Povorot and the Khanate of Khiva: a new canal and the birth of ethnic conflict in the Khorazm oasis, 1870s–1890s

Abstract

Previous research has emphasized that after the creation of a Russian protectorate over the Khanate of Khiva in 1873, Russian colonial authority in Turkestan followed a non-intervention policy up to the 1910s. However, Russian administrators and irrigation planners continued to interfere in irrigation matters in the khanate in order to realize the diversion (povorot) of the Amu Darya to the Caspian Sea, which was a goal Imperial Russia had been pursuing from the beginning of the eighteenth century. The typical example of such efforts towards diversion is the unsuccessful construction of the New Lawzan Canal, starting in 1894. Construction began without sufficient investigation, under the assumption that it would be easily realized by mobilizing the native population. As a result, it directly provoked a Yomut Turkmen uprising in 1899. Later, it represented a starting-point for the prolonged conflicts between the Khivan government and the Turkmens, which, in the 1920s, came to be interpreted as an ethnic conflict over water issues between the Uzbeks and the Turkmens.

Keywords:

• Lawzan Canal
• Khanate of Khiva
• Yomut Turkmens
• irrigation policy
• Russian rule in Central Asia

Acknowledgement

Research for this study was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (KAKENHI 26870083), and the Comprehensive Studies on Slavic Eurasian Regions programme of the Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University.

Notes

1. Recently, A. Erkinov (2011) has focused on the rich cultural activities of the Khivan court, under the reign of Sayyid Muhammad Rahim Khan (r. 1864–1910), as a means of resistance against Russia.

2. A. Koshchanov's (1964) research on the irrigation issues in Khiva under Russian protection, although unique in many respects, takes almost the same position as Guliamov's work.

3. The corvée system mandated 12 days' work annually from the sedentary land-tax payers (Sart, Uzbeks, and Qaraqalpaqs).

4. In 1830–31, Allah Quli Khan ordered the restoration of Old Urganj, which was a central city of Khorazm up to the middle of the sixteenth century and which had been devastated by the change of course of the Amu Darya (Shioya 2011, 119).

5. [Nikolai Konstantinovich Romanov,] Povorot Amudar'i v Uzboi, OR RNB, f. IV, d. 839, ll. 24ob., 32–32ob., 43–44; Glukhovskoi (1893, 79–80); Gel'man (1900, 123–124).

6. The grand duke was banished to Central Asia on a charge of theft. He lived in Tashkent and eagerly involved himself in irrigation enterprises in Turkestan, until his execution in 1918 (Pravilova 2009, 263–275).

7. 1 desiatina equals 1.092 ha. 1 versta equals 1.067 km.

8. Povorot Amudar'i v Uzboi, OR RNB, f. IV, d. 839, ll. 15ob.–18ob., 22ob.–24.

9. This is somewhat related to the fact that the archival documents and narrative sources which were written in Khiva before 1873, and which were confiscated on the orders of K.P. Von Kaufman, the first governor-general of Turkestan (in office 1867–1882), and moved to Saint Petersburg, were given almost no attention until Soviet Orientalist P.P. Ivanov (1893–1942) rediscovered them in 1936. On Ivanov's rediscovery of the Khivan archive, see Ivanov (1940).

10. Pis'mo, A.B. Vrevskii to Sayyid Muhammad Rahim Khan, 3 October 1893 (copy), TsGARUz, f. 125, op. 1, d. 33а, ll. 6–12.

11. The indemnity (a total of 2,200,000 rubles) was imposed on the Khivan government according to the peace treaty of 1873. The Khivan government paid 120,000–200,000 rubles annually on an instalment plan. The payment reached 30–50% of the annual revenue (400,000 rubles in the 1870s) of the khanate (Zhukovskii 1915, 182; Tukhtametov 1969, 30).

12. [A.L. Kun,] Ocherk istorii zaseleniia Khivinskogo khanstva s drevnikh vremen, sostav ego sovremennogo naseleniia, administratsiia i goroda khanstva, AV IVRRAN, f. 33, op. 1, d. 13, l. 24; Kun (1874, 48).

13. Raport, A.A. Lomakin to A.S. Galkin,1 August 1903, TsGARUz, f. 2, op. 2, d. 168, l. 25–25ob. According to Lomakin, the Kolli Yomuts reaped harvests of wheat in the autumn, and barley and sesame in the spring, according to the seasonal flooding of the Amu Darya (Doklad o sostoiashchego, TsGARUz, f. 2, op. 2, d. 168, l. 30ob.).

14. Beyond the Salakh Band, the nomadic Turkmens and Kazakhs made their winter encampment along the Daryaliq (Gel'man 1900, 148).

