Attempts to Destroy and to Save Alpamysh

Phase I


The Russian military conquest of the steppe and Turkistan was a protracted process whose origins can be traced to the conquests of Ivan IV (1533-1582). It was Ivan IV who began the Russian state's eastward expansion into non-Slav territory with his annexation of the entire length of the Volga as well as much of Siberia. From that time on, the territory ruled from the Russian capital continued to expand by treaty and, more often, by conquest. In the 18th century, Peter I began building on the territorial requisitions of Ivan IV (whom Peter greatly admired) by such diverse actions as military reform and creation of programs of Oriental studies. Peter and his immediate successors extended the building of forts in the northern steppe including Omsk (1716), Orenburg (1737), Petropavlovsk (1752) and others. Cossack settlements were established from the 1730s to the 1760s along the entire Siberian-steppe frontier. These were bases from which the 19th century conquests east of the Caspian were launched. The culmination of that process can be narrowed to the last four decades of the 19th century from the capture of Chimkent in 1864 to the border agreement with the British in 1892 which established the Russian Empire's southern border along the Amu Darya River, at the Afghan border.1 Once in control of this vast territory, the tsarist government set about governing. Although the Volga-Ural region, like the North Caucasus and Transcaucasia, were incorporated into European Russia, the steppe and Turkistan were divided into two large districts, the steppe krai and the Turkistan krai. The former lay south of Siberia and the latter, south and southeast of Lake Balkhash to the Chinese border. There, military governors general, rather than civilian administrators were placed in power. To the south, lay the still nominally independent khanates of Khiva and Bukhara (through which the Amu Daya flowed).2 During the subsequent yars of imperial rule the Central Asians were differentiated by legal status -- while Tatars, (like Azerbaijani Turks) were citizens, the population of Turkistan and the steppe (like those in North Caucasus) were classified as inorodtsy, "aliens." The territories' status as colonies was undisguised. During the years of the State Duma (from 1906 until the fall of the ancien regime) the population of the steppe and Turkistan was at first sparsely represented, then disenfranchised on the grounds of "backwardness."

2 H. B. Paksoy

Another by-product of Russian rule was the establishment of Russian Orthodox churches in the region and missionary work among the local population. These efforts were begun with the conquest of Kazan by Ivan IV (1552) and continued in various forms thereafter. Part of religious proselytization, especially in the 19th century, included efforts to encourage the spread of Russian or to create Cyrillic alphabets for the native language. In this regard, the work of Russian-Orthodox missionaries, led by N. I. Il'minskii,3 a contemporary of Divay, provides a clear example of the interlinkages among these policies. Furthermore, later Soviet language policies (discussed in detail in the following section) would be inspired by Il'minskii's example.

The Il'minskii method was originally based on an attempt to separate Tatar and Kazakh (then called "Kirghiz") dialects and establish for the latter a Cyrillic alphabet. Il'minskii strove to emphasize tribe-specific and regional vocabulary, using Cyrillic characters to stress differentiation visually and codify variations in pronunciation, however minor. Another Russian Orthodox missionary and graduate of the Kazan Academy, Mikola Ostroumov, built on Il'minskii's work to attempt the creation of a "Sart" language for the settled population which used the Tashkent dialect and to differentiate it from Tatar and Kazakh.4

Ostroumov established a newspaper in Tashkent, Turkistan vilayetinin gazeti: Tuzemnaia gazeta, which was published for 35 years, from 1883-1917 (from 1890 to 1896, it is known that 600-700 copies per issue were produced). He called the language of the newspaper "Sartiye" and tried to establish a circle of "Sart literature" around it. Togan5 remarks that this newspaper's language was a "broken (bozuk)" dialect and records Ostroumov's "special methods" for distancing this "language" from "Tatar" and "Kazakh:" "For example in the articles whenever the words 'kelgen,' 'toqtay turgan,' 'tilegen,' 'buyuk,' 'pek,' 'guel,' etc., appeared, he would become agry at these words, labeling them as 'Tatar' and 'Kazakh,' and insert 'kilgan,' 'toqhtay durgan,' 'khohlegan,' 'katte,' 'cude,' 'ciraylik,' respectively. Furthermore he would change the spellings of loan words, for example 'vagon,' 'poezd' would become 'vagan' and 'fayiz.' This exaggerated pronunciation style was mostly used while Ostroumov was publishing his newspaper. Despite that in the works of the literati and the journalists of Kokand and Khiva, the language preserves the beauty of their

ALPAMYSH: Chapter Two 3

Chagatay tradition."

Thus distorting the phonological aspects of local usages constituted a step toward the later Soviet policy (discussed below) of recording such differences in subsets of Latin, then Cyrillic orthography, and dubbing each product a "separate language." When the Soviet sources claim that Central Asian peoples did not have a written language of their own before they came under the protection of the Russian elder brother, and that the Soviets gave them one, this is what is to be understood.6

It should be noted that these efforts build on resentment between nomads and Tatars, generated in the reign of Catherine II (1762-96) when she granted privileges to Tatar merchants and mullahs for conducting trade (and acting as semi-official representatives of her government) with the cities of Transoxiana and, at the same time, to spread Islam among the nomads. It was apparently Catherine's belief that Islam would break the unity of the oymak and render the nomads more malleable.


The Central Asians' response was as broad as the areas in which the Russians exerted pressure, and ranged from armed resistance to education reform and publishing. Our focus in the present work, however, is the response that was in some ways the most central and deep rooted -- protection of the repository and symbol of their past. Several individuals began to collect and record versions of the dastans, as far as available records indicate, on the heels of the Russian conquest in the late 19th century. Among the four identifiable "waves" of saviors -- interested parties who attempted to save Alpamysh and the Turkic dastan genre from oblivion by collecting and publishing transcriptions from bahshis -- these constitute the first intellectual (rather than biological) generation. These saviors and their successors performed a unique service in the preservation of Alpamysh.

The first wave, striving to make Alpamysh available in print, was based in Kaan in the latter part of the 19th and he beginning of the 20th centuries. Very little is known about most of them, since they largely avoided using their names as a protective measure to avoid reprisals from the Tsarist secret police.7 The earliest known printed Alpamysh (Item 1 in Bibliography below) carries the following inscription in its title page: "This episode is related by Yusuf bin Hoca Sheyhulislam oglu. The date is the 1316th year of

4 H. B. Paksoy

the Hijra; 8 March 1899 according to the Russian calendar. I finished it in one day and one night. The mistakes are due to the shortage of time."

This edition must have proved popular with the native readership, judging from the seven additional printings between 1901 and 1916 (noted in the Bibliography). According to Togan,8 this man's broader efforts contributed substantially to the establishment of Kazakh-dialect publishing and the adaptation of various stories to Kazakh tastes:

"In the 1880s, works in the Kazakh literary dialect started appearing in print. One of those who has served as propagator in this line is Seyhulislamoglu [sic] Yusufbek. He is a hoca from Qarkara [sic]. He is considered to be the Ahmed Midhat9 of the Kazaks. He wrote books as long as a few hundred or even a few thousand couplets within a day or even a night.

"He published many works of popular literature (halk edebiyati), especially Shi'i legends such as those tales of Hazreti Ali, Hasan and Husein, Kerbela, Salsal Zerkum, etc.; also [he published] the Iranian dastans such as Rustam, Jemshid, Ferhad-u Shirin in the Kazakh dialect. Yusufbek adapted these Islamic Iranian works to the Kazakh life. Ali and Husein, in his works, are in the full sense nomadic Turk-Kazakh types. From this point of view his works have performed great deeds in the publication of Islamic traditions. "Radloff, in amazement, records that one such work, Kissa-i Jumjume undercut completely the work of Christian missionaries that had been going on for years.10 Those old Turkish dastans, mythology and folklore still alive among the Kazakhs were made known to Europe by Radloff, Altynsaryn, Letsch, and Platonov. On the other hand Yusufbek, of course, mixing a certain amount of Islamic elements into them, collected and recorded them from among the people for the benefit of successive generations. "Yusufbek's Kazakh can be understood by those Turks who are not Kazakh and his grammar is taken from the old agataygrammar. Among his publications, Qizjibek, lpamysh, Ayman Cholpan are well known."

ALPAMYSH: Chapter Two 5

Perhaps the most eminent of this "first wave" was the man whose redaction of Alpamysh appears in English translation in Chapter Three, Abubakir Ahmedjan Divay [Divaev]. Divay's career is known partly because he spent his life in Russian imperial service, where he gathered his material, and became famous as an ethnographer who published widely under the old regime. He held several posts under the Bolsheviks. Divay, a Bashkurt,11 was born on 19 December 1855 in Orenburg and lived most of his life among the Kazakhs. He attended the Orenburg Nepliuev military academy, studying first in the Asiatic Division, where the majority of his classmates were reportedly Kazakhs, and second in the division for the preparation of translators of Oriental languages for the steppe regions.

