8 Family, Social Transformation, and Colonial Rule in the Kazakh Steppe between Russian and Soviet Rule (the End of the Nineteenth–Early Twentieth Centuries): Zhanturins and Asfendiarovs

When I feel deeply in my soul the graces of the most august emperor and the government’s cares that are constantly poured out on our Kyrgyz people,^[1] I consider it a special happiness for me to be in the capital of St. Petersburg and to see our main authorities, especially since this feeling of mine is fully shared with me by the people entrusted to my administration . . . .^[2]

This quote is taken from a letter of the ruler of the Eastern part of Orenburg Kazakhs, Akhmed Zhanturin, to General-major and head of the Orenburg border commission, Vasilii Ladyzhenski, to request a visit to the Imperial court in Saint Petersburg. During this period, the visits made by Kazakh sultans to the Russian court became more structured and organized in nature. Deputations to the imperial court had a high status in Kazakh eyes as one method of strengthening Kazakh nomads’ loyalty to the tsar. To exemplify this, it is noteworthy that Kazakh sultans and nobles acknowledged the significance of deputations, leading some sultans to personally finance their visits to Saint Petersburg.^[3] When a Steppe ruler and his entourage visited the imperial court, they gained prestige and increased their authority and power among the governed populace. Ranks, medals, money, and precious items obtained as imperial court rewards were portrayed as qualities of the Russian monarch’s favor.^[4] Akhmed Zhanturin similarly sought to accomplish the objectives of a deputation, following the recommendations of regional Russian administrations: “Sultan Akhmed Zhanturin is widely regarded as the most active of the sultans-rulers following the death of Baimukhamed Aishuakov, and his devotion merits the honor of being delivered to Your Imperial Majesty.”^[5] Furthermore, as emphasized by the Russian administration itself, “Across the entire expanse of the Small Horde, he undeniably holds the rightful distinction of embodying the utmost capability in service, unparalleled activity, unwavering commitment to governance, and exceptional enlightenment in his perception of sultanate affairs.”^[6] Notably, this assertion underscores not only Zhanturin’s remarkable competence but also his profound connections with diverse subjects within the Russian Empire, rendering him a truly influential figure among Kazakh society. Akhmed Zhanturin appeared in the imperial court with some Kazakh sultans and ordinary Kazakh representatives in 1849–1850 by the imperial majesty’s order.^[7]

Another Kazakh sultan, Esaul Asfendiar, was in the Kazakh delegation content in 1859.^[8] He was introduced as an esteemed member of the Kazakh envoy in the imperial court who “held multiple leadership roles as a regional chief and was recognized at one point by valor in military operations against various rebels. Moreover, for successfully collecting the wagon tax, he was promoted to the rank of ‘esaul.’”^[9]

During the Kazakh delegations’ visits to Saint Petersburg, they embarked on a series of excursions to various city landmarks such as museums, enterprises, temples, and more. The purpose of these visits was to acquaint the Kazakh nomads with the power and influence of the imperial authority. The deputations’ inclusion of visits to the courts of the authoritarian regime provided Kazakh sultans with prestige, rewards, and the opportunity to voice their concerns and requests regarding the needs of the Kazakh people. Furthermore, these trips served as significant occasions for Kazakh sultans to interact with and gain insights into the workings of the Russian authoritarian regime. After landing on the Steppe, Kazakh sultans not only acquainted their people with Russian imperial power and greatness, but also learned about the major ways to secure their dominance in the area, using instruments presented by the tsarist administration, and attempted to integrate their children into the imperial political, social, and educational systems. For example, Akhmed Zhanturin brought his 12-year-old son to court to familiarize him with Russian authorities.^[10] Therefore, contact with the imperial world through court visits and the regional service of servitor dynasties were essential to the political and social integration of the Kazakh Steppe. Alexa Von Winning’s noteworthy achievement in the study of the Russian empire’s intimate history brings forth a fresh perspective on the functioning of prominent aspects within imperial Russia. Specifically, it highlights the role of family life in shaping key elements such as the creation of public perception and the operation of the bureaucratic system. By examining the culture surrounding family life, the author unveils the formation of extensive networks that transcend various barriers, be it geographical (spanning state boundaries), religious, or cultural. Moreover, these networks bridge the gap between formal administrative structures and social communities, thereby emphasizing their interconnectedness.^[11] So, families like the Zhanturin and Asfendiarov dynasties had a significant impact on institutional growth and communication between the Kazakh Steppe and the Russian empire. These families developed solid relationships based on kinship ties, allowing them to raise devoted Kazakh officials. Notably, they were key representatives of the nomadic Kazakh population who integrated into the Russian imperial nobility. By actively circulating notions of empire, they were able to maintain their leadership positions during the transitional period from imperial to Soviet rule. It is important to provide a brief overview of the historical context in which the political and social position of the Kazakh traditional elite was altered by colonial rule and its effects on the Kazakh Steppe before analyzing the influential role and activity of these two families in creating new political and social structure in the Kazakh Steppe.

The implementation of the 1868–1869 reforms signifies a pivotal milestone in the consolidation of colonial domination over the Kazakh Steppe. As a result, the authority of the Kazakh sultans was significantly curtailed, leading to a constrained representation of the Kazakh elite within the lower strata of the regional administration. Consequently, their roles were relegated to that of volost sultans and elders.^[12] From this point onward, notable political and social transformations occurred within Kazakh society. On the one hand, the sultans had become an ethnic elite that increasingly integrated into the colonial rule system and adopted social imperial orders, but on the other hand, they had started to lose their positions of authority in favor of ordinary, respected Kazakhs (bis, elders). A significant consequence of this large-scale adaptation was the formation of social groups among Kazakhs as imperial officials and nobility.^[13]

The Kazakh traditional elite was the social stratum that most actively embraced the new imperial system. Local elite representatives with deep influence in the countryside were essential in realizing imperial goals in new borderlands. In the case of the Kazakh Steppe, the integration of elites was doubly important because of the general lack of knowledge by the Russian administration about local lands and people. Fortunately for Russian administrators, they found a cadre of local Chingizids (descendants from Genghis Khan who functioned as legitimate rulers) ambitious to keep their power and position in the Steppe, prompting them to work with the Russian administration in their newly realized capacities as state administrators and nobility. What was the position and authority of this elite group in Kazakh nomadic society? According to Kazakh intellectual Shokan Valikhanov,

Kalmyks and Kyrgyz [Kaisaks] are divided by origin into white and black bones. Among the Kalmyks and Kyrgyz (Kazakh), the rulers (white bone) and the people (black bone) by origin belong to two different principles. To the white bone belong sultans—the descendants of Genghis Khan (among the Kazakh); according to the people, [they] come from sunlight and, therefore, due to their absolute supernaturalness, divine passage, they enjoy power and respect. (Among the Kyrgyz [Kazakh]), the people and bis, their tribal elders, as descended from a mortal man, constitute a black bone.^[14]

Chingizid sultans were legally enshrined in the norms of customary law of the Kazakhs—adat.^[15] Each of the sultans had the right to lead any group of clan divisions of nomads (el, ulus), as well as to have at their disposal a certain pasture area (yurt).^[16] For insulting the Sultan with words, a fine of twenty-six heads of cattle was due, and for his murder—the payment of material compensation—a kun, equal to the kunwash for the murder of seven ordinary “black bone” nomads.^[17] The tore class played a huge role in the social, political, and military life of the Kazakhs. Being a member of the sultan’s estate by birthright entailed one’s actual membership in the ruling class, which had the sole authority to oversee and control social interactions. The right to exercise general state administration, regional administration, and ulus-patrimonial administration was reserved for the sultans. It makes sense that the Kazakh people chose their supreme rulers-khans from this privileged group of Turkic-speaking nomads.^[18]

Despite their roots as a pre-Russian noble class, in the first half of the nineteenth century, representatives of the Kazakh elite obtained statuses that were new to the steppe zone, such as positions in the local government and Russian military ranks and awards. They also engaged in new activities, such as teaching their children in secular educational institutions. In the second half of the nineteenth century, these phenomena became the norm: Kazakh sultans actively sought positions in the Russian imperial system for their children, sought inclusion in the list of imperial awards and incentives, and joined Kazakh deputations to St. Petersburg. They also sent their children to study at the gymnasium and universities, and the elite created social funds to support Kazakh youth. Consequently, a portion of the Kazakh elite endeavored to reexamine their elite status from a novel perspective, reevaluate their influence, and employ tools from social history to gain insights into their experiences. Furthermore, various nuances of colonial policy emerged throughout this process. The incorporation of Kazakh sultans into the nobility faced legal and practical contradictions. Unlike Georgians and Tatars,^[19] the Kazakh sultans, as regional elites, were not automatically included in the Russian nobility. Instead, they had to attain ranks or receive awards through service to gain entry to the noble estate. Additionally, while some segments of the Kazakh elite viewed this path of integration as the only viable option for self-governance, another faction perceived it as a form of colonial subjugation and sought to resist it. For instance, representatives of the Zhanturin and Asfendiarov families saw potential in being part of Kazakh deputations in St. Petersburg and in gaining awards. Conversely, Sultan Eset Kotibarov, who led an uprising, initially declined to go to St. Petersburg but was eventually compelled to do so under the threats of the Russian administration.^[20] In addition, another leader of Kazakh anticolonial revolt, Kenesary Kasymuly, rejected all social privileges that could be presented by Russian imperial rule, and aimed to reestablish the khan rule system in Kazakh society.^[21] The division within the Kazakh elite persisted until the establishment of Soviet rule, with some supporting integration into the imperial system and others supporting resistance for keeping their own ruling. Thus, the transformation of the administrative and political system of governance in the Kazakh Steppe at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries, along with the participation of representatives of the Kazakh nomadic aristocracy in this process, paved the way for the transformation of the social structure of the Kazakh nomadic society and the emergence of new social groups.

