Soviet Orientalism and the Creation of Central Asian Nations by Alfrid K. Bustanov (review)

This book is an important contribution to the field of studies of Soviet Central Asia, which combines the debates on Russian Orientalism with the literature on history writing and nation building in Soviet Kazakhstan. Russia’s relations with its “Orient” have been a topic of high interest in the past two decades due to the influence of the “imperial turn.” The rise of the new trend was famously manifested in the discussion between Adeeb Khalid and Nathaniel Knight in the pages of Kritika. With almost no exception, any study of Russian Orientalism written in the past fifteen years starts with a reference to that debate.¹ A separate tradition in Western historiography of studying history writing in Kazakhstan was established after the publication of Lowell R. Tillet’s classic work.² Bustanov attempts to bring together these two different literatures, while paying special attention to the institutional development of Oriental Studies and the nation-building process in Soviet Kazakhstan. According to the author, the book focuses “on the academic discourse of Soviet Orientalists about historical sources from Central Asia” (P. xi). Bustanov’s aim is to determine the role of Soviet scholars in complex sociopolitical processes, to see how autonomous they were, and how much politicized in their work. This is a study of the discourse on Kazakhstan’s identity, which was constructed at the intersection of several centers and peripheries (P. xvi). The author successfully navigates around those multiple centers and peripheries due to his familiarity with both Russian Oriental Studies and Western scholarship.

The book advances several interrelated arguments. It consists of four chapters (the last one is in effect a short conclusion) and an introduction, where Bustanov summarizes his four main hypotheses. The first hypothesis emphasizes the key role of Leningrad Orientalists in the institutional development of Oriental Studies in Kazakhstan. The second defines the main academic problem in Soviet Kazakh history as a dichotomy between the understanding of the Kazakh past as purely nomadic and the acknowledgment of the role of urban culture. The third hypothesis posits the return of a regionalist perspective to history writing about Central Asia in the 1970s, in relation to political aspirations of the regime. The fourth hypothesis suggests that Soviet Orientology developed in the form of “scientific projects,” whereas a collective mode of implementation and central planning were the main features of these projects (Pp. xvii–xxii).

Chapter 1, “The Leningrad Connection,” is mostly a study of largescale Soviet projects of writing national histories for individual union republics. Alongside these undertakings, the chapter discusses the project of editing and publication of a primary source of great importance: Jami’ at-tawarikh, conducted by Evgenii Bertel’s (1890–1957). In this chapter, Bustanov introduces readers to the field of Soviet Oriental Studies projects, and shows how Leningrad Orientalists came to terms with the Soviet regime, adapting their work to the existing political constraints. Chapter 2 identifies two main trends in Soviet writings of Kazakh history: nationalism and regionalism. On the example of the most influential historians of the region, such as Sandzhar Asfendiiarov and Anna Pankratova, the chapter discusses the theme of autochthonism in Soviet historiography and revisits its persistent topics, including nomadism of Kazakhs and the role of cities in Kazakh history. In chapter 3, “The Establishment of Kazakh Orientology,” Bustanov discusses the institutional development of Oriental Studies in Kazakhstan and the contributions of several leading Orientalists, such as Veniamin Iudin, Klavdiia Pishchulina, and Sergei Kliashtornyi. He highlights the connections of Kazakh Orientology with centers of Oriental Studies in Tashkent, Moscow, and especially Leningrad.

In terms of the sources, in the first chapter, Bustanov relies mainly on the archival materials related to “scientific” campaigns and projects, including project proposals, research plans, discussions, and correspondence regarding the accepted projects and their output. In the second chapter, he focuses on the analysis of published historical works. In the...