In 1876-1877, at the age of 21, Divay left school to accept an appointment in the Russian bureaucracy of the Turkistan krai. There in the southern steppe region Divay travelled and was able to visit many Kazakh, Kirghiz and Uzbek auls. He was Divisional Inspector12 of the Aulie-Atinsk uezd and then became translator and junior official of Special Missions attached to the Governor-General of the Syr-Darya oblast'. This latter post gave him wide opportunities to travel throughout the Turkistan krai.13

In 1883, Divay began collecting ethnographic materials. The following year, the Governor-General of the Syr-Darya oblast', N. I. Grodekov, initiated the collection of information on Kazakh and Kirghiz customary law in order to publish a code of juridical customs of the nomadic peoples (among whom were included "Kazakh," "Kirghiz"14 and "Karakirghiz") of the Syr-Darya oblast'.15 While working on this project, Divay reportedly collected "historical legends from ancient manuscripts, in the hands of educated Kirghiz, [and] heroic poems, aphorisms, fables, riddles, incantations, etc."16 A portion of these materials was published in Grodekov's book and the remainder, including fables, legens, songs, poems and dastans, were publishd in Sbornik materialov dlia statistiki Syr-Dar'inskoi oblasti' for 1891-1897, 1901, 1902, 1904, 1905, and 1907. These articles by Divay were reviewed by various prominent Orientalists.17

Divay also published his articles in other periodicals in the 1890s including the journal Okraina, the almanac Sredniaia Aziia and the semi-official Turkestanskaia Vedomost'. Also at this time he began to publish in scholarly journals of the major Oriental and ethnographic societies of the Empire: Zapiski Vostochnogo otdela Russkogo arkheologicheskogo obshchestva; Izvestiia Obshchestva arkheologii, istorii, i etnografii; Izvestiia Turkestanskogo otdela Russkogo geograficheskogo

6 H. B. Paksoy

obshchestva, and Zapiski Russkogo geograficheskogo obshchestva. In 1896, Divay was one of the founding members of the Turkestanskii kruzhok liubitelei arkheologii (Turkistan Circle of Lovers of Archeology).18 In 1906, Divay became Director of the Tatar [sic] school in Tashkent and participated in the compilation of materials on Central Asia in the Turkestanskii sbornik statei i sochinenii otnosiashchikhsia k Srednei Azii, 1878-1887.19

Divay's twenty fifth anniversary as a Turcologist and ethnographer was celebrated in 1915. In connection with this occasion, the journal Zhivaia Starina published reviews of his work and much biographical material. This was not the end of his efforts, however, which continued under the Bolshevik regime.


Policies of the Bolshevik and Soviet Union governments were continuations of many tsarist practices, but carried out more thoroughly and brutally, with greater determination and new rhetoric. The "civilizing mission" was replaced by the goal of "liberation through communism." Rule by commissars and soviets (composed primarily of Russian railroad workers) replaced the tsarist governors general; successive "republics" were created instead of the imperial krai and oblast'; missionaries were replaced by those proselytizing the new faith of Marxism-Leninism, and churches were supplanted by communist clubs and the League of the Godless Zealots.

The language of "backwardness" was abandoned, but the Stalinist criteria for determining a "nation" in the Western European sense was used to imply the same thing. The Central Asian Turks -- a dangerously homogenous mass that seemed unreceptive to communism borne by Russian workers -- had to be "pared down" into more convenient units -- "nations." To conform to the Stalin model as articulated in his 1913 work "Marxism and the National Question," each nation had to have, or in this case be given, a single distinct language, territory, economy and history. The Turks of CentralAsia, despite regional economic diversty, shared a single language, territory and historical tradition. Thus they seemed to constitute, by the Stalin criteria, one huge "nation." The Soviets set about the task of making several "nations" in its place. The steps were obvious -- create separate territories, and implant contrived "literary languages," economy and histories in each. The guiding imperative was to create differences and division. Dialects became "separate languages," tribal or other subgroups become "nations." New

ALPAMYSH: Chapter Two 7

histories could "prove" the historic distinctiveness of each "nation" by projecting the new differentiation back into history.20 In the way, stood the dastans.

Boundary Changes and Language Reform

The boundaries in Soviet Central Asia were drawn and redrawn during the 1920s and 1930s to create ever smaller administrative units which enjoyed "on paper" sovereignty and rights, including that of secession. For example, the present-day Kirghiz SSR was initially part of the Kazakh SSR and separated from it 1932.21

Terminology also changed. The term "Kirghiz" was used in the late Russian imperial period to denote Turkic speakers east of Orenburg. In the Soviet period, those who had been called "Kirghiz" began to be called "Kazakh"22 and those to the southeast of the "Kazakh steppe" who had been called "Kara-Kirghiz" before the 1917 Revolution were called simply "Kirghiz." This renaming coincided with the division of the former Turkistan krai and the protectorates of Bukhara and Khiva into Soviet Socialist Republics and with the "language reforms" of the 1920s and 1930s.

In the Soviet period, a language policy was implemented in Central Asia which strove to establish the various dialects as separate languages.23 The current Uzbek, Kazakh, Kirghiz, Turkmen and other Central Asian "languages" (the designation "Turkic" in connection with any of them is mostly avoided in popular, though not scholarly, publications) so rigidly favored by the Soviets were, as noted above, inspired by Il'minskii's work.

The formulation of "new" alphabets (actually the addition of new symbols to the Latin, then the Cyrillic alphabets) for each "language" is yet another aspect of this policy. The exploitation of phonetic differences between the local dialects was the starting-point. Therefore when the different pronunciations are written down with the aid of deliberately differentiated subsets of Cyrillic, the foundations of "independent" languages are established. In essence, ths practice amounts to no more than changing the spelling rules and calling the final product a "language." According to such rules, the English spoken in Alabama, Boston and London would be written slightly differently and be classified as separate languages.

To take a simple but representative example, the publishing houses of the Academies of Sciences are named "knowledge," (from the Arabic 'ilm) as follows: Gyilem (Tatar), Elm (Azerbaijani Turkish), Ylym (Turkmen), Ilm (Uzbek), Ghylym (Kazakh) and Ilim (Kirghiz). Significantly, nearly all

8 H. B. Paksoy

dictionary entries for this word use the Turkic term bilim in the definition.

Noticeable in this example is another feature of these alphabets, the use of different characters for the same sound -- the "e" in Azerbaijani, the "y" in Turkmen and the "i" in Uzbek represent approximately the same sound. The character for the "j" (which does not exist in Russian and must always be represented by the cumbersome "dzh") varies from alphabet to alphabet.24

Furthermore, each of these alphabets is organized in a different order, particularly placing letters that do not occur in Russian in various places in each alphabet. Although all alphabets begin with "a" they all end differently: Azerbaijani ends with "j" and "sh;" Tatar, with "ng" and "h;" Kazakh with the Russian characters "iu" and "ia," which exist in various locations in the Tatar and Uzbek alphabets but were removed from Azerbaijani in a 1957 reform; and Uzbek ends with "gh" and "kh." The letter "gh" follows the Russian "g" in Azerbaijani (where it is the fifth letter) and in Kazakh (where it is the sixth), but is placed next to last in the Uzbek alphabet and does not exist at all in Tatar. The letter "u" comes toward the end of all alphabets, but, again, in different sequence. In Kazakh it is 12th from last, in Azerbaijani seventh from last, in Uzbek and Tatar, fourth from last.25

The Arabic alphabet, the one used at the turn of the century was at least the sixth one to be employed by Turkic speakers, effectively obliterates regional phonetic differences. Turki, usually written in a series of Arabic alphabet subsets, is still read with no trouble by almost all literate Central Asians over the age of fifty. This does not mean, however, that the Arabic alphabet is the most suitable writing system for Turki. The three vowel signs in the Arabic alphabet fall far short of representing the minimum eight vowels required. The created subsets of Cyrillic for the"languages" of Central Asia err in the opposite direction codifying one region's pronunciatio and establishing that spelling as the "approved" literary form.

The next step in the creation of "new languages" was to highlight the vocabularies not common to all the dialects. Depending on the locality, every dialect may contain such specialized words through historical development or contact with other languages. These geographic or tribe-specific words have often been cited by the Russian linguists as yet another proof of the existence of "independent" languages. To facilitate the proliferation of these "languages,"

ALPAMYSH: Chapter Two 9

particularly among the youth, Soviet linguists have been turning out scores of grammars for each "language" since the 1920s. The lexicographers are even busier, having compiled at least two dictionaries per "language" over the past sixty years. These dictionaries, especially the ones from the native "language" to Russian, include various words from the Soviet vocabulary (including many words from Western languages that have entered Russian). Among the relevant entries are "kolkhoz," "sovet," "radio," "tank", (translated as "kolkhoz," "sovet," "radio," and "tank," respectively) as though these were native words which required translation.

The Campaign Against the Dastan Alpamysh

According to Leninist doctrine, "Every culture of the past includes progressive, popular elements, which should be preserved in socialist culture as well as reactionary elements bearing the mark of the parasite classes which must be eliminated." To this dictum Stalin added "the culture of Soviet peoples must be proletarian and socialist in essence and national in form."26 It was within these guidelines that Soviet commentators analyzed dastans. Tura Mirzaev, an Uzbek Alpamysh scholar, stated that during the 1930s and 1940s close attention was paid to dastans in general and to Alpamysh in particular. He noted, "Different variants have been collected, the contents of which have been analyzed from historical and social points of view. It was stressed that the dastans contained motifs of the labors of people who lived in the distant past, of their high ideals, lives, histories, objectives and aesthetic tastes."27

Nonetheless, a campaign against the dastans began in 1951. Alexandre Bennigsen describes the general pattern: "The campaign to purge the national cultures of those elements incompatible with the dominant Marxist-Leninist world view began in 1951. Initial attacks followed a standard pattern, beginning with derogatory comments in a local newspaper, Pravda or Literaturaia Gazeta. The theme would then be picke up by the Central Committee of the respective republican Communist Party, next by various local, political, social, academic or literary organizations, and finally by the oblast', raion or city Party Committee, the Komsomol, Academy of Science, state

10 H. B. Paksoy

university, Union of Writers and so forth. The operation would culminate...with: (1) the universal condemnation of local intellectuals who were charged with idealizing the bourgeois-nationalist aspects of their national patrimony; and with: (2) a shower of approving telegrams and letters addressed to the Central Committees of the republican Party organizations, thanking their leaders for rescuing the Socialist Fatherland from the clutches of its most vile enemies."28

The treatment of Alpamysh followed this pattern. In the late 1940s, the "progressive" elements of the dastan had been praised. Alpamysh was deemed "One of the most perfect epic poems in the world;"29 Elsewhere it was called "the liberty song of Central Asian nations fighting against the alien invaders;"30 "and an "authentic popular movement, voicing the ideology of the toiling masses."31 However, when it was discovered that the Alpamysh strengthened the sense of individual identity and independence of their creator-heir-owners, the tone changed rapidly. During the "crisis" of which Bennigsen spoke, an attack was mounted on Alpamysh similar to that against other dastans, charging it with being: "Impregnated with the poison of feudalism and reaction, breathing Muslim fanaticism and preaching hatred towards foreigners."32

Alpamysh was condemned by the Central Committee of the Uzbekistan Communist Party before its tenth plenum33 by a special conference of historians of literature at the republican university in Samarkand34 and by the joint session of the Academy of Sciences and the Union of Soviet Writers in Tashkent. At this last meeting, the defenders of Alpamysh were declared to be "Pan-Turkic nationalists."35 The key article in this assault seems to have been "Ob epose 'Alpamysh'," ("About the epic 'Alpamysh'") which appeared in Pravda Vostoka (Tashkent) in January 1952.36

The article was authored by A. Abdunabiev, identified elsewhere37 as a doctoral student of the Uzbek section of the Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute of the Central Comittee of the CPSU, and by A. Stepanov, who is not identified, but is apparently a Russian.

