Russian Explorations in Central Asia at the Turn ofthe 20th Century
Irina F. Popova

Russian in Central AsiaThe vast spaces of Central Asia, inhabited by numerous nomadic andsedentary peoples speaking different languages and combining features of Buddhist, Muslim and Christian East in their cultures, havebeen an object of systematic study in Russia since the early 19th
century.
The earliest evidence of Russian presence in Karakorum dates fromthe 13th century. During the same period Russian prisoners werebrought to China via Mongolia to serve on the Russian guard regimentat the court of the Yuan Dynasty (1271–1368). In the 16th century,
Russia received some information about Kashgaria through Ivan Petrov
and Burnash Yamyshev, the Cossack atamans dispatched to China by
Ivan the Terrible in 1567. In the early 17th century, the diplomatic missions led by Vasily Tyumenets (1615), Ivan Petlin (1618) and Fyodor
Baykov (1654), traveled to China via western Mongolia. In 1713, F.
Trushnikov, a Tobolsk merchant, reached Lake Koko Nor and the uppercourse of the Huang He. In the 18th century, Filipp S. Efremov (1750–
1811?) visited Kashgar and recorded his reminiscences of Eastern
Turkestan and Middle Asia together with information on the populationand commerce in the towns of Kashgar and Yarkend.

Early-Mid 19th Century: Pioneering Study
Contribution by Bichurin
In Russia, a scientific study of Central and Middle Asia was started by
the outstanding Sinologist Nikita Ya. Bichurin (Father Iakinf, 1777–
1853). Having amassed a wealth of material during his stay in China, he
determined that the Russian public should be made aware of regions
bordering on China before being introduced to China itself. He wrote:104russian explorations in central asia

105

It was in the order of things that Tibet, Turkestan and Mongolia should
be dealt with first, as those countries have long maintained contacts with
China and given China itself access to India, Middle Asia and Russia. It
was deemed appropriate to begin by surveying the geographical locationand political structure of the aforementioned countries and then go on todescribe China’s political views on those. Therefore, I decided to preface my account of China with some notions pertaining to its court andpolitics, government and legislation, and popular customs and traditions. In dealing with China proper, then, we would find it easier to givea full perspective on the Chinese Empire with all of its political twists.1

Bichurin’s works on historical geography are undoubtedly the mostprominent part of his writings, published or otherwise, preserved in thearchives. Owing to the perfectly accurate translation and localization ofgeographical data, they still remain valid today, serving as a valuable
resource on the archaeology, history and ethnography of ancient andmedieval Asia. In 1828, Bichurin published his Account of Tibet in Its
Present State, based on the annotated translation of the 18th-century
Chinese treatise entitled Account of Tibet with Illustrations (Wei Zang tushi). His work, the first book on Tibet to be published in the Russian
language, was highly acclaimed in Russia and abroad. A number of periodicals carried reviews emphasizing its great scholarly value. The
French translation with commentaries by Heinrich Julius Klaproth(1783–1835) was completed in 1829.
In 1828, Bichurin published his Notes on Mongolia, a comprehensive
description of Mongolia based on Chinese sources. This book, too, wassoon translated into French. It was chiefly due to his publications devoted to Tibet and Mongolia that Bichurin was elected Corresponding
Member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences on 17 (29) December
1828. His next book, Account of Jungaria and Eastern Turkestan in
Their Ancient and Present State appeared in 1829, becoming Father
Iakinf’s (Bichurin’s) third major work. It included translated excerpts
from three of the most prominent Chinese sources, i.e., Narratives about
the Western Regions (Xi yu zhuan), Chapter 96 of the History of theFormer Han Dynasty (Qian Han shu), An Account of What Has Been
Seen and Heard of the Western Regions (Xi yu wen jian lu), published in
1777, and the 18th-century Chinese official geographical compendium
entitled A Comprehensive Geographical Outline of the Great Qing
Empire (Da Qing yi tong zhi). Unfortunately, this book on Eastern
Turkestan did not bring as much public attention as had Bichurin’s two
previous works. It was not until much later that the true worth of his

106

russian explorations in central asia

Account of Jungaria and Eastern Turkestan in Their Ancient andPresent State was recognized. Meanwhile, the only contemporary
review was that by N. A. Polevoi.2
In 1848, the Academy of Sciences entrusted Bichurin with compilinga history of the peoples of Middle Asia. As a result, he produced a thorough three-volume study entitled A Collection of Information about thePeoples Living in Central Asia in Ancient Times, first published in
1851.3 It was based on translations of Chinese sources previously
unknown to the Western public. It included an edited translation ofChapter Xi yu zhuan, an excerpt about China’s neighbours from theHistorical Records (Shi ji) by Sima Qian, and materials from the official
histories of the Later Han (25–220), Jin (265-420), Wei (386–534), theNorthern and Southern Dynasties, Sui (581–617) and Tang (618–907)(Hou Han shu, Jin shu, Wei shu, Bei shi, Nan shi, Sui shu and Tang shu).
Bichurin’s works came out at a time when Russia was emerging on
the international scene as a powerful Eurasian state. Having establisheda firm foothold in the Far East and the Pacific, it became aware of thereal geopolitical significance of Inner Asia and the necessity of its comprehensive investigation. On 6 (18) August 1845, the Russian
Geographic Society was established by an imperial decree for the “primary task” of collecting and propagating reliable information about
Russia and the “second most important task of studying foreign countries, primarily those that border on Russia, i.e., Turkey, Persia, China,etc.”4 Furthermore, the Russian Archaeological Society, comprising the
Slavic-Russian, Classical-Byzantine, Western European and Easternarchaeology sections, was established in 1846.

Mapping of Geographical Features and Cartography
The wide readership in Russia took a keen interest in the unknown
world of Asia. Many people believed it was necessary to explore andmap its geography. In 1848, the Court Counsellor P. V. Golubkov donated 2,350 Rubles to the Geographic Society towards the publication ofCarl Ritter’s fundamental work The Science of the Earth (Die
Erdkunde), with supplements, as well as a map of Asia. In fact, the mapping of Central Asian geographical features in the early 19th century
was based on investigations by Carl Ritter and Alexander von
Humboldt, even if their theoretical evidence was not based on field workand therefore had a number of flaws, e.g., exaggeration of the extent ofmountain ridges and plateaus and inaccurate localization of some mountain systems. Nevertheless, preparation and publication, between 1856
and 1879, of the five-volume Russian translation of Carl Ritter’s work,

russian explorations in central asia

107

edited and supplemented by the prominent geographer Pyotr P.
Semyonov-Tian-Shansky (1827–1914), gave an impetus to the development of historical geography and the cartography of Central Asia in
Russia.
The first attempt to draw a comprehensive map of Asia was made in
1850; later that year, Ya. V. Khanykov and A. P. Bolotov published amap of the northwestern part of Middle Asia. In 1851, Ya. V. Khanykov
completed a map of the Issyk Kul area. In 1856-57, P. P. Semyonov
became the first European to conquer the peaks of the Tian Shan. His
explorations radically changed the concept of the geological structure ofInner Asia. P. P. Semyonov continuously headed the Geographic Society
from 1873 to 1914, initiating large numbers of challenging and productive expeditions. The first results of these explorations highlighted thenecessity of pursuing not only geographic, but also ethnographic andhistoric goals.

