CC BY
70
Kerim SHUKIUROV
D.Sc. (Hist.), associate professor, History of Azerbaijan Chair for the Humanities Departments,
Baku State University (Baku, Azerbaijan).
THE POLITICAL AND LEGAL ASPECTS OF MIGRATION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND IRAN (19TH-EARLY 20TH CENTURIES)
Abstract
The author offers his analysis of the political and legal side of population migration in the context of Russia’s purposeful efforts to change the ethnic composition
of the Central Caucasus and reveals the hidden mechanisms and purely political reasons behind the resettlement of Armenians in the Central Caucasus and Azerbaijan.
I n t r o d u c t i o n
The Russian-Iranian relations of the 19th-early 20th century and their political, economic, and other aspects have been fairly well studied,1 however population migration between the two states so far remains outside the scope of scholarly attention. The encyclopedic dictionary of demographics interprets the term “migration” as the movement of people (migrants) across borders for the purpose of permanent (or long-term) settlement. There is external (emigration and immigration) and internal migration. The former involves crossing state borders (it is also known as international population migration); internal migration is part of the population movement between settlements.2 Migration policy can be described as the sum total of all the methods and measures employed to channel migratory movement in the right direction.3 Migration may be generated by objective factors (economic, social, political, natural calamities, etc.) or by armed clashes between large powers.
Migration between Russia and Iran became a problem during the Russo-Iranian wars of 18041813 and 1826-1829 waged over the Azeri lands. Before that the population migrated between the southern and northern Azeri khanates; this was internal migration. The Gulistan (1813) and Turkman-chai (1828) treaties4 divided the Azeri lands between Russia and Iran, which transformed population movement from internal into external migration. At first this was a very specific movement, which
1 See: N.A. Kuznetsova, Iran v pervoy polovine XIX veka, Moscow, 1983; Russko-iranskaia torgovlia. 30-50-e gody XIX veka. Sb. Dok., Moscow, 1984.
2 See: Demograficheskiy entsiklopedicheskiy slovar’, ed. by D.I. Valentey, Moscow, 1985, p. 251.
3 Ibid., p. 250.
4 See: K. Shukiurov, “The Caucasus in the System of International Relations: the Turkmanchai Treaty was Signed 180 Years Ago,” The Caucasus and Globalization, Issue 4, Vol. 2, 2008.
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
differed from anything observed in the neighboring states and which forced the sides to readjust the political and legal aspects throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Russia-Iran migration was related to all the political, economic and cultural aspects of life in the Caucasus, Northern Azerbaijan in particular, which means that an in-depth investigation of migration will present some issues of Azerbaijan’s past in a new light: the settlement of Armenians in Azerbaijan, the relations between Southern (Iranian) and Northern (Russian) Azerbaijan, the shaping of the Azeri nation, etc.
Migration Issues in the Turkmanchai Treaty
Migration issues were first discussed in the Turkmanchai Treaty of 1828. Russia’s migration policy formed part of its general efforts to weaken Iran and fortify its own position in the region. As a multisided phenomenon, migration was dealt with in several articles, Arts XIV and XV in particular: “Art XIV. None of the high contracting parties will ever demand extradition of the defectors and deserters who became subjects of the other side before the last war or during it. To prevent harmful effects potentially created by deliberate contacts between some of the defectors and their former compatriots the Persian Government pledges to ban those who are personally indicated by the Russian Government or will be enumerated later from its possessions between the Arax and the line formed by the Chara River, Lake Urmia, the Jakatu and Kizil Ozan rivers up to the place it falls into the Caspian. His Imperial Majesty, Emperor of All Russia, in turn, promises to prevent Persian defectors from settling or living in the Karabakh and Nakhchyvan khanates, or in the Erivan Khanate on the right bank of the Arax. It goes without saying that this condition remains and will remain in force only as applied to people with public ranks or having other distinctions such as: Khans, Begis and spiritual leaders, or Mollas who by the strength of their personal example, persuasion, or secret contacts might exert harmful influence on their former compatriots whom they ruled or whom they continue ruling. As for the common people of both States, the high contracting parties have agreed that their subjects who moved or will move from one State to another can settle and live everywhere the Government, under which they will live, allows them; Art XV. His Majesty the Shah moved by the noble and salutary intention to restore calm in his Power and relieve his subjects from everything that might increase the misfortunes already created by the war, which the present treaty has luckily ended, extends his complete and whole-hearted forgiveness to all the people and Officials of the Region called Azerbaijan. None of them, irrespective of their status, should be persecuted or insulted because of their opinions, deeds or conduct during the war or during the temporary occupation of this Region by the Russian troops. More than that: the Officials and common people will be granted a period of one year starting from this day to freely move together with their families from the Persian to the Russian Regions, to move or sell their movable property without any hindrances from the Government or the local Officials without paying dues or taxes on the property sold or moved. In relation of real estate there has been established a five-year period during which such property can be sold and disposed of in any other way. However, this period of grace does not extend to those who during the one-year period mentioned above will commit a crime punishable by law.”5 Alexander Griboyedov who played an important role in drafting and signing the treaty wrote: “It is nowhere said that we should allow our subjects to move with their families and property (to Iran.—K.Sh.) since all articles speak of the conquest of Azerbaijan.”6
5 Dogovory Rossii s Vostokom politicheskie i torgovye. Collected and published by T. Yuzefovich, St. Petersburg, 1869, pp. 220-222.