The Abdunabiev and Stepanov article is one of the few detailed and specific attacks on Alpamysh. It was the only such article printed in the first five months of 1952 in Pravda Vostoka, the Uzbek Party organ which was a leader in this campaign. Later articles merely repeat charges made by Abdunabiev and Stepanov. Their article also served as the basis for the March 1952 meeting (later called the "Trial

ALPAMYSH: Chapter Two 11

of Alpamysh") as reported in Pravda Vostoka.38 "Ob epose 'Alpamysh'" begins by recalling the importance of the theme of opposition to foreign and local [class] oppressors in the popular oral tradition. It states that this tradition glorifies the moral qualities of the hero, his actions in the name of justice, the protection of his homeland and people and his faith in love and friendship. The authors concede that the Uzbeks have a rich oral tradition of this type, but state that Alpamysh is not a part of it.

Primarily, the authors blame the folklorists for the mistaken praise of the dastan Alpamysh. These folklorists were not guided by the classics of Marxism-Leninism and therefore were able to see in this folklore only "the living past." They evaluated dastans only from the literary point of view, which led to serious ideological errors including an idealization of a work that contains harmful ideas.

Abdunabiev and Stepanov then enumerate the various harmful ideas of the dastan, mentioning in passing, its similarity to the "reactionary epic" Dede Korkut. It is stated that their remarks are based on the Penkovskii translation of the 1939 printing of the Fazil Yoldashoglu variant of Alpamysh.

The central figures of the dastan Alpamysh are khans who have slaves -- two clearly "anti-populist" motifs. The authors state:

"The embodiment of terrible 'evil' and 'vice' in the epic are represented by some 'unbelievers,' settled in the country of the Oirots [Kalmaks], which is a six-month journey from Baysun. As we learn from the poem, the Oirot people live peacefully, occupied in land cultivation, cattle raising and never dreamed about making raids on the land of the Kungrats."

The authors of this article describe the welcome given Baysari's family in the land of the Kalmaks and criticize Baysari's refusal to permit Barchin to marry an "unbeliever." This, the authors state, fosters hatred based on religion. Alpamysh himself, the authors continue, has no ositive qualities. He goes after his betrthed only under pressure from his sister. Indeed, the desire to save his bride is merely Alpamysh's excuse to cover up his goal of slaying enemies, whom he defines as all unbelievers -- more

12 H. B. Paksoy

evidence of hatred based on religion. The pair has little to say about Alpamysh's behavior in the land of the Kalmaks. The bloodshed accompanying his return, however, is noted and held up as another harmful example. Ultan (the usurper and suitor to Barchin) is portrayed as willing to step down from power on Alpamysh's return. The defeat of Ultan by Alpamysh, according to the authors, is meant to convey a lesson -- "only a 'pure-blooded khan' may rule a country, and a slave must remain a slave." Clearly, conclude the authors, this dastan is not "populist," but rather is a glorification of khans, religion, slave-holding and the power of "feudals." Even the attempt of Penkovskii, in his translations of the dastan, to introduce "improvements" and "refinements," they say, cannot conceal the "reactionary essence" of this dastan.

This remark about Penkovskii's "improvements" and "refinements," made so casually in this article, are striking. It is one of the rare admissions of deliberate changes introduced into a translation. In this context, it can be understood that the changes were made to attempt to bring the contents of the dastan into conformity with current Russian tastes. Since this is the translation that is regarded as "the most complete" at a later date, this early alteration will have important repercussions and will be discussed again below.

Writing in the 1960s, Tura Mirzaev, discussed some of the charges levelled against Alpamysh during this "crisis" period. Describing a joint meeting of the Uzbek SSR Academy of Sciences Institute of Language and Literature and the Uzbekistan Soviet Writers Union (March 1952), Mirzaev argues that this meeting, which Shark Yilduzi called "The Trial of the dastan Alpamysh," distorted the objective sense of the dastan. Alpamysh was accused of idealizing the feudal past and bearing traces of Pan-Islamism and Pan-Turkism. It was declared devoid of historical or educational value. The scholars of the chairs of literature of he Uzbek State University declared their readiness to instruct their students in the dangers contained in this dastan. The entire assembly declared that Alpamysh was "glorifying bloody fights, the brigandage of khans and beks and their oppression of the masses..."39

In Pravda Vostoka's report of this meeting40, Candidate of Philological Sciences Iu. Sultanov is quoted as articulating the anti-Alpamysh view, using the article "Ob epose 'Alpamysh'" as a basis for his remarks. Abdunabiev criticizes the folklorists for permitting this work to reach the masses. Several university faculty members confess their errors in failing to criticize Alpamysh and state that they will be more vigilant in the future. Pravda

ALPAMYSH: Chapter Two 13

Vostoka notes that Hadi Zarif, a senior Orientalist and co-author with Zhirmunskii of a seminal work on the "Uzbek epic," evaded serious self-criticism and limited himself only to repeating "generally known facts."

After the crisis "ended" in 1952, defenders of Alpamysh emerged. At a Moscow meeting on Epics of the Peoples of the USSR (June 1954) prominent Orientalists, A. K. Borovkov, Hadi Zarif, O. A. Valitova, M. I. Afzalov and others, severely criticized those who found nihilistic tendencies in the dastan Alpamysh.41

Immediately after this conference, according to Mirzaev, new variants of the dastan began to be collected. The folklorists of the Gorkii Institute of World Literature also criticized the previous attacks on Alpamysh and stated the need to "study the problems of the epics and the traditional folkloric ideals..." and argued that "these national epics must be understood and studied in the deepest scientific manner."42

With this official encouragement by the Gorkii Institute and the Pushkin Institute of Language and Literature (Tashkent) of the Uzbek Academy of Sciences, debate and commentaries on Alpamysh began to appear in the republican press. Again, A. Abdunabiev and A. Stepanov came in for criticism for their "distortions" and for their claim that this dastan is nihilistic.43

Perhaps the most decisive event was the decision of the 20th Party Congress (1956), "in the name of Soviet science and especially Soviet folklore studies," to convene an investigative conference on the Alpamysh dastan "in order to bring to a close these dogmatisms, commentaries and theoretical problems and once and for all to investigate these matters in detail and come to a decision." Thus a regional conference was held from 20-25 September 1956 in Tashkent, co-sponsored by the Gorkii Institute and the (Tashkent) Pushkin Institute, the purpose of which was "reconciling the studies [of Alpamysh] with party directives."44

Specialists on Alpamysh from Moscow, Leningrad, Uzbekistan, Karakalpakistan, Kazakhistan, Tajikistan, Tataristan, Bashkurdistan, Altai, Georgia and "other fraternal peoples' scholars of epics," attended. The speakers discussed the various versions of the dastan and stressed "the objective meaning of the dastan Alpamysh and its rhetorical and populist particulars." Twenty papers were read and the transactions published.45

Mirzaev particularly notes the contribution of A. K.

14 H. B. Paksoy

Borovkov, who examined and discussed the history of the collection of Alpamysh, its transcription and its variants among Uzbek, Karakalpak and Kazakh peoples.46 Mirzaev than pointedly adds that Alpamysh, "belongs to the Turkic peoples (Tiurki halklar)."

Hadi Zarif wrote a decisive retort to the denigration of Alpamysh in Shark Yilduzi in 1957:

"The intellectual basis of the dastan was not to glorify brigandage, nationalism, religiosity, [but] instead to show bravery, humanism, love of homeland, loyalty, close friendship, noble ideals. This dastan is an encyclopaedia dealing with the most beautiful examples of rhetoric, literary form, peoples' humor and aphorisms, examples of speech of the masses."47

Mirzaev criticized the former critics:

"Some individuals during the 1950s regarded this valued oral monument as nihilistic. Those individuals, on the pretext that these pearls created by the masses were bankrupt, tried to destroy them. Those critics from a social and political point of view denied the populism of Alpamysh. They...misrepresented the motifs of the dastan, analyzing those separately from the era in which it was created and called it a 'reaction against populism.'"48

In 1958, the "most complete" Alpamysh, a Penkovskii translation of the Fazil variant, was published. It was subsequently reissued several times. Official comments on the dastan have since then been laudatory. Earlier printings are unavailable. This republication may not have been a "victory" for the dastan, but rather a shift by the authorities to a more subtle attack. That attack, "Phase II," will be the subject of Chapter Four.

The campaign against Alpamysh and the struggle for its rehabilitation, like the history of its earlier printings, fit into a larger pattern of CPSU politics and especially the organization and reorganizations of the Oriental Institutes. Indeed, the Phase II efforts to destroy and save Alpamysh cannot be understood outside this context.

Party, Oriental Institutes and Policy. The Origins of the Oriental Studies in the Russian Empire, with reference to their political significance, have been

ALPAMYSH: Chapter Two 15

traced by Richard N. Frye.49 After the 1917 Revolution, the Soviet government, in recognition of the "revolutionary potential" of Asian peoples, took a variety of actions which reflected the importance they attached to propaganda and agitation among the Eastern nationalities. During the Civil War, the Bolsheviks began to expand both the scope and the staffs of the Oriental Institutes, although this was not fully accomplished until after World War II (see below). Gradually they were brought under a single umbrella.50 At the same time, "the General Staff of the Red Army of Workers and Peasants acquired an Oriental Section in 1919, which later became the Oriental Faculty of the General Staff's Military Academy."51

These actions as well as the founding of the Kommunisticheskii Universitet Trudiashchikhsia Vostoka - KUTVa (Communist University of the Toilers of the East) were aimed at linking the expansion of Communism in the "Soviet East" to the export of revolution to the rest of Asia. The pivotal event of this effort was the Congress of the Toilers of the East, held in Baku (a city which was seen as a key springboard for the export of revolution) in September 1920. Although the result of this Congress was the reinforcing of Russian rather than Central Asian control over the process, the interest in exporting Communism remained alive into the mid-1920s.52 After the Baku Congress, the efforts to study and propagandize the East continued.

