14
Schuyler
The Effectiveness of Depicting Kazakhstan History through Kazakh Oral Literature
Zachary Schuyler
History 328
Professor Payne
April 26, 2013
Changes that occurred in Kazakhstan are recorded in the Kazakh oral history. It has been said that a historical investigation into the oral literature can show a surprisingly accurate depiction of the changes in Kazakhstan and of Kazakhstan’s past. Before textbooks, the nomads of Central Asia would recite the history of their lineages and remember their identity through the performance of these oral epics. Just as the vibrations of the dombra and the chants of the akyn can be heard for days after a ceremony, the tales of these oral epics and poems still reverberate throughout Kazakhstan. As Martha Brill Olcott explains, the oral art of the Kazakhs probably represents the best documentation of the Kazakh past.[1] Before a Kazakh written literary language was developed, bards and minstrels known as akyn and ζhyr would tell historical accounts in the form of poems, songs, and prose. In this manner, Kazakh historical traditions were spread and kept both over long distances and long periods of time.[2] Despite the invention of a written system and the transcription of many of these poems and epics, the recitation still plays a long role in Kazakh culture, just as the information in this literature is still said to represents some of the best documentation of Kazakhstan’s past.
This paper seeks to question why the oral literature of Kazakh functions as such a brilliant documentation tool and which features of the oral literature allow it to be so accurate. This paper will be broken down into two sections. First, will provide a brief recap into the significant historical changes that occurred in the area now known as Kazakhstan, with a focus on the linguistic history and changes of the language, Kazakh. This section will by no means even scratch the surface into either the history or linguistic history of Kazakhstan as there are numerous books written on each subject. The recap of history will be done using a mix of oral and non-oral sources. This will study the oral epics and its merits as a means of depicting and reflecting upon the history of Kazakhstan. The only problematic part to this section may be verifying the utility of oral epics as a source, when there are no other contemporary sources, such as the depictions of the Jungar wars, which are still primarily remembered through oral poetry. However, this section should sufficiently test the assertion that oral epics are the best way to depict knowledge. The second section will focus on the thematic and the characteristic features of the oral epics and poetry; their performance, their themes, and their characterization; in an attempt to better understand why these oral epics are so valued by the Kazakhs and the Soviets. This section will also focus on why these features may make these oral epics and poems better or worse sources.
How the Akyn Can Understand His History Through His Story
Can these oral epics truly depict these historical events and be representative of the feelings of the populace during these times? To more accurately understand the usefulness of the different ideologies behind the creation of folklore, Kendirbaeva distinguishes between folklore that is oral tradition, folklore that is apolitical and used to recount information or used culturally; folklore “from above,” folklore that is used by the government as a political and cultural form of propaganda; and folklore “from below,” folklore that is a political and cultural form of protest, often used to express happiness or discontent.[3] These three distinctions can also arguably be a breakdown between the major periods in which the folklore was created. The oral epics were largely gnomic and pariochial before the nineteenth century, and thus almost exclusively oral tradition. [4] During the Imperial Russian period, these epics were used as a medium to express discontent by the natives, a form of folklore “from below.” During the Soviet era and occasionally during the (Post-)Soviet eras, the government officials attempted to manipulate the oral literature to meet their political agenda, a clear example of folklore “from above.” In the interest of preserving clarity and chronology, this section of this paper will address each of these three ideologies of oral tradition separately in the aforementioned order.
Early Kazakh epics were particularly apolitical until the mid-nineteenth century. Olcott and other scholars note, that the earliest of the epics lacked a political conscious and there was relatively none, if any, in these epics until the Russian conquest.[5] As stated above they were mostly gnomic and parochial. Nomads used the memorization and recitation of oral epics to keep genealogical records and to tell the stories of the tribe’s ancestry.[6] This was important, as this was the only self-identification these people had. Due to their nomadic lifestyle their self-identification was with a group of people, their tribe, and rather than to a place.[7] These gnomic and parochial epics can tell a lot of the history that was explained in section one. The prevalence of parochial epics from the pre-imperial era shows the importance of the familial identification in the nomadic society. These epics also show the transformation that resulted the Mongolian conquest, as these parochial epics use the Mongolic terms of the ulu class-system.