6 Akty, sobrannye Kavkazskoy Arkheograficheskoy Komissiey, Vol. VII, Tiflis, 1878, p. 645 (hereinafter Akty).
There were three main migration trends:
(1) Armenian resettlement;
(2) political emigrants;
(3) general migration issues.
Armenian resettlement (Art XV) was resolved immediately after the Treaty had been signed. V. Parsamian wrote on this score: “In the spring of 1828 massive resettlement of Persian Armenians began. For several months over 40 thousand Armenians from the areas around Tabriz, Maku, Maraga, Salmas, Urmia, and Hoy moved to the Yerevan and Nakhchyvan provinces.”7 Armenian resettlement was funded by the Iranian contribution, which accounts for the fairly speedy fulfillment of Art XV.8
Politically motivated migrations from the Central Caucasus to Iran and back took place during the two Russo-Iranian wars. Judging by Part 1 of Art XIV both sides wanted to neutralize political migrants. In fact, political migrants from the Central Caucasus, and from Northern Azerbaijan in particular, did fight on the Iranian side against the Russian Empire (at the early stages of the 1826-1828 war former rulers or descendants of those who had ruled the liquidated North Azeri khanates came back from Iran to lead the Muslims uprisings of 1826) but no organized political opposition emerged either in Iran against Russia or in Russia against Iran.
Gradually, general migration issues came to the fore, which explains why Part 2 of Art XIV caused friction in the relations between the two countries; in the 1830s and early 1840s it became much harder to regulate population movements between them. The issue reached its highest point under Baron Rozen, who was Caucasian viceroy in 1831 through 1837, and E. Golovin, who came after him and remained viceroy until 1842. It was under these two officials that migration-related initiatives and instructions first appeared. In December 1832, Baron Rozen informed the vicechancellor (that is, deputy foreign minister) about the problems created by Art XIV of the Treaty of Turkmanchai. As a result, “in 1833 our (Russia’s.—K.Sh.) mission in Teheran was instructed to reach an agreement with the Persian government about the rules that would allow the subjects of both countries to cross border only with the permission of local authorities.”9 The death of Fatali Shah in 1834, which caused political complications in Iran, discontinued the talks.10 “On the instructions Golovin issued on 5 March, 1841 all information about the rules observed in the Transcaucasian area by the officials of the quarantine control and gubernia bureaucrats when dealing with the Persians moving into inner gubernias (the bulk of the migrants came from Southern Azerbaijan.—K.Sh.) who arrive at the borderline without passports and those who have papers issued either by Persian authorities or our consulates was submitted... on 31 September of the same year. These papers testify ... that Persians who arrived at the Russian border with written permission issued by the Persian government, or without documents or with documents issued by our consulates were allowed to cross into Russia.”11 “After discovering that there are Persian subjects living in Russia with only one document issued by their government on plain paper without signatures or stamps and without passports issued by our consulate in Persia on the strength of Art 317 of the 14 Code of Passports and Fugitives (issued in 1832), General Skalon instructed that these foreigners be detained and sent back.”12
7 V.A. Parsamian, “A.S. Griboyedov i pereselenie armian,” in: Is istorii ve^voy druzhby, Yerevan, 1983, p. 140.
8 The total size of the contribution set forth in Art VI of the Treaty of Turkmanchai amounted to “ten kururs of toman raidje, or twenty million silver rubles” (Dogovory Rossii s Vostotom..., p. 218).
9 The State Historical Archives of Georgia (SHAG), Record group 11 (Diplomatic Chancellery of the Viceroy of the Caucasus), Inventory 1, File 151, sheet 32; ibid., File 1416, sheet 6.
10 Ibid., File 1416, sheet 6.
11 Ibid., Record group 2 (Chancellery of the Governor of the Transcaucasian Area), Inventory 1, File 1164, sheet 3.
12 Ibid., sheet 4.
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
Later, on 15 June, 1842, Golovin initiated a decision that said in part: “In future, until the government issues permanent rules related to the legal passports to be demanded from Persian subjects arriving in Russia, the local authorities should treat leniently those who fail to present legal documents at our borders. In future, only obvious vagrants should be deported; it is no longer required, however, that the presented documents be verified by our missions.”13 This did not change, to any noticeable degree, the political and legal aspects of population movement between the two countries.
