Why Was Russian Direct Rule over Kyrgyz Nomads Dependent on Tribal Chieftains “Manap s”
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12503379 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Tetsu Akiyama (Waseda University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2015 |
| Volume | 56 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 625-649 |
| Publication date | 2015-01-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Cahiers du monde russe (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1252-6576 • E-ISSN: 1777-5388 |
| Publisher | OpenEdition (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.4000/monderusse.8212 |
| OpenAlex | W2298622740 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 1 |
Despite the imposition of Russian direct rule in 1867, the tribal chieftains bearing the title of “manap” played a dominant role as effective leaders among Kyrgyz nomads throughout the imperial period. This article investigates why manaps were able to maintain this role and how the Russian military authorities dealt with them during the half century of their direct rule. Manaps were useful in supplementing the weakness of Russian rule, and, in fact, the inadequacy of Russian governance was a key factor enabling manaps to maintain their role as the primary ruling class of Kyrgyz nomads until as late as the twentieth century. However, Russian military authorities did not actively recruit manaps as political intermediaries, but were obliged to accommodate to them. In this sense, they were in large part “passively dependent” on manaps, but did not actively protect or nurture them as a political elite
Art · Humanities · Political science · Linguistics and Cultural Studies · Rangeland Management and Livestock Ecology · Soviet and Russian History
| Citations per year | 0.38 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2018 - 2026 (9) |
| Highly cited | No |