Toward Study on Historical Geography
Issues of historical geography were of immediate concern to many contemporary scholars. Universities offered courses on the history ofgeographical discoveries and historical toponymy. A tangible contribution to a study of the historical geography of China and Central Asia
was made by the Sinologist Vasily P. Vasilyev (1818–1900), a quarter ofhis published work dealing with geography.5 V. P. Vasilyev was the firstto suggest that in ancient times the rivers of Middle Asia were one system with the Syr Darya, being its tributaries.6 Regrettably, many of his
articles remained unpublished, e.g. An Outline of the History of Eastern
Middle Asia from the Tenth to the Twelfth Century (23 pages, 1857), A
Record of Inhabited Areas of Eastern, or Former Chinese Turkestan (25pages), and Kuldja (From travel notes) (2 pages).7
In 1845, V. P. Vasilyev completed his translation of Da Tang Xi yu ji
by Xuan-zang, which, unfortunately, never saw the light. The text is preserved in the V. P. Vasilyev files in the St. Petersburg Branch of theArchives of the Russian Academy of Sciences; it includes 12 notebookswith total volume of 334 folios complete with commentaries and maps.8
Subsequent studies into Central Asia, including works written in the
Russian language, have relied on the French translation of Xuan-zang’s
work published in 1851 by the French Sinologist Stanislas Julien(1799–1873).
Ivan P. Minayev, a famous Indologist (1840–1890), brought out abook on the geography of the countries lying between Russia and India.9
He also made, in the 1880s, an academic translation of Marco Polo’s

108

russian explorations in central asia

Travels into Russian. His translation, revised by V. V. Bartold,10 was published posthumously.
Investigations by Chokan Ch. Valikhanov (1835–1865), a Kazakh scientist and educator who participated in a number of expeditions to
Middle Asia and China, made a significant contribution to Russian
Oriental studies. In 1856, he traveled to Western China and Kuldja.
Between October 1858 and March 1859, disguised as a Muslim trader,
he traversed the Tian Shan stayed in Kashgar, where, apart from accumulating abundant historic and numismatic material, he made a recordof ancient Buddhist monuments. Based on the results of his journey, hewrote two extensive articles, On the Western Regions of the Chinese
Empire and On Trade in Kuldja and Chuguchak, which were not published until 1962.11 Valikhanov was also interested in the history andreligion of the countries he visited. He pointed out in describing the areain the vicinity of Kucha, “There are many caves in these mountains,
their lights visible in the summertime. One cave has carved Buddhist
idols in it. They are traced back to the Tang Dynasty.”12
In the latter half of the 19th century, works by N. Ya. Bichurin, A. von
Humboldt, J.-P. Abel-Rémusat and S. Julien, inspired a number of thoroughly comprehensive resumptive treatises on the history, historical
geography and ethnography of Central and Middle Asia. Eastern, orChinese Turkestan,13 a historical compendium by Vasily V. Grigoryev(1818–1881), appeared in two volumes in 1869 and 1873 as a supplement to Carl Ritter’s Die Erdkunde; not only it was based on research by
European scholars, but it also drew on antique, Arab and Persian sources. Emil V. Bretschneider (1833–1901) published his books on historical
geography in 1876 and 1888.14

Mid-Late 19th Century: To Full-Fledged Survey
Increase in Military and Political Interest
Central Asia was an important object of Russia’s military and politicalinterests. From the mid-19th century the enormous Eurasian spacebecame the scene of rivalry between Russian and British empires, which
aimed to gain control over new markets and sources of raw materials.
Moreover, China and Afghanistan were also parties in The Great Game,as their boundaries were not clearly delineated at the time. By dividing
the spheres of influence, these powers were trying to solve, at the geopolitical level, the problem of establishing conventional geographicalboundaries, zones or state frontiers. The geographical factor was ofrussian explorations in central asia

109

paramount importance, because it was obvious that the prospective
boundaries were to be conveniently fixed by particular natural contours.
Therefore, Russia’s government and General Staff launched expeditions on a regular basis from the mid-19th century onward in order tocarry out reconnaissance in Mongolia, China and regions of the Middle
East. Not only did they result from Russia’s policy in the Asian region,
but they partially determined that policy.
The 1877 mission headed by Aleksei N. Kuropatkin (1848–1925) waspart of the same programme.15 When, in 1883, the border between China
on the one hand and, on the other, the Fergana and Semirechensk Regions, which had recently joined the Russian Empire, was being established, it was decided that the representatives of the Chinese andRussian administrations were to inspect the border once every three
years and renew the border marks. The first of these inspection trips was
entrusted in 1885 to Bronislaw L. Grabczewski
˛(1855–1905), who com16
piled a detailed report. Although his immediate task was to provide an
account of armed forces and military fortifications in Kashgaria, he also
submitted his detailed route survey and a few maps of the region. In subsequent years, many travelers relied on the cartographic evidence anditineraries provided by those expeditions, finding them highly accurate.
Having annexed Western Turkestan in 1867, Russia came close to thefrontiers of British India. In 1869, Britain tried to prevent Russia’s
expansion in Central Asia by proposing an initiative to start negotiations
with Russia on dividing the spheres of influence and creating a bufferzone between the possessions of the two powers. The Russo-British
agreement of 1872–73 delineated the Afghan border as the demarcationline between the two empires’ spheres of influence. In 1876, however,Russia annexed Kokand and began gaining a foothold in the Eastern
Pamirs. Meanwhile, the Afghan emir Abdurrehman-khan took over anumber of territories adjoining Badakhshan in 1883, an occupation that
met the interests of Great Britain. Henceforth, both empires strove, byadvancing their outposts, to explore the disputed territories still further
so as to secure a basis for future negotiations.17
In systematically carrying out a topographic and cartographic survey
in the region, the Russian Empire’s General Staff did not limit its goals
to military intelligence; it also ordered its commissioners to map theruins of old temples and fortresses. Nikolai N. Obruchev (1830–1904),
Head of the General Staff, initiated the establishment of the Scientific
Military Committee of the General Staff, which published Collections ofGeographic, Topographic and Statistical Materials on Asia. Eightyseven volumes were published before the beginning of World War I.