The rescript Nicholas I (1825-1855) issued on 12 November, 1842 to newly appointed Governor of the Caucasus Neydhardt says: “There is another, no less important question closely connected with stronger peace on the Persian border. Art XIV of the Treaty of Turkmanchai allowed Russian and Persian subjects to freely move between the two states. Today the article is interpreted too widely and the freedom given to the people on both sides of the border is abused. To discontinue the resultant difficulties the Teheran court started negotiations to arrive at conditions that would clarify Art XIV of the Treaty.”14
On 3 July, 1844 the prolonged negotiations about Art XIV of the Treaty of Turkmanchai produced a convention on the movement of subjects of both countries. It said in part: “In order to cut short frequent violations and abuses caused by people living in the border regions of Russia and Persia when crossing the border, the plenipotentiaries of the contracting sides, with the permission and on the instructions of their governments, signed the following articles:
n Art I. The subjects of both Powers cannot in future cross the border between them without passports and formal permission from their governments;
n Art II. Any subject of either of the two states who crosses into the other without a passport will be detained and transferred to the nearest border officials or to the minister, charge d’affaires, or consul of his state with all his clothing, weapons, and other belongings;
n Art III. All requests by subjects of either state to their governments for permission to migrate should be submitted without outside interference;
n Art IV. If officials of either government, in view of the friendship that unites them, require passports from each other, they should be issued, without legal obstacles, for several families.”15
This convention, however, also failed to clarify the situation; it triggered even wider mutual
claims.16
The Greater Role of Economic Migration from Iran to Russia and Its Control
After the Russo-Iranian war of 1826-1828, when the political situation in the Central Caucasus stabilized, some of the Iranian population moved to Central Caucasus either temporarily or perma-
13 The State Historical Archives of Georgia (SHAG), Record group 2 (Chancellery of the Governor of the Transcaucasian Area), Inventory 1, File 1164, sheet 4.
14 Akty, Vol. IX, Part 2, Tiflis, 1884, p. 594.
15 Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoy imperii. Sobr. vt. Vol. XIX, Otd. 1, 1844, No. 18247, p. 589.
16 The State Historical Archive of the Azerbaijan Republic (SHAAR), Record group 6 (Department of State Property of the Main Administration of the Viceroy of the Caucasus), Inventory 1, File 19; Record group 32 (The Caspian Chamber of State Property), Inventory 1, File 240 and others; SHAG, Record group 11, Inventory 1, File 2975, sheet 99.
nently in search of employment.17 Economic migration was part of the population movement between Russia and Iran. N. Belova had the following to say on this score: “Czarist officials described the economic migrants as ‘Persians,’ ‘Persian laborers,’ etc. in their documents. The czarist officials and Iranian authorities preferred to ignore the real nationality of the workers who came to Russia from Iran. As a rule, the economic migrants from Iran were Azeris.”18
By the mid-19th century the Central Caucasus had developed enough to need more workforce, which explains why it was suggested that the conditions of the 1844 convention be toned down; Russia was even prepared to negotiate its liquidation.19
The convention could not be liquidated, however special rules were instituted in the Caucasian Vicegerency (the first vicegerency in the Caucasus existed between 1844 and 1881) to facilitate an inflow of Iranian population to the Central Caucasus. A circular letter of 11 December, 1868 pointed out in particular: “It has been clarified in relation to the people living in Persia’s borderline provinces, Astara, Ardabil, Ujarud, Gerger, Marand, Maku, and Hoy, that they can freely cross the border with their national passports, requiring no visas from the Russian consuls when they come to Russian border towns or villages on business or in search of employment.”20 A.M. Dondukov-Korsakov (18821890), Director of Civilian Affairs in the Caucasus (between 1881 and 1905 the all-Russia administrative system functioned in the Caucasus), confirmed the circular letter by his edict of 6 June, 1887.
