¹ Lyall, Alfred, “Islam in India,” Asiatic Studies, Religious and Social (London, 1882 [1872]), 252Google Scholar.

² Zastoupil, L. and Moir, M., eds., The Great Indian Education Debate: Documents Relating to the Orientalist-Anglicist Controversy (London, 1999), 165Google Scholar.

³ Said, Edward, Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient (Harmondsworth, 1995), 152Google Scholar.

⁴ In opposition, the classic statement was made by Lewis, Bernard, in “The Question of Orientalism,” New York Review of Books 29, 11 (24 June 1982)Google Scholar. Aijaz Ahmad pointed out that Said's analysis of the relationships of power between West and East concentrated on culture to such an extent that it largely omitted class and other forms of social hierarchy: In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures (London, 1992), 159–219. More recently Irwin's, RobertFor Lust of Knowing: The Orientalists and Their Enemies (Harmondsworth, 2006)Google Scholar covered problems with Said's ideas in relation to academic Orientalism more exhaustively than I could hope to.

⁵ Said, Orientalism, 5, 40, 55, 94, 129–30, 322–28.

⁶ Lyall, Sir Alfred, “The Religious Situation in India,” Asiatic Studies (London, 1882), 304Google Scholar.

⁷ Cohn, B. S., “The Census, Social Structure and Objectification in South Asia,” in An Anthropologist among the Historians and other Essays (Delhi, 1987), 224–54Google Scholar; Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge: The British in India (Princeton, 1996).

⁸ See for instance Washbrook, D. A., “Law, State and Agrarian Society in Colonial India,” Modern Asian Studies 15, 3 (1981): 649–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Powers, David, “Orientalism, Colonialism and Legal History: The Attack on Muslim Family Endowments in Algeria and India” Comparative Studies in Society and History 31, 3 (1989): 535–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kugle, Scott Alan, “Framed, Blamed and Renamed: The Recasting of Islamic Jurisprudence in Colonial South Asia,” Modern Asian Studies 35, 2 (2001): 257–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bhattacharya-Panda, Nandini, Appropriation and Invention of Tradition: The East India Company and Hindu Law in Early Colonial Bengal (Delhi, 2008)Google Scholar; Martin, Virginia, Law and Custom on the Steppe: The Kazakhs of the Middle Horde and Russian Colonialism in the Nineteenth Century (London, 2001)Google Scholar; see also Sartori, Paolo, “An Overview of Tsarist Policy on Islamic Courts in Turkestan: Its Genealogy and Its Effects,” in Gorshenina, Svetlana and Abashin, Sergey, eds., Turkestan russe: une colonie pas comme les autres? (Paris-Tashkent, 2009, forthcoming)Google Scholar, which is the first installment in a major project on Islamic courts in Russian Turkestan.

⁹ Dirks, Nicholas, Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India (Princeton, 2001)Google Scholar. Dirks' dense textual and archival analysis convincingly portrays the pernicious influence that certain types of colonial ethnography have had on his own discipline (although he plays down the diversity of opinions even in the colonial period), but he leaves the impression that the modern Indian idea of caste is largely a result of colonial “hegemony” and manipulation, which infantilizes those whose history is ostensibly being “rescued” from colonial narratives.

¹⁰ D. A. Washbrook looks at economic transformations in early-nineteenth-century India that operated hand-in-hand with British policies on law, caste, and religion in “neo-Orientalising” Indian society: “India 1818–1860,” The Oxford History of the British Empire, vol. 3 (Oxford, 1999), 395–421. This draws on a seminal article by Stokes, Eric: “The First Century of British Colonial Rule in India: Social Revolution or Social Stagnation?” Past and Present 58 (1973): 136–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Seema Alavi provides an interesting case study of the East India Company's reinforcement of high-caste ritual and practice in the Bengal army during this period: The Sepoys and the Company (Delhi, 1995), 75–94.

¹¹ Bayly, C. A., Empire and Information: Intelligence Gathering and Social Communication in India, 1780–1870 (Cambridge, 1996)Google Scholar.

¹² Although not, alas, in Russia, except insofar as Orientalism has been misused to claim that the Russian Empire was solely a victim of “Orientalism” and never a perpetrator. See the devastating critique both of the Russian translation of Said and of those writers who have used his ideas in this way by Vladimir Bobrovnikov: “Pochemu my marginaly? Zametki na polyakh russkogo perevoda ‘Orientalizma’ Edwarda Saida,” Ab Imperio 2 (2008): n.p.

