Divergent Paths in the History of Central Eurasia.
Jin Noda, The Kazakh Khanates between the Russian and Qing Empires: Central Eurasian International Relations during the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. 370 pp. Boston: Brill, 2016. ISBN-13 978-9004314443. $156.00.
Zhong Han, Chongshi neiya shi: Yi yanjiu fangfalun de jianshi weizhongxin (Reinterpreting Inner Asian History: Centering on the Examination of Studying Methodology). 389 pp. Beijing: Shehui kexue wenxian chubanshe (Social Sciences Academic Press), 2017. ISBN-13 978-7520115162.
As an academic term, "Central Asia" originated in the rivalry between Russia and Britain in the mid-19th century, known as the Great Game. Both of these empires claimed strategic spheres of influence from opposite directions; and Central Asia was frequently described by explorers, officials, and scholars in English journals, newspapers, and books. "Inner Asia" was mainly put forward by savants like Owen Lattimore in the early 20th century, while the much newer term "Central Eurasia" was proposed by Denis Sinor in the mid-20th century. Definitions of these three terms vary among scholars. Generally speaking, Central Asia mainly represents the area of the five former Soviet republics, while Inner Asia points to the four main neighboring areas along China's inner frontiers: Tibet, Xinjiang, the Mongolian plateau, and northeastern China. As a broader and more inclusive concept, Central Eurasia includes both Central Asia and Inner Asia and covers a much wider geographical area, ranging from the Ural and Caucasus Mountains to China's Northeast. (1)
During the Cold War, nearly all scholars outside the Soviet Union had difficulties accessing sources in Russia and the Soviet Central Asian republics, which limited the possibilities for in-depth historical research on modern Central Eurasia. Limited reference materials were translated and compiled by Western institutions, however, and a few scholars studied the history of Central Asia, including Lawrence Krader and Michael Rywkin. (2) Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, scholars interested in the history of imperial Russia and Sino-Soviet relations from China, Japan, and Western countries have had easier access to primary sources on imperial Russia and the Soviet Union. Under these circumstances, scholarly achievements in these areas have been abundant, most notably in UNESCO's series on Central Asian civilization before the 20th century. (3) Kazakh and Kyrgyz history (including the national epic Manas) have been the focus of numerous studies. (4) Chinese authors have also studied these nomads along the Qing Dynasty's northwest frontier using Chinese sources. In recent years, some Chinese scholars have also employed sources in Manchu and Chagatai to more deeply understand this history. (5) Despite large numbers of articles or books on these empires, however, there is still a paucity of in-depth monographs on specific powers like the Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Khoqand, and others. Though many previous studies are closely related to these themes, most of them are either Sino-centric or Russo-centric, because only a few scholars can have a versatile command of multilingual sources from Chinese, Russian, Manchu, Chagatai, Tod, and other rare languages. So further concrete studies on Central Eurasian history must be conducted on the basis of multilingual reading abilities.
Each of the three recent books under review addresses this problem in different ways. Scott Levi deeply delves into the internal history of Khoqand from 1709 to 1876, while Jin Noda explores the tripartite relationship of the Kazakh khanates, the Qing, and Russia. Zhong Han, for his part, focuses on Inner Asian historiography by certain important scholars of the 20th century, seeking to find commonalities, strengths, and weaknesses in studies of Inner Asian history. Each of these studies advances the state of Central Eurasian history from its respective position. As a hub of communication between Eastern and Western civilizations, Central Eurasia could be characterized as integrated and interactive. Therefore, multilingual abilities aside, historians must understand the multiple interconnected factors shaping the historical process. Among the authors, Levi argues that the Khoqand Khanate was never isolated but was instead closely integrated with Eurasian or even global networks. Noda also accentuates the plural elements existing in the relations among the Kazakh khanates and the Qing and Russian empires. From a historiographical perspective, Zhong pays attention to common values or cultural identities shared in Inner Asia. Microscopic analysis is also essential for interpreting the history of Central Eurasia, as this area is so vast that few scholars can easily conduct macro studies. (6) Under the microscope, both Levi and Noda reveal some rarely known historical details about the Khoqand and Kazakh khanates, while Zhong reaches some useful conclusions for the Central Eurasian field.