[Recognizing] "the great need for agents and agitators proficient in the tongues of the various Oriental peoples and familiar with their history, the Military-Revolutionary Council of the Turkestan Front established in October 1920 a special program of Oriental Studies. This served as the nucleus of the Higher Military School of Oriental Studies founded in 1922."53

In Moscow on 13 December 1921 the Soviet government established Vserossiiskaia nauchnaia assotsiatsiia vostokovedeniia (All Russian Scientific Associatio of Oriental Studies) -- VNAV. This was ttached to the Narodnyi kommissariat po delam natsional'nostei (People's Commissariat for Nationalities Affairs) -- Narkomnats, headed by Stalin and in charge of all nationalities policy. "It [VNAV] assisted the government and the party in the implementation of official policy and with propaganda work in the Asian regions of the Soviet Union. It had cells in Moscow and in several other places both at home and abroad whose members forwarded information to VNAV."54

16 H. B. Paksoy

Tura Mirzaev notes that the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party passed a resolution on 18 June 1925: On "Party policy in the field of artistic literature".55 Contained in this resolution was the declaration that "in a classless society there is and can be no neutral art."56 As a result of this resolution, the Uzbek Commissariat of Education and Knowledge ordered new collections of Alpamysh variants to be conducted "in an organized fashion." In 1928, the Turcological Cabinet of the USSR Academy of Sciences was founded and "...sponsored translations of Turkish classics and historical records, published monographs on the history and culture of the Turkic peoples..."57

Wayne Vucinich articulates the relationship between education of "scholars" and agitation:

"From the very beginning the Soviet Government undertook to establish completely controlled communist centers of Oriental research and training. It wanted Orientalists to be militantly missionary, to dedicate themselves to the cause of communism and to interpret, popularize and implement the policies of the government and the party."58

Examination of Oriental studies in the USSR reveals two sets of linkages. The first is that between the study of history and current problems, the second between institutional reorganization and ideological redirection. Of the first, the Party itself provides straightforward documentation:

"Naturally, the study of these most important problems must be based on full and exhaustive research... Deep scholarly analysis of these problems must necessarily be based on serious study of the entire history of Eastern peoples, including ancient and medieval history; but the basic issue of the Oriental Institute is the study of problems of contemporary history... in the study of ancient and medieval East it is necessary to concentrate attention on questions having timely (aktual'nyi) significance... (using) Marxist-Leninist methodology... and guided by the historic deciions of the Central Committee of the VKP(b) on ideological questions...."59

The second linkage, that between institutional reorganization and ideological redirection, is more complex. The first period of institutional reorganization

ALPAMYSH: Chapter Two 17

and redirection was roughly from 1928 or 1929 to 1931.60

This was the period of the purges of Central Asians for "national deviation."61 It was during this period that VNAV was dissolved (in 1930) and replaced by the Institute of Oriental Studies within the reorganized Academy of Sciences. Among the tasks of the historical-economic sector of the Institute was investigating "socialist construction in Soviet eastern regions and republics..."62

Another reorganization took place in 1935 on the eve of the Great Purges. Any remnants of Central Asian "national deviationists" from the first purges were liquidated in the 1936-38 period. An additional institutional change took place in 1937 when the Academy of Sciences finally absorbed the institutes formerly under the Communist Academy. Even after these changes, complaints were made about the quality of work and understaffing.63

Within this context of purges for "national deviation," repeated "reorganizations" and, presumably greater ideological control over Oriental studies, the attempt by Hamid Alimjan to "rescue" Alpamysh takes on a new, dramatic significance. He may well have seen this 1939 publication of Alpamysh as his last chance to preserve a central monument of culture and repository of identity. Alimjan was literally risking his life, an act which by itself is eloquent testimony to the importance of the dastan Alpamysh.64

The pace of Oriental studies was slowed but not halted during World War II. The Institute of Oriental Studies worked closely with the party and the military organization. It published propaganda materials..."65

The task of training future generations was not neglected. The Oriental Institute in Leningrad was moved to Tashkent and Central Asians were admitted for training. The Central Asians constituted a portion of the enlarged cadres in this Institution even when transferred back to Leningrad after the war.66 In March 1944, a major Conference on Central Asian folklore was hed in Tashkent.67 The convening of such a onference during the war bespeaks the significance of the topic, probably in connection with the Oriental Institute's propaganda function.

More relevant for this topic is the postwar renewal of interest in Oriental studies and the institutional and ideological vicissitudes of the Oriental Institute. In the wake of enormous war losses, the contribution to victory of the Russians (who, in official propaganda, received sole credit for the victory) and, by extension, relations between non-Russians and Russians received new emphasis.68

Orientalists were invited to engage in ideological warfare

18 H. B. Paksoy

against falsifiers of history, including those who sullied the friendly relations between Soviet peoples. Vucinich perceptively describes the era:

"From 1949 until 1951 leading Soviet newspapers and journals often published warnings to historians and literati, as well as to the institutes sponsoring them, and offered acceptable interpretations of controversial issues in the history of the Soviet Muslim and certain other Asian peoples.... In their writings Asian authors were obliged to refrain from expressing any ideas or interpretations that were anti-Russian and were told to honor and extol the many virtues of the 'Great Russian people', under whose leadership the Soviet peoples would attain a common supranational culture for the entire 'Soviet family' of nations."69

The period of the "crisis of dastans 1949-1951" coincided roughly with the beginning of a protracted period of reorganization of the Oriental Institute and the Oriental departments of the Academy of Sciences. In its plan for 1950, the Oriental Institute called for new emphasis on several fields including literature.70 The 1950 report of the Presidium called for a major reorganization. The Oriental Institute was moved from Leningrad to Moscow and workers from other academic institutes were transferred to it. In addition, the Oriental Institute was transferred from the Department of Language and Literature of the Academy of Sciences to the more politically oriented Department of History and Philosophy.71 Among new sections created was the Section of the Soviet East headed by the well-known Orientalist E. E. Bertels.72 However, as late as the early part of 1951 the Institute was still understaffed and the work quality was still being criticized.

The organizational reforms and ideological redirection continued into the middle of the decade. The 19th Party Congress (October 1952) criticized the Orientalists for having failed to follow party directives. Among other matters, the Orientalists weretold to produce scholarly works on Easternliterature.73 Again, a (perhaps the) major issue was relations between Asian peoples and Russians.74 Also in 1952, historians were purged for "erroneous ideas" and for having fallen into "bourgeois ideological waters" concerning the "Muslim heroes" Shamil and Kenesary Kasymov and the national question.75 In 1953, the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences criticized the output of the Oriental Institute since 1951

ALPAMYSH: Chapter Two 19

as having a low "political-conceptual" (ideino-politicheskii) level. It further stated that the cadres were weak in theoretical training and lacking in systematic control. Among the priorities handed down for the Institute were "production of scholarly-popular literature illuminating the successes of popular democracy in the East, the liberation struggles of peoples of dependent and colonial countries," and "production of qualified help for the academies of science in the republics on questions of the history and literature of peoples of the Soviet East."76

A decree of the Academy Presidium of February 1953established an "independent section" of the history and culture of the Soviet East. Some subsequent adjustments were made, presumably linked to the death of Stalin in March 1953. Twelve sections were created.77 The Section on the Soviet East was now upgraded to "independent section" (of which there were only three) on "history and cultures of the Soviet East."78 It was still headed by Bertels.79

In 1954, the Central Committee of the Party demanded that a careful research plan be drawn up for all disciplines.80 In that same year a Coordinating Commission for Eastern Literature was established under the Central Coordinating Council for Oriental Studies.81

The following year, the journal Sovetskoe Vostokovedenie resumed publication. Seemingly for the first time, the Oriental Institute was not understaffed. There were reported to be 220 workers, of whom 155 worked on Far East, South Asia and Middle East.82 That would leave 65, presumably for work on Soviet domestic issues. The Oriental Institute embarked on a new path in 1955. From that time, the Institute invested "serious effort" in the publication of "historical and literary monuments," which certainly included the dastans. Under the editorship of Bertels himself, the Institute began publishing "significant monuments of medieval literature," including Firdousi's Shahname and Rashid al-Din's Cronicles. In connection with this effort,the Institute also carried out preparatory research on Kutadgu Bilig and the Secere-i Terakime by Abul Gazi.83

Criticisms, however, continued. In a meeting of December 1956, the Academy Presidium attacked the Institute's treatment of a number of issues including "national trends of peoples of Central Asia and criticisms of nationalistic errors in the work of historians and literati."84 The on-going displeasure of the Presidium with the Institute led to new guidelines and yet further reorganization. The new guidelines, stated to be in conformity with the resolutions of the 20th Party Congress, included the

20 H. B. Paksoy

continued publication of literary and historical monuments of the peoples of the East. To facilitate this publication agenda, a publishing house of Eastern Literature was established in 1957.85

The new structure of the Oriental Institute was far more complex than before. Sections on the Far East and Near and Middle East included subsections on individual countries. Gone was the old "independent section" on the peoples of the Soviet East. A new division was added, however, to replace the Soviet East department headed by Bertels, who had been the chief of the various Soviet East sections since 1950.86 Along with the structural change of the Institute, the plan was changed as well. For the "first time"87 the Institute called for large scale publication of literary and historical monuments.