¹³ Khalid, Adeeb, “Russian History and the Debate over Orientalism,” Kritika 1, 4 (2000): 694–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴ Tolz, Vera, “European, National and (Anti-) Imperial: The Formation of Academic Oriental Studies in Late Tsarist and Early Soviet Russia,” Kritika 9, 1 (2008): 78–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵ See, however, Geraci, Robert, Window on the East (Ithaca, N.Y., 2001)Google Scholar; van der Oie, Devid Skhimmel'penninck, Toward the Rising Sun (DeKalb, Ill., 2001), esp. 42–60Google Scholar; Jersild, Austin, Orientalism and Empire: North Caucasus Mountain Peoples and the Georgian Frontier 1845–1917 (Montreal, 2002)Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Marlène Laruelle briefly considers the Turkestan Circle of the Lovers of Archaeology and its members, in Mythe aryen et rêve impérial dans la Russie du XIX^e siecle (Paris, 2005), 169–78. But she is only concerned with uncovering “aryanist” ideas in their writings and not with any possible influence that these had on colonial policy. Sahadeo, Jeff, however, does consider the role of intellectuals in the Russian colonial administration, in Russian Colonial Society in Tashkent (Bloomington, Ind., 2007), 57–68Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Campbell, Elena, “K voprosu ob Orientalizme v Rossii,” Ab Imperio 1 (2002): n.pGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸ Tolz, Vera, “Orientalism, Nationalism and Ethnic Diversity in Late Imperial Russia,” The Historical Journal 48, 1 (2005): 129–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁹ See Layton, Susan, Russian Literature and Empire: Conquest of the Caucasus from Pushkin to Tolstoy (Cambridge, 1994)Google Scholar; and “Nineteenth-Century Russian Mythologies of Caucasian Savagery,” in Brower, Daniel R. and Lazzerini, Edward, eds., Russia's Orient: Imperial Borderlands and Peoples, 1700–1917 (Bloomington, Ind., 1997), 80–99Google Scholar; Ram, Harsha, The Imperial Sublime. A Russian Poetics of Empire (Madison, 2003)Google Scholar; Dickinson, Sara, “Russia's First ‘Orient’: Characterising the Crimea in 1787,” Kritika 3, 1 (2002): 3–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁰ For examples of the first approach, see Sahni, Kalpana, Crucifying the Orient (Bangkok, 1997)Google Scholar; Thompson, Ewa, Imperial Knowledge: Russian Literature and Colonialism (Westport, Conn., 2000)Google Scholar. For the second, see Knight, Nathaniel, “Grigor'ev in Orenburg, 1851–1862: Russian Orientalism in the Service of Empire?” Slavic Review 59, 1 (2000): 74–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar. To some extent these two views came head-to-head in a famous debate in Kritika: Adeeb Khalid, “Russian History”; and Knight, Nathaniel, “On Russian Orientalism: A Response to Adeeb Khalid,” Kritika 1, 4 (2000): 691–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Khalid's approach is much more temperate and more critical of Said (and far better-informed) than those of either Sahni or Thompson, whose ignorance of basic facts of Russian colonial history is at times startling. See Harsha Ram's critique of Sahni, in his review in The Journal of Asian Studies 57, 3 (1998): 860–62.

²¹ Said, Orientalism, 21, 97.

²² Inden, Ronald, Imagining India (Oxford, 1990), 3, 36–43Google Scholar; N. Dirks, “Foreword,” to B. Cohn's Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge, x–xv; and Castes of Mind, 306–12; Prakash, Gyan, “Writing Post-Orientalist Histories of the Third World,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 32, 2 (1990): 384CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the weaknesses of “discourse theory” see Washbrook, D. A., “Orients and Occidents: Colonial Discourse Theory and the Historiography of the British Empire,” in The Oxford History of the British Empire, vol. 5 (Oxford, 1999), esp., 604–11Google Scholar.

²³ van der Oie, Devid Skhimmel'pennink, “Mirza Kazem-Bek i Kazanskaya shkola vostokovedeniya,” in V. Gerasimov et al., I., eds., Novaya Imperskaya Istoriya Postsovetskogo Prostranstva (Kazan, 2004), 256–69Google Scholar.

²⁴ Veselovskii, N. I., ed., Sochineniya Chokana Chingisovicha Valikhanova (St. Petersburg, 1904)Google Scholar; Abashin, S. N., “Osobennosti Rossiiskogo Orientalizma,” Tsentral'naya Aziya v Sostave Rossiiskoi Imperii (Moscow, 2008), 332–33Google Scholar.

²⁵ Knight, “Grigor'ev in Orenburg,” 96.

²⁶ Cohn, “The Census,” 248; “Law and the Colonial State,” 66–72, both in An Anthropologist among the Historians.

²⁷ Tod, James, The Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, vol. 1, Crooke, W., ed. (Oxford, 1920)Google Scholar, lxii, 23; Ronald Inden, in Imagining India (pp. 172–76), interprets Tod's work as “othering” India through a concept of “Rajput feudalism,” and suggests this is merely a cunning disguise for the usual British beliefs about caste as a uniquely Indian “essence.” In fact, Tod barely mentions caste, and his most elaborate flights of fancy concern the imagined kinship of the Rajputs with the ancient Celts and Scandinavians: Tod, Annals and Antiquities, vol. 1, 73–96. See Peabody, Norbert, “Tod's Rajast'han and the Boundaries of Imperial Rule in Nineteenth-Century India,” Modern Asian Studies 30, 1 (1996): 185–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁸ Bhattacharya-Panda, Appropriation and Invention of Tradition, 5–10, 238–253. She criticizes the notion that the production of the code of Hindu personal law was a collaborative process, arguing instead that Brahmin pundits were involved only as salaried servants and were distrusted by their British interlocutors.