110

russian explorations in central asia

Przhevalsky’s ‘Epic’ Journey
In 1867–69, Nikolai M. Przhevalsky (1839–1888) made his first journeyto the Ussuriysk region. This prominent traveler undertook four expeditions to Central Asia between 1870 and 1880, covering a total of thirty
thousand kilometers. In 1870–73, he went Mongolia, China and Tibet,
then in 1876–77, to Jungaria and Lop Nor Lake; in 1879–80, he led theFirst Tibet Expedition and, in 1883–85, the Second Tibet Expedition. He
wrote a number of books giving a scholarly outline of his expeditions
and containing detailed and vivid descriptions of local nature, climate,relief, as well as of animal and plant life. Przhevalsky himself modestly
described his journeys as ‘scientific reconnoitering’; indeed, the Asian
territories he visited were previously unexplored by scientists. It was he
who introduced Europeans to Central Asia, stimulated an interest in
regions difficult of access and thereby contributed to launching an extensive and regular expedition activity.
Przhevalsky, who was the first to chart thousands of kilometers of previously unexplored lands and dozens of mountain chains, described histime as an ‘epic’ period of Central Asian journeys. His last book contains what might be described as his scientific will; he pointed out, inparticular, that further studies of Central Asia should naturally take two
directions: “scientific reconnoitering of the still unexplored areas and indepth investigation of the more accessible countries or those that havebeen but superficially reconnoitered by short journeys.”18 Giving top priority to a study of Tibet in terms of geography and natural science, heemphasized the necessity of specialized archaeological investigations insome areas of Eastern Turkestan, particularly in Cherchen, and made anumber of comments pertaining to archaeology:
What gives the traveler even more telling evidence of the depletion oflife-giving water supplies and the advance of the deadly forces of thedesert is the sight of once flourishing oases and towns now buried insand. We know many of those from Chinese chronicles and saw someourselves; in fact, we heard the natives say that in olden days the area
limited by Khotan, the Aksu and Lop Nor used to have twenty-threetowns and 360 villages, now gone. At that time one was able, legend has
it, to reach Lop Nor from the town of Kucha by stepping “on the houseroofs”, so densely populated was the Tarim Basin, now deserted. Even
today, the residents of Khotan, Keriya, Niya and other still surviving
oases venture into the sands annually, during autumn and winter, insearch of the ruins of old settlements uncovered by storms. They sayrussian explorations in central asia

111

that gold and silver objects can be found there on occasion. One canalso stumble on an old saklya dwelling containing clothes and felts,
both usually so decayed that they turn to dust when touched.19

In 1879, botanist Arnold E. Regel visited Kuldja and Turfan, his expedition to the Turkestan region in 1876–79 organized primarily fornatural history purposes20. However, his report mentioned, in particular,“finds of ancient, most likely Aryan ruins near Turfan, Sandja andManas.”21 He drew up plans of a few archaeological monuments, including that of the ancient Idiqutshari site. Sergei. F. Oldenburg(1863–1934) referred to Regel as the first Russian to take notice ofEastern Turkestan’s antiquities.22
I. P. Minayev was the first to recognize the real significance of vast
Eastern Turkestan as an ancient contact zone between Eastern andWestern civilizations. He wrote in his review of N. M. Przhevalsky’s
report of the latter’s expedition to the southern part of the Tarim Basin:
First-hand evidence ever since the 5th century AD has revealed thedominance of a foreign civilization in the area; whatever existed there
previously is still hidden from the present-day chronicler of human history. Extant ancient eyewitness accounts seem to be extremely biased
and, as it were, deliberately one-sided; Buddhist pilgrims would see
only one side and it seems never as much as hinted that the dominanceof Indian civilization, which they often emphasize, might parallel otherlocal cultures, indigenous or imported.23

In speaking about the need to launch a reliable archaeological expedition to Eastern Turkestan, Minayev pointed out, “the whole area
between Lop Nor Lake and Khotan is due for a focused historic andarchaeological study.”24

Pevtsov’s Survey on Ancient Monuments
N. M. Przhevalsky’s pursuit was taken up by his students and followers,
Mikhail V. Pevtsov (1843–1902), Vsevolod I. Roborovsky (1856–1910),
Grigory N. Potanin (1835–1920), Pyotr K. Kozlov (1863–1935) and
Grigory E. Grumm-Grzhimaylo (1860–1936).
M. V. Pevtsov’s Tibetan expedition of 1889–90, based on the plan of
Przhevalsky’s tragically terminated journey, “succeeded foremost in
drawing the first real map of Southern Turkestan”25; moreover, it gave
considerable attention to relics of lost civilizations in the area. Besides
Pevtsov, the expedition included V. I. Roborovsky, P. K. Kozlov and112

russian explorations in central asia

Karl I. Bogdanowicz (1864–1947), a geologist and mining engineer. M. V. Pevtsov,
who was appointed leader of the expeditionin December 1888, after N. M.
Przhevalsky’s death, had prepared for thejourney very thoroughly. He had taken threemonths to study all available sources on thehistory of Eastern Turkestan, e.g. writings by
N. Ya. Bichurin, Carl Ritter, Ch. Valikhanov,R. B. Shaw, T. D. Forsyth, H. W. Bellew, A.
Mikhail V. Pevtsov
N. Kuropatkin, N. M. Przhevalsky, B. L.
Grabczewski,
˛
N. L. Zeland and N. F. Petrovsky.26 Furthermore, he consulted the Sinologists E. V. Bretschneider and V. P. Vasilyev. M. V.
Pevtsov wrote:
Of great help to me was our famous Sinologist, Dr. E. V. Bretschneider,
who copied for me from an 1863 Chinese atlas the 26-versts-to-an-inch
maps of Eastern Turkestan, Jungaria and Northwestern Tibet and supplied Russian translation of all place-names. Moreover, he provided mewith an excerpt on E[astern] Turkestan from a recent Chinese geography book called Xi yu tu zhi and made up a list of European books andarticles on that country and on Tibet. …As for Northwestern Tibet, no
mention of it has been found in European or Chinese sources scanned
through by our Sinologists E. V. Bretschneider and V. P. Vasilyev. A
handwritten geographical survey compiled by Academician V. P.
Vasilyev based on Tibetan sources,27 which he kindly allowed me to use,
doesn’t contain any information on the northwestern part of the country
either, except for the general remark that it is very elevated and distinguished by extreme climate.28

During his expedition M. V. Pevtsov would talk to the natives so as toelicit information about ancient monuments in the region:
In Yarkend I was also trying to find out about the Takla Makan Desert
ruins. The aksakal Nasyr-Dzhan-Hodjah, who had been a resident ofthat town for eighteen years, told me that, according to many local people of his acquaintance, 40 versts east of Yarkend on the edge of thedesert there are sprawling ruins called Konö-Tatar. The basements ofhouses are quite prominent there; there are also stumps of the big treesthat had once overshadowed the settlement. The natives find household
utensils, fragments of various implements and sometimes even gold andrussian explorations in central asia

113

silver coins in the ruins.29

In his report, M. V. Pevtsov mentioned a few ancient monuments he had
discovered near Khotan, Cherchen and Urumqi.30