For the last decade, Levi has studied the social and economic history of early modern Central Asia. Based on this foundation, he seeks to further unravel the rise and fall of Khoqand. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Chinese scholar Pan Zhiping and the British historian Laura Newby have studied the relations between Khoqand and the Qing dynasty. (7) However, these studies have not addressed the khanate's history from within. Using a diverse range of primary sources, including chronicles, Levi explores the history of the khanate's waxing and waning from an internal perspective.
In chronological order, the author analyzes every period of Khoqand's rise and fall, centering on the reigns of the Shahrukhid rulers from 1709 to 1876. He presents a full picture of how Khoqand arose, expanded, and was finally annexed by Russia. Confronted with diverse historical contexts, every ruler used a different strategy to address the khanate's domestic and foreign affairs, so they had different approaches to building and running the state. Several major motifs appear in Levi's discussion, including state consolidation, the establishment of legitimacy, environmental contributions, rivalry with Bukhara, and influence from neighboring powers.
Emerging in the Ferghana Valley, the non-Chinggisid Shahrukhid family first sought to claim authority from the Chadak Khojas. During the reigns of Shakh Rukh Biy (r. 1709-22) to Narbuta Biy (r. 1770-99), Khoqand grew from an Uzbek Ming tribal dynasty to a new state gathering other neighboring city-states, but none of the Shahrukhid rulers yet claimed the title of khan. However, Irdana Biy and Narbuta Biy consolidated power by establishing lucrative commercial and tributary relations with the Qing, developing irrigational agriculture through building canals. In the early 19th century, during centralization, 'Alim (r. 1799-1811) began to claim the title of khan; using brutal purges, military reforms, and his own Ghalcha army, he made Khoqand a true khanate. Unlike his brother 'Alim, 'Umar (r. 1811 22) sought to establish the legitimacy of Khoqand peacefully, through a new model. By crafting the Altun Beshik legend, he attempted to trace the lineage of the Shahrukhid family back to the Mughal emperor Babur, the last Timurid prince in the Ferghana Valley. Based on this legend, 'Umar formally became a khan through the aq kirgiz ceremony. He also provided patronage to poets, artists, historians, Islamic institutions, and ulama, thus setting off a cultural efflorescence. Meanwhile, irrigation networks continued to expand.
When Madali Khan (r. 1822-42) inherited his father's throne in 1822, he expanded the territory in several directions and even invaded the Qing's Southern Xinjiang together with the descendants of the Afaqi khojas. However, he matched his uncle 'Alim in capricious behavior such as gambling, alcohol consumption, and debauchery; the last straw was the escapade in which he married his father's widow Khan Padshah, which caused him to gradually lose legitimacy as a result of this breach of Sharia. The rival Bukharan ruler Nasrallah grasped this opportunity to overthrow Madali Khan and temporarily controlled Khoqand.
From this time onward, Khoqand experienced difficulties in finding a firm footing because of interference from the Qipchaq commander Musulmanqul together with forces composed of ethnic Kyrgyz, Tajiks, and Sarts. Meanwhile, Russia's southward expansion threatened Khoqand, and China's fiscal policies indirectly affected Khoqand's stability. The last Shahrukhid khans could hardly control the territory of Khoqand because of ethnic conflict; Shah Murad Khan (r. 1862) ruled as a Kyrgyz puppet, whereas Sultan Sayyid Khan (r. 1863--65) became the puppet of the Qipchaq commander 'Alimqul. Russia conquered Tashkent in 1865. After that, though Khudayar Khan in his third reign (1865-75) sought to bring recovery to Khoqand as a Russian vassal, his attempts at maintaining peaceful relations with Russia led to rebellions by Kyrgyz, Qipchaqs, and Pulad Khan. Russia annexed Khoqand in 1876.
Focused on the rise and fall of Khoqand, Levi marshals pertinent sources and literature in support of his argument. His major contribution lies in his deeper analysis of events in the Khoqandi inner court. Aside from the political history narrative, he also discusses the environmental history of the Ferghana Valley: for example, the canals and irrigation networks for agriculture, which enhanced the prosperity of Khoqand. In terms of economic development, Levi recognizes that both commerce and agriculture served the purpose of Khoqandi military expansion. Here, however, Levi fails to mention some important details. For example, he fails to systematically analyze the internal administrative system of the khanate, although he lists military terminology and governmental posts in the General Glossary at the back. But two pages of these terms seem to be insufficient to address the official administrative system as a whole and its development.