²⁹ Kejariwal, O. P., The Asiatic Society of Bengal and the Discovery of India's Past (Delhi, 1989), 78–79Google Scholar; Bayly, Susan, Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age (Cambridge, 1999), 95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁰ Bayly, Empire and Information, 365–76.

³¹ O'Hanlon, R. and Washbrook, D. A., “After Orientalism: Culture, Criticism and Politics in the Third World,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 34, 1 (1992): 161–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³² Ibn, Mirza Muhammad ‘Abdu'l-Wahhab-i-Qazvini, ed., The Ta'rikh-i-Jahan-gusha of Ala'u’d-din ‘Ata Malik-i-Juwayni, 3 vols. (London, 1912–1937)Google Scholar. Arberry, Arthur, Fifty Poems of Hafiz (Cambridge, 1949), 10Google Scholar.

³³ Dodson, Michael, Orientalism, Empire and National Culture (London, 2007), 184–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁴ Dirks, Castes of Mind, 105; Inden, Imagining India, 45–46; Said, Orientalism, 78–79.

³⁵ Jones, William, “A Discourse on the Institution of a Society, for Inquiring into the History, Civil and Natural, the Antiquities, Arts, Sciences and Literature of Asia” (address originally given in 1784), Asiatick Researches 1 (1806): ix–xviGoogle Scholar.

³⁶ Mitra, R., “History of the Society,” Centenary Review of the Asiatic Society of Bengal from 1784–1883 (Calcutta, 1885), 8Google Scholar.

³⁷ Appendix B, of Centenary Review of the Asiatic Society, 87.

³⁸ “Members,” Asiatic Society of Bengal Proceedings (Jan.–Dec. 1865) (Calcutta, 1866), 17–26.

³⁹ Pandit, Ramalochan, “A Royal Grant Found at Tana,” Asiatick Researches, vol. 1 (London, 1806), 357–67Google Scholar; Kejariwal, Asiatic Society of Bengal, 47.

⁴⁰ Mitra, “History of the Society,” 59.

⁴¹ Ibid., 66. This was an institution established by Warren Hastings for the pursuit of Islamic learning.

⁴² Appendix B, of Centenary Review of the Asiatic Society, 95, 101–3.

⁴³ Mitra, “History of the Society,” 66.

⁴⁴ Cohn, “The Census,” 245–46. He describes Mitra as “the outstanding Indian Sanskrit Scholar of the time,” and notes that his ranking system became so controversial that Census Commissioner H. Risley did not use it in his publication on the Tribes and Castes of Bengal (Calcutta, 1891), 2 vols., and listed them alphabetically instead.

⁴⁵ Journal and Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, New Series, vol. 4, 1908 (Calcutta, 1910), iii.

⁴⁶ Khalid, “Russian History”; and Knight, “On Russian Orientalism,” 691–715; van der Oie, Devid Skhimmel'pennink, “Orientalizm—delo tonkoe,” Ab Imperio 1 (2002): n.pGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁷ Todorova, Maria, “Does Russian Orientalism Have a Russian Soul?” Kritika 1, 4 (2000): 720CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Khalid, “Russian History,” 693. Here Khalid is echoing Said, Orientalism, 56–57. For a critique of Said's ideas on this theme, see Irwin, For Lust of Knowing, 9–18.

⁴⁸ Harsha Ram suggests that, in the literary sphere, Lomonosov's Khotin ode of 1739 marks the beginning of Russia's sense of superiority over Asia: Imperial Sublime, 23–24, 77–78.

⁴⁹ Knight, “On Russian Orientalism,” 705; and “Grigor'ev in Orenburg,” 77, 99.

⁵⁰ Ibid., 96.

⁵¹ Zastoupil and Moir, eds., Great Indian Education Debate, 171.

⁵² Khalid, “Russian History,” 696.

⁵³ Mill's, JamesHistory of British India (3 vols., London, 1817)Google Scholar is thus an ignorant and unpleasant book, but it is not “essentializing.” The claim by Ronald Inden that this was a “hegemonic” text for the British understanding of India in the nineteenth century is hard to sustain in any case, given that in his notes to the fourth and fifth editions (London, 1840 and 1858) H. H. Wilson more or less demolished all of Mill's arguments about the “backwardness” of Hindu culture, something Inden acknowledges merely as another form of “othering,” in Imagining India, 45, 90–93. See Majeed, Javed, Ungoverned Imaginings: James Mill's “The History of British India” and Orientalism (Oxford, 1992), 123–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 200, which situates Mill's ideas firmly in the Utilitarian and radical milieu where they belong.

⁵⁴ Knight, “On Russian Orientalism,” 708; Peabody, “Tod's Rajast'han,” 204–9; Kejariwal, Asiatic Society of Bengal, 232–33.

⁵⁵ Vasilii Vladimirovich Barthold (1869–1930), known as “the Gibbon of Turkestan,” was the leading Russian Orientalist of his generation. His best-known work is Turkestan v epokhu Mongol'skogo Nashestvie (St. Petersburg, 1897), translated as Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion (London, 1928).

⁵⁶ Tolz, “European, National and (Anti-) Imperial,” 71–73.

⁵⁷ Knight, “Grigor'ev in Orenburg,” 87.

⁵⁸ Tod, Annals and Antiquities, vol. 1, 5; Peabody, “Tod's Rajast'han,” 207–8, 216.