The process of defining, interpreting, and accepting these changes within Kazakh society under colonial Russian rule and among Kazakh elite groups faced numerous oppositions. One such divergence arose from the fact that while the Russian administration recognized noble status for the descendants of certain khans, it did not acknowledge the affiliation of Kazakh sultans to noble families or their right to nobility. This discrepancy in treatment led Kazakh sultans to believe that their noble lineage should already entitle them to claim noble status and dignity. Another contrariety was that the Russian administrators maintained that privileged Kazakh estates (nobles and honorary citizens) could only acquire “full estate rights” if they transitioned to a sedentary lifestyle. However, Kazakh hereditary nobles and honorary citizens sought to preserve their nomadic way of life while seeking nobility or honorary citizenship. The Russian imperial administration viewed Kazakh nobles as intermediaries and agents of imperial power. Paradoxically, Kazakh officials perceived themselves as reformers within their society, advocating for adaptation to new conditions. The imperial administration had no intention of transforming nomadic Kazakhs into “genuine nobles.” It was only in the early twentieth century that discussions among Russian officials emerged regarding such issues.^[22] In conclusion, incongruities and adapting processes were crucial in the formation of the Kazakh nobility of the Russian empire, as well as its institutional functioning, despite the legal social integration of the Kazakh elite established by imperial rule.

There were inconsistencies in the Kazakh population’s approach to new estates as well. Some Kazakh sultans adopted imperial ruling positions in the area and integrated into noble estates, but they continued to be viewed as the country’s leaders by the Kazakh people. Some sultans’ families were viewed by the Kazakhs as individuals who served as slaves and agents of the tsarist regime. It is believed that this is dependent on the extent to which a sultan dynasty played a role in the economic, political, and social aspects of Kazakh society. For instance, the Zhanturins and Asfendiarovs were sultan families that through the incorporation into a privileged imperial estate, managed to have the best of both worlds: the traditional respect and legitimacy of the pre-colonial Chingissid elite and the institutionalized power of Russian nobility.

As an illustration, Akhmed Zhanturin preserved the respect accorded to him by the Kazakh community as a sultan, all the while shrewdly capitalizing on the political and social benefits conferred by the authority of Russian governance. Akhmed Zhanturin was someone who could resolve Kazakh’s economic and social problems as well as provide for them in terms of international relations that were needed by the Kazakh population:

Akhmed Zhanturin traveled around the exchange yards and outposts of the Cossacks, doing his best to get to know the Russians, learned their language, and delved into the clerical order under the private management of the ruler, father, while also fulfilling his father’s commissions on his meager trade turnover. Knowing Russian line officials and speaking the language helped him became more popular among the Kyrgyz (Kazakhs). The reason is obvious: every Kyrgyz (Kazakh) with a line of business turned to Akhmed with a request because he was someone who mattered to the Russians.^[23]

Additionally, it should be noted that imperial administrations selected their agents in the Kazakh Steppe from among the nation’s powerful sultans. There were some cases in which, as a result of collaboration, Kazakh aristocracy representatives lost authority and the trust of the local people. More broadly we can provide this contrariety in Kazakh poets’ works where these Kazakh nobles were considered “a servant, slave of a tsarism.”^[24] For instance, Kazakh poet Mailyqozha Sultanqozhauly voiced criticism towards Kazakh officials who were motivated solely by the desire to obtain rewards and satisfy their personal interests. According to Sultanqozhauly, Kazakh officials were in alliance with robbers, and they aspired to distinguish themselves from others in various ways.^[25] Likewise, another prominent poet, Aset Naimanbaev, expressed in his works that the Kazakh elite of his time had deviated from the values of the past, becoming driven by the pursuit of awards, ranks, and prestige, even at the expense of squandering their resources. Essentially, the common Kazakh people had their own perspectives and motives when it came to supporting a particular sultan family. If that family demonstrated a willingness to meet the people’s demands for changes in the political and social structure, the Kazakh population acknowledged and were prepared to uphold the traditional leadership rights of the sultans.^[26]

In conclusion, it is clear that from the early nineteenth century until the establishment of Soviet rule, the nomadic Kazakh society underwent a transformative journey toward an empire social structure. These alterations were connected in nature and effected by colonial rule. These substantial transformations were significantly assisted by the participation of traditional Kazakh nomadic elite representatives who served as ethnic political leaders. But not every aristocratic participant in the transformation of the Kazakh Steppe took the same route. Although the Kazakh elite accepted this new social structure, there were a number of conflicts within both the elite and the larger Kazakh society. Additionally, there were significant differences in the way rights and authority were distributed between the newly formed Kazakh estate groups and the Russian colonial government.

As a result of their integration into the imperial bureaucracy and noble estate, Kazakh sultan families such as the Zhanturins and Asfendiarovs, who retained their leadership positions and authority among the Kazakh people, emerged as influential factors in shaping the social and cultural landscape of the region. In this process of expanding imperial power in borderlands, the role of local ethnic elites was crucial, specifically the role of distinctive families. Von Winning claims that besides spanning geographic distances, families also featured a remarkable continuity in time and could pass ideas and resources down to the next generations.^[27] In the case of the Kazakh Steppe this intermediate mission of definite families went together with expanding colonial rule in this region, which gave a difficult and an opposing character to this process. The Zhanturins and Asfendiarovs had to navigate between implementing obligations as imperial servitors and maintaining authority as representatives of the traditional elite in the Kazakh Steppe. The Zhanturins and Asfendiarovs transformed their families through adaptation to the new imperial order in the Steppe, and they had to do it accurately without any damage to their ethnic elite authority in the region. In achieving these aims, these two families maintained sophisticated networks within Kazakh society, as well as out of it.

Within the social framework of Kazakh nomadic society, the function and portrayal of the family exhibited notable distinctions in comparison to the Russian sedentary society. The specifics of the economic life of nomads determined the features and forms of the social organization of Kazakh society, which was a rather complex and differentiated system of various aggregated states of society in time and space, household, community, economic, local, and genealogical groups.^[28] The leading role in the social organization belonged to the territorial-communal organization.^[29] A characteristic feature of the nomadic society of the Kazakhs was the presence of a developed and multi-stage “tribal” organization, which was brought to life by the peculiarities of the transfer of information and property in a nomadic environment. The fundamental unit of the societal genealogical structure comprised the genealogical segments found within the nuclear family (consisting of the father and his children), as well as households and groups of families (comprising the head of the household, family members, the father, brothers, sisters, and children). But genealogical segments never became independent structures. Relations of genealogical kinship prevailed, which played an extremely important role in regulating the relations of individuals.^[30]

However, these distinctive characteristics of Kazakh nomadic social structure, including family, began to change due to the influence of colonial rule, specifically the individual family began to separate and created dynasties of officers, nobles, and princes among Kazakhs. For instance, the majority of Kazakh nobles, despite keeping a large number of herds, built wooden houses, lead sedentary lives, and created dynastical lines in the regional ruling system as did Akhmed Zhanturin, Asfendiar Sugalin.^[31] The transformation within Kazakh families was observed even among ordinary households, as highlighted by Gani Aldashev. This change was attributed to the influence of immigration processes that took place during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Aldashev states that:

The massive Russian in-migration triggered deep changes in the production system of Kazakhs, towards more intensive uses of land.^[32] First, introduction and massive diffusion of the practice of haymaking. Second, crop cultivation—also implying a more intensive use of land—gradually became an increasingly important source of supplementary nutrition for Kazakhs. In districts where land was more suitable for agriculture, Kazakhs intensified the cultivation of crops.^[33]

Aldashev continues,

As the production systems adapt to the new environment (growing land pressure, availability of techniques and tools), the size of extended families increases while the size of communes decreases.^[34] Communes typically consist of several extended families from the same clan. In line with the decrease in the size of communes, we also find that the size of clans decreased substantially.^[35]

This tendency of increasing the role of individual families provided some economic privileges to Kazakh sultan families such as the Zhanturins and Asfendiarovs. In addition to their authority as sultan group, they could increase their own familial pivotal position in the new social-economic order. Both of these families lived on the border of sedentary culture (Ufa and Tashkent). The Zhanturins had their own wooden house and winter settlement in town. The Asfendiarovs lived in their own house in Tashkent. Seid khan Zhanturin moved to Ufa and had his own private lands and imenie. In contrast to the aforementioned families, certain Kazakh nobility opted to primarily concentrate on expanding their livestock holdings and adhering to a nomadic way of life. Great nomadic Kazakh families such as the Baimukhamedovs, Khan-sultans, and Kiikins had a substantial number of lands and herds. Such rich Kazakh families according to statistical materials, although constituting a minority, held significant ownership of livestock. For instance, farms with more than 50 horses accounted for a mere 3.3% of the total farms in the Atbasar district, but accounted for 20.4% of the total livestock. Similar patterns emerged in other districts, such as Kustanai (3.7% and 32.6% respectively), Ust-Kamenogorsk (1.1% and 15.5%), Semipalatinsk (1.8% and 23.0%), Zaisan (0.9% and 13.4%), Karkaralinsky (2.0% and 19.7%), Akmola (3.9% and 27.6%), Pavlodar (3.6% and 29.1%), Omsk (4.6% and 30.6%), Petropavlovsk (1.6% and 16.8%), and Aktobe (1.2% and 11.7%).^[36] Consequently, within the Kazakh nomadic society, distinctive dynamics of production engendered specific relationships among individuals.

In summary, the effects of colonial rule at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries changed the nature of the family in Kazakh society. The growth of the influence of aristocratic families such as the Zhanturins and Asfendiarovs was greatly facilitated by these changes.