15. Perepiska, Galkin to Sayyid Muhammad Rahim Khan, 7 December 1900, TsGARUz, f. 125, op. 1, d. 73, ll. 6–9; Markov (1961, 139). Moreover, in the same correspondence, Galkin proposed that control over the New Lawzan Canal be transferred to the hands of the Turkmens and that the sedentary subjects of the khanate (vilāyat fuqarālārī; i.e. Uzbeks, Sart, and Qaraqalpaqs) should be relieved of compulsory dredging. On the meaning of the term vilāyat, see Bregel’ (1970).

16. Raport, the Diplomatic Official in Tashkent to the Chancellery of the Governor-General of Turkestan, 22 April 1902, TsGARUz, f. 2, op. 1, d. 151, ll. 1–2; Spravka po kantseliarii Turkestanskogo general gubernatora, 3 February 1903, TsGARUz, f. 2, op. 1, d. 151, ll. 17–18; Proshenie, Amanberdi Komakov to the Head of Transcaspian Province (Zakaspiiskaia oblast’), 11 June 1907 (Russian translation), TsGARUz, f. 2, op. 1, d. 151, l. 30–30ob.; Telegramma, A.S. Galkin to the Governor-General of Turkestan, 16 December 1900 (copy), TsGARUz, f. 2, op. 2, d. 81, l. 9; Pis'mo, Anonymous (in Turkic), TsGARUz, f. 125, op. 1, d. 73, l. 13. The grand duke's assertion might have been based on a principle of Islamic law, according to which restored lands (iḥyā yer) belong to the restorer. Indeed, during his visits in 1879 and 1890, the grand duke temporarily restored the lands along the main stream of the Lawzan.

17. Telegramma, A.S. Galkin to the Governor-General of Turkestan, 9 December 1900 (copy) TsGARUz, f. 2, op. 2, d. 81, l. 2; Telegramma, Galkin to the Governor-General of Turkestan, TsGARUz, f. 2, op. 2, d. 81, l. 9. Another report tells us that in the initial phase of the disturbance, Nafas Atal oghli (Nafas Ātāl ūghlī), a brother of Mahmud Khan, declared himself khan of the inhabitants along the Daryaliq on the grounds that the grand duke had made the appointment (Pis'mo, Anonymous, TsGARUz, f. 125, op. 1, d. 73, l. 13).

18. Raport, the Chancellery of the Governor-General of Turkestan to the Diplomatic Official in Tashkent, 6 June 1902, TsGARUz, f. 2, op. 1, d. 151, l. 9; Spravka, TsGARUz, f. 2, op. 1, d. 151, ll. 17–18.

19. Pis'mo, Amanberdi Komakov to Isfandiyar Tora, 8 Ramazan 1319 [7 December 1901] (Russian translation), TsGARUz, f. 2, op. 1, d. 129, l. 3–3ob.; Markov (1961, 140).

20. Doklad, the Diplomatic Official in Tashkent to the Governor-General of Turkestan, 29 September 1901, TsGARUz, f. 2, op. 2, d. 101, l. 24–24ob. The detailed duties of the sarkarda mentioned by Bayani are not clear. In 1874–75, during the punitive expeditions against the Turkmens in the Khanate, two sarkardas over the Yomuts and the Chawdurs levied compensation from these tribes, for a total of 60,000 rubles (Shajara, 474a–b). According to A L. Kun, the sarkarda was ‘the commander-in-chief of the Khivan army, who was appointed only in the time of war’ (Ocherk istorii zaseleniia, AV IVRRAN, f. 33, op. 1, d. 13, l. 42).

21. Pis'mo, Komakov to Isfandiyar Tora, TsGARUz, f. 2, op. 1, d. 129, l. 3–3ob.; Raport, the Chancellery of the Governor-General of Turkestan to the Diplomatic Official, TsGARUz, f. 2, op. 1, d. 151, l. 9; Spravka, TsGARUz, f. 2, op. 1, d. 151, ll. 17–18; Pis'mo, Amanberdi Komakov to Isfandiyar Tora, 8 Ramazan 1319 [7 December 1901] (in Turkic), TsGARUz, f. 125, op. 1, d. 73, ll. 29–30; Markov (1961, 140).

22. Raport, the Chancellery of the Governor-General of Turkestan to the Diplomatic Official, TsGARUz, f. 2, op. 1, d. 151, l. 9; Spravka, TsGARUz, f. 2, op. 1, d. 151, ll. 17–18; Proshenie, Mahmud Khan Atal'khanov to the Governor-General of Turkestan, 20 April 1902 (Russian translation), TsGARUz, f. 2, op. 1, d. 129, ll. 54–55; Proshenie, Komakov to the Head of Transcaspian Province, TsGARUz, f. 2, op. 1, d. 151, l. 30–30ob.