⁵⁹ Irwin, For Lust of Knowing, 206–7; E. Browne, G., The Persian Crisis of December 1911 (Cambridge, 1911)Google Scholar. For more on Browne, see Nash, Geoffrey, From Empire to Orient (London, 2005), 139–68Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Grigor'ev, V. V., ed., O nekotorykh sobytiyakh v Bukhare, Khokande i Kashgare (Kazan, 1861)Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Khanykov, N. A., Opisanie Bukharskogo Khanstva (St. Petersburg, 1843)Google Scholar. Khanykov was also a product of St. Petersburg University, although he attended it before the Oriental faculty was founded. Lunin, B. V., ed., Istoriografiya obshchestvennykh nauk v Uzbekistane (Tashkent, 1974), 356–63Google Scholar.

⁶² Grigor'ev, ed. and trans., O nekotorykh sobytiyakh, 29–32.

⁶³ Grigoriev attacked this policy as having led to the Islamization of the Kazakhs, a common Russian misconception. Grigor'ev, V. V., Russkaya Politika v Otnoshenii k Srednei Azii. Istoricheskii Ocherk (St. Petersburg, 1874), 17Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ Crews, Robert, For Prophet and Tsar. Islam and Empire in Russia and Central Asia (Cambridge, Mass., 2006), 31–142Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ Werth, Paul, At the Margins of Orthodoxy (Ithaca, N.Y., 2001), 180–83Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ Ishan is a Persian honorific (literally “they”) often applied to Sufi spiritual leaders.

⁶⁷ Knysh, Alexander, “Sufism as an Explanatory Paradigm,” Die Welt des Islams 42, 2 (2002): 139–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I am grateful to Beatrice Penati for this reference.

⁶⁸ Dov Yaroshevski, “Empire and Citizenship”; Austin Lee Jersild, “From Savagery to Citizenship”; and Brower, Daniel, “Islam and Ethnicity: Russian Colonial Policy in Turkestan,” in Brower, Daniel R. and Lazzerini, Edward, eds., Russia's Orient: Imperial Borderlands and Peoples, 1700–1917 (Bloomington, Ind., 1997), 69–70Google Scholar, 101–11, 115–22; Jersild, Orientalism and Empire, 126–28.

⁶⁹ Gen.-Ad't. K., fon-Kaufman, Proekt Vsepoddanneishego Otcheta Gen.-Ad'yutanta fon-Kaufmana po Grazhdanskomu Upravleniyu (St. Petersburg, 1885), 10; Khalid, Adeeb, The Politics of Muslim Cultural Reform: Jadidism in Central Asia (Berkeley, 1998), 51–53Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ See, for instance, Kostenko, L. F., Srednyaya Aziya i Vodvorenie v nei Russkoi Grazhdanstvennosti (St. Petersburg, 1871), 85Google Scholar.

⁷¹ Brower, Daniel, “Russian Roads to Mecca: Religious Tolerance and Muslim Pilgrimage in the Russian Empire,” Slavic Review 55, 3 (1996): 567–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷² I realize that my view of this question is in sharp contrast to that of Crews, who in For Prophet and Tsar (pp. 254–60) argues for the persistence of the “Confessional State” throughout the Empire until 1917. Strangely, on pages 296–316, Crews provides a clear description of just how Russian attitudes towards Islam changed in mid-century, but without making a connection with the Caucasus or allowing it to affect his judgments about the colonial regime in Turkestan.

⁷³ Miropiev, M. A., Religioznoe i politicheskie znachenie khadzha (Kazan, 1877)Google Scholar; and O polozhenii russkikh inorodtsev (St. Petersburg, 1901); Krymskii, A., Musul'manstvo i ego budushchnost' (Moscow, 1899)Google Scholar. On the anti-Islam division of the Kazan theological academy, see Geraci, Window on the East, 47–49, 54–61; see also Batunsky, Mark, “Racism in Russian Islamology: Agafangel Krimsky,” Central Asian Survey 11, 4 (1992): 75–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Batunskii, M., Rossiya i Islam (Moscow, 2003), vol. 2, 242–60Google Scholar, 323–72 (Miropiev), and vol. 3, 61–112 (Krymskii).