At the end of the imperial period, the reconfigured Kazakh elite assumed continued political and social leadership within Kazakh society, now integrated as part of the national intelligentsia. This social stratum contributed to the development of imperial social practice in the Kazakh Steppe, namely the formation of new forms of social support for Kazakh youth, the opening and participation in various charitable societies, and social funds that assisted various layers of the Kazakh nomadic society. Furthermore, with the establishment of Soviet power in the Steppe, representatives of the Kazakh intelligentsia entered the ruling group of the early Soviets. I argue that two noble families—Zhanturins and Asfendiarovs—capitalized on their pre-revolutionary social status within the hierarchy of the Russian Empire to refashion themselves as the new Soviet elite, which helped them maintain their elite status in Kazakh society into the early Soviet period, thus constituting yet a third evolution of a single elite group. Furthermore, I contend that the examination of power legitimacy in the Kazakh Steppe should take into account how the traditional nomadic Kazakh elite adapted to the changing social conditions. This is particularly relevant when studying two Kazakh noble families and their strategies for maintaining leadership positions during both the imperial and Soviet periods among the Kazakh population. To explore these dynamics, I focus on a series of biographies whose characters illustrate changes in the Kazakh elite’s identical social and cultural lives during these periods. I will trace biographies of political leaders, local elites, and outstanding persons of Kazakh imperial noble and official families during the end of the empire and Soviet state building. The biographical analysis gives us an excellent opportunity to consider the acceptance of the new social order, change of mentality, and creation of multi-identity among Kazakh elite representers.^[37]

Historiography

The history of Russian imperial society has been a central theme of research from the late twentieth century beginning with Gregory Freeze’s article about social estates in the Russian empire, and from that time has been explored as an object of social history and new social history.^[38] In the contemporary context, the examination of elite integration within the Russian Empire, along with its social structure, has evolved to encompass a multifaceted perspective that takes into account factors such as multinational dynamics, multi-layered hierarchies, social networks, and even the intimate aspects of family.^[39] Despite these progressive investigations in Russian imperial society, including its multinational content,^[40] Kazakh social integration and position remains underrepresented. The history of Kazakh society within imperial rule is limited with political, legislative, and some cultural changes among Kazakh nomads.^[41] Moreover, the existing historical research about Kazakh history under tsarist rule rarely mentions Kazakh elite integration or nobility.^[42] If some of these group researchers such as Andreas Kapeller or Boris Mironov reject an integration of Kazakh elites into imperial nobility, another part, especially Kazakh historians, mention only legislation and political cooptation of Kazakh aristocracy in regional policies.^[43] Currently, there is a growing focus on exploring the significance of families and family networks in Russian imperial history. One such example is the research conducted by von Winning, who examines the unique dynamics of the Mansurov family and its role in the expansion and preservation of imperial power. She states that, on the one hand, the family was a key “building block” of the empire: family connections were often crucial for political patronage, imperial communication, and for managing movement across the empire; the family was a prime site for economic activity; and family imaginaries provided important metaphors to experience the empire and create imperial identities. On the other hand, the empire profoundly changed the family: imperial processes shaped family relations and provided new arenas for all aspects of family life—from birth to death, at home and apart.^[44] The importance of family connections follows more recent approaches to imperial history that depart from a centralized understanding of the state and emphasize the “networked” nature of empires.^[45]

Researching the historical periods of Kazakh family history holds another significant reason: it enables the tracing of elite continuity and their efforts to maintain a leadership position in Kazakh society during colonial rule. Although there is a growing body of narratives and studies on Kazakh intellectuals that emerged towards the end of the Russian empire,^[46] both within Kazakh historical science and globally, the link between the social changes that occurred during the imperial period in the Kazakh Steppe and the intelligentsia members remains unestablished by these studies. While prominent scholars exploring the Kazakh intelligentsia focus on its formation, political activities, cultural heritage, and impact on Kazakh society, they often neglect the origins of these intellectuals. As a result, these studies often overlook the social context and fail to fully grasp the complexities of family dynamics, relationships, networks, and the intimate social connections that operate within the imperial framework.^[47] Moreover, existing research about Kazakh intelligentsia consider the Kazakh traditional elite, national movement and Soviet elite rule in Kazakhstan as separate social groups without exploring their connections: “In so doing, they had to wrest the leadership of their community out of the hands of the traditional leaders,”^[48] without mention of traditional elite integration into the “new elite” composition. Steven Sabol describes Kazakh national movements’ representers as “the self-proclaimed national leaders.”^[49]

Existing historical research is less focused on ties in leadership problems between imperial servitors, the Kazakh intellectual movement and the first Kazakh soviet managers.^[50] These kinds of scholars focus on educational background and consider this fact as a main factor in the “unwilling” involvement of Kazakh intellectuals to Soviet management in its early years in the Steppe.^[51]

Methodology

The lives of the people traced in this paper are relatively well documented in official imperial records, partly in periodical sources, and—to a lesser degree—in historical literature. Therefore, in writing this paper, I have used diverse sources, including official imperial documents, letters and writings of sultans, works of Kazakh elite representatives, periodicals, biographies, and autobiographies. These types of sources help to expand knowledge about the social portrait of the Kazakh elite throughout historical periods. It is imperative to acknowledge that this research predominantly relies on official writings and letters of Kazakh elite members, as the availability of personal letters from these individuals remains incomplete.

In the composition of this article, my primary focus is guided by the emerging trend in imperial history known as the “intimate empire.” This approach offers a valuable opportunity to extensively investigate the expansion of Russian imperial rule into borderlands. It recognizes that imperial power was established in these regions through the involvement of various actors, such as imperial administrators, intermediaries, and immigrants. In the context of the Kazakh Steppe, the role of regional intermediaries was of utmost importance in facilitating the expansion of tsarist rule into a region with a distinct political, social, and cultural structure that differed from that of the Russian empire.

The toolkit of the “new imperial history” makes it possible to consider the “empire” as a “category of analysis and a context-forming system of languages,” which will allow studying formal and informal practices and discourses of imperial authorities in the Kazakh Steppe.^[52]

This paper focuses especially on two great sultan families of Chingizid descent. The Zhanturins were descendants of Kaiyp khan, who had a khan status in Khiva and ruled Kazakhs and Kara kalpaks in this region. The Asfendiarovs were descendants of Abylkhair khan, khan of Little Horde, and the first khan who accepted the Russian imperial protectorate among Kazakh khans. Kazakh khans’ representatives from these families could adapt and integrate into imperial realities as nobles and officeholders. Their heirs were active leaders of political and social lives in the early twentieth-century Kazakh Steppe. The lives of several generations of the Zhanturins and Asfendiarovs form the unifying thread in this paper.

The following questions inform my study: How did the representatives of the Kazakh aristocracy such as the Zhanturins and Asfendiarovs, who were in positions in the imperial system of local government and educated in imperial institutions, strengthen their social position and expand their resources in the new conditions? What was the mechanism of structuring the new generation of Kazakh nomadic society, adapted to the new social realities in the Steppe? Moreover, what was the political and social role of the Zhanturins and Asfendiarovs within colonial rule?

Historical Background: The Impact of Colonial Rule on the Socio-Cultural Fabric of the Region and the Resulting Social Transformations

Precisely defining the social structure of Kazakhs in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, which was regulated by imperial laws, proves to be a challenging task. The Statute of 1897 provides evidence that the Kazakh society of that period encompassed various social categories such as nobility, honored citizens, intellectuals, merchants, rural and urban residents, mirroring the broader social composition of Russian imperial society as elucidated by Elise Kimerling Wirtschafter.^[53] Additionally, Kazakh society included individuals such as sultans, bis (local judges), elders, and sharua (Kazakh peasants), reflecting the specific characteristics resulting from a gradual process of social transformation in the Kazakh Steppe throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. For example, Alikhan Bokeikhanov was convinced that the introduction of Russian law (“orys zakony”) destroyed the institution of Kazakh customary law and caused bribery, violence, and disorder in Kazakh legal relations. The few eloquent, just and unpretentious former bis that still survive nowadays do not enjoy any more respect.^[54] Furthermore, it is crucial that the majority of Kazakhs maintained their clan structure and nomadic way of life in this period. According to this description, during the transition from the imperial to the Soviet era, the traditional elite of Kazakhs faced a number of significant changes in social structure.

The Kazakh nomadic elite changed its status, stratifying according to the imperial structure, then most of them incorporated into privileged estates of imperial Russia through loyal service to the tsar. Reforms on the Steppe, in particular, were intimately linked to Kazakh ennoblement in the first half of the nineteenth century. The Statute on Siberian Kazakhs, which outlined the process by which Kazakh sultans could rise to noble status, was the key piece of legislation that started this process.^[55] In contrast to the European and Tatar traditional elite,^[56] the laws stated that Kazakh sultans were not guaranteed nobility and could only join its ranks through service.^[57] Materials from Orenburg, Astrakhan, and Samara noble books indicate that the majority (97%) of Kazakh nobility was descended from traditional aristocracy.^[58] The Kazakh aristocracy, therefore, predominated in the Kazakh nobility as a result of the legislative foundation and the main method of ennoblement for Kazakhs as service.^[59] Despite the non-recognizing Kazakh traditional aristocracy as a part of a noble estate of the Russian empire, only Kazakh sultans had the right to local high political posts. For example, in the highest local occupations: in the Middle zhuz in the position of aga sultans Chingizids had priority, and in the Little Horde sultan-rulers were exclusively from Kazakh nomadic aristocracy. Moreover, only sultans had an opportunity to gain nobility through three periods in the position of aga sultan before the second half of the nineteenth century.^[60] So, having precedence in reaching high levels in the new social reality and an opportunity to save traditional prominent occupations in local rule, sultans integrated into the political and social imperial order.