Several events had led up to the "rehabilitation" of Alpamysh in 1956 -- the Party Congress of 1952, the Moscow Conference on Epics in 1954, the Tashkent "Trial of Alpamysh" in 1952 and, in 1956 the 20th CPSU Congress. All issued guidelines relevant to Alpamysh. Finally, with the institutional reforms of 1957, the reorganization of the Oriental Institute was pronounced "completed." The Institute was now ready to carry out the dictates of the Party Congress.88 In the following year, the "definitive" and "complete" version of Alpamysh appeared. In the light of the reforms and ideological directives of the 1950s, and particularly the increasing emphasis after 1955 on the "literary and historical monuments" of the peoples of the East, the beginnings of reemergence of Alpamysh after 1958 becomes more explicable. Its republishing has a specific place within the broader pattern of activity in the field of Oriental studies. Only with the newly enlarged staff and with the establishment of "final" ideological instruction could the Oriental Institutes undertake the work necessary for the publication of Alpamysh. In this regard, Bennigsen is perhaps overly optimistic in his assessment of the reappearance of Alpamysh (and othr dastans) as a sign of the victory of the Central Asians.89 In fact, the Oriental Institutes finally had the personnel and the "proper" ideological framework with which to edit the dastan according to the dicta of the CPSU.




In the Soviet period, as before the Bolshevik Revolution, collecting and publishing efforts continued among Central

ALPAMYSH: Chapter Two 21

Asians. These efforts produced dozens of published versions and a still unknown number of manuscripts which are occasionally cited by Soviet authors and are reportedly kept in restricted access manuscript archives of Academy of Sciences of the USSR and Academies of individual republics.

Mirzaev, in his 1968 work,90 cites 29 reciters' variants in the Tashkent archives of the Academy of Sciences alone; in his 1969 work,91 he cites 33 variants of Alpamysh in this same archive. Zhirmunskii92 and M. Ghabdullin and T. Sydykov93 cite additional manuscripts in Nukus, Alma-Ata, Kazan, Moscow and Leningrad. Unfortunately, the available individual printings of Alpamysh do not provide sufficient information tracing the origin of variant in question. Introductions remark on the dastan's antiquity without detail. None of the Russian translations, as far as this writer has been able to determine, incorporates a critical apparatus. Even in those instances where the editor-translator is of Central Asian origin, such as Divay, only occasional footnotes are included. These footnotes are usually limited to the explanations of words. The native dialect editions rarely if ever provide any explanations since the readers are, after all, familiar with the dastan.

One of the main reasons for the ignorance about the "genealogy" of any of the variants may lie in the fact that the known versions of Alpamysh appear to have come down to the present day through diverse sources -- various reciting schools, tribal units, localities and collection efforts. Reports of these collection efforts show little or no evidence that the collectors attempted to trace the historical line of descent for any given variant.

Regardless of the cause, this failure by the collectors to trace the origins of individual variants renders comparison extremely difficult. Establishing descent, if that task were to be attempted, would also be problematical, even for those who may have full access to all known anuscripts. The first monographic tratment (discussed in Chapter Four) devoted to the "Uzbek national heroic epic" and including a large section on the dastan Alpamysh is the 1947 work coauthored by V. M. Zhirmunskii and Hadi Zarif (under the name Kh. T. Zarifov, the form used in Russian-language sources). The sections on dastans were written by Zarif, according to the work's Introduction. Although Hadi Zarif attempted to examine various historical events and documents in order to establish the approximate time of the dastan's creation, even he did not deal with any particular variant of Alpamysh, and confined himself primarily to what he labelled the "Kungrat" version. This lack of a genealogy is disappointing because by virtue of his personal

22 H. B. Paksoy

knowledge and access to documents, he was well positioned to trace such a lineage. Alpamysh has apparently never been printed anywhere except in the Russian and Soviet domains. There have been 55 known published versions of Alpamysh offered for sale since 1899. A complete bibliography of those works follows. They include versions published in Kazakh, Uzbek, Karakalpak, Tatar, Kirghiz, Altai, Russian and Tajik, the last being confined to portions of Tajikistan and northern Afghanistan.94 It is not known to exist in any other language and the very name is unknown in the Turkish Republic.95

The dastan Alpamysh was the subject of at least 185 books and articles in the USSR between 1923 and 1967 alone. These publications of evaluation and research were the products of Kazakh, Kirghiz, Uzbek, Bashkir, Tatar and Russian authors and do not include editions of the main texts or major translations of this dastan. The bibliography below is compiled from various sources and covers publications known to me as of this writing. This list does not include the Alpamysh extracts found in school textbooks or readers:

Bibliography of Published Versions of the Alpamysh Dastan

1. Kissa-i Alfamish. By Yusufbek Seyhulislam (in Arabic alphabet.) Kazan, 1899.
2. Second edition of (1), 1901.
3. "Alpamis-Batir." In Sbornik materialov dlia statistiki Syr-Dar'inskoi oblasti. Edited by A. A. Divay. Vol. X, Tashkent, 1901.
4. Alpamis-Batir. Djia-Murad Bek Muhammedov version. Editor: A. A. Divay. Reprint of (3). Text in Arabic alphabet in Kazakh, with Russian translation. Tashkent, 1901.
5. "Alpamis-Batir." In Pamiatniki kirgizskogo narodnogo tvorchestva. Reprint of (3). Tashkent, 1901.
6. Third edition of (1), 1905.
7. Fourth edition of (1), 1907.
8. Fifth edition of (1), 1910.
9. Sixth edition of (1), 1912.

ALPAMYSH: Chapter Two 23

10. Seventh edition of (1), 1914.
11. Eighth edition of (1), 1916.
12. "Velikan Alpamis." In Turkestanskaia vedemost', no. 217-218. Russian translation, collected (during 1916?) and edited by A. A. Divay. Tashkent, 1916.
13. "Alpamysh." In Batirlar. Vol. VI. Editor: A. A. Divay. Second edition of (3), Tashkent, 1922.
14. "Alpamysh." In Kirgizsko-Kazakhskii bogatirskii epos. Vol. VI. Reprint of (13), Tashkent, 1922.
15. "Alpamish dastani." In Bilim Ocagi, No. 2-3, 18 May 1923. pp. 39-59. Editor: Gazi Alim. Tashkent, 1923.
16. "Alpamis Batir." In Sbornik obraztsov kazakhskoi narodnoi literatury. Editor: S. Seyfullin. Kizil Orda, 1931. ( - Unverified - ) [Alpamysh Batir. Reprint of (3 and 13) 1933.]
17. Alpamysh. Karakalpak (?) version. (Latin alphabet?) Moscow, 1936.
18. Alpamys. Russian translation from Hojabergen Niyazov. Moscow, 1937.
19. "Alpamis Batir." In Batirlar Jiri, V. 1. Compiler: Sabit Mukanov. (Latin alphabet?) Alma-Ata, 1939. (Reprint of Item 16?)
20. Alpomish dastani. Uzbek Fanlar Akademiyasi Nasriyati. In Latin alphabet. Fazil Yoldash oglu version. Editor: Hamid Alimjan. Tashkent, 1939.
21. Altai-Buchai. Russian translation of (23), Ulagashev variant. Moscow, 1939.
22. Altai-Buchai. In Altaiskie skazki. Shortened version of (23), Ulagashev variant. Moscow, 1939.
23. Alyp-Manash. N. Ulagashev variant. Moscow (?) 1940.
24. "Alpamysh i Barsin Khyluu." In Bashkirskie narodnye skazki, No. 19. Recorded and translated by A. G. Bessonov. General Editor: Prof. N. Dimitriev. Ufa, 1941.
25. Alpamysh. Second edition of (18), Moscow, 1941.

24 H. B. Paksoy

26. "Altay Buchai." In Oirotskii narodnyi epos. Editor: A. Koptelev. N. Ulagashev variant. pp. 79-126. Novosibirsk, 1941.
27. "Alpamysh." In Uzbekskii narodnyi epos; Glava iz poemy. Significantly abridged translation (by L. Penkovskii) into Russian. Probably contains only the suitor competition section. Tashkent, 1943.
28. Alpamysh. Partial translation by V. Derzhavin, A. Kochetkov and L. Penkovskii. Tashkent, 1944.
29. "Alpamysh." In Kazakhskii geroicheskii epos, Moscow, 1945.
30. "Alpamys." In Tatar Halk Ekiyatlara. Kazan, 1946.
31. "Alpamis." In Tatarskie narodnye skazki, vol I. Russian translation of a Kazan Tatar version, 1946.
32. Alpamisha i Barchin-huluu, Bashkirskie narodnye skazki. Collected by A. Bessonov, edited by N. Dimitriev. (Second edition of (24) ?) Ufa, 1949.
33. Alpamysh. Uzbeksii epos po varianti Fazila Yoldasha. Translated by L. Penkovskii, foreword by M. Sheykhzade. Tashkent, 1949.
34. Alpamysh. Uzbekskii narodnyi epos. Translated from Fazil Yoldash text. Translator: L. Penkovskii. Moscow, 1949.
35. "Alpamysh." In Kazakhskii epos. Russian translation. Alma-Ata, 1953.
36. Alpamys. Text prepared by G. G. Musabaev, editors N. S. Smirnova and T. S. Sydykov. Alma-Ata, 1957.
37. Alpamys. From Kiyas-jray Hayreddinov. Nukus, 1957.
38. Alpamysh i Sandugach. Tatarskie narodnye skazki. In Tatar. Kazan, 1957.
39. Alpamysh. Second edition of (20), Tashkent, 1957.
40. Alpamysh. Third edition of (20), Tashkent, 1958.
41. Alpamish: Tatar Halk Ekiyatlara. Edited by H. Yarmuhametov. Second edition of (29) 1946 printing? Kazan, 1958.