⁷⁴ Dr. Hunter, W. W., Our Indian Musalmans: Are They Bound in Conscience to Rebel against the Queen? (London, 1871)Google Scholar. Alfred Lyall criticized Hunter, in “Islam in India,” while Khan's, Sir Syed Ahmad influential pamphlet, The Causes of the Indian Revolt (Benares, 1873)Google Scholar, did much to dispel the British belief that there had been a Muslim conspiracy in 1857. See Hardy, Peter, The Muslims of British India (Cambridge, 1972), 66–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁵ Brower, Daniel, Turkestan and the Fate of the Russian Empire (London, 2003), 20–23Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ “Bezporyadki v Fergane,” Turkestanskiya Vedomosti, 21 May 1898, no. 37; Sal'kov, V., «Andizhanskoe Vozstanie» v 1898 g (Kazan, 1901), 64Google Scholar. See Babajanov, Bakhtiyar, “Dukchi Ishan und der Aufstand von Andijan 1898,” in Kemper, Michael, Kügelgen, Anke von, and Yermakov, Dmitriy, eds., Muslim Culture in Russia and Central Asia from the 18th to the Early 20th Centuries (Berlin, 1998), vol. 2, 167–91Google Scholar; Babadzhanov, B. M., trans. and commentator, Manakib-i Dukchi Ishan (Almaty, 2004)Google Scholar, is a little-known hagiography of the ishan. For a full list of earlier publications relating to the uprising, see Bregel's, YuriBibliography of Islamic Central Asia (Bloomington, Ind., 1995), vol. 1, 620–21Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ Campbell, Elena, “The Muslim Question in Late Imperial Russia,” in Burbank, Jane, Hagen, Mark von, and Remnev, Anatolyi, eds., Russian Empire: Space, People, Power 1700–1930 (Bloomington, Ind., 2007), 325–26Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ Sal'kov «Andizhanskoe Vozstanie», 39. A khalat is a robe of honor.

⁷⁹ Triaud, Jean-Louis, La Légende Noire de la Sanûssiya: Une Confrérie Musulmane sous le regard Français (1840–1930) (Paris, 1995)Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ The title page of the Bodleian's copy has a label that indicates this.

⁸¹ Sal'kov «Andizhanskoe Vozstanie», 32, quote 54.

⁸² Vladimir Petrovich Nalivkin (1858–1918) was a leading educational bureaucrat, pioneering ethnographer and Orientalist in Turkestan, and perhaps more than any other person the voice of the “Third Element” in that region. From the nobility of the Moscow Province, he was educated at the Pavlovskaya Military Academy and had joined the Orenburg Cossack Brigade in 1871, serving the Turkestan administration as a civilian from 1878. Lukashova, Natal'ya “V. Nalivkin: eshche odna zamechatel'naya zhizn',” in Panarin, S., ed., Evraziya. Lyudi i Mify (Moscow, 2003), 72–94Google Scholar; and Baskhanov, M. K., Russkie Voennye Vostokovedy (Moscow, 2005), 170Google Scholar. Valentii Lavrentievich Vyatkin (1869–1932) was then a translator in the Samarkand Chancellery and had founded the first museum there in 1896. In 1908 he discovered the site of Ulugh-Beg's observatory, and he later carried out the first excavations at Afrasiab. Lunin, Istoriografiya, 138–45.

⁸³ “Kratkii obzor sovremennogo sostoyaniya i deyatel'nosti musul'manskogo dukhovenstva,” Yarovoi-Rabskii, V. I., ed., Sbornik Materialov po Musul'manstvu, vol. 1 (St. Petersburg, 1899), 22, 39Google Scholar.

⁸⁴ Yarovoi-Rabskii, “Kratkii obzor,” 28. The observation on “dervishism” was based upon Louis Rinn's Marabout ef Khuan [sic: Marabouts et Khouan] Etude sur l'Islam en Algerie (Alger, 1884), 62–76. Rinn (1838–1905) served in the Bureaux Arabes in Algeria, and his work examines the threat that Sufi orders posed to French rule in North Africa. Triaud La Légende Noire, vol. 1, 347–61.

⁸⁵ E. T. Smirnov, “Dervishizm v Turkestane,” and “Dzhikhad i Gazavat,” both in Sbornik Materialov po Musul'manstvu, vol. 1, 49–71, 101–28.

⁸⁶ Thomas, Martin, Empires of Intelligence: Security Services and Colonial Disorder after 1914 (Berkeley, Calif., 2008), 74–78Google Scholar.

⁸⁷ The unintentionally hilarious narrative of this case is to be found in a file from the Central State Archives of the Republic of Kazakhstan (TsGARKaz), fond 124, “Chimkentskoe Uezdnoe Upravlenie,” opis’ 1, delo. 7, “Materialy doznaniya po voprosu tainogo snabzheniya oruzhiem naseleniya ishanom Kh. Abdurakhmanovym,” esp. 8, 25–29, 41–48, 163–64. It deserves to be analyzed in more depth than I can manage here, and I hope to discuss it in detail in a future article about Lykoshin's career and writings.

⁸⁸ Lykoshin, N. S., “Pis'ma iz Tuzemnogo Tashkenta,” Turkestanskiya Vedomosti, 13 Feb. 1894, no. 11Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ Lykoshin, N. S., trans., “Adab-ul'-Salikhyn. Kodeks Prilichii Na Vostoke,” in Nalivkin, V. P., ed., Sbornik Materialov po Musul'manstvu (Tashkent, 1900), vol. 2, 23–86Google Scholar; “Khoroshii Ton” na Vostoke (St. Petersburg, 1915). Lykoshin published his memoirs just before the revolution: Pol Zhizni v Turkestane: Ocherki Byta Tuzemnogo Naseleniya (Petrograd, 1916). The copies of his works in the library of the Oriental Institute of St. Petersburg all bear autographs indicating that Lykoshin presented them to V. V. Barthold.

⁹⁰ Baskhanov, Voennye Vostokovedy, 145–47.