Other Expeditions
G. N. Potanin made a great contribution to the study of Central Asia andparticularly Mongolia. He went to Northwestern Mongolia and Tuva in
1876–77 and 1879–80, to Northern China, Eastern Tibet and Central
Mongolia in 1884–86 and 1892–93, and to the Greater Khingan in 1899.
In his activities, he combined a study of natural history and a study of
ethnography. His subsequent publications outlined the wealth of material on culture, folklore and popular arts and crafts of Mongolian andTurkic amassed during his expeditions.
In 1889, G. E. Grumm-Grzhimaylo, who was interested in local
antiquities, visited the northern parts of Eastern Turkestan and provided
a detailed description of the Assashar ruins while also mentioning a
number of ancient Buddhist monuments.31 Nikolai F. Katanov (1862–
1922) visited Eastern Turkestan in 1890 and delivered materials on
Turkic languages. Exploratory exhibitions to Tibet were led by O. M.
Norzunov in 1898–1901 and G. Ts. Tsybikov in 1899–1902.
Gombodzhab Ts. Tsybikov visited Kumbum and Labrang, reached
Lhasa and returned to Russia via Urga and Kiakhta. He put together alarge collection of original Tibetan literature, which entered the Asiatic
Museum of the Academy of Sciences. The report on G. Ts. Tsybikov’s
journey was published in 1919.32 In 1899, N. M. Yadrintsev discoveredrunic monuments in Northern Mongolia; their study was the objective ofJ. R. Aspilin’s Finnish expedition and V. V. Radloff’s (1837–1918)
Orkhon expedition (both in 1890).
The main purpose of the 1893-95 expedition undertaken by V. A.
Roborovsky and P. K. Kozlov was the topographic and meteorologicalinvestigation of the Lukchun (Tarim) Depression south of Turfan. In
addition to large natural science collections, the expedition brought to
St. Petersburg a number of manuscripts and art objects from Turfan. In
his preface to the publication of the expedition’s materials V. A.
Roborovsky pointed out that the report did not include “information
about the coins, burkhan images, samples of ancient local scripts, drawings, pottery, ornaments, etc., that the expedition gathered in ancient
towns throughout the Lukchun Depression or copied from books inindigenous languages. At the same time, the present selection includes
fragments of Uighur records found in the Lukchun Depression, in the

114

russian explorations in central asia

ruined city of Idiqutshari and the Toyuq
caves; these have aroused so much interest
that the Imperial Academy of Sciences sent a
specialized expedition headed by D. A.
Klementz (1848–1914) to that region.”33

Diplomat Petrovsky’s Contribution
Russian diplomats who contributed greatly
to academic research of the region included
Nikolai F. Petrovsky (1837–1908), ConsulGeneral in Kashgar, his successor Sergei A.
Nikolai F. Petrovsky
Kolokolov, Sergei V. Sokov, Consul in
Kashgar, Nikolai N. Krotkov (1869–1919),
Consul in Urumqi, as well as I. P. Lavrov,
Ya. Ya. Lutsch, secretary of the consulate in Urumqi, Aleksei A.
D’yakov, secretary of the consulate in Kuldja, Consuls Boris Vasilyevichand Vladimir V. Dolbezhev, and Aleksandr I. Kokhanovsky, doctor of
the consulate in Urumqi.
N. F. Petrovsky, who held his post in Turkestan from 1867, collectedmanuscripts and art objects, buying them from the local people and carrying out archaeological excavations. According to S. F. Oldenburg, “N.
F. Petrovsky’s brilliant finds ushered in a new era in the archaeologicalstudy of Eastern Turkestan.”34 Furthermore, N. F. Petrovsky collected
ethnographic and folklore material. In 1891, the Eastern Section of theRussian Archaeological Society approached N. F. Petrovsky about
Kashgarian antiquities. He enclosed with his reply a few photographs
and the ‘Kashgar Manuscript’, fragments of the Lotus SËtra
(Saddharmapuˆ∂ar¥ka-sËtra), in Sanskrit, which came to be studied by
S. F. Oldenburg. After that N. F. Petrovsky sent new materials to St.
Petersburg on a regular basis. Travelers and scientists sought his advice
and invariably benefited from his helpfulness. N. F. Petrovsky noticed
that contemporary mazar tombs concealed ancient Buddhist relics; healso drew a detailed map of Eastern Turkestan marking the sites ofancient monuments known to him.

A Thirst for Buddhist Studies
It should be noted that the results of Central Asian studies sparked akeen interest in Russian society. It was not only the academic community but also the public at large that was impatiently looking forward to
the publication of new monographs on Asia, particularly on Buddhism,
and translations of original works from Oriental languages. There was,

russian explorations in central asia

115

as it were, a thirst for Buddhist studies, as is shown by G. N. Potanin’s
letters to S. F. Oldenburg. In his letter dated 7 December 1890, Potanin
writes this in asking S. F. Oldenburg to visit his place:
I’ve also invited V. V. Lesevich, who is interested in legends about
Avalokiteßvara, too. I’m fascinated by those you’ve lent me. What I findextraordinary is that they seem to resemble extracts from the Ayu-Bodhisattva legend I recorded in Mongolia.

In his letter dated 30 April 1898, he asks for a lady of his acquaintanceto be advised “on what manuals of elementary Sanskrit she should buy.”
His letter of 20 October 1900 says among other things:
Mme Panteleyeva intends to organize a public lecture on the Buddha
and asks me to point out to her some drawings from the life of the
Teacher in order that they may be projected onto a screen by means of amagic lantern… When the lecture gets published, the same kinds of lectures could also be given in the Siberian towns of the Irkutsk province
and Transbaikalia region, and this would be conducive to inculcating the
local population with religious tolerance.35

Activities of The Russian Geographic Society
In 1896, the Russian Geographic Society received a bag containing fragments of records picked up or bought by V. I. Roborovsky’s expeditionin various localities of the Turfan Oasis and delivered to St. Petersburg.
Alexander V. Grigoryev, Secretary of the Russian Geographic Society,approached S. F. Oldenburg about an expert assessment of the fragments. Having sorted out the contents of the bag, S. F. Oldenburg and A.
O. Ivanovsky identified fragments of Chinese, Uighur, Sanskrit andbilingual Uighur-Sanskrit manuscripts. The materials were handed overto V. V. Radloff, who dealt with them in a paper presented to the Academy of Sciences. The History and Philology Department appointed an ad
hoc Committee to investigate the archaeological collections; it included
V. V. Radloff, A. A. Kunik, V. P. Vasilyev, C. G. Salemann and V. P.
Rozen, with D. A. Klementz and S. F. Oldenburg acting as invited
experts.
The Committee suggested that D. A. Klementz should be sent on a
mission to Turfan in 1898 so as to specifically investigate the monuments of Toyuq-Mazar and Idiqutshari. In organizing his journey theCommittee sought counsel from members of V. I. Roborovsky’s

116

russian explorations in central asia

expedition. Klementz wrote in a card posted to P. K. Kozlov on 4 (17)March 1898:
Considering the intense interest created by your expedition’s discoveries
in the Turfan area, the Academy of Sciences set up an ad hoc committee
to take care of organizing an expedition to Turfan; therefore, Academician Radloff requests you to come to the [Asiatic] Museum for a talk,hoping that you would be kind enough to share some information about
the location of the sites you had seen.36