As with the relations between Khoqand and the Qing dynasty, Levi underplays interactions with other countries, referring only to a few secondary sources on Xinjiang history in English such as the works ofToru Saguchi, Laura Newby, James Millward, Peter Purdue, and Kwangmin Kim. He overlooks the closely related studies published by Pan Zhiping in 1991 and 2006. By not reading the abundant Chinese primary-source materials from the Qing era, he omits some details and makes inaccurate judgments. For instance, both Chinese and Manchu records contain much specific information on Khoqandi affairs, but how the Qing treated Khoqand's presence needs more scrutiny. Pan points out that Khoqand grew from a vassal of the Qing (1759-1820) to a neighboring state (1820-76), but Levi thinks the Qing recognized Khoqandi legitimacy (59) much earlier than that. According to Qing records, the Khoqandi ruler was called only a beg by the emperor. In an earlier contact with Qing officials, Irdana Biy once requested a jade seal and imperial edict from the emperor to restrict the neighboring Kyrgyz tribes, Bukhara, and Samarqand, but the Qing refused; Qianlong's edicts treat the leaders of Khoqand as similar to other Qing vassals. As Khoqand expanded and even invaded the Qing after the 1820s, it became a neighbor rather than a vassal. Meanwhile, Levi claims that Altishahr was under Khoja rule from the 16th century to the 18th (15, 62-63), which is not entirely accurate. The Chinese scholar Wei Liangtao argues that most of the Khojas never claimed the title of khan, and that it is therefore far-fetched to refer to the Khoja Era or the Islamic Holy State in Altishahr. (8)
On the whole, though, this book is a successful attempt to elucidate the internal history of Khoqand from Levi's theoretical perspective. In the conclusion, he also draws attention to studies on small powers in India, Southeast Asia, Africa, and elsewhere that introduce a global perspective.
In contrast to Levi's internal perspective on the Khoqand Khanate, Noda delves into relations among the Kazakh khanates, the Qing, and Russia. With a better command of several related languages, Noda can do a good job of interpreting historical details by consulting archives in Manchu, Russian, and Chinese, as well as materials in Tod and Chagatai; meanwhile, he himself has written better-known related works in Japanese. Although studies on Kazakh history abound, few people can combine multilingual sources because of limited mastery of these various languages. Noda seeks to clarify the relations among the three sides by reexamining original historical accounts and facts. His book consists of three parts and seven chapters.
Noda first shows the need to reevaluate the relations between the Kazakh khanates and the Qing through a concrete summary of related studies in the Soviet Union, China, and Kazakhstan. Then he introduces the process by which Russia advanced into the Kazakh steppe and how Russian advances affected Kazakh-Russian relations. In the core section, Noda clarifies Kazakh-Qing relations by revisiting the Treaty of Kiakhta and Chinese envoys' proposals to Russia. He emphasizes the blind spots and disagreements over how to govern people in Central Asia and the Altai region. So when the Qing quelled the Zunghar regime, disagreement emerged about the loyalities of Kazakhs and Altaic peoples like the Telenggut, Telut, and Uriankhai as both sides asserted jurisdiction over these groups.
Later, Noda carefully scrutinizes the relationship among the three bu (sections) and the three juz (hordes) of Kazakhs in the Qing's sources. He finds that in the early stages, the Left, Right, and West Sections corresponded to the Middle, Great and Small Juz. However, when the Great Juz declined and the Qing lost interest in the Small Juz, the meanings of Left, Right, and West Sections shifted to refer to the three Chinggisid lineages of the Middle Juz--those of Ablai, Abulbanbet, and Tursun. In addition, Noda uses Qing and Russian records to elucidate the incident of a Kazakh sultan's refusal to accept the title of ban from the Qing. He observes that Russians earlier supposed that ban was the same as the Kazakhs' traditional title of khan, so for a mere sultan to accept it would violate Russian regulations; Ghubaidulla was thus restricted by Russia. Russia later found out that the two titles had no connection and replaced khans with agha-sultans.
In addition to in-depth studies like this one, Noda explores Kazakhs' intermediary roles in exchanges between Russia and the Qing because of the restrictions negotiated in the Treaty of Kiakhta. Russian also resorted to the protection of Kazakh sultans to avoid raids by Kazakh nomads. Khoqandis and Bukharans played similar roles in Central Asia: as Khoqandi merchants made use of Khoja revolts in southern Xinjiang, Russian merchants tried to conduct direct trade in northern Xinjiang, causing the decline of the Kazakhs' intermediary role. In the end, Noda focuses on the differences between Russian and Qing policies, perceptions, and diplomacy toward the Kazakhs. Facing Russian expansion, the Qing held to a policy of nonintervention with respect to affairs outside their borders, so the Kazakh sultans failed to gain essential protection from the Qing and became Russian subjects. In 1851, the Qing negotiated with Russia on trade and the questions raised had much to do with the role of the Great Juz. At last, Russians had access to trade in Yili and Tarbagatai, and the Great Juz was also annexed to Russia.