However, it should be mentioned, that the inclusion of non-aristocratic elements within Kazakh privileged estates, such as nobility and honored citizenship, brought about significant changes in social stratification and the perception of the elite among the Kazakh population. While initially the Kazakh sultans gained privilege in reserving administrative positions in the Kazakh Steppe, along with noble titles, they gradually lost influence as extraordinary individuals from non-aristocratic groups emerged. Traditional Kazakh bis and elders, who possessed excellent education, experience, and the support of Russian administrators, were able to enter the new elite group starting from the second half of the nineteenth century. Imperial administrators began to prioritize the appointment of Kazakh officials based on their education, upbringing, and dedication to service, rather than their aristocratic origins. In 1856, Orenburg governor-general Vasilii Perovskii questioned the prevailing practice of appointing only sultans to important positions, highlighting the outstanding service, honesty, and aptitude demonstrated by ordinary Kazakhs in various affairs.^[61] From the 1860s, Russian administrators observed that, according to the legislation, the position of a volost governor was intricately linked to one’s rank, or at the very least, their lineage connected to the Sultan. However, in practice, they found that it was “extremely difficult” and frequently “totally impossible” to adhere to these legal stipulations.^[62] Moreover, from the time of Baimukhamed Aishuvakov’s visit to Saint Petersburg in 1847 onwards, there arose a need to include ordinary Kazakhs in the entourage of the ruler during visits to the tsar’s court.^[63] Kazakh aristocrats continued to be presented in the local ruling system, as mentioned earlier in the lower political positions (volost sultans), but fewer than in the first half of nineteenth century.^[64] On the one hand, this can be explained by the intention of colonial rule to cut the influence of traditional aristocracy to Kazakh society, on the other hand, many sultans by this time had great economic, social, and educational priority due to their noble or honored citizenship status. In conclusion, the Kazakh traditional elite had major political positions, earned favored imperial statuses within the framework of tsar rule’s colonial policy, and, while they began to lose political primacy in the second half of the nineteenth century, sultans had enormous economic, social, and educational importance in responding to new political developments in the early twentieth century.

Though the tribal structure in Kazakh society remained throughout the imperial period, the Kazakh elite gradually recognized new opportunities in the empire’s social space. At the end of the imperial period, Kazakh society had hybrid characteristics that contented traditional nomadic social groups and new imperial estates in it.^[65] The range of positions for Kazakhs had expanded. Kazakh officials appeared already in different spheres of society. They served as doctors, lawyers, and other officials. Throughout the nineteenth century, Kazakhs mainly were in positions of local rulers, especially those that were created for indigenous people by imperial power. However, at the end of imperial rule, educated Kazakhs could expand their perspectives in other specialties and occupations.

In creating an adopted Kazakh elite group and altering the social structure among Kazakhs in the frame of imperial understandings, we must mention secular education’s vital role. By the end of the Russian empire, the imperial government could successfully penetrate educational principles into the Kazakh Steppe.^[66] Educational requirements for local administrative positions could explain it. For example, the government demanded language proficiency. On January 17, 1897, the military governor of the Turgai region, Iakov Barabash, issued a circular that it was “indispensable” to know the Russian language for volost managers and aul elders (local imperial rulers among Kazakhs). Barabash believed that over a ten-year period (1892–1902), Kazakhs who wanted to make their sons eligible to take the position of a volost had “the opportunity to send them to Russian schools in advance.”^[67] An analysis of documents on public administration officials showed that, indeed, by the beginning of the twentieth century, among the volosts of the Turgai region, there were no longer people who did not know the Russian language. All of them were, at least, graduates of 2-class Russian-Kazakh schools.^[68] Secondly, from the second half of the nineteenth century, Kazakh society changed its viewpoint and acceptance of Russian education. Mukhammed Salikh Babadzhanov, a Kazakh officeholder and educator, said in 1860 that Kazakhs recognized “the force” of education and its value in professional advancement and social impact. In contrast to the first half of the nineteenth century, when Kazakh families were “scared” to send their children to get a proper education, and those children who did go were accompanied by “mother’s persuasions to refuse,”^[69] Kazakh society realized the power of education in the 1860s. According to Salikh Babadzhanov, Kazakhs went through many phases of the process before adopting imperial education, trade, and culture. Furthermore, Babadzhanov indicated Kazakh movement in terms of thorough education to Orenburg, occasionally Astrakhan, Bukhara, Kazan, and other imperial territories.^[70] So, the strategy of incorporating Russian secular education into the Kazakh Steppe proved successful, and the importance of education among Kazakhs grew by the Soviet period.

A land issue was necessary for the Kazakh elite to strengthen their social position in the new conditions.  Kazakh nobles needed to approve their lands as private property, a crucial aspect of the progressive resettlement policy in the early twentieth century. To maintain their political and social influence, the Kazakh elite strove to integrate themselves into the imperial political and social structures, accepting a sedentary way of life, accumulating land via private property, and participating in cultural life in tsarist society. Some significant Kazakh noble families and renowned citizens petitioned the local Russian authority to save their property lands in accordance with their rights. However, in this matter, Kazakh sultans-nobles selected two methods of acquiring private property for their territories. While the first generation of Kazakh nobles and bureaucrats attempted to preserve nomadic life by legalizing land boundaries, another group settled and started sedentary life. For example, in applying to Russian administration and resettlement management, the Kazakh noble family, the Baimukhamedovs, requested in 1913 “to give them surplus lands for pastures, according to their loyal service and noble origin.”^[71] They received an answer that “Russian settlers resettled their requested lands, and the Baimukhamedovs could gain good lands near requested ones, in the size of 2000 desiatins.”^[72] The critical part of all of these applications was an offer from the local administrator to the Resettlement administration about the support of local nobles in nomadic culture because of the needs of the state:

It would be highly desirable to preserve intact the large local Kyrgyz (Kazakh) pastoral farms, allocating to their owners for perpetual hereditary use from the lands they now occupy the necessary plots, according to the size of their pastoralism, outside the usual norms of land designation of ordinary Kyrgyz (Kazakh). Some rich and noble families still maintain several large Kyrgyz (Kazakh) pastoral farms in the region because their lands have not yet been affected by expropriation for resettlement plots.^[73]

The second group of Kazakh nobles opted to adapt by embracing a sedentary lifestyle. It was understood that this was the best option to save their lands and leadership position in Kazakh society. The noble family of the Khudaimendins was a prime illustration of this trend. It is important to note that Araslan Khudaimendin received his property lands before the Resettlement policy in 1878 “in consideration of his diligent and blameless service.”^[74] The Russian administration gave “a plot of not more than 500 desiatins, mainly land for arable farming with a corresponding part and other field lands.”^[75] These lands were the private property of the Khudaimendins up to the collapse of the Russian empire, and Araslan’s descendants mainly farmed in these lands.

In the period between imperial rule and Soviet power, Kazakh society had great political, economic, social, and cultural changes. Due to the impact of the structural changes in all aspects of life, Kazakh elite representatives accepted new orders, keeping some important former nomadic features of life. There were many layers and groups, as well as contradictions in Kazakh society at the end of imperial Russia. Kazakhs had several social identities in one person, and combined traditional nomadic and imperial social structure. While the establishment of a Kazakh nobility may initially appear as a successful and non-violent means of integrating the frontier into the imperial system, the reality is that the attainment of nobility by some Kazakhs often involved acts of violence, either actual or threatened, against fellow Kazakhs. For example, some volost sultans overestimated in tax collecting, repressed populations’ uprisings, and many local rulers engaged in unethical activities.^[76] During this period of profound change, certain sultan dynasties, such as the Zhanturins and Asfendiarovs, managed to maintain their leadership positions within Kazakh society. The question arises: how did they accomplish this?

Summing up all substantial changes in Kazakh society from the beginning to the eve of Soviet rule, it becomes evident that some of the sultans among Kazakhs had political priority positions, private lands or rights for them as nobleman, social privileges also as nobles, and were the most educated of the Kazakhs. Hence, during that era, the nomadic Kazakh population, which predominantly adhered to traditional political customs, embraced the aristocratic status of the sultans who could guide them through the challenges of changing times. The Revolt of 1916 provides evidence to corroborate this. To begin, some of the Revolt participants nominated a khan from among the leaders of the revolting Kazakhs.^[77] Second, while the role of ethnic elites in this revolt is still debated among Central Asian ethnics,^[78] on the Kazakh Steppe, Kazakh officeholders and nobles were active in the uprising events,^[79] and fewer Kazakh officials were adversely affected by the rebellion. In the transition from tsarism to Soviet authority, noblemen among Kazakhs utilized educational status, made relationships with other Russian noble parts, and engaged in imperial charitable work as nobles. Akhmed Zanturin, his son, and grandson, for example, were sultans, landowners, provincial rulers, enlighteners, and benevolent fund creators. The Zhanturins and Asfendiarovs were families who could transfer their own privileges, people’s confidence, and create multiple identities in various political conditions.

The Zhanturin and Asfendiarov Families: Adaptation and Broader Socio-Cultural Changes

The Zhanturin and Asfendiarov families embodied a rich and diverse identity in the early twentieth century, encompassing both imperial and Kazakh sociocultural features. Their members earned prominent positions as Kazakh noblemen and intellectual leaders. They had important roles in representing fundamental characteristics of both the imperial and Kazakh realms, demonstrating their diversified and influential social position. The Zhanturins’ and Asfendiarovs’ patriarchs began cooptation to imperial service from the early changes in the Kazakh Steppe. The founder of the Zhanturins’ noble family, sultan Akhmed Zhanturin, was approved as the first sultan-ruler of the Eastern part of the Little Horde in 1841,^[80] and he was a colonel in the Russian empire (1850). Son of Akhmed and an applicant of a noble title for this family, Seid-khan Zhanturin was lieutenant colonel composed by army cavalry (1878) and served as little officeholder of a particular order of the military governor of Turgai oblast.^[81] The Zhanturins were approved for noble status in 1892.^[82] A patriarch of the second family, Asfendiar, son of Aishuak khan, began his career as a distance ruler, and achieved the rank of yesaul in 1842.^[83] Asfendiar’s son Seitzhafar served as state translator and ambassador and reached a high military rank in the Russian empire as general-major.^[84] While there is a lack of official documentation regarding the Asfendiarovs’ nobility, several factors indicate their noble status. Firstly, Seitzhafar’s position as a colonel allowed him the opportunity to acquire a noble title. Secondly, the fact that numerous sultans sought noble status suggests that the Asfendiarovs were likely aware of the process and its potential benefits. As an illustration, the Baimukhamedovs, who are kin to Aishuak Khan’s lineage, such as the Asfendiarovs, constituted a substantial and influential noble family officially recognized for their noble status in 1873. As a consequence of imperial legislation and administrative ruling strategy, the Zhanturins’ and Asfendiarovs’ family members were integrated into the local imperial governmental system, earned awards and accolades, became Russian empire noblemen, and established dynasties of Kazakh officials.