A fantastic way to see how these epics depicted history is to look at origin stories. The most celebrated, and perhaps culturally significant origin story is that of Alash.[8] Alash is depicted as the founder of the Kazakh people, and is celebrated as such throughout Kazakh history. The importance of this epic can be noted as the first Kazakh political party in 1917 was named the Alash Orda (the Horde of Alash) and the existence of a nationalist newspaper, Alash.[9] This epic often portrays Alash as the father of the three sons that founded the Kazakh hordes.[10] He is also said to be the great khan whose last “descendant” was Tokhtamish, who was hunted down by Edigei’s bounty hunters. This origin story explains the social arrangement of the three Kazakh hordes and tells about the ancestry and lineage of Alash, including the important historical events that they were part of. And these historical traditions did not end upon the arrival of Islam in Central Asia, as the genealogical lore was fostered to some extent by Mohammedan mullahs.[11] Despite this, these are not the greatest historical accounts as tribal lineages are often fabricated to generate better social positions for one’s tribe.
A significant part of this oral tradition was that it was initially apolitical. This means that the Kazakhs often did not comment on the events of Kazakhstan as a whole, mostly because there was no national identity. This is reflective of that lack of a national identity. Yet, the oral epics celebrate the common culture of the pastoral nomadic steppe dwellers. The prose and oral literature gives us examples of the long drawn out singing of lamentations and elegies.[12] One example is the legend of Kiz-Jhibek, which illustrates the proceedings of Kazakh marriage ceremonies. Another example is in Kyz-Shivek, a romantic epic in which the hero cannot afford to pay a kalim and thus must part from his lover. Despite being a tragedy, this epic does not depict kalim as being unjust.[13] This is also noted in Shayakhmetov’s accounts of the death of Muksiin Nurmukhambetov.[14] As he described the funeral proceedings, “The wailing was kept up for more than a day.”[15] Those are just the songs of the funeral itself. In respect for their kinsmen, the women mourned using special improvised two-part laments three times a day for another forty days.[16] Shayakhmetov’s description of these epics and songs exhibits the length of these ceremonies and importance of these ceremonies to the Kazakh people.
Despite the common language and culture, there was no sign of a national interest in any of the poems or epics. Sometimes this lack of a “Kazakhstani” national identity is incorrectly viewed as a lack of identity. Olcott asserts that in the oral art of Kazakhs, like that of other Turkic tribal groups, there is no indication of any political distinctions existing or being recognized.[17] However, there certainly was a very strong ethnic identity established. These distinctions become apparent when we analyze the epics of the heroes of the Dzhungar wars.[18] In all of these epics there is a clear divide between the Kazakhs and their enemies, the Kalmaks.[19] This depicts the tensions that existed between the Kazakh nomads and their neighbors to the East and West. The understanding of this relationship is important to understand later historical actions such as the submission to Anna Ioannovna by the khans.[20] When the Kazakhs began coming in contact with the Russians, we can observe the solidification of a national identity around the ethnic identities, and the politicization of folklore.
Beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, the discontent of Russian rule began growing. During this time, the oral art being produced became more political. In the poem Reflection of Koja Batyr by Musa-bay of Kazalinsk a violent protest against Russian rule is depicted.[21] This is interesting, seeing as violent protests in the early years of Russian contact was atypical.[22] This brings up one of the largest issues with determining history based on oral literature. Transcripts of the poems and epics can be difficult to come by. Can one accurately determine an account of history from these works when a complete anthology can never realistically be created or found? This potentially becomes problematic when one wishes to show a gradual change in the attitude of the Kazakh society, such as the gradual resentment that grew from the late nineteenth to early twentieth century. [23]. The oral literature elucidates upon the reasons discontent may escalate. The Russians tried to force the Kazakhs to settle. The earlier prominence of nomadic themes in the oral epics can illustrate how affixed the Kazakhs were and are to their nomadic ways. As shown above they could certainly tell stories of specific acts of protest. They even continued to write epics about the heroes of this period. A large opus exists honoring Kenesary Kasymov, the khan of the Middle Horde that led revolts from approximately 1836 to 1847.[24] The language of these epics certainly shows a calling for a certain Kazakh unity, however, how effectively can one predict the culmination of this discontent leading to the 1916 Great Steppe Revolts? Drawing closer to 1916, the Kazakhs began working on the Shezhyre, a genealogy-based historical account of all Kazakh lineages that attempted to solidify the Kazakh ethnicity.[25] Groups such as the Alash-Orda would use the same unifying rhetoric to promote Kazakh national unity. The opus of poetry and epics we have access to now cannot effectively show the gradual increasing of discontent from the late nineteenth century up to the steppe revolt as well as a historical textbook can. However, the oral epics do exhibit the violent and more active protests of the Kazakhs, although this may be due to a misrepresentation of all protest as being violent, or prevalence for violent protests to be accounted in epics and poems. Perhaps, the oral literature does not function to explain the fact that there was an escalation but rather to explain the reasons for the escalation.
Also during this time, Kazakhstan had wider access to printing press and a more-developed written language. This evidently allows for the spreading of these epics and poems through written material, however, could this have a detrimental effect on oral epics? No, written recordings of orals had neither stifled creativity nor discouraged oral recitations. Memorizing and artistically personalizing these poems remained a common practice as a traditional facet of oral compositions.[26] The Kazakh prose that originally grew from transcriptions of oral prose, also reflects the transitions in Kazakhstan from the imperial period to the Soviet era to the period of korenizatsia and to the post-Soviet period.[27] The appearance of these written poems and epics can show how the printing press and the linguistic reforms brought in more printed works. The increasing prevalence of Russian translations shows that there is an increase in the amount of Russo-phones and Kazakhs learning Russian. They also can show the balance between Russian and Kazakh, and their frequency of use in everyday life.[28]
Politically these oral epics and poems were also used “from above,” as a way of twisting history in favor of the ruling elites. The oral tradition was adapted by the Soviets to promote the new Soviet morality, often times utilizing the same techniques used in other forms of propaganda. Altering older epics would be a continuation of using epics as a way to preserve myths and transmit morals.[29] Stalin adapted the Shezhyre to be integrated into the Soviet history of the Kazakh identity, focusing on the differences between the titular ethnicities of the Soviet Union.[30] Another way in which they did this was by replacing the names of certain heroes with Lenin or Stalin.[31] This would mean epics would be created hailing the glorious tales of the lives of these legendary warriors, Stalin and Lenin, simply through the recycling and alteration of older epics. This made a lot of sense seeing as a majority of Stalinist propaganda centered on creating an ‘axiological polarization’ between the good us (Soviet Union, Soviets, etc.) and the bad them (others, bourgeois, traitors, kulaks, United States, etc.).[32] This recycling of old Kazakh epics into new Soviet epics also parallels the discussion in the 1930s of the creation of the new, heroic, Soviet man.[33] However, the method in which Stalin and Lenin were implanted into these stories does seem a little atypical. As Chadwick and Zhirmunsky explain, “It is hardly necessary to say that the narrative poetry of the Turkic people is wholly individualistic in its nature. Everyone who has any real existence or function in the poems is individualized and mentioned by name.”[34] One of the thematic features of Soviet propaganda was that existential quantifiers such as “some” to depict the bad guys and the universal quantifiers such as “all” or “every” to depict the good guys, which is completely in alignment with the Party’s collectivist attitude, that there can be no one person who is superior. [35] To do this in propaganda Stalin had reinstated the family metaphor in which he was called otec ‘dearest father’ or tovarishch ‘comrade.’[36] He was singled out as being extra involved in the universal, or as being an exceptional part of the group. This then, makes the insertion of these Soviet leaders into these individualistic roles much more logical. How could one fit more into the familial society of the Kazakhs than to declare oneself synonymous with one of the heroes their ancestors would sing about? Why not equate Lenin or Stalin with Alash?