Noda's reexamination of this tripartite relationship merits attention. From the literature review, one gets the sense that previous work by Chinese, Russian, and Kazakh historians was closely related to border conflicts in the Soviet era. Before this book, studies of the region were insufficiently historical in their approach. The greatest contribution lies in the diverse sources the author excavates, because of his ability to read multilingual materials and his visits to China, Russia, and Kazakhstan to collect and compare sources.
To his credit, Noda deeply analyzes and explores primary sources, which helps him uncover details of negotiations, incidents, and perceptions. Obviously, this monograph is not aimed at presenting a thorough history of the Kazakh khanates but mainly discusses their foreign relations and their interactions among the three sides. Nevertheless, it has some conceptual flaws. In the introduction, although Noda mentions works by Chinese authors such as Li Sheng and Hua Li, he omits earlier research by Su Beihai, Wang Xilong, Zhang Rong, and others, who also made fundamental contributions to the history of Kazakh-Qing relations. (9) The genealogy of Kazakh sultans in figure 2 is not fully consistent with the list of Kazakh sultans in the Qing source Xinjiang zhilue, which includes more sultans and a more complicated genealogy, so it seems that Noda should have explained the inconsistency and made better use of the Qing document. Moreover, Noda simply says that the Kazakh juz emerged after the death of Tauke (55), without referring to Jiger Janabel's lengthy argument in his dissertation. In fact, according to Janabel's research, the juz emerged earlier, in the second half of the 15th century, and grew from centurion units to genealogical, political, and geographical unions. (10) Noda thus presents an overly simplified account. Janabel's account may not be the definitive answer, but we would have expected Noda to comment on it.
There are also a few minor errors. For instance, QL33 is 1768, not 1767 (238). It is unclear why the geographical account of Tarbagatai (274) mentions the division of Tianshan into northern and southern regions, nor do we know why he writes that "the northern region" is located east of Issyk-kul Lake. Both Tianshan and Issyk-kul Lake are quite far from this area, so we assume Noda conflates Tianshan and Tarbagatai Mountain, and the division in question should have been that of Tarbagatai. In addition, spelling errors should be avoided when Noda cites Chinese sources using the Chinese pinyin system. (11) The Manchu word amban (councilor) ought not to be written as anban (91, 237, 283). The author proposes a direction to broaden his study by suggesting that future studies should compare the Kazakhs' and Buruts' relations with the Qing and Russia. He also mentions that further studies should focuse more on Kazakh frontier areas between the Qing and Russia. From our perspective, by incorporating some anthropological perspectives into the work and drawing more attention to the role of ordinary Kazakhs, Noda could better analyze Kazakhs' history and experiences on the Sino-Russian frontier.
Where Levi and Noda use primary sources, Zhong Han's work is a study of several historians of Inner Asia. They include Paul Pelliot, a monumental figure in many fields of Sinology; Denis Sinor, a student of Pelliot and another famous and influential scholar, who tended to use his versatile linguistic knowledge to research history and finally elevated the position of Inner Asian history studies; Joseph Fletcher, a philological prodigy who made many breakthroughs in Inner Asian studies, especially regarding Islam in China, Mongolian history, Xinjiang history, and Manchu-Qing history; and Kathe Uray-Kohalmi, wife of the prominent Hungarian Tibetologist Geza Uray, who conducted studies on northern Asian history applying theories of ethnology. Aside from these figures from Europe and America, Zhong also analyzes the related work of the Chinese scholar Wang Mingke and and the Japanese scholar Yutaka Moribe. The former is famous for his history studies borrowing methods from the social sciences, while the latter has researched Sogdian history. In his studies of the ethnic history of northern China, Zhong aims to summarize the characteristics and tendencies current among previous generations of Inner Asian scholars. He tries to evaluate the caliber of their works in an objective tone while raising serious issues with each of the works and identifying concrete flaws and weaknesses through cogent arguments. In a recently published article, Zhong further supplements his book and points out some small revisions. (12)
As a pioneer in European Inner Asian studies, not only was Pelliot famous for his work on the Dunhuang volumes, but he also contributed to Sinology and other fields. In this section, Zhong offers a theoretical summary of Pelliot's academic life and influence. Zhong first evaluates the situation of Inner Asian studies in European countries in the transition from the 19th century to the 20th, in which he recognizes that French academia lagged behind Germany, Britain, and Russia; he calls this period the Pre-Pelliot Era. Then he confirms Pelliot's superiority to his teachers and calls Pelliot a Sinology master by justifying Pelliot's unrivaled knowledge of textual criticism and Chinese documents. So Sinology lays the major academic foundation for Pelliot, but he also shows his acumen in dealing with non-Chinese documents from the western regions of ancient China. In addition to his account of Pelliot's contributions, Zhong presents a post-Pelliot panorama for the situation of Inner Asian studies in Europe and North America.
