- Convenors:
-
Albert Cavallaro
(University of Michigan)
Nurlan Kabdylkhak (UNC-Chapel Hill)
Send message to Convenors
- Chair:
-
Marianne Kamp
(Indiana University, CEUS)
- Discussant:
-
Rebekah Ramsay
(University of California, Berkeley)
- Format:
- Panel (closed)
- Mode:
- Face-to-face part of the conference
- Theme:
- History
- Location:
- 214
- Sessions:
- Wednesday 19 November, -
Time zone: America/New_York
Abstract
Our panel examines how both the Russian empire following the conquest of Central Asia and the incipient Soviet state following the Bolshevik revolution sought to establish the legitimacy of their respective state rules. In doing so, we also show how individuals and communities on the local level, from the residents of the village of Namdanak and petitioners across the regions of Fergana and Samarkand to the Muslim communities of Semey on the Kazakh steppe, understood, competed with, and played with these claims to state power and legitimacy. Our panel composed of two papers on the 19th century and two on the 20th century is bound by three shared themes that come in and out of each of our papers. First, we examine discourses surrounding ownership: this includes both an examination of one village’s articulation of communal ownership to an alleged find of silver coins in 1878 much to the consternation of the state and local archeologists, as well as the various claims to “ownership” of the famed Uthman Koran and its journey from Samarkand to the Imperial Public Library in St. Petersburg only to return to Turkestan in the 1920s. In doing so, our papers explore how claims of ownership of objects can become bound up with claims of state ownership. Second, our papers are bound by an analysis of petitions and petitioners. In focusing on these written sources demanding state intervention or recognition, we show how the legacies of former states, be they the Khivan Khanate or the Bukharan Emirate, as well as various pre-existing religious communities impacted, and changed, Russian imperial and Soviet rule in the region. Finally, throughout all of our papers, there is an overriding focus on how local individuals during times of transformation and growth of state power in the region were able to articulate, defend, and push for their own conceptions of what the proper state should be. Ultimately, through these shared themes, we explore how various individuals asked, and answered, the question: who owns the state?
Accepted papers
Session 1 Wednesday 19 November, 2025, -Abstract
On the 13th of March 1878, the body of Khanibek Shakshsuarov, also known as Khanibek Shakhdir Khodzhyev, was found on the banks of the river Gim-Kizil-Sai not far from the village of Nomdanak. One month earlier, in early February several villagers of Nomdanak, including Bahrom Xodja, Gabit Xodja, and the aforementioned Khanibek, reportedly discovered a large number of silver coins dating to the period of Amir Temur, the 14th century empire builder. Rumors of this find then spread to the Russian administration in Tashkent via the Central Asian archaeologist Akram Askarov and grew within Nomdanak itself as fellow villagers discussed the newly found coins at the local mosque and bazaar. As interest in the coins grew among members of the Russian administration, so did acts of violence in the village. Bahrom Xodja was stabbed, non-fatally, in the throat shortly after the find was discovered. Meanwhile, Khanibek fled the village on March 11th, before being found dead, seemingly murdered, only two days later.
By examining the Russian investigation into both the alleged archaeological find in Nomdanak and the murder of Khanibek, my paper explores the different systems of value through which the Russian administration, Central Asian archeologists, and the residents of Nomdanak interpreted the importance of this alleged find of old silver coins. Utilizing Russian and Central-Asian-Turki language materials produced by the investigation, including transcripts of interviews, petitions from residents of Nomdanak, as well as police reports, I argue that residents of Nomdanak, through written complaints alleging the corruption of local officials, as well as through acts of violence, articulated a rational of communal ownership of the coins. This understanding of the entire village’s “rights” to the coins was opposed to both the demands of the men who found the coins and the demands of the Russian colonial state. Via sifting through contrasting narratives regarding: the number of coins located, those involved in the excavation, the identities of those perpetuating violence, and alleged acts of attempted bribery, I show the Russian authorities inability to either locate the coins or identity of Khanibek’s killer, and show the ways in which finds of old coins in the 19th century could inspire the mobilization of a community, the writing of petitions, and, potentially, even murder.
Abstract
The Russian Conquest of Central Asia during the 1860s and 70s disrupted longstanding networks of authority. Through the establishment and expansion of the Turkestan General Governorate, the Russian administration gained control of territories formerly governed by the Emirate of Bukhara and the Khanate of Khoqand. Colonial administrators were initially unfamiliar with the people and customs of the territories under their purview leading them to rely on relationships with local elites to exercise their authority. This situation provided opportunities for local elites to renegotiate their status in society while potentially securing concessions they had not enjoyed under their former rulers. Likewise, colonial administrators were able to strengthen their legitimacy by assuming certain responsibilities formerly associated with the Emirate of Bukhara and the Khanate of Khoqand. Receiving petitions and resolving disputes pertaining to taxation, property and the recognition of special rights among local elites was one such way colonial administrators adopted the duties of the former rulers. Utilizing documents from the National Archive of Uzbekistan, this conference paper will examine petitions and correspondence from the regions of Fergana, Syr Darya and Samarkand to assess how both the Russian administration and local elites navigated the power dynamics of their new relationship in an effort to bolster their own authority.
Abstract
After the conquest of Samarkand by Russian forces in 1868, an invaluable and ancient manuscript known as the ʿUthmān Quran was removed from the Khoja Aḥrār madrassa, its home for over 400 years, and taken to the Imperial Public Library in St. Petersburg. Following the October 1917 revolution, it was “returned,” first to Ufa and then to Turkestan. This is a remarkable and remarkably early case of a (formerly) colonized people successfully reclaiming cultural property from an imperial center on the principle of decolonization. This paper investigates the debates about this Quran’s rightful ownership and the history of its multiple journeys—highly politicized and publicized events—in the context of the political upheavals of revolution, Civil War, and the first decade of Soviet power. We argue that the competing and contested claims of ownership made on the Quran by various groups between 1917 and 1923 illustrate how Muslims in the former Russian Empire made new claims to political authority after the revolution, and some of them were able to “speak Bolshevik” effectively enough to have “their” Quran given to them. On the part of the Soviet state, we argue that the transfer of the ʿUthmān Quran to Turkestan represents a symbolic gesture of decolonization motivated both by ideological principles and by strategic political aims.
Abstract
If religious accommodation and ideological struggle against belief systems defined Soviet religious policy during and after the Second World War, the pre-war period is more commonly remembered for a comprehensive and aggressive assault on religion under the banner of Soviet modernization. In Soviet Central Asia, this offensive took the form of the violent unveiling campaign (hujum), systematic harassment of religious customs, the closure of mosques and religious schools, and the widespread purging of Muslim clergy. Yet, portraying early Soviet religious policy in Central Asia solely as a campaign of destruction risks oversimplification. Even after consolidating Communist authority in the region, Soviet officials initially adopted a more cautious and pragmatic stance toward religion, extending limited accommodations to religious institutions and communities under the new regime.
Drawing on local archival materials from Kazakhstan, my paper reconstructs the contours of Soviet religious policy as they unfolded in Semey during the 1920s and early 1930s. It pursues two central objectives. First, it investigates the various strategies employed by the Soviet state to manage and engage with religious communities and institutions. Despite the increasingly repressive climate, there remained—particularly in the early years—a degree of institutional tolerance, with Islamic schools and mosques continuing to function in some capacity. Second, the paper explores how Muslim communities responded to these evolving political and legal circumstances. Far from being passive victims, many local actors actively negotiated with Soviet authorities in efforts to preserve religious life. They sought official recognition of religious associations, worked to register mosques, and even initiated religious educational programs within the limits imposed by the new regime.