Table Of ContentRUSSIAN CENTRAL ASIA
1867-1917
RUSSIAN AND
EAST EUROPEAN
STUDIES
CHARLES JELAVICH, Tsarist Russia and Balkan Nation-
alism. Russian Influence in the Internal Affairs of Bul-
garia and Serbia, 1879-1886
ANDREW MALOZEMOFF, Russian Far Eastern Policy,
1881-1904. With Special Emphasis on the Causes of the
Russo-Japanese War
NICHOLAS V. RIASANOVSKY, Nicholas I and Official
Nationality in Russia, 1825-1855
RUSSIAN AND EAST EUROPEAN STUDIES
RUSSIAN
CENTRAL ASIA
1 8 6 7 - 1 9 17
A STUDY IN COLONIAL RULE
Richard A. Pierce
BERKELEY AND LOS ANGELES
1960
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS
BERKELEY AND LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
LONDON, ENGLAND
© 1960 BY THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGUE CARD NUMBER: 59-11314
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
PREFACE
RUSSIAN HISTORY still offers many comparatively neglected topics
for investigation. One of the most interesting of these is the story
of the expansion of Russia's Asian frontiers, and the colonization
of the borderlands which have always played such an important
role in her development. I hope that this survey of the half-
century of Russian rule in Central Asia before 1917 may facilitate
other more specialized studies of this area and period, which has
much to offer the historian, sociologist, ethnologist, or economist.
Because this subject involves names and terminology in Russian
and in a variety of Asiatic tongues, the problem of transliteration
has been a thorny one. I have dealt with it by using a modified
form of the Library of Congress system of Russian transliteration
not only for Russian terms and names but also for those in Turkic
and other languages, which I have used in their pre-1917 Russi-
fied forms. Although not satisfactory from a philological view-
point, this method at least assures consistency, and follows the
same form used in the bulk of the literature on the subject, which
is in Russian. Dates in this work prior to February 1/14, 1918, are
exclusively in the Old Style. To convert into New Style, add 12
days before 1900 and 13 days thereafter.
Research can never be self-sufficient, and this work has bene-
fited from many types of aid. I wish to express a debt of gratitude
first of all to the late Professor George V. Lantzeff, who aroused
my interest in the history of the Russian frontier regions and in
the subject of this book. Appreciation for their courtesy and
cooperation is due the personnel of the various libraries where
vi Preface
I have sought the materials used in this study, particularly the
University of California Library, the Hoover Library and Insti-
tute, the Library of Congress, the New York Public Library, the
West German State Library at Marburg, the superb library of
Russian materials at the University of Helsinki, the Turkological
Institute of Istanbul, and others here and abroad. The quest was
fruitful in many more ways than I had originally hoped.
A Fulbright fellowship to Germany in 1953-1954 was of great
aid in my gathering of material. A grant from the Project for the
Study of the History of the CPSU, of Columbia University, in
1956, enabled me to devote additional study to the origins of
Bolshevism in Central Asia.
I am likewise grateful to Mr. G. C. Guins, Professor V. P. Timo-
shenko, Dr. S. N. Shendrikoff, the late General A. N. Vagin,
and others who shared some of their personal experiences in Cen-
tral Asia with me, thus helping me better to visualize and under-
stand the bygone era with which this book is concerned. It is
regrettable that those occupied with recent Russian history have
made so little use of the valuable but ephemeral material to be
found in the oral testimony of members of the Russian emigra-
tion.
I am indebted to the family of the late Senator Count K. K.
Palen for allowing me to use his unpublished account of his in-
spection of the Turkestan administration in 1908-1909, the lively
style and vivid description of which complements his lengthy
and detailed official reports.
My deep appreciation is also extended to Professor V. A. Ri-
asanovsky and Mrs. Olivia Price who painstakingly read the man-
uscript and made many helpful suggestions. Mr. Joel Walters has
contributed much in the final editing of the book. To my wife,
Vera Pierce, I am deeply grateful for the aid and encouragement
which have meant so much in the completion of this task. To
others who contributed to this undertaking in various ways I also
extend my sincere thanks. However, the assessment and inter-
pretation is my own and I am responsible for any errors of com-
mission or omission.
RICHARD A. PIERCE
Kingston, Ontario.
