Interest in Kazakhstan’s history is increasingly moving beyond academic circles. For many people, it has become a way to understand the country’s modern identity as well as its past.

The Times of Central Asia spoke with historian Zhaxylyk Sabitov, director of the Institute for the Study of the Ulus of Jochi, about why many chapters of Kazakhstan’s history remain insufficiently studied. The Ulus of Jochi, also known as the Golden Horde, was one of the largest medieval states in Eurasia and is closely tied to debates over Kazakhstan’s statehood and historical memory. The interview also explored which topics resonate most strongly with society today and how a new understanding of national memory is taking shape.

TCA: To begin, please tell us a little about yourself. How did you become interested in history, and why did you decide to work in this field?

Zhaxylyk: I am the director of the Research Institute for the Study of the Jochi Ulus.

My interest in history began in childhood. The problem was that in the 1980s and 1990s, history in Kazakhstan was taught rather poorly. There were few textbooks and teaching materials, and schoolchildren generally knew little about the subject. That is why I was always interested in trying to understand the past for myself.

In addition, I inherited a library of history books from my grandfather. I read those books, and in the 1990s my mother helped me buy new publications. All of this gradually shaped my interest in the history of Kazakhstan. You could say I became interested in history while still at school and later continued to study it professionally.

TCA: For readers who may not know much about you, how would you describe your research work and the main topics you focus on?

Zhaxylyk: I have several main areas of work. The first is the history of the Golden Horde. This was the state that preceded the Kazakh Khanate and occupied a vast territory stretching from the Altai to the Danube.

The second area is the history of the Kazakh Khanate. This also remains insufficiently studied. In the history of both the Golden Horde and the Kazakh Khanate, there were more than 100 khans. It is interesting to study how they interacted, where and how they ruled, and under what circumstances their rule took place.

The third area is genetics, or the genetic history of Kazakh tribes and clans, as well as those of other Turkic peoples, including Kyrgyz, Karakalpaks, Nogais, and Bashkirs. This topic allows us to address questions that have been debated for two centuries.

For example, there are many theories regarding the origins of certain Kazakh tribes. With the help of genetics, we are trying to understand which of these theories is closer to the truth and, more broadly, to better understand the ethnogenesis of the Kazakhs and other Turkic peoples.

The fourth topic is nation-building policy and historical memory. I am interested in how the state constructs the canon of national history and how this influences society’s perception of the past.

TCA: How would you explain to our audience why interest in history, culture, and national identity has grown noticeably in Kazakhstan in recent years?

Zhaxylyk: The growing interest in history, culture, and identity is connected above all with the fact that many periods of Kazakhstan’s past remain poorly studied. My friend Radik Temirgaliyev says that the history of the city of Lyon is described better than the entire history of Kazakhstan. There is some truth in that. We really do know very little about certain periods.

School textbooks and other publications provide only limited information. So, there is demand for history, but not enough supply. That is where the growing interest comes from.

The second important factor is the changing demographic situation. Kazakhstan is becoming more Kazakh, and people’s interest in their own history is growing.

There is also a foreign policy factor. In my view, after the events related to Crimea and Ukraine, interest in national history and people’s own roots in Kazakhstan became stronger. These events also contributed to the growth of national identity and self-awareness.

TCA: Can we say that Kazakhstan is now undergoing a kind of cultural restoration? How do you see this as a historian?

Zhaxylyk: I would not use the term “cultural restoration.” Rather, there is a revival of interest in history, the construction of a new nation-state, and the formation of a new canon of national history.

During the Nazarbayev era, history, especially ancient and medieval history, did not occupy such a prominent place. At that time, the main emphasis was on the formation of modern Kazakhstan, in which Nazarbayev was presented as the founder of the new state. In my view, this concept was met with skepticism by part of society.

There were also alternative views within society. For example, some people considered Dinmukhamed Kunayev a key historical figure. For others, it was Alikhan Bukeikhanov. Under Nazarbayev, it seems to me that these figures did not occupy the place they could have held in the national historical canon, partly because of political sensitivities. That is why the 100th and 150th anniversaries of these prominent figures passed relatively quietly, while Dinmukhamed Kunayev was portrayed negatively in the previous five-volume academic history.

After Nazarbayev’s departure, under President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, both Alikhan Bukeikhanov and Dinmukhamed Kunayev began to assume a more prominent place in the national historical canon. 

TCA: Why has the younger generation become one of the main driving forces behind this interest in the past?