⁹¹ N. S. Lykoshin, trans., and Bartol'd, V. V., ed., Istoriya Bukhary Mukhameda Narshakhi (Tashkent, 1897)Google Scholar; Divana-i-Mashrab. Zhizneopisanie populyarneishago predstavitelya mistitsizma v Turkestanskom Krae (Samarkand, 1911).

⁹² Lykoshin, N. S., O gadanii u Sredneaziatskikh tuzemtsev (Samarkand, 1908)Google Scholar.

⁹³ Lykoshin, N. S., “Kazii (Narodnye Sud'i),” Russkii Turkestan: Sbornik (Tashkent, 1899), vol. 1, 17–57Google Scholar; Rezul'taty sblizheniya russkikh s tuzemtsami (Tashkent[?], 1903); Chapkullukskaya Volost' Khodzhentskogo Uezda Samarkandskoi Oblasti (Samarkand, 1905); “K desyatiletiyu Andizhanskoi rezni (1898–1908 g),” Turkestanskiya Vedomosti, 30–31 May 1908, nos. 115–16.

⁹⁴ Lykoshin, Pol Zhizni v Turkestane, 5–16; Khalid, Politics of Muslim Cultural Reform, 249–50.

⁹⁵ Tolz, “Orientalism, Nationalism,” 130–31.

⁹⁶ Sahadeo, Russian Colonial Society, 58–59.

⁹⁷ Knight, “Grigor'ev in Orenburg,” 87.

⁹⁸ See Said, Orientalism, 210–54.

⁹⁹ See Westrate, Bruce, The Arab Bureau: British Policy in the Middle East 1916–1920 (University Park, Pa., 1994)Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁰ Snesarev, A. E., Severo-Indiiskii Teatr (Voenno-Geograficheskoe Opisanie) (Tashkent, 1903)Google Scholar; Indiya kak Glavnyi Faktor v Sredne-Aziatskom Voprose (St. Petersburg, 1906); and as editor, Svedeniya kasayushchiyasya Stran, sopredel'nykh s Turkestanskim Voennym Okrugom (Tashkent, 1898–1900), issues 1–19.

¹⁰¹ Marshall, Alexander, The Russian General Staff and Asia (London, 2006), 154–58, 192Google Scholar.

¹⁰² Central State Archives of the Republic of Kazakhstan (TsGARKaz), F. 822, “Pantusov, N. N., Orientalist,” Op.1 D.28, “Svedeniya o Kul'tzhinskom raione za 1871–77 god, sobrannye N. N. Pantusovym,” 1–90; Pantusov, N. N., ed., Taarikh Shakhrokhi: Istoriya Vladetelei Fergany (Kazan, 1885)Google Scholar.

¹⁰³ This can be found at http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/coll/287_turkestan.html. Kun means “backside” or “anus” in Persian/Tajik.

¹⁰⁴ Sankt-Peterburgskii Filial Institut Vostokovedenii RAN, Arkhiv Vostokovedov, F. 33, “Kun, Aleksandr Ludvigovich,” Op. 1 D. 33, “Lichnye Dokumenty A. L. Kuna,” 1, 14.

¹⁰⁵ Arkhiv Vostokovedov, F. 33, Op. 1 D. 23, “Ocherk Shahrisyabskogo Bekstva.”

¹⁰⁶ Arkhiv Vostokovedov, F. 33, Op. 1 D. 6, “Zametka o razlichnykh oblastei russkikh issledovaniya v Turkestanskom Krae,” 15–19.

¹⁰⁷ Bregel, Yu. E., Dokumenty Arkhiva Khivinskikh Khanov po Istorii i Etnografii Karakalpakov (Moscow, 1967), 59–62Google Scholar. I am grateful to Paolo Sartori both for the reference and for suggesting that Mirza ‘Abd ur-Rahman's role recalls that of Indian informants working with British Orientalists referred to passim.

¹⁰⁸ N. A. Maev, “A. L. Kun,” Turkestanskiya Vedomosti, 22 Nov. 1888, no. 46.

¹⁰⁹ Arkhiv Vostokovedov, F. 33, Op. 1 D. 20, “Zametki o byvshii bukharskikh poryadkakh vzimaniya pozemel'noi podati v Zaravshanskoi doline,” a version of which was published in Turkestanskiya Vedomosti 1873, no. 32; Arkhiv Vostokovedov, F. 33, Op. 1 D. 25, “Vyborki iz vakufnykh dokumentov, medresya i mechetei, nakhodyashchie v sadakh za gorodom.”

¹¹⁰ Lunin, Istoriografiya, 206, 319; Rostislavov also published on land tenure: Ocherk Vidov Zemelnoi Sobstvennosti i Pozemel'nyi Vopros v Turkestanskom Krae (St. Petersburg, 1879).

¹¹¹ Gen.-Ad't. K., fon-Kaufman, Proekt Vsepoddanneishego Otcheta, 69–70.

¹¹² Morrison, A. S., Russian Rule in Samarkand 1868–1910: A Comparison with British India (Oxford, 2008), 117–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 186–87. Thanks to Paolo Sartori for insisting that I make this point.