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Part One: Conquest and Administration
II. THE RUSSIAN ADVANCE 17
in. TERRITORIAL ORGANIZATION 46
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE 64
V. ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM AND DEVELOPMENT 79
Part Two: Colonization
VI. URBAN DEVELOPMENT 95
VII. RURAL COLONIZATION 107
Part Three: Economic Development
VIII. LAND TENURE, TAXATION, AND WATER LAW 141
IX. NATIVE PASTORALISM 153
X. AGRICULTURE 163
XI. PUBLIC WORKS 175
xn. INDUSTRY AND TRADE 190
viii Contents
Part Four: The Clash of Cultures
XHI. EDUCATION 203
XIV. NATIVE REBELLIONS 221
XV. THE REVOLUTION OF 1905 234
XVI. THE RISE OF NATIVE NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS 249
Part Five: Imperial Twilight
XVII. THE WAR 265
XVIII. THE NATIVE REBELLIONS OF 1916 271
XIX. THE COLLAPSE OF THE IMPERIAL REGIME 297
XX. CONCLUSION: THE COLONIAL HERITAGE OF THE
USSR 302
APPENDIX 307
ABBREVIATIONS 310
NOTES 311
GLOSSARY 337
BIBLIOGRAPHY 339
INDEX 347
MAPS
Administrative Divisions of Russian Central Asia, 1917
(endpapers)
The Russian Conquests in Central Asia 43
The Native Revolts of 1916 in Central Asia 294
INTRODUCTION
I
THE IDEA that it is unethical for one people to control the des-
tinies of another has come late in the development of the human
social conscience, but it is increasing in force. Already this con-
cept has caused the breakup of long-established systems, and has
cast the very concepts of "empire," "colonies," and even "trustee-
ship" into the same disrepute accorded "imperialism," "colonial-
ism," and "exploitation."
A large share of the responsibility for this change in attitudes
can be ascribed to the doctrines of national self-determination
fostered by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Although
most of its more than 175 different nationalities were brought
forcibly under control by its forerunner, the Russian Empire, the
USSR professes to have solved its nationality problem and has
urged its own example upon the rest of the world.
Advocates of the Soviet solution to the nationality problem
have given special publicity to the Soviet republics of Central
Asia. The romantic past of these lands with their pathos of glory
and long decline, their inhabitants' religious ties with the rest of
the Moslem world, and their economic and cultural affinity with
other underdeveloped regions have made Soviet accounts of the
progress of these new states a potent propaganda weapon both
at home and abroad.
An accurate appraisal of any historical era requires first of all
a clear picture of what has gone before. Soviet accounts always
paint the plans and achievements of the new order in Central
Asia in glowing colors, but generally portray the old prerevolu-
2 Introduction
tionary regime in dismal hues. Until the late 1930s Soviet histori-
cal writing described the Russian conquest of Central Asian
peoples as having resulted in a "double oppression"—"a national-
colonial oppression, based on the bayonets of the Russian-military-
feudal imperialism and the feudal oppression of the native upper
classes."1 "Tsarist" policy assertedly delayed these people's cul-
tural growth, denied their children access to Russian schools,
halted their national development, and in general led them to-
ward poverty and extinction.
Accordingly, only in revolt was there hope of improving what
was clearly an intolerable state of affairs. The uprisings of the
toilers, striking back at the system of colonial oppression imposed
upon them by "tsarism" and at the feudal oppression of their own
upper classes, were therefore portrayed sympathetically as "na-
tional-liberation" movements. For many years such interpreta-
tions were standard doctrine, making the new regime stand out
even more clearly against the darkness of the past. Then, during
the late 1930's and World War II, the political wind changed. To
promote internal solidarity it was found desirable to modify in-
terpretations detrimental to the Russians. "Tsarism" continued to
receive the blame for errors and retarded development, but in-
stead of being an "evil," annexation to Russia was now found to
have been a "lesser evil" than conquest by foreign powers or con-
tinuation of native rule.2 In spite of "tsarism," association with
Russia was seen to have accelerated bourgeois and capitalist
relationships in Central Asia, while the Russian democratic in-
telligentsia were seen to have extended warm sympathy to the
freedom-loving Central Asian peoples. The "common historical
fate" of the Russians and the Central Asians thus became ever
clearer.3
Meanwhile the Russian people, after having been extolled as
"the first among the equal members of the Soviet family of
peoples,"4 had become by 1945 "the leading people" of the
USSR.® The "fraternal aid" extended in both past and present to
the Central Asians and the other more backward, less numerous
peoples of the USSR by the Russians, the "elder brother," began
to be stressed. It was pointed out that "along with the tsarist
