CARTOGRAPHY AS A TOOL OF IMPERIAL POLICY IN CENTRAL ASIA
DOI: 10.23951/2312-7899-2020-2-151-181
There are, at least, two difficulties of principle that we face trying to figure out the role of maps in any historical process. The first one is that the maps are generally understood as a product of strict empirical procedure free of perception gaps and idealizations. We are told that maps reflect objective realities. Consequently, if one suggests that they can be prejudiced, he insults the very scientific Method. The second difficulty relates to the supposed utilitarian attitude of cartography. It is customary for us to consider maps as primarily a supporting means not influencing the process but assisting it. The map is a useful and effective facilitator, rather than mentor imposing predefined positions. Both these beliefs are in fact myths, but extremely persistent myths. The talisman of precision protected the topographic methods against charges of complicity in imperial expansion for a long time. Fine scales of graduated circles, vernier scales, scrupulous procedures of error recovery, diminution of aberration and quantifying uncertainties – a whole range of positivist epistemologies allowed to speak that maps were nothing but scaled-down representations of real world. Still, the very existing of reduction, which is an integral part of map-making, obliges the topographers to resort to selection. What deserves to be depicted on the map and what not? Maps do not mirror the space, but re-encode it, and it is quite natural that this procedure operates as instrument of a particular political system with the underlying ideology and consequent social interests. Maps are both instruments and representations of power. The article shows how this particular feature of European cartography allowed to depict the Kazakh Steppe as vast uninhabited areas and helped to render Kazakh peoples invisible in their own land. The other indispensable function of cartography is delineation of phenomena. Cartographers draw lines, bridge them into particular totalities and thereby inscribe into the landscape new spatialized identities. The steppe did not contain boundaries, but surveying and mapping techniques allowed to establish “frontiers” by imaginary lines that connected rarely scattered Russian fortifications in the steppe. The article traces how these topographical lines formed a particular way of thinking among Russian top bureaucracy and military leaders, who eventually began to perceive them as gradual extension of imperial “frontiers” in the Central Asia. In spite of the fact that “frontiers” in question were no more than techniques of representation, military and civil functionaries granted them the status of firm state boundary. Since it was a primitive description of previously unexplored territory, political and cartographic discourses tightly intertwined each other. The article demonstrates how the objects produced by military topographers in the “no-man’s lands” obtained their own existence on maps and have been used as a platform for further imperial expansion.
Keywords: cartography, imperial policy, Russian empire, Central Asia, military topography, Kazakh Steppe, empire’s border
References:
Afghan demarcation. (1886) Negotiations between Russia and Great Britain 1872–1885. Ministry of Foreign Affairs Edition. Saint Petersburg, 1886. (In Russian).
Blaramberg, I. F. (1978) Memoirs. Moscow. (In Russian).
Bucholz, A. (1991) Moltke, Schlieffen, and Prussian War Planning. New York and Oxford.
Colwell, C.E. (1996) Small Wars. Their Principles and Practice. Lincoln and London.
Demenzon, P. (1983) Notes on the Bukhara Khanate. Moscow. (In Russian).
Foucault, M. (2007) Security, Territory, Population. New York.
General Chart. (1854) General Chart of Orenburg Region and parts of Khiva and Bukhara Dominion. 1854. URL: http://www.retromap.ru/m/#1418544_z7_58.144619,56.854248 (In Russian).
General Chart. (1855) General Chart of Western Siberia with the Kirghiz Steppe. 1855. URL: http://www.retromap.ru/m/#141855_z6_61.095479,80.661621 (In Russian).
Herlihy, P. (2010) Ab Oriente ad Ulteriorem Orientem. Space, Place, and Power in Modern Russia: Essays in the New Spatial History. Mark Bassin, Christopher Ely, and Melissa K. Stockdale (eds). DeKalb. P. 119–141.
Hevia, J. (2012) The Imperial Security State. British Colonial Knowledge and Empire-Building in Asia. Cambridge.
Historical review. (1872) Historical review of the activities of the Military Surveyors Corps, 1822–1872. Saint Petersburg. (In Russian).
Kraft I. I. (1898) Collection of laws on Kyrgyz steppe regions. Part. II. Orenburg. (In Russian).
List of points. (1851) List of points in Russia positions of which are known. Zapiski of the Military Topographic Depot. Part. XIII. Attachment. Saint Petersburg, 1851. (In Russian).
Maksheev, A. I. (1890) Historical review of Turkestan and the advance of Russian troops in it. Saint Petersburg. (In Russian).
Maksimov, F. O. (1851) Review of trigonometric works in Russia // Zapiski of the Imperial Russian Geographical Society. Book V. Saint Petersburg. P. 154–197. (In Russian).
Map. (1858) Map of the Kyrgyz steppes belonging to Russia: the Small, Middle, Big and Bukeev hordes of the Orenburg and Siberian departments. 1858. URL: https://kokshetau.online/karta-kirgizskih-stepej-prinadlezhashhih-rossii-maloj-srednej-bolshoj-i-bukeevskoj-ordy-orenburgskogo-i-sibirskogo-vedomstv-1858-g/ (In Russian).
Marshall, A. (2006) The Russian General Staff and Asia, 1800–1917. London and New York.
Members. (1846) Members of the Russian Geographical Society. Zapiski of the Russian Geographical Society. First Book. Saint Petersburg. P. 1–8. (In Russian).
Milyutin, D. I. (2003) Memoirs of Field Marshal Count Dmitry Alekseevich Milyutin 1863–1864. Moscow. (In Russian).
Mitchell, A. (1981) «A Situation of Inferiority»: French Military Reorganization after the Defeat of 1870. American Historical Review. Vol. 86. No.1. P. 49–62.
Morrison, A. (2014) “Nechto Eroticheskoe?” “Courir Apes l’ombre?” Logistical Imperatives and the Fall of Tashkent, 1859–1865. Central Asian Survey. Vol. 33. No. 2. P. 153–175.
Morrison, A. (2014a) Russia, Khoqand, and the Search for a “Natural” Frontier, 1863–1865. Ab Imperio. No. 2. P. 165–192.
Note. (1859) Note by the commander of a separate Siberian corps and the Governor-General of Western Siberia on the need to occupy the upper reaches of the river. Chu and preliminary orders of January 21, 1859. Russian State Military Historical Archive. Fund 483. Series 1. File 51. File sheet 4–5 back. (In Russian).
Note. (1864) Note by Minister of Foreign Affairs A. Gorchakov and Minister of War D. Milyutin addressed to imp. Alexander II on politics in Central Asia and Kazakhstan, dated November 20, 1864. URL: https://myaktobe.kz/archives/38660 (In Russian).
Pashino, P. I. (1868) Turkestan Region in 1866. Travel notes. Saint Petersburg. (In Russian).
Plot table survey. (1857) Plot table survey and reconnaissance of the Kyrgyz steppe of the Orenburg department, begun in 1843 and completed in 1855, under the charge of the corps chief quartermaster, Major General Blaramberg the 2nd. Zapiski of the Military Topographic Depot. Part XIX. Saint Petersburg. P. 46–50. (In Russian).
Postnikov, A. V. (2007) Formation of the borders of Russia in Central and Middle Asia (XVIII – XIX centuries). The role of historical cartographic research and mapping. Monograph in documents. Moscow. (In Russian).
Report IRGO. (1849) Report of the Russian Geographical Society for 1845 and 1846. Zapiski of the Imperial Russian Geographical Society. Books I and II. 2nd edition. Saint Petersburg. P. 98–113. (In Russian).
Report IRGO. (1849а) Report of the Russian Geographical Society for 1846/47. Zapiski of the Imperial Russian Geographical Society. Book III. Saint Petersburg. P. 1–19. (In Russian).
Report IRGO. (1851) Report of the Russian Geographical Society for 1849. Zapiski of the Imperial Russian Geographical Society. Book V. Saint Petersburg, 1851. P. 1–29. (In Russian).
Report IRGO. (1851а) Report of the Imperial Russian Geographical Society for 1850. Saint Petersburg. (In Russian).
Rich, D.A. 1998 The Tsar’s Colonels: Professionalism, Strategy, and Subversion in Late Imperial Russia. Cambridge, Mass..
Russian-Iranian Convention. (1960) – Russian-Iranian Convention on the Delimitation East of the Caspian Sea, dated December 9 (21), 1881. Accession of Turkmenistan to Russia (collection of archival documents). Ashkhabad, 1960. P. 602–605.
Struve, W. G. (1846) Overview of geographic work in Russia. Zapiski of the Russian Geographical Society. First Book. Saint Petersburg, 1846. P. 43–58. (In Russian).
Toal, G. (2014) Geopolitical Culture, Ethnoschematization and Fantasy: Regarding Seegel’s Account of the Mapping of East Central European Lands. Nationalities Papers: The Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity. Vol. 42. No. 3. P. 548–551.
Treaty. (1889) Treaty 12 (24) February 1881. Collection of treaties between Russia and China. 1869–1881. Ministry of Foreign Affairs Edition. Saint Petersburg, 1889. P. 225–236. (In Russian).
Van Dyke, C. (1990) Russian Imperial Military Doctrine and Education, 1832–1914. New York.
Venyukov, M. I. (1861) Analytical review of Zailiisky Region and Prichuiisky Country. Zapiski of the Imperial Russian Geographical Society. Book IV. Saint Petersburg. P. 79–130. (In Russian).
Venyukov, M. I. (1873) The experience of military review for Russian borders in Asia. Issue 1. Saint Petersburg. (In Russian).
Vitkovsky, V. (1904) Topography. Saint Petersburg. (In Russian).
Zapiski IRGO. (1850) Zapiski of the Imperial Russian Geographical Society. Book IV. Saint Petersburg, 1850. (In Russian).
Zuev, N. (1860) Detailed atlas of the Russian Empire. Drafted by N. Zuev on behalf of Mr. Minister of Education. Saint Petersburg. (In Russian).
( 998.61 kB ) 
( 979.59 kB )
Issue: 2, 2020
Series of issue: Issue 2
Rubric: ARTICLES
Pages: 151 — 181
Downloads: 905