Since the imperial time, Zhanturins and Asfendiarovs have played important sociopolitical and economic roles in the Kazakh Steppe. Representatives from both lineages held high-ranking posts in the local imperial ruling apparatus. As Akhmed Zhanturin ruled over a part of the Little Horde Kazakhs, one of his grandchildren, Salimgirey, served as a justice of the peace in the 5th district of the Belebeevski district of the Ufa province, then as a zemstvo head of the Belebeevski district, and before that as Vowel of the Belebeevski district and Ufa provincial zemstvos. Furthermore, unlike other Kazakhs, he ran for the Noble deputy assembly of the Ufa province.^[85] The second noble family’s founder, Asfendiar Sugalin served in local imperial rule as distance ruler,^[86] and his sons had an excellent Russian education. His youngest son Seitzhafar worked as a state translator in the Orenburg district administration before beginning his career in the Turkestan general governorate as a translator for Nikolai Kolzakov, the ruler of Qurama uezd of Syrdaria district. Seitzhafar served as the head of the Turkestan General Governorate’s diplomatic department and embassies in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, traveling to St. Petersburg four times as part of the Khiva and Bukhara Khans’ embassies and acting as a military interpreter during meetings with the Russian Tsar and state officials.^[87] The next generation of the Asfendiarovs, Sanzhar Asfendiarov, was the first military doctor among Kazakhs,^[88] his oldest sister Aisha Asfendiarova worked as a stenographer in Turkestan, and Gulsim Asfendiarova was famous as the first Kazakh women-doctor and initially worked in Shymkent, then in Khiva.^[89] These Asfandiarov dynasty representatives introduced new professions to Kazakh territories during the transition period from imperial to Soviet power. It is noteworthy that the initial emergence of professionals from Kazakh backgrounds played a revolutionary role in the minds and society of the Kazakh people. For instance, Kazakhs initially harbored suspicions towards Russian doctors in the region and preferred to seek treatment from shamans and traditional healers. However, doctors from their own native nationalities were able to capture the attention of Kazakhs and introduce them to the benefits of scientific medicine.^[90]

The economic situation of these families on the advent of the Soviet period was very significant. Both families’ second generations resided in towns and owned land there. Although the Sultan, Akhmed Zhanturin, excelled as a herder and valued the nomadic way of life, he was also a highly active businessman. According to Russian officials, “following the model of Akhmed, there is no Kyrgyz (Kazakh) in the Eastern portion of the Horde who was not a merchant, cab driver, or salt trader. Akhmed was preoccupied with products and provided money, with advantage to him, to everyone Kyrgyz (Kazakh) who sought to participate in the aforementioned activities.”^[91] Seid-khan, his son, came to Ufa and had a large plot of land. In 2281 deciatins, Salimgirey Zhanturin inherited his father’s estate. Furthermore, after marrying Tevkeleva, the estate in Ufa was known as Zhanturins’ landowning.^[92] Unfortunately, we do not have any information about the Asfendiarovs’ private plots of land; Sanzhar Asfendiarov’s Soviet career might explain this. However, Asfendiar was an owner of the property in Tashkent who led a sedentary lifestyle.^[93]

In addition to their political and economic advantages, the Zhanturins and Asfendiarovs were educators, intellectuals, and international intermediates in Kazakh society in the early twentieth century. They received excellent Russian secular education. Seid-khan Zhanturin and Seitzhafar Asfendiarov received their schooling from Russian educational institutions such as the Orenburg Nepluev Cadet Corps and the Orenburg School.^[94] Furthermore, the sultan and imperial officeholder Seitzhafar was fluent in a number of eastern languages.^[95] Their offspring were educated at more prominent institutions than their forefathers, thanks to their fathers’ efforts. For example, Salimgirey Zhanturin, Said-khan’s son, completed a science degree at Saint Petersburg Imperator University, first in physics-mathematics and subsequently in jurisprudence.^[96] Seitzhafar Asfendiarov’s children all received an excellent education: his daughters attended a Tashkent girl’s gymnasium and his sons graduated from a Tashkent specialized school. The Asfendiarovs continued their education: the oldest daughter, Gulsim Asfendiarova, attended the Girl’s Medical Institute in Saint Petersburg, while the youngest daughter, Anel Asfendiarova, worked as an educator at the Kazakh Institute of Education in Tashkent. According to Mustafa Shokai’s memoirs, one of Setzhafar’s older sons was a student at the Paris Industrial Academy in 1916.^[97] The last son of Setzhafar, Sanzhar Asfendiarov, after Tashkent’s real specialized school, tried to continue his education in Saint Petersburg. Seitzhafar addressed a letter to Turkestan general-governor Nikolai Grodekov thanks to his connections. As a consequence, Sanzhar Asfendiarov enrolled at and graduated from Saint Petersburg’s Imperator military-medical academy.^[98]

Both clans maintained tight contacts with Kazakh aristocratic families, and other ethnic noble dynasties of the time. It should be mentioned that the Kazakh elite’s relationship with Bashkir and Tatar nobility dates back to the eighteenth century, when the Little Horde Kazakhs, led by Abylkhair Khan, pledged loyalty to the Russian empire. Kut-Mukhammed Tevkelev was a pivotal figure in Kazakh relations with the Russian imperial authorities. Following this trip, Tatars and Bashkirs functioned as imperial agents, which provided them with excellent potential for promotion in the Kazakh Steppe.^[99] These relations created more close networks between them. Kazakh sultans-nobles and Bashkir, Tatar nobles had political, social, and cultural links in the period between imperial and Soviet rules. The Zhanturins and Asfendiarovs are excellent examples of these relations.

The main relations of the Zhanturins with people of borderlands were formed by the patriarch of this family, Akhmet Zhanturin, who was active in constructing the “right” relations between Kazakh nomads and border people. He was famous for his rightful decisions in conflicts between Kazakhs and Russian settlers, and Kazakhs saw in him a ruler, who could present their intention to the Russian administration.^[100] Akhmed’s grandson, Salimgirey, married a Tatar noblewoman, a member of a great Tatar family, the Tevkelevs, and increased his property lands. Tevkelev’s other representative Salim-Girei Tevkelev married Kazakh khan Zhangir’s daughter—Zuleikha, who also moved to Ufa.^[101] Salimgirey Zhanturin had close political and cultural relations with Muslim intellectuals and nobility in his activity in Petersburg Muslim enlightened community.^[102] It should be mentioned that the Zhanturins were politically and relatively linked to the recognized Kumyk noble family Sheikh-Alievs, Salim-Gerey Dzhantyurin and General Ali Sheikh-Ali were brother-in-law friends, both were married to the sisters-princesses Gulsum and Sufi-Khanym Alkin from the Ufa province, were like-minded individuals and some religious-secular Turkic-Muslim ideals. During the 1905–1907 revolution, Salim-Girei Zhanturin and Galiaskar Syrtlanov (husband of General Mahmud Sheikh-Ali’s daughter) championed the notion of Turkic-Muslim territorial autonomy in Russia; at the same time, Kadi Abdurashid released the book Autonomy or Idara-i Mukhtariat (Saint Petersburg, 1906).

General Sheikh Ali was also the Chairman of the Muslim Philanthropic Society in St. Petersburg, and the son of Gulsim, the granddaughter of Kazakh Zhangir Khan, who was also interested in charitable work.^[103] Many Kazakh nobility including the Zhanturins, Zhangirovs, and Asfendiarovs were incorporated into Petersburg society throughout these processes. All of this revealed that the Zhanturins were profoundly embedded in imperial life as nobles, significant estates, and major society groups. Furthermore, Zhanturin’s association with Tatar noblewomen demonstrates the existence of interrelationships between the Russian empire’s other noble groups and an identity as imperial noblemen. Turkestan Kazakh intelligentsia members were linked to the Asfendiarovs. Sanzhar Asfendiarov was in close relations with Kazakh intelligentsia members such as Seraly Lapin, Alikhan Bukeikhanov, and Mukhamedzhan Tynyshpaev during his time in Saint Petersburg. He was greatly inspired by Seraly Lapin’s political and social principles, and he was also married to Lapin’s daughter, Rabiga, who was attending the Women’s Institute of Noble Maidens at the time.^[104] It is important to note that new Kazakh elite had intimate relationships within themselves and group identity as national movements representatives. They had family and friend relations and helped each other at a sophisticated time, especially in the early Soviet period when traditional elite members firstly faced difficulties. Kazakh political leaders from other social groups tried to support them. For example, Turar Ryskulov, in a problematic situation for Aisha Asfendiarova when previous leaders of the Kazakh Soviet rejected in scholarship for his son, helped the Asfendiarovs and approved financial support for the older son of Aisha Asfendiarova.^[105] Another instance occurred when Salimgirey allocated a portion of his lands to facilitate Shokai’s participation in the upcoming Duma, aiming to ensure that Kazakhs were represented in the legislative body.^[106] In short, Kazakh’s new political and social elite had family, kinship, and friendship networks as the dominant leading group.

The Zhanturins and Asfendiarovs representatives did well with Russian administrators. The presence of Kazakhs in significant political positions within regional governance, their attendance at imperial courts, reception of awards, and attainment of noble titles served as evidence of their status and influence. Among these privileges, the visitation of the tsarist court held particular importance as it served as a means to demonstrate loyalty among Kazakh officials. Notably, individuals such as Akhmed Zhanturin, his son Seidkhan, and Asfendiar played crucial roles in representing Kazakh deputations during visits to the tsarist court. Later, young representatives of these families played significant roles in political movements on the eve of the Soviet rule. They adapted to new historical realities and used social and educational tools granted by the tsarist rule to keep their leadership position in Kazakh society. The critical elements in forming a new elite were education and land. The land issue among Kazakhs was so crucial that, according to some historians, it significantly impacted the intelligentsia’s definition of the Kazak nation.^[107] Territory, not tradition, became the cornerstone of the Kazakh intelligentsia’s argument for sedentarization.^[108] The new elite generation was socially mobile and formed intellectuals, professionals, and cultural figures as new identical groups among Kazakhs. So, in the end of the empire and in a complicated period, the successors of the Zhanturins and Asfendiarovs were able to maintain their political and socioeconomic dominance among Kazakhs by adapting to new circumstances, being educated, and having a large social network of nobles.

