Permalink : http://hdl.handle.net/2115/83688

At the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the Kazakh Steppe was composed of four regions: the Inner Horde, Little Horde, Middle Horde, and Great Horde. This research note focuses on the penetration of Russian rule into the Middle Horde and Little Horde: the former, i.e., the Siberian Kazakhs, was put under the control of the Western Siberian Governor-Generalship based on the Statute on the Administration of Siberian Kirgiz (Kazakhs) in 1822, and the latter, i.e., the Orenburg Kazakhs, under Orenburg Province (guberniia) according to the equivalent rules that gradually came into force from 1824 onwards. These rules and statute worked both in the Middle and Little Hordes to divide each into several administrative units, with okrug, volost’, and aul introduced in the Siberian Kazakh Steppe, and with chast’, distantsiia, and starshinstvo introduced in the Orenburg Kazakh Steppe. At the top of all these units, some Kazakh notables served as intermediaries between the Russian authorities and the local population. By closely examining and comparing the dynamics of this interaction both within the Middle and Little Hordes, I attempt to detect regional particularities in the establishment of Russian rule in the Steppe. The scrutiny of personnel documents?curricula vitae and nominal lists of Kazakh officials?which helped the imperial authorities to control them effectively, reveals different criteria of “loyalty” (userdie, predannost’) that indigenous intermediaries were expected to show to Russia depending on regional circumstances and phase of incorporation. This loyalty was one of the keys to the Kazakh notables’ success in accommodating the imperial estate regime as intermediaries conveying Russian rule into the Steppe. Under the jurisdiction of the Western Siberian Governor-Generalship, the safeguard of caravans was an indicator of the Kazakh elites’ loyalty throughout the early nineteenth century. After the introduction of the okrug system in 1822, the Kazakhs were required to demonstrate loyalty by facilitating the expansion of that system, which was sometimes accompanied by their enticement of other not-yet-loyal Kazakhs to take an oath of subjecthood (poddanstvo) to Russia. In the Orenburg region, meanwhile, the Kazakhs were expected to operate as police, such as apprehending deserters and arresting criminals of any sort. The formation of the chast’-distantsiia system from 1824 onward prompted the native elites to undertake voluntary military service as a sign of loyalty particularly during the pacification of the Kazakh revolts and the expedition to Khiva in 1839. The differences in criteria of loyalty clearly reflected the regional particularities of Russian rule in the vast Kazakh Steppe. The Russian authorities in their turn almost always responded to the Kazakh notables’ display of loyalty emanating from one of the above-mentioned criteria by bestowing upon them such rewards as a certain position of commissioned officer, a Cossack military rank, extravagant goods, and monetary grants for their living. These Kazakh elites playing an intermediary role were likely to be well aware of the value of this loyalty, as in several cases these native officials sought either nobility status or monetary grants for remuneration. This confirms the operation of a type of contract through loyalty between the Russian officials and the Kazakh intermediaries, without which the establishment of Russian rule in the Steppe would have been unfeasible.