¹¹³ Ostroumov, N. P., 2-i Turkestanskii General-Gubernator General-Leitenant M. G. Chernyaev (1882–1884gg) (typescript, Navoi State Library, Tashkent, 1930), 6–7Google Scholar; Nikolai Ivanovich Veselovskii (1848–1918) taught at the Oriental Faculty of St. Petersburg University and produced numerous works on the history, religion, and archaeology of Central Asia. Lunin, Istoriografiya, 126–37.

¹¹⁴ Vyatkin, V. L., O Vakufakh Samarkandskoi Oblasti (Samarkand, 1912), 95–96Google Scholar.

¹¹⁵ Sartori, Paolo and Pianciola, Niccolo, “Waqf in Turkestan. The Colonial Legacy and the Fate of an Islamic Institution in Early Soviet Central Asia, 1917–1924,” Central Asian Survey 26, 4 (2007): 475–98Google Scholar.

¹¹⁶ Khalid, “Russian History,” 691; See also Alekseev, I. L., “N. P. Ostroumov o problemakh upravleniya musul'manskim naseleniem Turkestanskogo Kraya,” Sbornik Russkogo Istoricheskogo Obshchestva 5, 153 (Moscow, 2002): 89–95Google Scholar.

¹¹⁷ Skhimmel'pennink van der Oie, “Mirza-Kazem-Bek,” 269–70; Geraci, Window on the East, 86–115.

¹¹⁸ Ostroumov, N. P., Kriticheskii Razbor Mukhammedanskogo Ucheniya o Prorokakh (Kazan, 1874), 10, 196–236Google Scholar.

¹¹⁹ Ibid., 233.

¹²⁰ Geraci, Window on the East, 57, 90.

¹²¹ Ibid., 90.

¹²² Turkistan Wilayatining Gazeti (Turkestan native gazette); Ostroumov, N. P., “Turkestanskaya Tuzemnaya Gazeta,” in Sarty—Etnograficheskie Materialy, 3d ed. (Tashkent, 1908), 156–205Google Scholar.

¹²³ Lunin, B. V., Srednyaya Aziya v Dorevolyutsionnom i Sovetskom Vostokovedenii (Tashkent, 1965), 35Google Scholar.

¹²⁴ Quoted in Lunin, B. V., “Turkestan v materialakh Lichnogo Arkhiva V. V. Bartol'da,” Obshchestvennye Nauki v Uzbekistane 6 (1965): 48–54Google Scholar.

¹²⁵ Ostroumov, Sarty (1908, 3d ed.), 90.

¹²⁶ Lunin, “Turkestan v materialakh,” 54.

¹²⁷ Nalivkin wrote in 1913: “The knowledge the natives have of us for a long time has extended no further than a belief that all Russians smell of fish. For our part we have grasped no more than the absurd and contradictory pronouncements of self-styled “experts” [perhaps a veiled reference to Ostroumov?] … everything has become more and more confused in the chaos, springing from our own ignorance, lack of culture and self-importance. These have been, in their broad outlines, our relations with the native world.” Nalivkin, V. P., Tuzemtsy, Ran'she i Teper (Tashkent, 1913), 69Google Scholar.

¹²⁸ For a history of “Jadidism” in Central Asia, see Khalid, Politics of Muslim Cultural Reform.

¹²⁹ Ostroumov, N. P., Islamovedenie: Vvedenie v Kurs Islamovedeniya (Tashkent, 1914), 18–19Google Scholar; Marlène Laruelle, in Mythe aryen et rêve impérial, 173, suggests that Ostroumov had an “aryanist” bias, something which seems to be based on a partial reading of his work.

¹³⁰ See, by contrast, the ripe abuse in Miropiev, O polozhenii russkikh inorodtsev, 3–7, 43–50.

¹³¹ Ostroumov, Islamovedenie, 24–26, 55, 67–68, 77.

¹³² Ostroumov, N. P., Koran i Progress. Po povodu umstvennogo probuzhdeniya sovremmenykh rossiiskikh musul'man (Tashkent, 1901), 6–10Google Scholar.

¹³³ Khalid, Politics of Muslim Cultural Reform, 89–91, 180–81; Ostroumov's Fond in the Uzbek archives is No. 1,009, but unfortunately I have not been able to make use of his private papers since I was refused permission to work there on my last trip to Tashkent.

¹³⁴ Ibid., 87–88. For the reference to poems in praise of Ostroumov I am indebted to a fine paper by Aftandil Erkinov given at a conference on Ostroumov's life and work, held at the Orthodox Eparchate in Tashkent in May 2007.

¹³⁵ Ostroumov, “Turkestanskaya Tuzemnaya Gazeta,” 172.

¹³⁶ Khalid, “Russian History,” 691–92.

¹³⁷ Ostroumov, N., Islamovedenie 4: Shariat po Shkole Abu-Khanify (Tashkent, 1912), 4Google Scholar, 16–19, 24. This was a reprint of pieces that had first appeared in Turkestanskiya Vedomosti in 1909. The Hedaya was originally written in Samarkand by Burhan ud-Din al-Marghinani (d. a.d. 1197), but the English translation that Grodekov used had been made in Calcutta in 1791, from a Persian translation, not the Arabic original, and contained numerous inaccuracies. Hamilton, Charles, trans., The Hedaya, 2d ed. (London, 1870)Google Scholar; Kugle “Framed, Blamed and Renamed,” 272–73.