The term for expedition was set up for four months.37 Besides D. A.
Klementz himself, it included his wife, Elizaveta N. Klementz, and the
ethnographer Mikhail S. Andreyev (1873–1948). The limited time in
Turfan and lack of funding prevented D. A. Klementz from carrying out
excavations; however, he was able to describe and photograph the monuments, draw their plans and make tracings and rubbings. The
expedition yielded sensational scientific discoveries, its results presented
in Klementz’s detailed records38 and published in his brief report.39
On 27 January (9 February) 1900, Nikolai I. Veselovsky (1848-1918),
D. A. Klementz and S. F. Oldenburg submitted Note on the Organizing
an Expedition to the Tarim Basin for Archaeological Purposes for theconsideration of the Oriental Branch of the Russian ArchaeologicalSociety. They brought up the issue of sending expeditions to Eastern
Turkestan on a regular basis, suggesting that two expeditions should beorganized, to work continuously. The first one, they supposed, could
explore the Turfan and Kucha regions, whereas the second could explore
the vast territory between Turfan and Khotan, including the area near
Lop Nor Lake and the Cherchen and Keriya Oases.40
The scholars pointed in the ‘Note’: “The study of the Tarim Basinand, indeed, its very discovery as an object of scientific investigation isundoubtedly credited to Russian explorers. The sum total of works byRegel, Przhevalsky and his companions, the brothers GrummGrzhimaylo, Pevtsov and Bogdanowicz, Obruchev, Petrovsky and theAcademy of Sciences’ recent expedition far exceeds what has been doneby foreign scholars, although the findings of the expeditions headed by
Forsyth, Count Széchenyi, Francis Younghusband and Dutreuil de Rhinsare such that they are hard to compete with.”41 The economic and commercial development of the region, especially the spread of agriculture,
was likely to entail what the ‘Note’ described as “a merciless destruction of old monuments, with their stucco used for fertilizer and themasonry knocked down to be used in building dwellings.”42

russian explorations in central asia

117

As has been said, the ‘Note’ suggested organizing two expeditions towork continuously. The first one was expected to explore the Turfan andKucha regions, and the second, the vast territory between Turfan andKhotan, including the area near Lop Nor Lake and the Cherchen and
Keriya Oases. Either expedition was to be a team of five, unfailingly
including one artist; the first expedition was to take eight to ten months
and the second, twelve to fifteen months. Moreover, an estimate of
17,000 Rubles was made for the first expedition.43 On 27 January 1900,
the ‘Note’ was discussed at the meeting of the Oriental Branch of theRussian Archaeological Society. However, the Ministry of Financerejected their request for funding,44 and therefore the Turfan expedition
project was not carried out until nine years later.
In 1899, Academicians V. V. Radloff and S. F. Oldenburg spoke at the12th International Congress of Orientalists held in Rome on the ancient
Uighur and runic monuments as well as art objects discovered by D. A.
Klementz’s expedition in Turfan. This entailed the establishment, on 2(14) October 1899, of the International Association for Central and East
Asia Exploration, which set itself the task of geographic, ethnographic
and archaeological investigation of the aforementioned regions. The
Association’s charter was approved on 8 (21) September 1902 by the
13th International Congress of Orientalists in Hamburg. National committees set up for similar purposes in many countries agreed on dividing
Eastern Turkestan territories for investigation by Europeans. In spite ofthis, A. Grünwedel’s expedition, organized immediately following theCongress, violated the agreement.

20th Century: Increase in Material Collection and Study
Establishment of RCMAThe Russian Committee for Middle and East Asia Exploration (RCMA)
was established in 1903, its charter given imperial approval on 2 (15)February 1903. Vasily V. Radloff became the Committee’s chairman,
and S. F. Oldenburg, vice-chairman. The Committee’s board consistedof V. A. Zhukovsky, V. V. Barthold and L. Ya. Sternberg. The Committee, affiliated with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, had the right tosend its representatives to areas under investigation, launch expeditions
and publish proceedings in Russian and French. The task of the RussianCommittee for Middle and East Asia Exploration was “to promote inevery possible way a study of extant monuments, both material andspiritual, in their countries of exploration.”45

118

russian explorations in central asia

Initially, the authorities were rather benevolent to the newly established Committee. On 16 (29) January 1904, Nicholas II ordered that theCommittee “be allocated twelve thousand Rubles towards financing
archaeological expeditions to Eastern Turkestan during the current year”
and granted the Ministry of Foreign Affairs the right to allocate seventhousand Rubles annually “towards the same undertaking” during four
years (from 1905 onwards).46 The following year, however, “the allocation of the aforementioned funds was suspended for reasons of serious
financial difficulties,”47 and in March 1908 the State Duma’s Budget
Committee proposed that the RCMA should be made accountable to the
Academy of Sciences.
The proposal was declined because the challenges faced by the
RCMA required substantial government support. On 18 (31) March
1908, the Preliminary Committee convened to draft the RussianCommittee’s charter unanimously voted for the Russian Committee toremain accountable to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The following
rationale for this decision was sent to the State Duma:
1. The Russian Committee, being the leading agency of the International
Association for Middle and East Asia Exploration, is supposed to beable to contact foreign governments as needed, which is guaranteed by
the Committee’s affiliation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
2. Since the larger part of the area under Committee’s scholarly investigation lies beyond the boundaries of the Russian Empire, it is necessarythat the Committee should continuously maintain direct contacts with
Russian embassies and consulates in foreign countries.
3. The Russian Committee is supposed to provide expert conclusions to
the Ministry for Foreign Affairs on the permissibility of scholarly activities by foreigners on the Russian territory and those by Russian scientists on the territories of Asian countries; this requires immediate andclose contact with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The members of theCommittee Board must have the full confidence of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and this is ensured by the current arrangement whereby
their nominations are approved by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
4. If the Russian Committee as the central body of the International Association is to keep up its scholarly and international reputation, it must be
totally independent from any other scientific institutions.48

Financial problems impeded expedition activity, as the Committee
reported to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs time and again. Lettersaddressed to the minister said:russian explorations in central asia

119

[Funding cuts] have had an adverse effect on the Committee’s projects
in Eastern Turkestan, first by dramatically slowing down their progress
and then by bringing them to a halt altogether, a situation that foreigners, i.e., the Germans and the French, were quick to benefit from: they
have sent huge expeditions following in our footsteps. Unless the Committee resumes its activity vigorously and without delay, the Russianscholars’ work of many years in Eastern Turkestan is likely to be completely wasted.49

Financial Support by Imperial Court
During that period the RCMA only just managed to afford small-scale
expeditions to Central Asia. In 1903, Andrei D. Rudnev (1878–1958)
was dispatched to Eastern Mongolia to study Mongolian dialects. In
1905–07, Mikhail M. Berezovsky’s expedition visited Kucha. It included a relative of his, the draughtsman Nikolai M. Berezovsky, a civilengineering student.
Mikhail Berezovsky visited Subashi, Doldur-akur, Tadjit, Kumtura,
Kucha, Kizil and Kirish. He made water-colour copies and tracings ofpaintings, drew a great number of plans and made a multitude of photographs. Subsequently, his activity was thus described by S. F.
Oldenburg: “A brilliant photographer. An excellent mapmaker, insufficient training, slow pace.”50
In 1905–07, the Committee took an active part in preparing and organizing Badzar B. Baradiyn’s (1878–1939) journey to Labrang, whichyielded some valuable research material and enriched the Academy of
Sciences’ collection of Tibetan literature with “a thoroughly and competently selected assemblage of Tibetan xylographs published in Amdo.”51
Although the RCMA long had difficulty in getting funds for mounting
a large-scale archaeological expedition to Central Asia, geographic andnatural science investigation of the region continued, carried out by the
Russian Geographic Society. In 1906–07, Carl G. Mannerheim (1867–
1951) was “secretly” dispatched to China on imperial orders. He spent along time examining, recording and photographing ancient monuments,
particularly in Karashar and in the Turfan area, and drawing plans ofsome of them.52 Highly effective was the expedition led by P. K. Kozlov,
who in 1907-09 discovered the remnants of the dead Tangut city of
Khara-Khoto in the Gobi Desert and delivered unique relics of Tangut
art and written texts to St. Petersburg.
In 1908, wishing to draw august attention to its activity, the RCMA
approached the Court Ministry to organize ‘An Exhibition of Ancient120