ALPAMYSH: Chapter Two 25

42. Alpamish. Russian translation by L. Penkovskii. Preface by V. Zhirmunskii. Reprint of 1949. Moscow, 1958.
43. "Alp-Manash." In Altay Baatirlar. Volume II. Tuulu Altaydin Bichikter Chigarar Izdatelstvozi. Editor: P. Kuchiyak. Gorno-Altaysk, 1959.
44. Alpomish. Editor: R. Amonov. Translated into Tajik by L. N. Demidchik. Stalinabad, 1959.
45. Alpomish. Tajik? Second printing of (44) ? Stalinabad, 1960?
46. Alpamys. From Esemurat-jray Nurabullaev. Nukus, 1960.
47. Alpamis Batir. Prepared for publication by N. S. Smirnova and T. S. Sydykov. Editors: M. O. Auezov and N. S. Smirnova. Alma-Ata, 1961.
48. Alpamis Batir. Editor: A. Shalabaeva. Alma-Ata, 1968.
49. Alpomish. Uzbekistan SSR Fanlar Akademiyasi, A. S. Pushkin Nomidaki Til va Adabiyat Instituti. Berdi Bahshi Variant. Transcriber: Abdulla Alavii; editor: Tura Mirzaev; Editor of the series: Hadi Zarif. Tashkent, 1969.
50. Alpamish. Uzbekskoe narodnoe tvorchestvo. Translated from Fazil Yoldash oglu text. Translator: L. Penkovskii. Reprint of (34) ? Moscow, 1977.
51. Alpamis Batir. Kazak SSR Gylym Akademiyasi M. O. Auezov Atindaki Edebiyet yane Oner Instituti. Alma-Ata, 1977.
52. Alpamysh. Tashkent, 1979.
53. "Alpamis Batir." In Kazakhskii gerocheskii epos v prozaicheskom pereskaze Akseley Seydimbekova. Russian translation by Satimjan Sanbaev. Alma-Ata, 1981.
54. Alpamis. Nukus, 1981.
55. Alpamish. Uzbekskii narodni epos. Translated from T. M. Mirzaev text. Translator: L. M. Penkovskii. Reprint of (33), Moscow, 1982.

As the Alpamysh bibliography demonstrates, approximately one third of the items are Russian translations of one or another variant. Most publication efforts, however, reflect the dedication of several individual Central Asians, who can be regarded as saviors of dastans.

26 H. B. Paksoy

Saviors of Dastans: Second and Third "Waves"

As Bolsheviks continued tsarist policies, the Central Asians also continued their efforts to collect and publish the dastans after the revolution. Attempts to collect the dastan from bahshis and to publish were numerous in the 1920s and 1930s until the death of many reciters in the purges. Mirzaev96 also notes new collection efforts around the Ferghana Valley in 1956, after the so-called "Trial of Alpamysh."

This second "wave of saviors", concentrated in Tashkent, managed to publish the dastan at least three times between the Revolution and the demise of the Turkistan Republic in 1924. Slightly more information is available on this group, by virtue of the individuals' affiliation with Narodnyi kommissariat prosveshcheniia (the People's Commisariat of Education) -- Narkompros and the Kazakh-Kirghiz Bilim Kamiyasi (roughly: Society of Kazakh-Kirghiz Scholarship). It is because of this history that information is available on Divay, Yusufbek and Gazi Alim.97 Other individuals are likely to come light in the course of further research. Available information on Divay's career indicates that he continued his efforts to record and preserve elements of Turkic culture after the revolution as before. In 1918, Divay offered courses in Kazakh ethnography and language at the Central Asian University and at the Turkistan Oriental Institute, where he held the chair of Kirghiz ethnography and language. He was first an "independent instructor" and later a professor. He organized a major expedition to Semirechie in spring 1922 as a member of the Kirghiz Scholarly Commission of Narkompros of the Turkrespublika (Turkistan Republic). During the following year, Divay is reported to have gathered, described and systematized approximately eight thousand pages of notes from this expedition.98

As before, Divay's findings were published in the various scholarly and popular journals in Russian and the native language during 1922. He also prticipated at this time in the specialcommission for the elimination of the kalym ("bride price") and for the "reform of the study of native languages."99 A second jubilee for Divay was celebrated in 1923. Divay's Soviet biographers are silent on the ensuing years of his life and note only that he died ten years later.

Much has been written and said about Divay by his contemporaries. A few items are revealing. In an issue of Zhivaia Starina, V. A. Gordlevskii, noted one of Divay's "praiseworthy tendencies," "to extract articles from

ALPAMYSH: Chapter Two 27

Turkestanskaia vedomost' and republish them, thus saving them from oblivion."100 This "praiseworthy tendency" would explain the multiple printings of Alpamysh and, apparently, the goal behind them. Zeki Velidi Togan wrote about a visit to Divay's Tashkent home in 1913. Zeki Velidi had read Ismail Gasprali's Rusya Muslumanlari, which he had found in Divay's personal library. In a conversation with Divay (Togan refers to him as "Miralay" [colonel] and "Divay Agha"), Togan criticized Gasprali's "timidity." Divay responded:

"During those times our thoughts were somewhat different. In addition, if this language had not been used, that book would not have cleared the censors. Political repression in Russia in those days was much more stringent. In those hours of our need, works such as this gave us some relief."101

Detailed information on the dastans and on Divay himself is to be found in the Kazakh Academy of Science's Kazakhskaia narodnaia poeziia.102 The first chapter was presumably written by one or more members of the editorial committee which produced this work -- N. S. Smirnova, M. G. Gumarova, M. S. Sil'chenko and T. S. Sydykov. The chapter describes Divay's method of collecting materials. Divay often sought out those among the Kazakh populations who owned manuscripts of traditional oral works. Often the bahshis themselves had manuscripts of dastans. These manuscripts he collected or, when unable to acquire them, had them copied. "Divaev made a request of the responsible persons of the Turkestan krai to copy manuscripts for him. In this way in June 1896 he received a manuscript of the epic Alpamysh. The manuscript itself is reported to be in the Manuscript Fond of the Library of the Academy of Sciences of the Kazak SSR, 'Materialy A. A. Divaeva, folder 1162.'"103

A piece by Sydykov in the same volume gives the details of the collection in 1896:

"In this same year 1896 Divaev received a manuscript of the Karakalpak of the Turtkul volost' ofthe Amu-Darya otdel of the Syr-Darya oblast Dzhiemurat Bekmukhamedov [sic], a professional bahshi. The manuscript was prepared for publication by Divaev in November 1897. It was published on the pages of Sbornik materialov

28 H. B. Paksoy

dlia statistiki Syr-Dar'inskoi oblasti in 1902."104

Sydykov also noted that Divay had already known about Alpamysh and first mentioned the work in an article published in 1896 in Zapiski Vostochnogo otdeleniia Russkogo arkheologicheskogo obshchestva, 1896, v. XI, no. III-IV, p. 292.

Another major savior of dastans was Gazi Alim. He published a version of Alpamysh in 1923 (Item 15 in Bibliography). Togan tells of Gazi Alim's collections in the 1910s and 1920s both in the vicinity of Tashkent during the short life of the Turkistan Republic (1918-1924) and from Fazil Yoldashoglu in the environs of Samarkand in 1928.105 The collection process did not always proceed smoothly. In compiling his 1923 Alpamysh, Gazi Alim, then a member of the Bilim Kamisiya, reportedly collected one variant from Yoldashoglu and another variant from reciter Hamrakul Bahshi. According to Mirzaev, the 1923 printing was "spliced" from recitations of the two ozans. Mirzaev further states that this very manuscript was subsequently "lost" and the dastan had to be collected again later in the decade.106

In his introduction to the 1923 printing (Item 15), Gazi Alim describes the importance of the dastan and thus suggests his motives in wanting to save this dastan: "The dastan occupies the most important place in the people's literature. The dastan is a literary genre encompassing all the particulars of the tribal life in the most lucid manner.

"If we do not know the Turk-Ozbeg [original spelling] dastans, we will not become familiar with the struggles of the Turk tribes, the reasons underlying their politico-economic endeavors, their methods and rules of warfare, the characters and the social places of their heroes in their societies; in short, the details of their past. National dastans contain the styles and customs of local akins, which is a fundamental characteristic of the dastans. The Turkish land is rich in dastans. All Turk tribes have their own dastans: the Kipaks have their Koblndi Batir; the Nogays, Idige Batir; the Kngrats, Alpamis Batir; the Naymans, Shora Batir; the Kirgiz, Manas Batir.

"In addition, there are many others in the Altay

ALPAMYSH: Chapter Two 29

mountains, the Turkistan steppes and the Idil [Volga] shores that are repeated by the Turk-Ozbeg akins, but are not yet written down.

"Our awakening period is just beginning, and our national literature will undoubtedly serve an important purpose within this context. This rebirth of our own native literature will become even more powerful, if it can be saved from the false classicism of aghatay, which in turn is influenced by and has taken its form and spirit from Persian. Consequently, our new literature must be based on the power and the purity of our people's soul."

In the 1930s it appears there was another group working to further the efforts of their predecessors. Within this group Hamid Alimjan, then head of the Uzbek Writers' Union, is most visible.

The 1939 compilation of Alpamysh is not available in the Western world. Even in the libraries of the USSR, it is exceedingly difficult to see a copy of this printing. The volume begins with an extraordinary introduction, more fiery than the one by Gazi Alim. In the copy which was available to this author for one thirty-minute session, pages 8 through 25 were missing from the introduction. They had been removed. In these missing pages Alimjan apparently describes the reasons why he believes that this dastan is important and must be kept alive.

Passages below are extracted and translated from the introduction written by Hamid Alimjan to the 1939 printing of Alpamysh as taken down from Fazil Yoldashoglu (Item 20 in Bibliography).

The Kungrat tribe of the Uzbeks are seeking refuge with the Kalmak ruler. Alimjan uses the spelling Ozbeg, (rather than Uzbek); this form is probably to be related to the popular etymology: Ozum Bek, "my essence is princely." The text, which is reproduced below, is in Latin orthography and all spellings are as in the original.