Kazakh noble families such as the Zhanturins and Asfendiarovs, by virtue of their education in secular Russian institutions, recognized their position within a multi-identity framework. This encompassed their affiliation with the Kazakh nation and their place within the broader imperial context. Their possession of imperial social status, land ownership, settlement, and acquisition of Russian education allowed the descendants of Kazakh sultans to assume privileged positions within the new social reality of the early twentieth century. The sultan’s presumed privileges played a pivotal role during the revolutions of 1905 and 1917. Many nationalities of the empire accepted the 1905 Revolution as an opportunity to express their wish to the tsarism. Kazakhs were also allowed to participate in the State Duma elections as other national groups of the empire. In these circumstances, the new social elite in Kazakh society, in the face of the intelligentsia, became members of definite parties and participated in the first two State Dumas. Then from 1907, Kazakhs were no longer allowed to participate in the Duma. These events indeed solidified the notion of social evolution for the Kazak intelligentsia.^[109] During this period of transition, the descendants of former Kazakh sultans, who held economic, political, and educational advantages, progressively assumed an active role in shaping the transformation of Kazakh society. While some individuals from these noble lineages and imperial nobility opted to actively advocate for the establishment of a national state for the Kazakh people, others aligned themselves with social movements that had gained momentum within the Russian Empire during the early twentieth century.

Within these state changes, a member of the Zhanturins, Salimgirey Zhanturin was one of the leaders of the Muslim liberal movement, and a member of the first, second, and third All-Russian Muslim Congresses. Since 1905 Salimgirey Zhanturin had opposed the tsarist government as one of the Union of Autonomists founders. On November 19, 1905, he participated in the autonomist congress and was a Cadets Party member. At the third congress in August 1906, he was elected a member of the Central Committee of the Ittifaq al-Muslimin (Union of Muslims) party. Since 1906, as the chairman of the Muslim charitable society in Ufa, Salimgirey Zhanturin advocated for the autonomy of the outskirts, the abolition of the death penalty, and the introduction of a unicameral parliament. Later in 1906, he was elected to the State Duma of the first convocation from the general composition of the electors of the Ufa provincial electoral assembly. As a Duma deputy, Zhanturin participated in requests of the State Duma about the illegal seizure of Kazakh lands.^[110] However, on July 10, 1906, in Vyborg, Salimgirey signed the Vyborg Appeal and was convicted, sentenced to three months in prison, and deprived of the right to be elected, and of the right to be in public service. Starting in 1908, he lived in Ufa and Saint Petersburg, and was engaged in social activities and charity. In these years, he was chairman of the board of the Ufa guardianship of poor Muslims in Ufa. In addition, Salimgirey was influential in developing the charity and social support deals for Kazakhs and Muslims. At this time, a representative of the other exampled family, Sanzhar Afrendiarov, was educated in Saint Petersburg (1907–1912). In his student years in Saint Petersburg, Sanzhar had close relationships with other Kazakh intelligentsia members, who visited the capital with different deals.^[111] It’s important to mention that the dual loyalty of Kazakh nobles and officials, which was once split between the empire and the nomadic Kazakh society, evolved towards a focus on national ideals. In order to address new political circumstances in the empire, since the beginning of the twentieth century, a new generation of the Kazakh intelligentsia turned its attention to national consciousness and autonomous state. The Kazakh nobility occupied a middle position in transitioning from the traditional nomadic Kazakh elite to the national intelligentsia. The development of a political project began with an interest in all-Russian and even international cultural-language and religious solidarity and went in the direction of local ethnocentricity. Kazakh democrats, compared with other Central Asian national activists, were the most integrated into all-Russian policies, and had already received organizational and socio-cultural experience as parties to the Socialist Revolutionaries, Cadets, and Social Democrats.^[112] Against this backdrop, the Kazakh elites’ transformation led to the formation of the intelligentsia, which held a leadership position in Kazakh society up to the first decades of the Soviet regime. The practical realization of Kazakh national autonomy, led by Kazakh intellectuals, who had traditional aristocratic elements in the composition, began after the 1917 February Revolution.

The February and October Revolutions and their acceptance by Kazakh society were brilliantly demonstrated by one of the Kazakh intellectuals and leaders of the national movement, Akhmet Baitursynov:

As much as the February Revolution was clear to the Kazakhs, the October (Social Revolution) seemed so incomprehensible to them. As they welcomed the first revolution with great joy, they had to meet the second revolution with great fear. For those who know the Kazakh people, it is natural and understandable for them to look at these revolutions in this way. The incomprehensible nature of the second revolution for the Kazakhs is easily explained because they did not have capitalism or class differentiation; even property itself was not divided like in other nations; many consumer goods were considered the common good of the masses. Appearances of the October Revolution also greatly alarmed the Kazakhs. For the Kazakhs, it was unknown how the Bolshevik movement was going on in the central parts of Russia.^[113]

Kazakh leaders and intelligentsia representatives continued to realize goals for self-government, adapting to new challenges. In 1916, Salimgirey Zhanturin was in the Bureau of the Muslim faction of the state. The Duma dealt with the problems of teaching in the native language. With Shokai, Maksudov, and Salikhov, Salimgirey collected materials on the situation of people from the Turkistan region and Kazakhstan and mobilized them for front-line work. In 1917, he actively engaged in the proceedings of the National Assembly of Turkic-Tatar Inner Russia and Siberia, commonly referred to as the “Milli Mejlis.” Within this assembly, he held a position as a member of the Turkish faction and served on various committees, including those responsible for formulating the “national regions” project and financial matters. From January–April 1918, he was a National Administrator of the Turko-Tatars financial department member. During that specific period, Salimgirey Zhanturin actively supported the Alashorda government and maintained close relationships with its leaders. He played a significant role as a patron by financially supporting the construction of one of the renowned madrasas in the empire, known as “Galia.” Moreover, he continued to support and oversee the operations of the madrasa in his capacity as its patron. Salimgirey actively encouraged and provided assistance to Kazakh youth who aspired to receive an education at the “Galia” madrasa. Prominent Kazakh intellectuals such as Magzhan Zhumabaev, Beimbet Mailin, Sabit Donentaev, and Abylai Ramazanov were among those who received their education at “Galia” under Salimgirey’s sponsorship and support.^[114]

During this period, Sanzhar Asfendiarov was the guard of the military forces of the Russian empire as a military doctor (1913–1916). He fought in World War I in the fifth Turkestan rifle regiment and was held in captivity. Following these events, being regarded as a “suspicious individual,” he was discharged from military service and relocated to Tashkent.^[115] During these years, Sanzhar underwent significant transformations in a military context, and he observed numerous alterations within the imperial administration. In 1917 he participated in the February Revolution, and on July 14, 1917, Muslim labor deputies in old Tashkent formed their own council, and Sanzhar was elected as the leader. Then in the first All-Kazakh Congress in Orenburg, he was elected as a deputy for the candidate for council from Syrdaria district.^[116] According to Mustafa Shokai, “Sanzhar participated in the Revolution of 1917 with a special faith. He did not become involved in the Revolution through participation in national struggles or programs. Sanzhar came as a left-wing revolutionary with his workers’ and soldiers’ deputies. He saw the forces of this direction as an organization that implemented the liberating slogans of the Revolution. In 1919, Sanzhar joined the Bolshevik Party. It’s unquestionable that he joined the Bolshevik Party with genuine intentions. Throughout his life, Sanzhar was neither a proponent of modernist ideals nor aligned with the Alash movement. From the moment he started to engage in social matters, he dedicated his time to actively participating in the activities of the Soviets.”^[117]

In the political and social realities of the pre-Soviet period, we should consider social changes; the elite transformed within Kazakh society to a more sophisticated form, while paying attention to their preserved leading position and their activity in social development in Kazakh society.^[118] Even if Kazakh intellectuals had some contradictions and separations in viewpoints, the fact that they had a base from the Kazakh sultan’s origin, who kept leadership succeeding throughout the imperial period and the impact of secular education, should not be rejected. The Zhanturins and Asfendiarovs went through this transformation and actively participated in forming national leadership and developing society. Moreover, Kazakh intellectuals understood and mentioned their elite origins in some writings. For instance, in one of his works, Sanzhar defined the nature of his political views in particular and noted that “the Kazakh intelligentsia also did not belong to the same camp. Part of it, mainly teachers, more connected with the masses, joined the Jadid and Pan-Turkic movements. The other part, namely the upper strata of the intelligentsia who graduated from the Russian school, oriented themselves towards the Russian bourgeoisie and the Russian bourgeois intelligentsia.”^[119] Without denying the progressive role of the Kazakh intelligentsia in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, at the same time, Sanzhar noted political weakness and isolation from the masses as its characteristic feature and defined its position as national reformist.^[120] However, another Kazakh intellectual and leader, Mustafa Shokai, criticized Sanzhar saying that “he was not from the ordinary people.”^[121]

Taking into account previous statements, in the first decades of Soviet rule, Kazakh traditional elite representatives and nobles had a prominent position in Kazakh society. For this reason, the Soviets led the course of liquidation of the wealthiest part [bai-feodals] among Kazakhs and primarily focused on the policy of the formation of a “new man’s psychology.” The Bolsheviks methodically and consistently propagated the view that the pre-revolutionary Kazakh intelligentsia was some reactionary, counter-revolutionary force that had opposed the cardinal interests of the Kazakh population on the whole.^[122] Pre-revolution Kazakh intelligentsia had descriptions as “bourgeois, non-party intelligentsia.”^[123] Bolsheviks saw a dangerous power in the intelligentsia, which had roots in traditional Kazakh elite groups and could lead Kazakh youths in this direction. This underscores the importance of maintaining a continuous process for nurturing a capable elite. The elimination of this element marked the initial stage in the establishment of the Soviet political and social system. This system had no deep roots in Kazakh society and was highly adaptable in implementing the directives of the central Soviet authorities in the region.