russian explorations in central asia

Relics from Eastern Turkestan and Samarkand’ in the Grand
Tsarskoselsky Palace for the benefit of Emperor Nicholas II and a selectgroup of visitors. The exhibits included finds of M. M. Berezovsky’s
expedition to Kucha and Samuil M. Dudin’s (1863–1929) expedition toWestern Turkestan. The one-day exhibition took place on 30 November(13 December) 1908, between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. V. V. Radloff, S. F.
Oldenburg, M. M. Berezovsky and S. M. Dudin were among those invited, too. On having gone round the exhibition, the emperor “kindly
agreed to give his especial patronage to the Russian Committee.”53

Oldenburg’s Archaeological Method
The exhibition resulted in the RCMA getting a government subsidy toorganize an expedition to Turkestan. It was headed by S. F. Oldenburg,
whose journeys to Turfan (1909–10) and Dunhuang (1914–15) werereferred to as Russian Turkestan Expeditions.
The 1909–10 Turfan Expedition was conceived by Oldenburg asreconnoitering because no materials of previous expeditions had been
published. In effect, it created a sense of profound disappointment withtraces of his predecessors’ activity. Th. I. Stcherbatsky (1866–1942) had
this to say on the subject:
As a result, when the expedition led by S. F. [Oldenburg] set out, thatcountry had already been visited by a large number of other expeditions
that had literally plundered the area, archaeologically speaking. Having
arrived in their wake, the Russian expedition could but establish the fact

Walls and Buddhist ruins in Khara-Khoto: one of the major cities of thestate of Xixia from the 11th century, now deserted and uninhabitedrussian explorations in central asia

121

and return home practically empty-handed.
Meanwhile, a magnificently rich museum ofChinese Turkestan finds opened in Berlin; it has
become one of the city’s highlights, thronged
with scholars and foreign tourists.54

The activity of the S. F. Oldenburg’s First
Russian Turkestan Expedition chiefly
focused on the northern oases of Eastern
Turkestan, i.e., Karashar, Turfan and Kucha,
where about a dozen surface and caveSergei F. Oldenburg
Buddhist temples were investigated.
Oldenburg’s method of archaeological study
mainly relied on precise, unambiguous photographs and thoroughly
drawn plans. Therefore, he made a point of recruiting first-rate art photographers and topographic engineers. The artist and photographer S. M.
Dudin and the mining engineer Dmitry A. Smirnov were members of his
first expedition. Only a brief account of the First Russian Turkestan
expedition was published.55 The materials acquired by S. F. Oldenburg inthe course of his expeditions have now entered the Institute for Oriental
Manuscripts of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the State Hermitage
Museum and the Russian Museum of Ethnography. Particularly worthyof note are vast archives of the Russian Turkestan Expeditions, preserved in the State Hermitage Museum, the St. Petersburg Branch of theArchives of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Archives of the
Orientalists kept in the Institute for Oriental Manuscripts.

First Buddhist Exhibition in Civil War
In 1909–11 and 1913–14, Sergei Ye. Malov (1880–1957) made journeys
to Eastern Turkestan and Central China to study the language and everyday life of the local Turkic nationalities, i.e., the Uighur, the Yellow
Uighur, the Lop Nor and the Salar. As a result, their languages received
the first scholarly outline. The discovery of the unique Uighur manuscript called the Golden Light Sutra (Altun Yaruq) was a majorachievement of S. Ye. Malov’s first expedition.
Buddhist art relics were shown in the First Buddhist Exhibition held
in Petrograd. It opened in the rooms of the Russian Museum on 24
August 1919, at the height of the Civil War. The exhibition aimed to
introduce the Russian public to the diversity of Buddhist art schools bydisplaying articles brought from India and Central Asia. The exhibits
included the tracings and photographs of Dunhuang murals, statues and122

russian explorations in central asia

paintings from the Tangut city Khara-Khoto, as well as the objects of
Buddhist decorative art from India, Tibet, Mongolia, Japan, Java andIndo-China. The exposition centered on the image of Buddha and its
interpretations by various cultures. Only a few Buddhist art relics, thosethat were in a good state of preservation and didn’t need to be restored,
had been put on show. No murals, manuscripts or ethnographic collections were displayed. The exposition was accompanied by public
lectures, given weekly by the most prominent scholars on the history of
Buddhism and its current state, e.g., ‘The Buddha’ by S. F. Oldenburg,‘Buddha’s Teachings and The Holy Community’ by Th. I. Stcherbatsky,‘Buddhism in Tibet and Mongolia’ by B. Ya. Vladimirtsov, and‘Buddhist Worldview in Japan’ by O. O. Rosenberg.56

The Soviet Era
The study of Central Asia resumed during the Soviet era. In 1923–26,
the Mongolia and Tibet Expedition led by P. K. Kozlov succeeded in
excavating the Noyon Uul burial mounds. Vladimir A. Obruchev (1863–
1956) made a great contribution to the study of the geography andgeology of Siberia and Central and Middle Asia. He described his experiences in a large number of popular science books and fascinating
science fiction novels.
Russian scientists’ large-scale investigations on vast territories inCentral and Middle Asia made a most significant contribution to world
science, still valid today. A substantial increase in the amount of scientific material due to Russian expeditions provided new points ofreference for a wide range of major historical, archaeological and linguistic disciplines.
Notes[Bichurin, N. Ya] Father Iakinf. Statisticheskoye opisaniye Kitayskoy imperii [A Statistical Outline of the Chinese Empire]. Complete with a five-page geographic map. Vol.
1. St. Petersburg, 1842, pp. III–IV.
2
Polevoi, N. A. Sovremennaya bibliografiya [Contemporary Bibliography], In: Moskovskiy telegraf. Issue 25. Moscow, 1829, Supplement to No. 4, pp. 532–543.
3[Bichurin, N. Ya.] Father Iakinf. Sobraniye svedeniy o narodakh, obitavshikh v Sredney Azii v drevniye vremena [Collection of Information about the Peoples Living inCentral Asia in Ancient Times]. Three vols. St. Petersburg, 1851.
4
Quoted from: Matveyeva, M. F. Issledovaniye Tsentralnoy Azii—odna iz samykh
yarkikh stranits v istorii Russkogo geograficheskogo obshchestva [Investigating Central
Asia: A Most Striking Page in the History of the Russian Geographical Society]. In:
Sankt-Peterburg—Kitay: tri veka kontaktov [St. Petersburg—China: Three Centuries ofContacts]. St. Petersburg, 2006, p. 128.
5
Gorbacheva, Z. I., Petrov, N. A., Smykalov, G. F. and Pankratov, B. I. Russkiy
1russian explorations in central asia