Kungrat Aksakallar Qalmakga qarab bir soz eb turgan ekan:
Aja sahim sizga ajtar arzim bar,
Almadajin solgan guldaj tarzim bar,
Turkistandan bizar kaib kelibdi
Bu bajlardan sahim baldin exabar
Abla menin aqli husim alibdi
Sum falak basima savda salibdi
30 H. B. Paksoy
Bizning elga qattik talan qilibdi
Davlatini kordim cuda qalibdi(r)
Aslin bilsan Turkistandan kelibdi
Ekinmin barni nabud kilibdi
Uqur edin qanatindan qagrildin
Jugruk bolsan tujaqidan tajrildin
Biz avqatdan, sen sursatdan tajrildin
Xazan bolib baqda gullar soladi

"The Kungrat whitebeards introduce themselves to the Kalmaks:
My lord, allow me respectfully to declare
I appear like a wilted rose, discarded (because of our ordeal)
We have escaped from Turkistan
My lord, you are unaware of those gardens (of our homeland)
The disgrace has taken away my senses
The heavens have burdened me with this shame
And severely devastated our lands
I have seen it prosperous; now it is gone
As for our origins, we come from Turkistan
Our cultivated fields have been destroyed
I used to fly, but now I am bereft of my wings
When we left, we had to part from our belongings
We have been prevented from worship and the revenues (of our holdings)
Autumn has come; roses have wilted in the garden."

"Alpamis is a dastan shared among the Ozbeg, Karakalpak, Kazak and one of the oldest such lineages, the Kungrats, describing their way of life. Alpamis has entered into the literatures of these native Central Asian peoples. Ozbegs, Kazaks, Kirghiz, Turkmens and Karakalpaks have read and cherished Alpamis as their own.

"These people have regarded Alpamis as a part of their own history, and rightly so. All of the best akins of the Ozbegs knew Alpamis. Among these poets, lack of knowledge of Alpamis was considered a shame. Therefore all poets began their recitations with Alpamis.

"The original contains 15,000 lines of verse. Poet Yoldashoglu of the Jani Mihnat (New Labor) Kolkhoz, located in the Bulungur oblast of Samarkand, is considered as the most

ALPAMYSH: Chapter Two 31

authoritative of its reciters.

"Alpamis is one of the oldest dastans of the Ozbeg people. Among the Ozbeg folklorists, there are those who consider Alpamis to be at least a thousand years old. These claims are, of course, not without foundation".

The fourth wave of Central Asian intellectuals concerned with the fate of Alpamysh and the Turkic dastan genre in general is just beginning to emerge. The challenge they face shall be the focus of Chapter Four. In biological terms, the members of this group are actually the third generation and a virtual intellectual replacement of the independence minded "nationalists" who were physically liquidated by the Stalinist measures of the 1920s and 1930s. It is from the point of view of intellectual heritage that they constitute the fourth group. Each and every one of these writers, mostly born since World War II, chose to utilize the dastans in placing their historical fiction onto paper. They liberally incorporate motifs from a variety of dastans into their works.107

The theme of their efforts is perhaps expressed by this 1982 poem, signed "Shakir Jumaniyaz" from the Uzbek journal Muhbir:

"Give me a chance, my rebellious dreams
My father has erected his statue in my memory
May years and winds be rendered powerless
May his legacy not be erased from my conscience.
"Give me a chance, my rebellious dreams
Grant my father a Holy dastan
May years and winds be rendered powerless
May his memory never be allowed to fade."108

32 H. B. Paksoy


1. On Russian expansion from the 16th to 20th centuries, one may begin with Caroe (Cited in Chapter One); Alexandre A. Bennigsen and Chantal Lemercier-Quelquejay, Islam in the Soviet Union (G.Wheeler, trans) (London, 1964). On the late 18th-19th century expansions, see works of Ingram cited in Chapter One. Also see Muriel Atkin Russian and Iran, 1780-1828 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1980) as well as Firuz Kazemzadeh's classic study of Russian and Britain in Persia, 1864-1914 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968) on expansion into the Caucasus. The Gorchakov Memorandum (issued by Foreign Minister Gorchakov in 1864 as an instruction to Russian embassies in the West concerning the government's grounds for its conquest of Central Asia) establishes Russia's "civilizing mission" in Asia as one justification for the expansion. The 1892 Anglo-Russian treaty also established Afghanistan as an official buffer state between the Russian Empire and British India. On the history of Oriental Institutes and their role in this expansion, See Richard N. Frye's "Oriental Studies in Russia," in Wayne Vucinich, Editor, Russia and Asia (Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1972).
2. The first Governor General of the krai was General Kaufman who held the post from 1867 to 1882. The conquest is discussed in several monographs including of course Caroe; Geoffrey Wheeler, History of Modern Central Asia (New York, London: Praeger, 1964). For a description of administrative arrangements as well as greater focus on the khanates of Bukhara and Khiva, see Seymour Becker, Russia's Protectorates in Central Asia; Bukhara and Khiva, 1865-1924 (Cambridge, MA: the Harvard Russian Research Center Series, No. 54, Harvard University Press, 1968).
3. I. T. Kreindler, "Education Policies Toward the Eastern Nationalities in Tsarist Russia: A Study of Il'minskii's System, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1970.
4. On Il'minskii, see Krindler, "Ibrahim Altynsarin, Nikolai Il'inskii and the Kazakh National Awakening," CAS V. 2, N. 31983. On Ostroumov, see Togan, Turkistan, 503 and Frye, "Oriental Studies in Russia," 43.
5. Togan, Turkistan, 503 discusses Ostroumov. 6. N. A. Baskakov makes this argument regarding smaller Turkic populations such as the Altai, Khakass, and Tuva, but even the Yakut, Chuvash, Karakalpak and the numerous Kirghiz are stated to have languages that are "either unwritten or written primitively." See Wurm's translation in The Turkic Languages of Central Asia, 1-2.

ALPAMYSH: Chapter Two 33

The same view is expressed in A. N. Kononov, Turkic Philology: 50 Years of Soviet Oriental Studies (Moscow, 1967) in English translation, 7. The view has even crept into Western textbooks such as Dmytryshyn, cited in Chapter One.
7. For a glimpse of such Tsarist reprisals, see A. N. Kurat, Muhammed Ayaz Ishaki: Hayati ve Faaliyeti (Ankara, 1979).
8. Togan, Turkistan, 492-3.
9. Ahmed Midhat (1844-1912) was a popular novelist and newspaperman active during the reign of Ottoman Sultan Abdulhamid II. See Stanford J. Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Vol 2, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1977), p. 255.
10. Togan cites here W. W. Radloff, Proben der Volkliteratur der Turkischen Stamme, III, Introduction.
11. This material was compiled from various sources. See the articles published in Kazakhskaia narodnaia poeziia, (Izobraztsov, sobrannykh i zapisannykh A. A. Divaevym) (Alma-Ata,1964). esp. Ch 1 and the article by Zarif.
12. The term used in the original Russian is uchastkovyi nadziratel' which literally means "inspector of an uchastok," a police district.
13. More details on his travels and informants are given in Kazakhskaia narodnaia poeziia, 14.
14. N. C. Smirnova inserted the term "Kazakh" as explanatory material after the reference in the original title to Kirghiz. Kazakhskaia narodnaia poeziia, 8. Discussion of terms Kazakh and Kirghiz taken up shortly in this Chapter.
15. Smirnova, ibid, cites here Grodekov's monograph Kirgizy i karakirgizy Syr-Dar'inskoi oblasti, vol.I, Tashkent, 1889, p. v.
16. A note in the Russian text refers to Grodekov, ibid.
17. Reviews by W. Bartold, N. F. Katanov (who criticized Divay for using the Cyrillic alphabet for transliteration) and othersare reproduced in Kazakhskaia narodnaia poeziia.
18. Kazakhskaia narodnaia poeziia, 9.
19. This work, under the general editorship of V. I. Mezhov, comprised several hundred volumes. Divay apparently contributed to volumes 566-569. See Kazakhskia narodnaia poeziia, 9-10, Note 7.

34 H. B. Paksoy

20. This process is well documented by Lowell Tillett's The Great Friendship. He pays particular attention to the Kazakhs. Also useful in connection with this policy are those works on language policy cited below.
21. This and other changes are discussed in detail by Olaf Caroe, The Soviet Empire (cited in Note 1, this Chapter) and in C. W.Hostler Turkism and the Soviets.
22. For the definition of Kazakh, see Togan, Turkistan, 37.
38. For the political use of the term Kirghiz, see A. T. Hatto, "Kirghiz" in Traditions of Heroic and Epic Poetry, A. T. Hatto (Ed.) (London, 1980), P. 300.
23. Many sources exist on this topic - Edward Allworth, Uzbek Literary Politics (The Hague, 1964); Michael Bruchis, "The Effect of the USSR's Language Policy on the National Languages of Its Turkic People," in Yaacov Ro'i, ed, The USSR and the Muslim World (London, 1984); Olaf Caroe; Wheeler; Stefan Wurm, Turkic Peoples of the USSR: Their Historical Background, Their Languages and the Development of Soviet Linguistic Policy (Central Asian Research Centre in association with St. Antony's College) (Oxford, 1954); idem, The Turkic Languages of Central Asia: Problems of Planned Culture Contact (Central Asian Research Centre in association with St. Antony's College) (Oxford, 1954).
24. Wurm, The Turkic Languages of Central Asia, 30-48. Togan discusses further problems, Turkistan, 486-513. Also see Bruchis, Note 23, this Chapter.
25. See Azarbayjan Dilinin Izahly Lughati (Baku, 1980); Kazakh Tilining Tusindirme Sozdigi (Alma-Ata, 1961); Tatar Teleneng Ahglatmatly Suzlege (Kazan 1977); Uzbek Tilining Izokhli Lughati (Moscow, 1981).
26. A. Bennigsen, "The Crisis of the Turkic National Epics,1951-1952: Local Nationalism or Internationalism?," Canadian Slavonic Papers, V. XVII, No. 2&3, 1975.
27. Tura Mirzaev, Alpomish Dostonining Uzbek Variantlari (Tashkent, 1968), 9-13.
28. Bennigsen, 465.
29. Anthology of Uzbek Poetry (Moscow, 1949), cited without page number in Bennigsen, 467.
30. SE (Moscow, 1950), cited in ibid.
31. Peface to the Russian translation (Moscow, 1949), cited in ibid.