At the same time, a new cohort of managers was formed from representatives of the working people (the proletariat and the poorest peasantry), who embodied the principles of social justice, the abolition of exploitation, and national equality.^[124] In order to realize the formation of new managers during the Soviet building period, the Kazakh elite had to adapt to those systems as well. In 1925, Salimgirey Zhanturin relocated to Kazan, where he assumed a position in the People’s Commissariat for Trade of the Tatar ASSR. The exact details of his transition from a liberal stance to supporting the Bolsheviks remain unclear as there are no available sources documenting this process. Unfortunately, he passed away under mysterious circumstances in Kazan on May 14, 1926. His daughters married and resided in Moscow until the early 2000s, while the fate of his son remains unknown. With the demise of Salimgirey Zhanturin, one of the influential Kazakh sultan families and their significant contributions in the realms of politics, society, and culture, came to an end.

The fate of Sanzhar Asfendiarov turned out differently. In 1918 Asfendiarov, accepting the offer of Turar Ryskulov, became a member of the Central Commission against famine in the region, and in 1919 became a Bolshevik party member.^[125] Then, in October of that year, he was approved for the People’s Commissar of Health position in the Turkestan Republic. Also, in 1919–1920 Asfendiarov, with his older sister Gulsim, actively worked on the formation of specific medical faculty at Turkestan State University.^[126] Then Asfendiarov’s career as Bolshevik local manager continued, and in 1920 he was approved as People’s Commissar of Land and Water Management. In 1921 he became the head of the representative office under the People’s Commissariat for National Affairs. Up to the end of the 1920s, Asfendiarov remained in Central positions of the local Party ruling system; however, he mostly spent his time on scientific explorations. In 1927 Asfendiarov occupied the position of the head of the Orientalism Institute named after Narimanov in Moscow and was the first among Kazakhs to gain a professor title.^[127] Sanzhar Asfendiarov transferred to Kazakhstan in October 1928 and, until August 1937, led the large-scale work to create a network of higher educational and scientific-academic institutions in the republic. Over the course of a decade, Asfendiarov’s notable contributions in scientific and organizational realms led to the establishment of various educational institutions, including pedagogical, veterinary, and medical higher education facilities in Kazakhstan. Furthermore, under his guidance, initiatives were undertaken for the treatment of eye diseases, protection of children and mothers, as well as addressing skin, genital, and lung diseases. Sanzhar Asfendiarov also played a key role in the development of research institutes dedicated to the study of national culture, as well as the establishment of libraries and museums. Additionally, he authored primary books and textbooks that delve into the history of Kazakhstan.^[128] Notably, Sanzhar Asfendiarov was the first and one of a few Kazakh historians who wrote about existing Kazakh imperial nobility.^[129]

The Asfendiarovs did not escape the reach of the Stalinist persecution during 1937–1938. Mustafa Shokai claimed that Sanzhar faced serious accusations, including being labeled a spy for Japan. These charges were based on his association with Turar Ryskulov. However, there was no evidence of Sanzhar Asfendiarov being Mustafa Shokai’s accomplice, and Sanzhar did not speak about Mustafa Shokai during the persecution of Turkestan national movement leaders. Failure to condemn Mustafa Shokai would result in accusations of being a supporter, agent, and even a German spy on behalf of Japan.^[130]

Shortly after Sanzhar’s death, he was cremated and buried alongside other Kazakh intellectuals in Zhanalyk village in the Almaty region. His partner, Rabiga Seralykyzi, who was the daughter of Seraly Lapin, one of the leaders of Alashorda, received a harsh sentence as the “spouse of the enemy of the people” and was sent to a women’s labor camp in Akmola. To protect their youngest daughter, Adalyat, Rabiga sent her to Moscow to join her elder sister. Adalyat eventually settled in Tashkent and married Temirbai Gubaidullin. Rabiga was released from the camp but passed away before Sanzhar Asfendiarov’s rehabilitation. Four years after her death, the Asfendiyarov family’s reputation was restored.

In the 1930s, the Bolsheviks established a dominant group within the Kazakh Socialist Republic, primarily focused on the “social lower classes.” The Kazakh intelligentsia, which included elements of the sultan and noble imperial backgrounds, were marginalized and not actively involved in the centralized Soviet project. Consequently, the continuity of the elite succession was disrupted, and the subsequent generation of Kazakh leaders underwent significant transformations influenced by Soviet ideology.

Throughout the nineteenth century, Russian colonial control altered the political, social, and economic order of Kazakh society. These developments influenced the transformation of family dynamics in Kazakh nomadic society. As previously stated, the Kazakh ethnic elite were initially involved in and benefited from this transformation. Sultan families like the Zhanturins and Asfendiarovs pursued optimal growth for the Kazakh people by utilizing the benefits of their noble position, education, and relationships with governmental authorities. They had a greater influence on native Kazakh people using instruments provided by colonial administration.

Conclusion

In summary, the institutionalization of the Steppe was shaped significantly by families like the Zhanturins and Asfendiarovs. These Kazakh sultan families underwent transformations in their political and social positions, ultimately emerging as leaders of the Steppe. They simultaneously served as loyal agents of the imperial power while aspiring to represent Kazakh political leadership. These families embodied Kazakh aristocracy, imperial authority, Kazakh intellectuals, and acted as international intermediaries within their own spheres of influence.

The families of Zhanturins and Asfendiarovs serve as prime examples of the societal shifts experienced by Kazakh families during the period of transition from imperial to Soviet rule. These families played significant roles in the profound transformations that took place in the Kazakh Steppe, from the initial establishment of colonial rule by the Russian Empire to the subsequent transition to Soviet power. The Kazakh sultan dynasties, including the Zhanturins and Asfendiarovs, effectively adapted to both imperial and Soviet structures by assuming political positions, attaining social privileges such as nobility, pursuing education, and utilizing their social networks. Their influential contributions greatly contributed to the modernization of Kazakh society.

Acknowledgments

The research for this article was funded by the Ministry of Higher Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Grant No. AP13268874). For help with the article’s preparation, I thank James Pickett, and for valuable critiques of earlier drafts I thank the two anonymous reviewers of the Central Asia Research Cluster.

Bibliography

Abylkhozhin Zh.B., Adazhumanov K.S. Istoriia Kazakhstana v piati tomakh. Tom 4. Almaty: Atamura, 2010.

Aldashev, Gani, and Catherine Guirkinger. “Colonization and Changing Social Structure: Kazakhstan, 1896–1910.” Journal of Development Economics, no. 127 (2017): 413–430.

Amanzholova D.A. Kazakhskii avtonomizm i Rossiia. Istoriia dvizheniia Alash. Moscow: Rossiia Molodiia, 1994.

Amanzholova D.A. “Bolshevik Elite of the Kazakh ASSR of 1920–1930s: The Evolution of Sociopolitical Characteristics.” World of Great Altay 5, no. 2 (2019): 248–259.

Aminov D. Islam v Sankt-Peterburge. Saint Petersburg: Medina, 1993.

Artykbaev, Zhambyl. Materialy k istorii praviashego doma Kazakhov. Almaty: Gylym, 2001.

Asfendiiarov, S.D. Istoriia Kazakhstana (s drevneishikh vremen). Almaty: Kazakhstanskoe kraevedcheskoe izdatel’stvo, 1935.

Asfendiiarov, S.D. Natsional’no-osvoboditel’noe vosstanie 1916 goda v Kazakhstane. Alma-Ata and Moscow: Kazakhstanskoe kraevedcheskoe izdanie, 1936.

Babadzhanov, Mukhamedzhan Salikh. “Zametki Kirgiza o Kirgizakh.” Severnaia pchela, no. 4 (1861): 13–15.

Baitursynov, Akhmet. “Tonkeris zhane kazakhtar,” Zhas Alash, no. 2 (July 13, 2022): 7–10.

Bekmagambetova, Maisara. “Legitimizatsiia liderstva A. Zhanbosynova v sobytiiakh 1916 goda na territorii Torgaiskoi oblasti.” In Izuchenie 1916 goda: depolitizatsia i gumanizatsia znanii o vosstanii v Tsentral’noi Azii, edited by Alexander Morrison and Gulnara Aitpaeva, 172–198. Bishkek: KITs Aigine, 2020.

Bekmakhanov, Ermakhan. “Qazaq khalqynyn Kenesary bastagan azattyq qozgalysy.” In Khan Kene: tarikhi tolgamdar men p’esa, dastandar, edited by Ermakhan Bekmakhanov, 266–408. Almaty: Zhalyn, 1993.

Campbell, Ian. Knowledge and the Ends of Empire: Kazak Intermediaries and Russian Rule on the Steppe. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2017.

Chokobaeva, Amanat. “O roli manapov v vosstanii 1916 goda: o stat’e Asel’ Daniarovoi.” In Izuchenie 1916 goda: depolitizatsia i gumanizatsia znanii o vosstanii v Tsentral’noi Azii, edited by Alexander Morrison and Gulnara Aitpaeva, 390–396. Bishkek: KITs Aigine, 2020.

Dalaeva, Tenlik. “Okruzhnaia administrativnaia sistema: opyt sravnitel’nogo issledovaniia (20–60 gg. XIX v.).” In Kochevye narody Tsentral’noi Evrazii XVIII–XIX vv.: Sravnitel’no istoricheskii analiz politiki Rossiiskoi imperii, edited by Gulmira Sultangalieva, 267–89. Almaty: Qazaq universitetі, 2015.

Enekeev, Said. Ocherk istorii Tatarskogo dvorianstva. Ufa: Gilem, 2007.

Fukalov, Ivan. “Legitimnost’ vlasti i ee aspekty u rukovoditelei vosstania 1916 goda v Kirgizstane.” In Izuchenie 1916 goda, edited by Alexander Morrison Alexander and Gulnara Aitpaeva, 143–170. Bishkek: KITs Aigine, 2020.

Freeze, Gregory, L. “The Soslovie (Estate) Paradigm and Russian Social History.” The American Historical Review 91, no. 1 (February 1, 1986): 11–39.

