐Action Empire: Ethnicity and the Soviet State, 1923–1938 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press 2001); and Douglas Northrop, Uzbek Women and the Veil (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002); and Bruce Privratsky, Muslim Turkistan: Kazak Religion and Collective Memory (Richmond: Curzon 2001). There have also been a number of valuable doctoral dissertations addressing Soviet national identity formation in Central Asia: Cassandra Cavanaugh, “Biology, Backwardness, and Byt: Russian Medicine in Central Asia, 1868–1932,” Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, New York, 2000; Bhavna Dave, “Politics of Language Revival: National Identity and State Building in Kazakhstan,” Ph.D. dissertation, Syracuse University, NY, 1996; Adrienne Lynn Edgar, “The Creation of Soviet Turkmenistan, 1924–1938,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1999; Francine Hirsch, “Empire of Nations: Colonial Technologies and the Making of the Soviet Union, 1917–1939,” Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, 1998; Marianne Kamp, “Unveiling Uzbek Women: Liberation, Representation and Discourse, 1906–1929,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1998; Roberta Maria Micallet, “The Role of Literature and Intellectuals in National Identity Construction: The Case of Uzbekistan,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, 1997; Jeff Sahadeo, “Creating a Russian Colonial Community: City, Nation, and Empire in Tashkent, 1865–1923,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana, 2000; and John Schoberlein, “Identity in Central Asia: Construction and Contention in the Conceptions of ‘Özbek,’ ‘Ta˘jik,’ ‘Muslim,’ ‘Samarqandi’ and Other Groups,” Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1994.

Martha Brill Olcott, The Kazakhs, 2nd edn (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995). A sampling of notable Soviet surveys of Kazak history includes: Saktagan Baishev, Torzhestvo Leninskikh idei v Kazakhstane (Alma‐Ata: Nauka, 1960); Ermukhan Bekmekhanov, Prisoedinenie Kazakhstana k Rossii (Moscow: Izd‐vo Akademii nauk SSSR, 1957); Akai Nusupbekov, ed., Istoriia Kazakhskoi SSR: s drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei, 5 vols (Alma‐Ata: Nauka, 1977–1981); and Salyk Zimanov, ed., Voprosy natsional'no‐gosudarstvennogo stroitel'stva v Srednei Azii i Kazakhstane (Alma‐Ata: Nauka, 1977).

There has been a cottage industry of republishing works of the Soviet‐sanctioned Kazak heroes: Chokan Valikhanov, Abai Kunanbai, Mukhtar Auezov, and Kanysh Satpaev. Rehabilitated Kazak intellectuals are also making a return: particularly visible are the works of Sandjar Asfendiarov, Uraz Dzhandosov, Beimbet Mailin, Turar Ryskulov, Saken Seifullin, Mukhamedjan Tynyshpaev.

Zhulduzbek Abylkhozhin, Traditsionnaia struktura Kazakhstana: sotsial'no‐ekonomicheskie aspekty funktsionirovaniia i transformatsii, 1920–1930e gg. (Alma‐Ata: Nauka, 1991); Dina Amanzholova Kazakhskii avtonomizm i Rossiia: istoriia dvizheniia Alash (Moscow: Rossiia molodaia, 1994) and Ausgangspunkte moderner Staatlichkeit: Kasachstan 1900‐1920 (Berlin: Schwarz, 2003); and Manash Kozybaev, Kazakhstan na rubezhe vekov: razmyshleniia i poiski (Almaty: Gylym, 2000). As evidenced by this list, the most comprehensive historical studies are still published in Russian rather than Kazak. Two notable exceptions are Mukhtar Maghauin, Qazaq tarikhynyn alippesi: derekti tolgham (Almaty: Qazaqstan, 1995) and Mambet Qoigeldiev and Talas Omarbekov, Tarikh taghylymy ne deidi? (Almaty: Ana tili, 1993).

See Adeeb Khalid, The Politics of Muslim Cultural Reform: Jadidism in Central Asia (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), p. 17. Khalid could have figured much more prominently in this work. Brief encapsulations of his work can also be found in the articles, “Nationalizing the Revolution in Central Asia: The Transformation of Jadidism, 1917–1920,” in Ronald Suny and Terry Martin, eds, A State of Nations: Empire and Nation‐Making in the Age of Lenin and Stalin (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 145–162, and “Tashkent 1917: Muslim Politics in Revolutionary Turkestan,” Slavic Review, Vol. 2, 1996, pp. 270–296.

Sabol's essay complements a rich new literature on Alash Orda which builds on the republishing of Georgii Safarov, Kolonial'naia revoliutsiia: opyt Turkestana (Almaty: Zhalyn, 1996) and new works: Dina Amanzholova, Kazakhskii avtonomizm i Rossii: istoriia dvizheniia Alash (Moscow: Russkaia molodaia, 1994), Kenes Nurpeisov, Alash ham Alashorda (Almaty: Atatek, 1995), and Mukhtar Qul‐Mukhamed, including Alash qairatkerleri saiasi: quqyqtyq kozqarastarynyng evoliutsiiasy (Almaty: Atamura, 1998).

Korenizatsiia literally implied the “rooting” of indigenous languages and native party cadres in Soviet institutions in order to increase local knowledge and public accessibility to Soviet ideology and political offices.

Terry Martin, An Affirmative‐Action Empire: Ethnicity and the Soviet State, 1923–1938 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press 2001), p. 126.

It is surprising, for example, that Payne ignores the particularly relevant Zhulduzbek Abylkhozhin, Traditsionnaia struktura Kazakhstana: sotsial'no‐ekonomicheskie aspekty funktsionirovaniia i transformatsii, 1920–1930e gg. (Alma‐Ata: Nauka, 1991).