123

kitayeved akademik Vasily Pavlovich Vasilyev (1818–1900) [Russian Sinologist Academician Vasily P. Vasilyev]. In: Ocherki po istorii russkogo vostokovedeniya [Essays on the History of Russian Oriental Studies]. Moscow, 1956, p. 296.
6
Vasilyev, V. P. Tsentralnaya Azia i glavniye khrebty gor v kitayskikh vladeniyakh[Central Asia and Major Mountain Ranges on the Territory of China]. In: Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosvescheniya [Journal of the Ministry of the People’s Education].
Vol. 73, Section 2, 1852, p. 127.
7
St. Petersburg Branch of the Archives of the Russian Academy of Sciences (PBA
RAS). Fond 775, Inventory I, units 91, 147 and 150.
8PBA RAS. F. 775, Inv. 1, unit 8.
9
Minayev, I. P. Svedeniya o stranakh po verkhovyam Amu-Daryi (po 1878 god)
[Information on the Countries by the Upper Reaches of the Amu Darya (up to 1878)].
In: Izvestiya Imperatorskogo Geograficheskogo Obschestva [Proceedings of the Imperial
Russian Geographical Society], 1879.
10
Minayev, I. P. Puteshestviye Marko Polo [The Travels of Marco Polo]. Translated
from the Old French. St. Petersburg, 1902.
11
Valikhanov, Ch. Ch. Sobraniye sochineniy [Collected Works]. Vol. 2. Alma-Ata,
1962, pp. 105-164.
12
Valikhanov, Ch. Ch. O Zapadnom kraye Kitayskoy imperii [On the Western Regionsof the Chinese Empire]. In: Sobraniye sochineniy [Collected Works]. Vol. 2. Alma-Ata,
1962, p. 112.
13
Ritter, C. Zemlevedeniye. Vostochnyi ili Kitayskiy Turkestan [The Science of the
Earth. Eastern or Chinese Turkestan]. Translated by V. V. Grigoryev, with critical commentaries and added information from the sources published over the past thirty-fiveyears. Part 1. St. Petersburg, 1869; Part 2. St. Petersburg, 1873.
14
Bretschneider, E. Notices of the Medieval Geography and History of Central andWestern Asia. St. Petersburg, 1876; Bretschneider, E. Medieval Researches from Eastern
Asiatic Sources. Fragments towards the Knowledge of the Geography and History ofCentral and Western Asia from the 13th to the 17th Century. Vols. 1–2. St. Petersburg,
1888.
15[Kuropatkin, A. N.] Ocherki Kashgarii generalnogo shtaba podpolkovnika [Essays
on Kashgaria by Lieutenant Colonel A. N. Kuropatkin of the General Staff]. St. Petersburg, 1878.
16
Otchet o poyezdke v Kashgar i yuzhnuyu Kashgariyu v 1885 godu starshego chinovnika osobykh porucheniy pri voyennom gubernatore Ferganskoy oblasti poruchika
B.L. Gronbchevsky (Grombchevsky) [Report on the 1885 Trip to Kashgar and Southern
Kashgaria by Lieutenant B. L. Gronbchevsky (Grombchevsky), senior special commissioner under the Military Governor of the Fergana Region]. Not for publication.
Classified. Fergana, s.a.
17
Luzhetskaya, N. L. Materialy k istorii razgranicheniya na Pamire v Arkhive vostokovedov SPbF IV RAS (fond A.Ye. Snesareva): Otchet Generalnogo Shtaba kapitana
Vannovskogo po rekognostsirovke v Rushane (1893) [Materials on Pamir Delineation in
the Archives of Orienralists Housed in the St. Petersburg Branch of the Institute for Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences’ (Fond A. Ye. Snesareva): Report of Captain
Vannovsky of the General Staff on Reconnoitering in Rushan (1893)’] In: Pismenniye
pamiatniki Vostoka [Written Monuments of the Orient]. 2005. No. 2 (3), p. 135.
18
Przhevalsky, N. M. Chetvertoye puteshestviye v Tsentralnuyu Aziyu. Ot Kyakhty na
istoki Zheltoy reki. Issledovabiye Severnoy okrainy Tibeta i put’ cherez Lop Nor po

124

russian explorations in central asia

basseynu Tarima [The Fourth Journey to Central Asia. From Kyakhta to the Sourse of
the Yellow River. Investigation of the Northern Outskirts of Tibet and the Trip via Lop
Nor along the Tarim Basin]. St. Petersburg, 1888, p. 64.
19
Ibid., p. 356.
20
Regel, A. Reisen in Central-Asien. 1876–1879. Mit. Bd. 25. St. Petersburg, 1879;
Mit. Bd. 26. St. Petersburg, 1880; Regel, A. Meine Expedition nach Turfan, 1879. Mit.
Bd. 27. St. Petersburg, 1881.
21
Regel, A. E. Puteshestiye v Turfan. Chitano v Otdelenii matematicheskoy i fizicheskoy geografii Imp. RGO 10 marta 1881 [Journey to Turfan: Presented at the session of
the Mathematical and Physical Geography Division of the Imperial Russian Geographical Society on 10 March 1881’]. Printed impression from Izvestiya IRGO [Proceedingsof the IRGS]. Vol. 17 (1881). Issue 4, p. 16.
22
Oldenburg, S. F. Russkiye arkheologicheskiye issledovaniya v Vostochnom Turkestane [Russian Archaeological Investigations in Eastern Turkestan]. In: Kazanskiy
muzeynyi vestnik [Bulletin of Kazan Museum]. No. 1–2 (1921), p. 25.
23
Minayev, I. P. Zabytyi put’ v Kitay [A Forgotten Route to China]: Review on N. M.
Przhevalsky’s The Fourth Journey to Central Asia. From Kyakhta to the Sourse of the
Yellow River. Investigation of the Northern Outskirts of Tibet and the Trip across Lop
Nor along the Tarim Basin. St. Petersburg, 1888. In: Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo
Prosvescheniya [Journal of the Ministry of the People Education]. Part 264 (1889). No.
7. Section 2, p. 177.
24
Ibid., p. 189.
25
Oldenburg, S. F. Issledovaniye pamyatnikov starinnykh kultur Kitaiskogo Turkestana [An Inquiry into the Monuments of Ancient Cultures in Chinese Turkestan]. In:
Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosvescheniya [Journal of the Ministry of the People
Education]. Part 353 (1904). No. 6. Section 2, p. 384.
26
[Zeland, N.] Kashgaria i perevaly Tian-shanya. Putevye zapiski N. Zelanda [Kashgaria and the Tian Shan Passes: N. Zeland’s Travel Notes]. In: Zapiski zapadnosibirskogo otdela Imperatorskogo Ruskogo Geograpficheskogo Obshchestva[Proceedings of the Western Siberian Division of the Imperial Russian GeographicalSociety]. Part 9. Omsk, 1887.
27
The work was written in the 1840s and published in 1895: Vasilyev, V. P. Geografiya
Tibeta [The Geography of Tibet]. Translated from the Tibetan treatise by Minchul
Khutuktu. St. Petersburg, 1895.
28
Pevtsov, M. V. Puteshestviye po Vostochnomu Turkestanu, Kun-Luniu, severnoy
okraine Tibetskogo Nagorya i Dzhungarii v 1889 i 1890 gg. [A Journey through Eastern
Turkestan, Kunlun, the northern edge of the Tibetan Plateau and Dzungaria in 1889 and1890]. St. Petersburg, 1895, pp. 10–11.
29
Ibid., p. 88.
30
Ibid., pp. 106–107, 120–121, 225, 255, 336–337.
31
Grumm-Grzhimaylo, G. E. Vdol’ yuzhnogo Tian-Shanya [Along the Southern Tian
Shan]. Vol. 1. St. Petersburg, 1896?, pp. 273, 294–296, 323.
32
Tsybikov, G. Ts. Buddist-palomnik u svyatyn’ Tibeta. Po dnevnikam, vedennym v
1899–1902 gg. [A Buddhist pilgrim in Tibet’s Sacred Places. On the Notes Made in
1899–1902]. Petrograd, 1919.
33
Trudy ekspeditsii Imperatorskogo Russkogo Geograficheskgo obshchestva po Tsentralnoy Azii. Part 1. Otchet nachalnika ekspeditsii V.I. Roborovskogo [Records on
Expedition to Central Asia, by the Imperial Russian Geographic Society. Part 1: Reportrussian explorations in central asia