ALPAMYSH: Chapter Two 35

32. "Concerning the Poem Alpamysh," Literaturnaia Gazeta, 14 September, 1952, cited in ibid, 468.
33. Pravda Vostoka, Tashkent, 24 February, 1952, cited in ibid.
34. Pravda Vostoka, Tashkent, 28 February, 1952, cited in ibid.
35. Pravda Vostoka, Tashkent, 3 April, 1952, cited in ibid. The charge is self contradictory since, by definition, a "pan" movement must be broader than nationalism.
36. "Ob epose 'Alpamysh'," in Pravda Vostoka, 29 January 1952.
37. "Obsuzhdenie eposa 'Alpamysh' i vopros uzbekskoi fol'kloristiki," in Pravda Vostoka, 3 April 1952.
38. Ibid.
39. "Alpomish dostonining mukhokamasi," in Shark Yilduzi, vol. 5 (Tashkent) 1952, cited in Mirzaev, 14. Details are given in Pravda Vostoka, 29 January; 24, 27, 28 February and 3 April 1952. Although the word "mukhokama" can also mean "judgement" or "discernment," in this context it is best understood as "the hearing of a case in court; trial" and therefore has been here rendered as "trial."
40. "Obsuzhdenie," cited in note 48.
41. Vsesoiuznoe soveshchanie po voprosam izucheniia narodov SSSR, Khronika in Izvestiia AN SSSR, Institut literatury i iazyki,1954, vol. XIII, No. 5, cited in Mirzaev, 15.
42. Mirzaev, 15.
43. N. Shukurov, S. Mirzaev, KH. Donierov, "'Alpamysh' dostoni hakkida," in Shark Yilduzi (Tashkent) 1956, vol. 2, cited in Mirzaev, 16.
44. Tezisy dokladov i soobshchenii regional'nogo soveshchaniia po eposu 'Alpamysh' (Tashkent, 1956), published by AN UzSSR. Also cited in Mirzaev, 17. 45. Tezisy. Also cited in Mirzaev, 17.
46. Borovkov, "Geroicheskaia poema ob Alpamyshe," in Tezisy, 61-86, cited in Mirzaev, 17-18.
47. Kh. Zarifov, "'Alpomish' eposining asosii motivlari," in Shark Yilduzi No.1, 1957 (Tashkent), cited in Mirzaev, 16.

36 H. B. Paksoy

48. Mirzaev, 14. Also see "Ob epose 'Alpamysh'," (Excerpts reprinted in Literaturnaia Gazeta, 12 February 1952); and also by Abdunabiev and Stepanov, "Pod flagom narodnosti," in Zvezda Vostoka, (Tashkent) 1952, No. 4.
49. Richard Frye, "Oriental Studies in Russia."
50. Wayne Vucinich, "Structure of Soviet Orientology," in Vucinich, Russia and Asia.
51. Iz istorii sovetskogo vostokovedeniia by N. A. Kuznetsov aand L. M. Kulagina (Moscow, 1970) (Publication of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Oriental Institute), 12. (Henceforth: Izistorii). Also cited in Vucinich, 56.
52. Vucinich, 52. On the development of Lenin's interest in the revolutionary potential of the colonial world, see Richard Pipes, Formation of the Soviet Union; Communism and Nationalism, 1917-1923 (Cambridge (MA), 1957); and I. T. Kreindler, "A Neglected Source of Lenin's Nationality Policy," in Slavic Review (March 1977). On the Baku Congress, see Alexandre Bennigsen and S. E. Wimbush, Muslim National Communism in the Soviet Union(Chicago, 1980); Stephen White, "The Baku Congress of the Toilers of the East," Slavic Review, September, 1967.
53. Novyi Vostok, N. 4 (1925), 503-504. cited in Vucinich, 56-7.
54. Iz istorii, 27-28. (Also cited in Vucinich, 59).
55. Mirzaev, 8. Cites the resolution in Uzbek "Partiyanin badii adabiyat sahesindeki siyaseti." The resolution was originally in Russian.
56. B. Dmytryshyn, A History of Russia, (Englewood Cliffs: New Jersey, 1977), 516, discusses this cultural policy.
57. Vucinich, 55.
58. Vucinich, 56.
59. Iz istorii, 136, citing "Perspektivnyi plan raboty Instituta vostokovedeniia AN SSSR v blizhaishchee piatiletie," in Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta vostokovedeniia AN SSSR, vol. 1, 1951,3-16.
60. Iz istorii, Chapter II, and Vucinich, 56.
61. Vucinich, 60, citing Iz istorii, 72, 73.
62. Iz istorii, 73-75.

ALPAMYSH: Chapter Two 37

63. Iz istorii, 75.
64. See D. Montgomery, "Career Patterns of Sixteen Uzbek Writers," presented to the Second Central Asian Conference, held in Madison, Wisconsin, October 1985.
65. G. A. Kniazev and A. V. Kol'tsov, Kratkii ocherk istorii Akademii nauk SSSR (Moscow-Leningrad, 1957), 122, cited in Vucinich, 66.
66. Vucinich, 67.
67. Vucinich, note 72 cites a report on this congress published in Izvestiia AN SSSR, Otdeleniia literatury i iazyka (1944), 177-81.
68. Vucinich, 69.
69. Vucinich, 70, note 70 citing I. Amusin, "Sektor drevnego iranne-srednevekovogo IVAN {Institut vostokovedeniia akademiinauk}," in k drevnei istorii (VDI), 1948, 164-167.
70. Iz istorii, 134-135, citing document.
71. Vestnik AN SSSR (Hereafter: Vestnik), 1950, No. 9, 86-87.
72. Iz istorii, 135, citing "Otchet Instituta vostokovedeniia ANSSSR za 1950 g.," (Henceforth: " (year)").
73. Vucinich, 74, notes 91-93, citing Voprosy istorii, no. 9(1954) and no. 3 (1957); Iz Istorii, 141-142; and Vestnik no. 4(1953).
74. Vucinich, note 94 for other details.
75. Vucinich, 75, notes 96-97, citing Bol'shevik, no. 13 (1952) and Voprosy istorii, no. 11 (1952).
76. Iz istorii, 141-142, citing "O nauchnoi deiatel'nosti isostoianii kadrov Instituta vostokovedeniia," in Vestnik, no. 4, 77.
77. Vucinich, 76, states these changes were made in 1955. In Izistorii, 143, the authors are ambiguous, but suggest the changes were made around 1953.
78. Iz istorii, 143, citing " 1952 g.," ArkhivInstituta narodov Azii AN SSSR (henceforth: Arkhiv); and "Postanovlenie Prezidiuma AN SSSR ot 13 Fevralia 1953 g.," Arkhiv. 79. Iz istorii, 135, citing " 1950 g.," Arkhiv.

38 H. B. Paksoy

80. Plan reproduced in Iz istorii, 142.
81. Vucinich, 72.
82. Iz istorii, 146, citing " 1955 g.," Arkhiv.
83. Iz istorii, 148, citing P.P. Bushev, "O rabote Instituta vostokovedeniia Akademiia nauk SSSR," in Voprosy istorii, 1954, no. 9.
84. Iz istorii, 151 citing V. V. Struve and M. A. Korostobtsev, "100-letie so dnia rozhdeniia V. C. Golenishcheva," in Vestnik, 1957, no.2.
85. Iz istorii, 152-153 citing "O zadachakh i strukture Instituta vostokovedeniia AN SSSR," in Vestnik, 1956, no.1.
86. Iz istorii, 154.
87. Iz istorii, 157, citing P. A. Brovtsinov, "Plannauchno-issledovatel'skikh rabot Instituta vostokovedeniia ANSSSR na 1959-1965 gg.," in Voprosy storii, 1959, no.11; (no author) "Plan nauchno-issledovatel'skikh rabot Institutavostokovedeniia AN SSSR," in Problemy vostokovedeniia, 1960,no.1.
88. Iz istorii, 158.
89. Bennigsen, 472-474.
90. Mirzaev, Uzbek variantlari, 161-169.
91. Mirzaev, Alpomish (Tashkent, 1969), 108-110.
92. Skazanie, 36, 40-41.
93. Kazak Halkynyn Batyrlyk Jyry (Alma-Ata, 1972), 77, 80, 97.
94. The Tajik variant I discovered is a translation, published by Akademiyai Fanhoi RCC Tojikistan, Instituti Zabon va Adabiyat banomi Rudaki: Alpomis (Stalinabad, 1959).
95. A project has been discussed during 1982 to create a German translation with the cooperation of East German institutions and Uzbek scholars.
96. Mirzaev, Uzbek variantlari, 17-20.
97. See Togan, Turkistan, 504, 513, 516, 520.
98. Kazakh halkynyn Batyrlyk Jyry, 11.

ALPAMYSH: Chapter Two 39

99. Kazakh Halkynyn Batyrlyk Jyry, 11.
100. "A. A. Divaev; k 25-letuiu nauchnoi deiatel'nosti, "published in Zhivaia Starina, 1916, no. 3, 37-38, reprinted in Kazakhskaia narodnaia poeziia, 173-4.
101. Togan, Turkistan, 556. Togan was 23 at the time of this visit.
102. Full citation in Note 11, this Chapter.
103. Ghabdullin and Sydykov, 15, Note 18.
104. From a reprinted presentation by Sydykov before the Academy commemorating the 100th anniversary of Divay's birth in 1855 (reproduced pp. 181-185). Note cites this as vol. X, pp. 3-40. Only in this work is that volume of the Sbornik cited as 1902 rather than 1901. However, since the separately published Alpamysh is dated 1901, it can only be an offprint from a 1901 publication.
105. Togan, Turkistan, 493, 513.
106. Mirzaev, Uzbek variantlari, 7, 8. Mirzaev examined both 1928 manuscript and the 1923 printed version in Bilim Ocagi.
107. See H. B. Paksoy, "New Dastans," cited in Chapter One. Muhbir, Uzbekistan Kompartiyasi Markazii Komitetining Nasriyati, November, 1982.

logo Return to Carrie Home Page - Return to the Carrie Donated E-Books Home Page