Kazakh historiography is still evolving, both in the west and in Kazakhstan. This special section of Ab Imperio is publishing the works of five scholars: one Kazakh, one Russian and three westerners, that illustrate the changing nature of Kazakh historiography. In the west, Kazakh historiography is comparable to an inverted pyramid, with the foundation established by Thomas Winner, Edward Sokol, George Demko, Alexandre Bennigsen, Michael Rywkin, Martha Olcott, Lowell Tillett, and others. The article by A. Zabirova attempts to evaluate the work of western scholars that is liberated from the “falsification” charges that typically accompanied Soviet reviews. Her work does not include, however, more recent scholarship. In the last decade many younger scholars have embraced the study of Central Asia and contributed to the growing list of works devoted to the region as they delve more deeply into the subject of Kazakh history. Notable strides have been made recently by western scholars to understand the history of the Kazakhs and Kazakhstan. For example, Virginia Martin’s book, Law and Custom in the Steppe: The Kazakhs of the Middle Horde and Russian Colonialism in the Nineteenth Century (2001), contributed greatly to our understanding of the cultural conflict between Russian civil law and Kazakh customary practices. Matthew Payne’s book, Stalin’s Railroad: Turksib and the Building of Socialism (2001), examines how socialism and the construction of the Turksib was a microcosm of the Soviet cultural revolutionary experience in Kazakhstan. This parallels work being produced by Kazakh scholars.
Kazakh history was traditionally kept and disseminated by aqyndar, or bards. It was fluid, subject to interpretation, and carried down through the generations by oral traditions. Since the nineteenth century, however, Kazakhs and others have attempted to record this history, regarded by the prominent Kazakh scholar, Ermukhan Bekmukhanov, as one of the best sources available to understand the national history. But with the recording of folklore and heroic tales, Kazakh history became standardized and less fluid in its interpretative structure. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it has also subjected Kazakh history to manipulation (not unusual) and rigid understanding. Peter Rottier’s article aptly illustrates the manner in which early twentieth-century Kazakh intellectuals zealously recorded, but more importantly, disseminated their version of the variegated Kazakh past. During the Soviet era Kazakh historiography was used to demonstrate the backward, feudalistic nature of the society and the fraternal bonds that united Kazakhs and Russians. This interpretation firmly held until the Gorbachev era as Kazakh scholars attempted to reveal the detrimental nature of this unequal, colonial relationship. Accordingly, the works of many Kazakhs, repressed since the 1930s were republished, including the periodical press that had been so critical to the early nationalist agenda. In addition, new interpretations, most notably claiming a systemic genocide by the Soviet state had weakened the foundations of national identity, which history could, unshackled by Soviet suppositions, accurately research and disseminate and expose “true” Kazakh history. The 1916 revolt, collectivization, the Stalinist purges, and the russification of the Kazakh population were quickly embraced as subjects to be studied. In post-Soviet Kazakhstan, however, some forbidden subjects remain, in particular the December 1986 Almaty riots (although some works appeared in the early 1990s, the riots continue to arouse passions and heated debates). This veil will most likely be in place for many more years. Since 1991, Kazakh scholars have undertaken a re-examination of Kazakh history, liberated from the manacles of Soviet interpretations.
Nonetheless, limitations remain and consensual interpretations dominate much of post-Soviet Kazakh historiography. In particular, the reinterpretations are being used to illustrate a Kazakh national consciousness that was subjected to russification policies and eliminated by repressive strategies imposed by tsarist and Soviet governments. For example, Kazakh scholars have focused upon several events and eras that are regarded as national tragedies that resulted in a diluted national identity and the loss of political independence. This is not to suggest that the new interpretations lack merit or provide little use, but Kazakh historians can succumb easily to the seduction of de-russification, one that rejects the tsarist and soviet past as abominations that stunted the growth and evolution of the Kazakh nation. History is interpretation and historiography is its reflection; however, Kazakh scholars have “evolutionized” from Soviet interpretation into Kazakh consensual history, glorifying resistance and national struggle. This is a mistake. However strongly Kazakh scholars might dislike the Russian and Soviet colonial eras, and the influence each had upon the Kazakh people, Russian and Kazakh history is linked by more than 200 years of cultural, social, economic, and political encounter. The articles by Bezvikonnaia and by Laurelle and Peyrouse clearly illustrate the nature of the Kazakh-Russian relationship across time and space. Where does this leave post-Soviet Kazakh historiography, namely in its embryonic beginnings. Understanding how institutional memory (the work of historians, anthropologists, sociologists, etc.) influences the collective national consciousness and memory is becoming critical for understanding the politics of national identity formation in post-Soviet Kazakhstan. Moreover, it is critical for understanding the current state of historical writing in post-Soviet Kazakhstan. National memories and identities are not fixed things, but rather representations and constructions that are subjective not objective. Contemporary Kazakh scholars are re-interpreting the past to bridge the regional, social, and cultural differences that could divide rather than unite. Kazakh language and traditions, for example, are being emphasized through legislation and education that are designed to weaken those identity miscellanies. New commemorations and memorials, such as the holiday Nauruz and renaming streets and places, are stressed and identifying Kazakh heroes, tragedies, and past glories are an element in that endeavor. The rewriting of Kazakh national history has exposed a tendency to legitimize contemporary Kazakh nationalism, justify the Kazakhification of government and education, and to use history to illustrate a Kazakh national past that was based upon a national resistance embodied by great Khans and an indigenous intelligentsia. In order to do this, Kazakh scholars are attempting to use history to resuscitate Kazakh national memory and identity by identifying periods of resistance to Russian colonization. This reinterpretation, however, tells us less about the actual historical processes involved and more about current social and political imperatives in Kazakhstan. Nonetheless, a strong foundation is being laid and the articles in this special section demonstrate the further development toward understanding the Kazakh past.