As a student of Pelliot, Sinor examined the theoretical basis of Inner Asian or Central Eurasian studies, focusing especially on cultural history. Instead of the original works of Sinor, Zhong uses only a selected compilation of Sinor's Inner Asian works translated by Peking University. (13) Based on this compilation, Zhong generalizes the characters of Sinor's studies and finds fault with almost every article in this compilation. By recounting Sinor's academic training, Zhong stresses Pelliot's influence on Sinor and senses Sinor's treatment of Central Eurasia not as a geographical term but as a cultural historical concept. However, Sinor's weaknesses and gaps in knowledge never escape Zhong's strict scrutiny. By listing relevant materials, Zhong points out detailed errors or problems in Sinor's research. Almost all of these flaws originate in Sinor's insufficient control over primary sources and secondary references in Chinese and other languages, a point that conversely demonstrates the difficulty and necessity for comprehensive training in multilingual materials in Inner Asian or Central Eurasian studies. Zhong also demonstrates the translation errors in this compilation.
Indirectly inheriting Pelliot's Inner Asian methods as a student of E W. Cleaves, Joseph Fletcher pushed forward Inner Asian studies. To his philological advantage, Fletcher grew from a genius of textual criticism into a versatile historian. Although he died young, Fletcher published a number of famous chapters and articles. When discussing Fletcher's achievements in connection with Inner Asia, Zhong mainly refers to Fletcher's posthumous compilation, Studies on Chinese and Islamic Inner Asia. (14) Selecting several articles from this book, Zhong analyzes Fletcher's studies on integrative history, monarchic tradition in the Ottoman Empire, and Mongols from an ecological perspective. Furthermore, Zhong maintains that several academic communities have been influenced by Fletcher--among them Western Sinologists, representatives of the "new Qing history," and other Inner Asian historians, including his students.
By contrast, Kathe Uray-Kohalmi advanced Inner Asian studies by introducing ethnological methods. Zhong outlines Uray's works on the Secret History of the Mongols, cultural connections between Mongolian and neighboring ethnic groups, official religious practices of steppe empires, and so on. Zhong assesses her achievements in an international context by comparison with Shoji Murakami's research and from different theoretical perspectives, concluding that she has made significant contributions on the origins of Mongolian culture and shamanism. Her applications of ethnology offer a powerful theoretical lens.
Wang Mingke similarly introduces anthropological theories into his reinterpretions of the relationships between the Han dynasty and northern nomadic powers. Focusing on Wang's book on nomadic history published in 2008, Zhong criticizes Wang's methodology and content in this study. (15) First, Zhong lays out how to translate the concepts of nomadism and pastoralism, pointing out that Wang conflates the two terms. Second, Zhong accentuates the importance of proper selection of ethnographical materials by demonstrating irrelevancies in Wang's analysis. Wang tends to quote more ethnographies from the Middle East and Africa and fewer from the pertinent Eurasian steppe areas, so he deduces a few inaccurate theories from irrelevant materials. For example, citing ethnographic studies, he concludes that traditional nomads consumed more milk than meat, which supported the nomadic economy. However, when Zhong refers to materials from archaeology or ancient travel records, he finds that nomads consumed either more milk or more meat under different circumstances, so there is no fixed answer to the question of the nomadic food structure in the economy. Meanwhile, Zhong senses that Wang is eager to apply the anthropological concept of "segmentation" among nomads to Xiongnu society, so Wang treats the Xiongnu's 24 officials as 24 tribal leaders. But Zhong undermines Wang's contention by citing the primary record in Shiji, arguing that those officials indicate only a system of human resources mobilization, which is different from "segmentation" in nomadic social organizations.