125

of expedition leader V. I. Roborovsky]. St. Petersburg, 1900, p. 6.
34
Oldenburg, S. F. Issledovaniye pamyatnikov starinnykh kultur Kitaiskogo Turkestana [An Inquiry into the Monuments of Ancient Cultures in Chinese Turkestan]. In:
Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosvescheniya [Journal of the Ministry of the People
Education]. Part 353 (1904). No. 6. Section 2, p. 373.
35
PFA RAS. Fond 208. Inv. 3, unit 480, ff. 1, 4, 5, 5v.
36
Quoted from: Petrov, N. A. Nauchnye svyazi mezhdu vostokovedami i puteshestvennikami-geografami v kontse XIX i nachale XX. [Scientific Contacts between
Orientalists and Traveler-Geographers in the Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries]. In:
Strany i narody Vostoka [Countries and Peoples of the East]. Issue 1. Moscow, 1959, p.
260.
37
Oldenburg, S. F. Ekspeditsiya D.A. Klementza v Turfan v 1898 godu [D. A.
Klementz’s Expedition to Turfan in 1898]. Printed impression from vol. 45 of Izvestiya
Vostochno-Sibirskogo otdela Imperatorskogo Russkogo Geograficheskogo obshchestva[Proceedings of the Eastern-Siberian Division of the Imperial Russian GeographicalSociety]. Irkutsk, 1917, pp. 1–2.
38
Archives of the Orientalists, Institute for Oriental Manuscripts, Russian Academy of
Sciences (AO IOM RAS). Fond 28, Inv. 1, units 121–137.
39
Nachrichten über die von der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu S.
Petersburg im Jahre 1898 ausgerüstete Expedition nach Turfan. H. 1. St. Peterburg,
1899.
40
Veselovsky, N. I., Klementz, D. A. and Oldenburg, S. F. Zapiska o snaryazhenii ekspeditsii s arkheologicheskoy tselyu v basseyn Tarima [Note on the Organization of an
Expedition to the Tarim Basin for Archaelogical Purposes]. In: Zapiski Vostochnogo
Otdeleniya (Imp.) Russkogo Arkheologicheskogo Obshchestva [Proceedings of the Oriental Branch of the (Imperial) Russian Archaeological Society. Vol. 13 (1900). Issue 1.
St. Petersburg, 1901, p. XVII.
41
Ibid., p. XI.
42
Ibid.
43
Ibid., p. XVII.
44
See Dokladnaya zapiska ministra finansov S.Yu. Witte Nikolayu Vtoromy onevozmozhnosti finansirovaniys arkheologischeskoy ekspeditsii v Vostochnyi Turkestan[Exception Report by Finance Minister S. Yu. Witte to Nicholas II on the impossibilityof sponsoring an archaeological expedition to Eastern Turkestan] of 20 June 1900. PBA
RAS. Fond 148, Inv. 1, unit 4.
45
Oldenburg, S. F. Russkiy komitet dlia izucheniya Sredney i Vostochnoy Aziii. In:
Zhurnal Ministersva Narodnogo Prosvescheniya [Journal of the Ministry of the People
Education]. Part 349 (1903). No. 9. Section 4, p. 45.
46
PBA RAS. Fond 148, Inv. 1, unit 49, f. 46.
47
Ibid., f. 51.
48
Ibid., ff. 27–27v.
49
Ibid., ff. 51–51v.
50
PBA RAS. Fond 208. Inv. 1, unit 188, f. 37.
51
Vostrikov, A. I. S.F. Oldenburg i izucheniye Tibeta [S. F. Oldenburg and a Study ofTibet] In: Zapiski Instituta vostokovedeniya AN SSSR [Transactions of the Institute for
Oriental Studies, the USSR Academy of Sciences]. Issue 4. Moscow-Leningrad, 1935, p.
76.
52
Tikhvinsky, S. L. and Litvinsky, B. A. (eds.) Vostochnyi Turkestan v drevnosti i ran-

126

russian explorations in central asia

nem srednevekovye. Ocherki istorii [Eastern Turkestan during the Antiquity and the
Early Middle Ages: Historical Essays]. Moscow, 1988, p. 37.
53
PBA RAS. Fond 148. Inv. 1, unit 49, ff. 103–107.
54
Stcherbatsky, F. I. S.F. Oldenburg kak indianist [S. F. Oldenburg as Indologist]. In:
Zapiski Instituta vostokovedeniya AN SSSR [Transactions of the Institute for Oriental
Studies, the USSR Academy of Sciences]. Issue 4. Moscow-Leningrad, 1935, p. 26.
55
Oldenburg, S. F. Russkaya Turkestanskaya ekspeditsiya 1909 goda. Kratkiy
predvaritelnyi otchet [Russian Turkestan Expedition of 1909: A Brief Report]. St.
Petersburg, 1914.
56
PBA RAS. Fond 208. Inv. 1, unit 233, f. 1a.
Author Biography
Irina Fedorovna Popova is a director of the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of theRussian Academy of Sciences and an associate professor of the Department of Oriental
Studies of St. Petersburg State University. Having completed post-graduate course at the
St. Petersburg (Leningrad) Branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian
Academy of Sciences, she has also served as a researcher and an academy secretary
there and received her Doctor degree in history. Her current research focus is on politicalthought and administrative system of medieval Tang China. At present, she is also incharge of cataloging the Chinese rubbings and Dunhuang collections of the St. Petersburg Branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies.