Since the early 1990s, the imperial turn in Russian historiography has revolutionized our understanding of the Russian empire as a multi-ethnic colonial enterprise. This novel scholarship illuminated the sophisticated and multifaceted aspects of Russian expansion and empire-making. However, most of these scholarly publications were primarily based on Russian-language archival documents and explained how Russia conquered and managed its vast territories, but lacked the materials that would reveal the colonized’s responses to the empire’s policies. In addition, there remain few publications that utilize non–Russian-language sources and study the empire’s subjects as historical agents in their own right. In the field of modern Central Asian history, the two most important works that highlight the agency of non-Russian peoples are Adeeb Khalid’s The Politics of Muslim Cultural Reform: Jadidism in Central Asia (1998) and Virginia Martin’s Law and Custom in the Steppe: The Kazakhs of the Middle Horde and Russian Colonialism in the Nineteenth Century (2000). Khalid’s book tells the story of the Jadids, a group of Islamic reformers in Central Asia, who adopted modernist views and sought to change their society through education. Martin’s work is a study of Russia’s legal reforms in the Kazakh Steppe with an emphasis on Kazakhs’ attempts to negotiate and manipulate the new Russia-backed legal culture. Ian W. Campbell’s book, Knowledge and the Ends of Empire: Kazak Intermediaries and Russian Rule on the Steppe, 1731–1917, is the latest example of the scholarship that is equally informed by Russian as well as non-Russian language sources. Campbell’s monograph explores the production of knowledge about the Kazakh steppe by both Russians and Kazakhs, specifically focusing on the role of Kazakh intermediaries.

An associate professor of history at University of California, Davis, Campbell based his book on his doctoral dissertation defended at the University of Michigan in 2011. For his research, the author collected materials at the archives of Moscow (RGVIA), St. Petersburg (RGIA), and Almaty (TsGARK). In addition, Campbell used Kazakh and Russian-language periodicals from the 19th and early 20th centuries as well as literary works of some key Kazakh historical figures, such as Ibrai Altynsarin and Alikhan Bokeikhanov. As Campbell shows, these figures played a crucial role in the production of knowledge about Kazakhs. A graduate of the first Russian schools in the Kazakh steppe, Altynsarin (1841–1889) dedicated his life to the promotion of “modern” Russian schooling among Kazakhs. He found support from an influential Russian orientalist and Orthodox missionary, Nikolai Il’minskii, with whom he shared similar views on education, but disagreed on the role of Islam for Kazakhs. Like Altynsarin, Bokeikhanov (1866–1937) was also a product of the Russian educational system. He first studied at a school in Karkarly, then at Omsk Technical School, and later at Saint Petersburg Forestry Institute. In 1906, he was elected a deputy to the first State Duma. Subsequently, he became a leading figure in the Kazakh nationalist movement and headed the short-lived Kazakh national autonomy “Alash Orda.”

Campbell takes Edward Said’s concept of “Orientalism” as the theoretical underpinning of his work, while also problematizing this concept and acknowledging the on-going debates over its applicability for the Russian Empire. Campbell notes that his work is “not meant to be another in a long of deconstructionist studies of the representations and categories of imperial rule, or a simple statement of the power of discourse to oppress” (2). He is rather interested in the manner in which “people form and revise beliefs on the basis of the information at their disposal” (2).

The chronological and thematic structure of the book helps the author to convey his story to the audience. The introduction familiarizes readers with the book’s main theme. It discusses methodological approaches and sources of the study as well as introduces Kazakh intermediaries. Chapter 1 explores the geography and environment of the Kazakh Steppe and looks at the early period of Russia’s engagement in the Steppe (1731–1840s) that was characterized by gaps in the tsarist state’s understanding of the region. In chapter 2, Campbell examines Russia’s early attempts (ca. 1845–1868) to produce knowledge about the steppe, specifically focusing on two institutions: the General Staff and the Imperial Russian Geographic Society. Chapter 3 is a biographical research of the ethnographer and educator Ibrai Altynsarin (1841–1889), one of the key 19th-century Kazakh intermediaries. It explores “both options and limitations that Altynsarin’s engagement with tsarist knowledge production and administration entailed” (12). The fourth chapter discusses Russia’s “civilizing” mission and the Kazakh perception of the Russian role in the Steppe. Chapter 5 examines statistical research of Kazakh lands on the eve and during peasant colonization reforms in Russia (1896–1917). The last chapter explores the failure of the tsarist state to engage with Kazakh intermediaries that, among other factors, led to the deepest crisis of the settler colonial empire in Central Asia, exemplified by the 1916 revolt.

One of Campbell’s greatest achievements is his thorough study of the role of Kazakh intermediaries in the formation of Russian policy. He convincingly argues that the intermediaries successfully mobilized their expert knowledge in imagining and representing the empire’s Kazakh subjects. These Kazakh interlocutors became “a vital part of the historical linkage between knowledge and power” (4), although the knowledge they produced did not always have a direct impact on Russia’s policy in the Steppe region. Chapter 5 presents an original study of the Russian attempts to statistically investigate the Kazakh steppe. For example, the Shcherbina expedition (1896–1903) symbolizes one of the most advanced social and economic studies of Kazakh nomads. Like other Russian undertakings in the steppe region, the expedition drew upon local Kazakh expertise, including that of Alikhan Bokeikhanov. Based on the collected statistical knowledge, the expedition formulated basic standards for norms, amount of land required by an average Kazakh family, and izlishki, surplus lands that could be seized from Kazakhs for state needs. The goal of the norm-izlishki system was to provide scientific backing for the resettlement of Slavic peasants without harming Kazakh nomads. Throughout the years, however, Russian administrators kept on reducing norms and expanding izlishkis. The scientific character of these measures made Russia inattentive to the criticism of educated Kazakhs. The cooperation between the Russian state and Kazakh intermediaries ended abruptly after 1905, when the imperial government unilaterally decided to economically transform the Kazakh Steppe through the policy of mass resettlement of Slavic peasants. The disappearance of the common ground let to the crisis of the Russian colonial enterprise in the region that culminated in the deadly 1916 Central Asian revolt. Ironically, the failure of the Russian colonialism happened in the moment when the tsarist state believed that it knew more about the Kazakh Steppe than ever before.

This book makes a significant contribution to the comparative history of European colonialism, history of science, and environmental history. It provides an original historical discussion on the role the intermediaries can play in shaping imperial policies, and is a must-read for everyone interested in Russian imperial and Central Asian modern history.