Zhong also disputes Wang's arguments about historical climate change and identifies inaccuracies in Wang's historical accounts. Wang frequently mentions the globally dry and cold climatic situation between 2000 and 1000 bce, a basic starting point for his explanation of economic change among North Asian humans. Zhong, in contrast, explores the real climatic situation of this period by comparing different materials, adducing more Eurasian empirical evidence that contradicts Wang's assumption and concludes that the average climate changed from dry and warm to cold and wet conditions. In his reflections, Zhong emphasizes the importance of serious empirical method over theoretical constructions and argues that the social sciences should serve only as auxiliary tools for historical studies.
Finally, Zhong reviews and analyzes the Japanese scholar Yutaka Moribe's monograph on Sogdian history from the Tang to the Song dynasty. Zhong appreciates Moribe's contribution to Sogdian studies and argues that both the author's strengths and weaknesses and his theoretical assumptions merit the attention of Chinese scholars. Zhong describes the structure of Moribe's book and generalizes the characteristics of Sogdian studies in Japan, commenting on the basic concept of "Sogdian-Turks" used by Japanese scholars. On that basis, Zhong points out the theoretical limitations of Moribe's analysis, represented by the "pan-Sogdian" tendency and insufficient references to previous related studies and works by Western scholars. Furthermore, Zhong himself considers the historical background of Sogdian militarization in greater depth.
Compared to contemporary Chinese works on Inner Asia, Zhong's criticism deserves praise for its command of Inner Asian history. The review system is still lacking in China, where pages for book reviews are quite limited in high-level academic journals, and published reviews are usually flattering. Zhong both summarizes the features and points out the lapses in classic studies. To some extent, Zhong imitates Pelliot with his commentary-based approach, and he certainly has a good command of Inner Asian history and the ethnic history of northern China. At the same time, he is familiar with interdisciplinary research trends combining anthropology, ethnology, and archaeology.
Fundamentally, however, this book is mostly a compilation and extension of several book reviews; some chapters were published a long time ago. It is not a thorough monograph reflecting the state of Inner Asian historiography, because the author is mainly interested in ethnic history in ancient northern China. It is undoubtedly no easy task to present the whole picture of Inner Asian historiography, even though Zhong defines Inner Asia as China's four frontier plates (the Northeast, Mongolia, Xinjiang, and Tibet) and their neighboring areas (3-4), referring to Owen Lattimore's research. There may be more historians worth reviewing using this definition from Tibetology, Mongolian studies, and Xinjiang history studies. His interpretations of the authors in the book are also based on a selective reading of their work. For example, he uses a translated compilation of Sinor's selected works and analyzes a limited set of articles published by Fletcher; Zhong fails to notice the significant unpublished part of Fletcher's works stored in his archive at Harvard.
Comparing the three books, we conclude that they represent different attempts to reinterpret Central Eurasian history. Levi's and Noda's monographs are more closely linked to one another; both are focal studies on early modern Central Eurasian history and demonstrate the microscopic analytic method in case studies. Obviously, concrete studies on Central Eurasian people or powers may well supply references and details for research on the periphery of the greater empires in the region. The region's diversity of peoples and cultures means that sophisticated historical accounts must rely on literature in multiple languages. Therefore, to some extent, the two studies provide a paradigm and template for Central Eurasian history.
None of the powers of Central Eurasia were isolated; they were interconnected. Therefore, global and connected approaches can assist in analyzing their history, which is a key axis of Levi's method. For example, both Kazakhs and Uzbeks share common values represented by the veneration of the Chinggisid lineage. In coronation ceremonies, sitting on white felt was common to both Khoqand khans and Kazakh sultans. (16) Chinggisid influence persisted in Central Eurasia for several centuries and was manifested both in the khan's legitimacy in Khoqand and the sultan's authority in the Kazakh khanates. Located at the frontiers of two greater empires in the 18th and 19th centuries, they acted as intermediaries. In addition to Russia and China, both the Shahrukhid ruler 'Abd al-Rahim Biy and the Kazakh khan Qaip established contacts with the Ottoman Empire in the 18th century, as Levi and Noda show. Some of Zhong's theoretical analyses coincide with the arguments of the other two authors, as when Zhong and Levi deploy the concept of tanistry developed by Joseph Fletcher. Zhong also explores Fletcher's analysis on integrative history, which Levi emphasizes. All three of these works shed light on the necessity and significance of microscopic studies of Central Eurasian areas from different perspectives to help us further recognize the features of Central Eurasian history.