Gerasimov, Il’ia, ed. Novaia imperskaia istoria Severnoi Evrazii (Kazan’: Ab Imperio, 2017).

Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Astrakhanskoi oblasti (GAAO) f.375 Astrakhanskoe dvorianskoe deputatskoe sobranie, op.1, d. 2124 O dvorianstve Bekmukhamedovykh.

Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Orenburgskoi oblasti (GAOO) f.38 Dvorianskoe deputatskoe sobranie Orenburgskoi oblasti, op.2, d.7 Rodoslovnaia kniga dvorian 2 i 3 chasti na 1899–1901 gg.

Kapeller, Andreas. The Russian Empire: A Multi-Ethnic History. London: Routledge, 2001.

Kasymbaev, Zhanuzak. Gosudarstvennye deiateli Kazakhskikh khanstv (XVIII v.). Alma-Ata: Bilim, 1999.

Kendirbay, Gulnara. “The National Liberation Movement of the Kazakh Intelligentsia at the Beginning of the 20^th Century.” Central Asian Survey 16, no. 4 (December 1, 1997): 487–515.

Kozybaeva, M.M. ed. Alash v istorii gosudarstvennosti Kazakhstana: idei, sud’by, nasledie. Almaty: TOO Litera, 2018.

Kozybaev, Manash. Qakharly 1916 jyl: Quzhattar men materialdar zhinagy. Groznyi 1916 god: Sbornik dokumentov i materialov. Almaty: Qazaqstan, 1998.

Koigeldiev, Mambet. Alash kozgalysy. Almaty: Mektep, 2008.

Koigeldiev, Mambet. “Kazakhskaia gosudarstvennost’ i natsional’naia elita.” Otan tarikhy, no. 4 (2002): 7–16.

Koigeldiev, Mambet. “The Alash movement and the Soviet government.” In Empire, Islam, and Politics in Central Eurasia, edited by Tamohiko Uyama. Sapporo: Slavic Research Center, 2016.

Korelin, Averin. Dvorianstvo v poreformennoi Rossii, 1861–1904 gg.: sostav, chislennosť, korporativnaia organizatsiia. Moscow: Nauka, 1979.

Loriga, Sabina. “The Role of Individual in History.” In Theoretical Discussions of Biography. Approaches from History, Microhistory, and Life Writing, edited by Hans Renders and Binne De Haan. Vol. 7. Leiden: Brill, 2014.

Magauin M., and M. Baidildaev. Bes gasyr zhyrlaidy. Vol. 2. Almaty: Zhazushy, 1989.

Martin, Virginia. Law and Ccustom in the Steppe: the Kazakhs of the Middle Horde and Russian Colonialism in the Nineteenth Century. Richmond: Phycology Press, 2001.

Masanov N.E., ed. Istoriia Kazakhstana: narody i kul’tury. Almaty: Daik-press, 2000.

Masevich M.G., ed. Materialy po istorii politichaskogo stroia Kazakhstana. Vol. 1. Alma-Ata: Izdatel’stvo academii nauk Kazakhskoi SSR, 1960.

Mironov, Boris. Sotsial’naia istoria Rossii perioda imperii (XVIII–nachalo XX v.), vol. 2. Saint Petersburg: Dmitri Bulanin, 2003.

O’Neill, Kelly. Claiming Crimea: A History of Catherine the Great’s Southern Empire. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2017.

Otchet musul’manskogo blagotvoritel’nogo obshestva v Sankt-Peterburge. Saint Petersburg: Tipografiia Usmanova, 1909.

Rottier Pete. “Creating the Kazak Nation: The Intelligentsia’s Quest for Acceptance in the Russian Empire, 1905–1920.” PhD thesis. University of Wisconsin, 2005.

Rottier Pete. “The Kazakness of Sedentarization: Promoting Progress as Tradition in Response to the Land Problem.” Central Asian Survey 22, no. 1 (March 1, 2003): 67–81.

Rosiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (RGIA) f.1291 Zemskii otdel Ministerstva  vnutrennikh del, op.82–1848, d.8, l.2 O chlenakh Kazakhskikh deputatsii.

RGIA f.1343 Tretii departament senata, op.20, d.1529, l.39 O dvorianskom rode Zhanturinykh.

Sabol, Steven. Russian Colonization and the Genesis of Kazak National Consciousness. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.

Sartori, Paolo. Social History of Modern Central Asia (19th–early 20th Century). Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2013.

Sartori, Paolo, and Pavel Shablei. Eksperimenty Imperii: adat, shariat, i proizvodstvo znanii v Kazakhskoi stepi. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2019.

Shokai, Mustafa. Izbrannye trudy v 2 tomakh. Vol. 2. Almaty: Arys, 2016.

Shokai, Mustafa. “Sanzhar Aspandiar.” In Tandamaly, edited by Mustafa Shokai, vol. 2. 239–241. Almaty: Qainar, 2007.

Suleimenov, Ramazan. “S.D. Asfendiarov i stanovlenie sovetskoi istoricheskoi nauki v Kazakhstane.” In Velikii Oktiabr’ i sotsial’no-ekonomicheskii progress Kazakhstana, edited by Suleimenov R.B., 155–183. Almaty: Nauka, 1987.

Sultangalieva, Gulmira. “The Role of Tatar Merchants in the Formation of the Inner Trade Market in the Turgai Region (XIX century).” Journal of History 93, no. 2 (June 21, 2019): 55–60.

Sultangalieva, Gulmira, and John P. Seitz. “‘They Do Not Help, Only Demoralize’: Peasant Nachalniks and the Last Imperial Russian Reform on the Kazakh Steppe, 1902–1917.” Central Asian Survey 39, no. 2 (January, 2020): 167–184.

Sultangalieva, Gulmira, and Tenlik Dalaeva. “Diplom na dvorianskoe dostoinstvo sultanu.” Istoricheskii arkhiv, no. 4 (2014): 174–86.

Sultangalieva G.S., ed. Institut volostnykh v sisteme upravleniia Kazakhskoi stepiu (XIX–nachalo XX vv.). Almaty: Qazaq universiteti, 2018.

Sultangalieva G.S. “Kazakhskie chinovniki Rossiskoi imperii XIX veka. Osobennosti vospriiatiia vlasti.” Cahiers Du Monde Russe 4, no. 51 (2015): 651–80.

Sultangalieva G.S. “Otrazhenie sotsial’nykh izmenenii kazakhskogo kochevogo obshestva v deloproizvodstvennoi documentatsii i vizual’nykh istochnikakh.” Otan tarikhy 98, no. 2 (2022): 104–14.

Sultangalieva, Gulmira, Ulzhan Tuleshova, and Paul W. Werth. “Nomadic Nobles: Pastoralism and Privilege in the Russian Empire.” Slavic Review 81, no. 1 (Spring 2022): 77–96.

Sultanov, Tursun. Kochevye Plemena Priaral’ia v XV–XVII vv. Moscow: Nauka, 1982.

Sultanov, Tursun. Podniatye na beloi koshme. Potomki Chingizkhana. Almaty: Daik-press, 2001.

Thomas, Alun. “Kazakh Nomads and the New Soviet State, 1919–1934. Thesis for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy.” PhD dissertation. The University of Sheffield, 2015.

Tsentral’nyi gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Respubliki Kazakhstan (TsGARK) f.4 Orenburgskaia pogranichnaia komissiia, op.1, d.3519. l.1, оb Kazakhskaia deputatsiia v Sankt-Peterburg ot mladshego zhuza.

TsGARK f.25 Turgaiskoe oblastnoe pravlenie, op.1, d. 3092, ll.19–21 Khodataistva kazakhskikh dvorian o nadelenii ikh zemlei.

TsGARK f. 369, op.1, d. 2036, ll.34–34 оb., 35 Delo po khodataistvu sultana, maiora Aryslana Khudaimendina o nagrazhdenii ego za 40 letnuiui sluzhbu uchastkom zemli ili edinovremennym posobiem.

Tsentral’nyi gosudarsvtvennyi arkhiv Samarskoi oblasti (TsGASO) f.430 Samarskoe dvorianskoe deputatskoe sobranie, op.1, d.1047 O dvorianstve Akhmeda Zhangirova.

Uyama, Tomohiko. “Repression of Kazakh Intellectuals as a Sign of Weakness of Russian Imperial Rule: The Paradoxical Impact of Governor A.N. Troinitskii on the Kazakh National Movement.” Cahiers De Monde Russe 56, no. 4 (2015): 681–703.

Wirtschafter, Elise Kimerling. Social Identity in Imperial Russia. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997.

Valikhanov, Shokan. Sobranie sochinenii v piati tomakh. Vol. 2. Alma-Ata: Glavnaia redaktsiia Kazahskoi sovetskoi entsiklopedii, 1985.

Von Winning, Alexa. Intimate Empire: The Mansurov Family in Russia and the Orthodox East, 1855–1936. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021.

Zhanaev, B.T. ed. Istoriia Bukeevskogo khanstva. 1801–1851. Sbornik dokumentov. Almaty: Daik-Press, 2001.

Zhanaev, B.T. Kazakhskie deputatsii k rossiiskomu imperatorskomu dvoru 1801–1873 gg. Almaty: Qazaq universiteti, 2020.

Zholbarysuly, Baktybai. “Baktybaidyn Tezek torege aitqany.” In Bes gasyr zhyrlaidy, edited by M. Magauin and M. Baidildaev, 48–63, vol. 2. Almaty: Zhazushy, 1989.

Zhunisbaev, Almas. “Sanzhar Asfendiarovtyn omiri men qyzmeti turaly.” World of Great Altai 5, no. 1 (2019): 5–25.

Zhunisbaev, Almas. “Sanzhar Asfendiarovtyn agalary men apkelerіnіn omіrі turaly.” Qogam zhane dauіr, no. 5 (2011): 115–25.

Zimanov, Salyk. Politicheskii stroi Kazakhstana pervoi poloviny XIX veka i Bukeevskoe khanstvo. Alma-Ata: Arys, 2009.