Zhaxylyk: Each new generation of young people is interested in the history of Kazakhstan in its own way. In many respects, this is connected to the school curriculum, which does not always fully answer all questions. It contains mistakes and approaches that were established during the Nazarbayev era. As I understand it, this will now be corrected, including through the publication of a new seven-volume history of Kazakhstan.

Apart from school, young people also have a genuine desire to learn more about their history. Much of Kazakhstan’s past remains insufficiently studied; there is little fiction, academic work, documentary film, or feature film devoted to it. That is why interest in the past continues to grow every year.

TCA: What image of history is especially important for young Kazakhstanis today: the history of the state, everyday culture, the steppe, nomadic civilization, or something else?

Zhaxylyk: It is difficult to give one general answer, because all Kazakhstanis are different. On the one hand, many people are interested in the history of the state and its rulers: who ruled, how they governed, and what events took place during different periods.

The history of everyday life may attract somewhat less interest. But there is another important area, interest in the origins of one’s own ancestors, Kazakh clans, and tribes. That interest is also very noticeable.

TCA: Which historical topics, in your view, resonate most strongly with society today?

Zhaxylyk: In my view, several periods resonate especially strongly. First, the Middle Ages, the eras of the Golden Horde and the Kazakh Khanate.

Second, the history of the 20th century. Third, the history of the 21st century. These are the periods at the center of public interest today.

TCA: Is there a difference between how the older generation perceives history and how young people approach it?

Zhaxylyk: There is certainly a difference. The older generation is, in many ways, a carrier of old Soviet myths. Young people already perceive history differently.

But to speak precisely about these differences, serious sociological research, surveys, and focus groups are needed. Without such studies, it is difficult to explain in detail exactly how the older and younger generations perceive history differently.

TCA: What role does language, culture, music, cinema, social media, and popular media play in this renewed interest in history?

Zhaxylyk: They play a very important role. Through language, culture, music, cinema, social media, and popular media, history becomes closer and more understandable to a broad audience.

When interest in history moves beyond academia, it is popular culture and the media that begin to shape how people perceive the past.

TCA: Is there a risk that growing interest in history will lead not only to greater knowledge, but also to romanticization or simplification of the past?

Zhaxylyk: Yes, there is such a risk. But this happens everywhere. When interest in history grows within society, romanticization and simplification of the past almost inevitably appear alongside it.

It is impossible to avoid this completely. It is a parallel process that accompanies any rise in public interest in history.

TCA: Which moments in Kazakhstan’s history do you personally consider especially important for understanding the country today?

Zhaxylyk: Several periods are important for understanding Kazakhstan today. First of all, the Middle Ages: the era of the Golden Horde and the Kazakh Khanate.

The famine of the 1920s and 1930s is also critically important. The Kunayev era matters as well, particularly the period of the late 1950s and early 1960s associated with figures such as Tashenov, Yusupov, and Kunayev. More broadly, the period up to the 1980s shaped much of Kazakhstan’s modern history.

In addition, there is the Nazarbayev era, which has not yet been fully interpreted. He ruled Kazakhstan for a very long time, but there are still no full-fledged scholarly monographs examining his personality and role in the country’s history. Undoubtedly, there were positive aspects to his rule, especially in the 1990s, as well as negative aspects associated with the 2000s and 2010s.

Overall, there are many important periods in Kazakhstan’s history, but a significant number of them have not yet been sufficiently interpreted, reconsidered, or studied.

TCA: How would you explain to a foreign reader why the conversation about history is important for understanding modern Kazakhstan today?

Zhaxylyk: I would explain it this way: in terms of studying its own history, Kazakhstan today is roughly at the level France was in the 18th century. Kazakhstan is a relatively new state that restored its independence and is only now beginning large-scale work to rethink and study its past.

We know very little about many periods. For example, the entire 17th century of the Kazakh Khanate has been studied far less thoroughly than any decade of the 19th century or any single year of the 20th century.

That is why interest in Kazakhstan’s history is so important. Only now is a more professional and systematic study of this history beginning. During the Soviet period, the history of Kazakhstan was studied as well, but it was not considered a priority. There were some breakthrough projects, for example, research on the history of the Kazakh Khanate in the 1950s and 1960s but overall, there were too few such works.

This is why interest in history has grown so much in independent Kazakhstan: for a long time, many topics did not receive sufficient attention, and now both society and researchers are beginning to rethink the country’s past anew.