School of History and Culture
South China Normal University
Guangzhou 510631, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China
This review is funded by the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation, Project no. 2018M630957.
(1) All three of the authors in this review give related definitions: Levi (xxii), Noda (1), and Zhong (1-4). For others' definitions, see, e.g., Caroline Humphrey and David Sneath, The End of Nomadism? Society, State and the Environment in Inner Asia (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1999), v--viii; Denis Sinor, ed., The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 1-18; Beatrice Manz, ed., Central Asia in Historical Perspective (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1998), 4-20; and Edward Allworth, ed., 130 Years of Russian Dominance: A Historical Overview (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1994), 1.
(2) Central Asian Review was established by the Central Asia Research Center of St. Antony College Oxford from 1953 to 1968. Books include Lawrence Krader, Social Organization of the Mongol-Turkic Pastoral Nomads (The Hague: Mouton, 1963); Anatoly M. Khazanov, Nomads and the Outside World, trans. Julia Crookenden (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984); Alfred Hudson, Kazak Social Structure (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964); Richard A. Pierce, Russian Central Asia, 1867-1917: A Study in Colonial Ride (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960); and Michael Rywkin, Russia in Central Asia (New York: Collier Books, 1963).
(3) For series on Central Eurasian studies, see UNESCO, eds., History of Civilizations of Central Asia, 6 vols. (Paris: UNESCO Publishing, 2000-5); Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, eds., Papers on Inner Asia, 41 vols. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987-2014); and Brill's Inner Asian Library, 37 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 2003-18).
(4) Linda Benson and Ingvar Svanberg, China's Last Nomads: The History and Culture of China's Kazaks (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1998); Virginia Martin, Law and Custom in the Steppe: The Kazakhs of the Middle Horde and Russian Colonialism in the Nineteenth Century (New York: Curzon, 2001); Steven Sabol, Russian Colonization and the Genesis of Kazak National Consciousness (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003); Daniel Prior, "Twilight Age of the Kirghiz Epic Tradition" (PhD diss., Indiana University, 2002); Svetlana Jacquesson, Pastorealismes: Anthropologic historique des processus d'integration chez les Kirghiz du Tian Shan interieur(Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2010).
(5) For studies in Chinese, see He Xingliang, Bianjie yu minzu: Qingdai kanfen zhong'e xibei bianjie dachen de chahetai, man, ban wujian wensbu yanjiu (Boundaries and Ethnic Groups: Studies of Five Documents in Chagatai, Manchu, and Han by Qing Ambans Investigating and Delimiting the Sino-Russian Northwestern Border) (Beijing: China Social Science Press, 1998); Erkin Awghally, "Yijian Qingdai hasake zumudi wenshu de yanjiu" (A Study of a Document about the Kazaks' Pasture Lease), Minzu yanjiu, no. 5 (2006): 70-73; Chen Yue, "Cong Qianlong chao manwen jixin dang kan qianlongdi dui bulute de zhili" (On the Qianlong Emperor's Administration for Buruts from Manchu Court Letters of Qianlong's Reign), Yuxi shifan xueyuan xuebao, no. 5 (2017): 23-32.
(6) Here microscopic analysis mainly refers to the methods of in-depth and elaborate historical analysis; it is distinct from the theory of microhistory originating in the 1970s in Italy, France, Germany, and North America represented by the works of Giovanni Levi, Carlo Ginzburg, Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, Jonathan Spence, and Robert Darnton.
(7) Pan Zhiping, Zhongya haohan guo yu qingdai Xinjiang (The Central Asian Khoqand Khanate and Xinjiang in the Qing Dynasty) (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1991). Pan Zhiping, Haohan guo yu xiyu zhengzhi (The Khoqand Khanate and the Politics of the Western Regions) (Urumqi: Xinjiang renmin chubanshe, 2006); Laura Newby, The Empire and the Khanate: A Political History of Qing Relations with Khoqand c. 1760-1860 (Leiden: Brill, 2005).
(8) Wei Liangtao, "Xiyushi shang de yige huanying--yisilan shensheng guojia huo hezhuo shidai kaoshi" (A Phantom in the History of the Western Region--Textual Criticism on the Islamic Holy State or Khoja Era), Zhongguo shehui kexue, no. 4 (1992): 101-19.
(9) See, e.g., Wang Xilong, "Qianjia shiqi qingzhengfu dui hasake zu zhi guanxi yu zhengce" (Qing Government Relations with and Policy toward Kazakh People in the Qianjia Era), Xinjiang daxue xuebao (zhesbe ban), no. 1 (1984): 25-35; Su Beihai, Hasake zu wenhuashi (A Cultural History of the Kazakh People) (Urumqi: Xinjiang daxue chubanshe, 1989); Zhang Rong, "Qingchao qianlong shiqi hasake zhengce yanjiu" (A Study of the Qing Dynasty's Kazakh Policy during Qianlong's Reign) (PhD diss., Lanzhou University, 2011); Chen Dongjie, "Qianlong shiqi qingchao yu zhongya hasake bu de maoyi guanxi zai tantao" (Commercial Relations between the Qianlong Government and the Kazakh Khanate), Shijie lishi, no. 3 (2015): 20-29; Chen Hailong, "Qingchao--hasake hanguo maoyishi yanjiu (1757-1822)" (A Study on the History of Trade between the Qing Dynasty and the Kazakh Khanate [1757-1822]) (PhD diss., Shaanxi Normal University, 2014).
(10) Jiger Janabel uses oral history to argue that time sequence, not population size, was the decisive factor in determining the order of seniority among juz. Gradually, juz transformed from decimal military units to civil-oriented organizations, which were also ordered in military, genealogical, and territorial terms. Therefore, although juz constituted the tribal foundation of the khanate in 1459, their decimal military nature became less pronounced until they underwent a gradual tranformation to genealogical, political, and geographical unions because of the constant disruptions caused by the Oirat Mongols in the second half of the 17th century. See his "From Mongol Empire to Qazaq Juzder: Studies on the Steppe Political Cycle (13th--18th Centuries)" (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1997), 99-113.
(11) He mistakenly writes the name of the Chinese scholar Cai Jiayi as Cai Jiayun (234-35, 324); he incorrectly transcribes the title of the source compiled by Wu Yuanfeng et al. as Qingdai xiqian Xinjiang chahaer menggu manwen dang'an chuanze (291, 315), although it should be Qingdai ... dang'an quanyi; he should have written the name of the Chinese scholar Alatang'aoqier as Alateng'aoqier or Altan-Ochir (73, 175-77, 182, 321); Xiebang lingdui dachen should be Xieban lingdui dachen (264); Qindai waijiao shiliao should be Qingdai waijiao shiliao (276), and so on.
(12) Zhong Han, "Hou boxihe shidai xifang neiya shixue yanjin xing de sangshi--chongshi neiyashi bubi" (The Loss of Precision in Inner Asian History Research in the West during the Post-Pelliot Era--Supplementary Notes on "Reinterpreting Inner Asian History"), Xiyuyanjiu, no. 3 (2018): 89-97.
(13) Denis Sinor, A Selection of Denis Sinor's Inner Asian Studies, trans, and ed. Department of History in Peking University (Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 2006).
(14) Joseph Fletcher, Studies on Chinese and Islamic Central Asia, ed. Jonathan Lipman and Beatrice Forbes Manz (Aldershot, UK: Variorum, 1995).
(15) Wang Mingke, Youmu zhe dejueze: Miandui han diguo de beiyayoumu minzu (The Nomadic Alternative: Northern Asian Nomadic Tribes Facing the Han Empire) (Guilin: Guangxi shifan daxue chubanshe, 2008).
(16) As to the ceremony accompanying ascension to the throne, Levi mentions the Khoqandi khans' coronation ceremony several times (95, 100, 128, 165, etc.) after Alim Khan claimed the khan's title. Similarly, Noda also mentions the white felt carpet ceremony in Wali's succession to the khan's title (188). This indicates that Kazakhs and Uzbeks both inherited this Mongolian ceremony.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||The Rise and Fall of Khoqand, 1709-1876: Central Asia in the Global Age; The Kazakh Khanates Between the Russian and Qing Empires: Central Eurasian International Relations During the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries; Chongshi neiya shi: Yi yanjiu fangfalun de jianshi weizhongxin|
|Author:||Fengfeng, Zhang; Laiyi, Zhang|
|Article Type:||Book review|
|Date:||Sep 22, 2019|
|Previous Article:||Samozvanstvo and the Legitimation of Power in Russian Political Culture.|
|Next Article:||Postrevolutionary Syndromes.|