23. Doklad o sostoiashchego, TsGARUz, f. 2, op. 2, d. 168, ll. 29ob.–31, 30–31.

24. The area of newly irrigated lands was re-estimated on a smaller scale twice, in 1894 and 1897. Although the canal was widened by 1 sazhen’ in 1899, it was possible to cultivate only 1065 desiatinas of irrigated land (about a hundredth of the initial plan), instead of the estimated 4960 desiatinas necessary. 1 sazhen' equals 2.134 m.

25. Protokol soveshchaniia po voprosu o dal'neishem napravlenii pabot dlia propuska vody v staroe ruslo Amu-Dar'i, TsGARUz, f. 1, op. 12, d. 2102, ll. 8–11ob.

26. Raport, A. S. Galkin to the Chancellery of the Governor-General of Turkestan, 27 October 1900, TsGARUz, f. 1, op. 12, d. 2102, ll. 24ob.–25.

27. Zapiska, TsGARUz, f. 2, op. 1, d. 314, l. 40ob.; Doklad, Diplomatic Official to the Governor-General of Turkestan, TsGARUz, f. 2, op. 2, d. 101, l. 26. Muhammad Murad Divanbegi purportedly knew about irrigation issues well enough that he prohibited the installation of chïqïrs (chigir’ in Russian; the equipment for drawing water with a waterwheel that is powered mainly by livestock) in the upper basin of the Suhbat Yarghan so as not to deprive the Turkmens in the lower basin of their water supply (Zapiska, TsGARUz, f. 2, op. 1, d. 314, l. 40ob.).

28. For the position and role of the descendants of Sayyid Ata in Khorazm, see DeWeese (2001) and Shioya (2006).

29. Zapiska, TsGARUz, f. 2, op. 1, d. 314, ll. 18ob.–19; Yusupov (1999, 59–60). Through the intervention of the general-governorship of Turkestan, Husayn Muhammad soon re-occupied the post of dīvānbegi, and his fortune was returned (Tukhtametov 1969, 69).

30. Perepiska, Sayyid Muhammad Rahim Khan to A.S. Galkin, 6 June 1902, TsGARUz, f. 2, op. 1, d. 133, l. 29–29ob.; Zapiska, TsGARUz, f. 2, op. 1, d. 314, ll. 38, 41.

31. Zapiska, TsGARUz, f. 2, op. 1, d. 314, ll. 38, 42ob.–43. According to Lykoshin, the Turkmens called the restored Lawzan the Urūs Yārghān: [the canal] the Russians dug. The canal was reportedly dug by about 4000 people in 59 successive days and dredged for a month (Zapiska, TsGARUz, f. 2, op. 1, d. 314, ll. 38, 41ob.–43).

32. Materialy po statistike Khivinskogo oazisa. Khivinskie vladeniia, OR RNB, f. 220, op. 171а, d. 42, ll. 2, 48; Zapiska, TsGARUz, f. 2, op. 1, d. 314, l. 38. In 1911, B.L. Grzhegorzhevskii, an irrigation technician dispatched by the Department of Land Improvement, and Sayyid Ishaq Khoja, a governor of Old Urganj and elder brother of Islam Khoja, asserted that Mahmud Khan did not accept his obedience to the government of Khiva (Materialy, OR RNB, f. 220, op. 171а, d. 42, ll. 2, 48; Zapiska, TsGARUz, f. 2, op. 1, d. 314, l. 38).

33. Pis'mo, Anonymous [Isfandiyar Khan to Glushanovskii?], no date [1911?], fragment (in Turkic), TsGARUz, f. 125, op. 2, d. 135, l. 1.

34. Zapiska, TsGARUz, f. 2, op. 1, d. 314, ll. 50ob.–52ob.

35. According to a staff member of the Novo Urgench (New Urganj) branch of the Russo-Asiatic Bank, ‘in these 15 years, the discord between [the khanate] and the Turkmens was constant and it stopped temporarily for no more than one or two years’ (A.M. Kisliakov, ‘Zapiska o turkmenskom vosstanii o Khivinskom khanstve v nachale 1916 g. i prichinakh ego voznikovedeniia’ [Memorandum on the Turkmen Rebellion of the Beginning of 1916 and Its Cause], quoted in Kotiukova 2009, 11). The author expresses his gratitude to A. Morrison for this reference.