¹³⁸ Yagello, I. D., ed., Sbornik Materialov po voprosu ob izuchenii Tuzemnykh yazykov sluzhashchimi po voenno-narodnomu upravleniyu Turkestanskogo kraya (Tashkent, 1905), 109Google Scholar. For a discussion of this episode, see Khalid, Politics of Muslim Cultural Reform, 70–71; and Morrison, Russian Rule in Samarkand, 274–82.

¹³⁹ Antonovich, M., “Po povodu s”ezda po voprosam pravovogo byta musul'man,” Turkestanskii Kur'er, nos. 113–17, 119, in Turkestanskii Sbornik 508 (1909): 92Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁰ Skhimmel'pennink van der Oie, “Mirza Kazem-Bek,” 256–69; Crews, For Prophet and Tsar, 178–89.

¹⁴¹ Ghani, Ashraf, “Disputes in a Court of Sharia, Kunar Valley, Afghanistan, 1885–1890,” International Journal of Middle-East Studies 15 (1983): 356–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁴² Riasanovsky, N. A., “Asia through Russian Eyes,” in Vucinich, W. S., ed., Russia and Asia: Essays on the Influence of Russia on the Asian Peoples (Stanford, 1972), 3–29Google Scholar; Morrison, Alexander, “Russian Rule in Turkestan and the Example of British India,” Slavonic and East European Review 84, 4 (2006): 706–7Google Scholar; Sahadeo, Russian Colonial Society, 5.

¹⁴³ Bayly, Empire and Information, 315–17, 365–76.

¹⁴⁴ Unfortunately there is no space here to expand this point, but the combative responses of Jadid writers to Ostroumov and Miropiev are a clear enough case of this. Whilst the Jadids were also critical of Sufism and ishans as “backward,” their critique was as much social as religious, and this was a common characteristic of modernist Islam and not simply a reflection of a colonial discourse. Khalid, Politics of Muslim Cultural Reform, 51–53, 149–50.

¹⁴⁵ Bayly, Empire and Information, 171–73.

¹⁴⁶ See Babajanov, Bakhtiyar, “Russian Colonial Power in Central Asia as Seen by Local Muslim Intellectuals,” in Eschment, Beate and Harder, Hans, eds., Looking at the Coloniser. Cross-Cultural Perceptions in Central Asia and the Caucasus, Bengal, and Related Areas (Würzburg, 2004), 75–90Google Scholar; and Komatsu, Hisao, “Dar al-Islam under Russian Rule as Understood by Turkestani Muslim Intellectuals,” in Uyama, Tomohiko, ed., Empire, Islam, and Politics in Central Eurasia (Sapporo, 2007), 3–21Google Scholar. Both make the point that most of the ‘ulama and reformist intellectuals in Turkestan came to characterize the colonial regime as Dar al-Islam.

¹⁴⁷ Morrison, Russian Rule in Samarkand, 51–87.

¹⁴⁸ Pierce, Richard, Russian Central Asia 1867–1917 (Berkeley, 1960), 273Google Scholar. Brower describes Lykoshin's gloomy verdict on the revolt in some detail: Turkestan, 5–6.

¹⁴⁹ Morrison, Russian Rule in Samarkand, 117–18, 186–87. And even then I would cast some doubt on the accuracy of the returns, although Beatrice Penati's ongoing research on the Land and Water Reform in the 1920s suggests that the Soviet Regime made use of the data collected by the late-Tsarist Land Tax Commissions in Turkestan, so I may have underestimated their importance.

¹⁵⁰ Hirsch, Francine, Empire of Nations: Ethnographic Knowledge and the Making of the Soviet Union (Ithaca, N.Y., 2005), 30–61Google Scholar.

¹⁵¹ Khalid, Politics of Muslim Cultural Reform, 199–209; Brower, Turkestan, 52–53; Ostroumov, N. P., Sarty—Etnograficheskie Materialy, 2d ed. (Tashkent, 1896), 1–52Google Scholar. Although early Soviet ethnographers believed they had “pinned down” the “Sarts” as “Turkicised Iranians,” the category was nevertheless abolished in the 1920s in response to Jadid demands; Zarubin, I. I., Naselenie Samarkandskoi Oblasti (Leningrad, 1926), 20Google Scholar; Khalid, Adeeb, “Theories and Politics of Central Asian Identities,” Ab Imperio 4 (2005): n.p.Google Scholar; Haugen, Arne, The Establishment of National Republics in Soviet Central Asia (London, 2003), 145–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵² Kaspe, Sviatoslav, “Imperial Political Culture and Modernization in the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century,” in Burbank, Jane, Hagen, Mark von, and Remnev, Anatolyi, eds., Russian Empire: Space, People, Power 1700–1930 (Bloomington, Ind., 2007), 455–89Google Scholar; Brower, Turkestan, ix, 174–75.

¹⁵³ Baberowski, Jörg, “Law, the Judicial System and the Legal Profession,” Cambridge History of Russia, vol. 2 (Cambridge, 2006), 346–48Google Scholar, 356–59.

¹⁵⁴ Cooper, Frederick, Colonialism in Question (Berkeley, 2005), 142–44Google Scholar.