On 14 December, 1887 a new edict was issued to clarify the situation21; a circular letter of 30 May, 1888 identified the territories adjacent to Iran that refuted the document of 11 December, 1868. It said: “On the strength of the circular letter of 14 December, 1887 No. 10935, those who cross into Russia from Iran and Turkey with passports bearing no visas from our consulates should be allowed to stay only in the border areas and for no longer than half a year... On our side of the Persian border these are the following areas: Lenkoran, Jevat, Jebrail, Zangezur, Nakhchyvan, Sharuro-Daralagez, Erivan, and Surmali districts.”22
This situation survived until the early 20th century when resolute measures were taken. In his circular letter of 28 June, 1903 No. 761, the Director of Civilian Affairs in the Caucasus wrote: “According to the information that my department possesses today there is a considerable number of Persian subjects living in the Caucasian Area who either came here at different times without national passports or who lost them on arrival or who carry Persian passports without visas of our consulates in Persia. I believe it necessary to settle the status of all who live illegally within the area under my administration by extending to them a non-recurrent and extraordinary measure in the form of certain privileges in relation to the order and time of obtaining legal residence permits. I deem it necessary to issue the following decision to all Messrs. Governors and regional heads:
“1. All Persian subjects without legal national passports endorsed by our consuls in Persia should be given six months starting on the day this edict is issued to obtain the abovementioned documents with obligatory visas of our consulate in Persia.
“2. The children and grandchildren of those Persian subjects who have been living in the Caucasian Area for a long time and have come of age but carry no residence permits indispensa-
17 See: Obozrenie Rossiyskikh vladeniy za Kavkazom, St. Peterburg, Part III, 1836, p. 289.
18 N.K. Belova, “Ob otkhodnichestve iz Severo-zapadnogo Irana v kontse XIX-nachale XX veka,” Voprosy istorii, No. 10, 1956, p. 114.
19 SHAG, Record group 5 (Chancellery of the Head of the Main Administration of the Director of Civilian Affairs in the Caucasus), Inventory 1, File 1448, p. 1; File 1901, sheet 1.
20 Ibid., File 5023, sheet 1.
21 Ibid., Record group 12 (Chancellery of the Head of the Main Administration of the Director of Civilian Affairs in the Caucasus), Inventory 1, File 628, sheet 1.
22 Ibid., Record group 15 (Foreign Ministry official for transborder communication under the Viceroy in the Caucasus), Inventory 1, File 191, sheet 23.
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
ble for foreigners living in the Empire (Arts 292-301 of the Passport Code) should receive such permits if it is established that they were born in the Caucasian Area and have been living permanently in it. Otherwise they should be asked to present, on the strength of the Passport Code, within six months national passports with visas from the Russian consulates in Persia.”23 During the 1905-1907 revolution, the czarist authorities deported the greater part of the Persian subjects from the Caucasus, especially from Baku.24 This did not stem the process, which continued unabated.
How did Iran treat the outflow of its population? Its government was concerned by the great number of migrants leaving for Russia. This explains why the 1844 convention was not annulled.25 It was not until the 1890s that the Iranians made feeble efforts to limit it.26
In 1904, the Iranian government arrived at an official stand on the economic migration issue. An official document stated that Muzafar Addin Shah (1896-1907) allowed his subjects migrate to Europe in search of employment; they paid 2 tumans for a passport valid for six months; a monthly work permit for Russia and nearby countries cost 2 krans; those who failed to pay the tax faced a fine of 7 tumans.27
Passports for Migrants: Rules and Reality
It was only after 1844 that migrants were required to present their passports, which means that the process of obtaining a passport at home and registering it in Russia became very important. Materials of the Kavkaz newspaper28 and archival documents show that in Iran the process was more or less spontaneous and was seen as a source of state income and personal enrichment of state officials. The passport reform did nothing to regulate the process.29 Upon their arrival in Russia newcomers had to present their passports to the gubernia administration in one of the cities. After checking the personal information of the passport bearer, the administration marked his passport as invalid and exchanged it for a residence permit.30 To remove the difficulties created by this process Envoy Plenipotentiary of Iran in St. Petersburg Mirza Abdulla Khan suggested that the gubernia administrations replace national passports of Persian subjects with residence permits.31 On 5 January, 1880 the Law Department of the State Council accepted this suggestion. One of the archival documents says: “Transferred from the Caucasian Committee of His Imperial Majesty, the Viceroy of the Caucasus (at that time Grand Prince Mikhail Nikolaevich (1862-1881) filled this post.—K.Sh.) on the changed order of issuing passport documents to Persian subjects living in the Caucasus. The Law Department believes: the corresponding articles of the Code of Laws should be changed and rules that: Persian subjects who arrive in the Caucasus and Transcaucasian Area are allowed to receive passports for residence and travel in the Empire in exchange of their national documents; they will be allowed to renew these passports both in the chancelleries of the
23 SHAG, Record group 15, Inventory 1, File 191, sheet 17.
24 See: N.K. Belova, op. cit., p. 120.
25 SHAG, Record group 5, Inventory 1, File 1901, sheet 10.
26 See: Kavkazskoe sel’skoe khoziaistvo, No. 143, 1896, p. 2459.
27 Z.Z. Abdullaev, Promyshlennost’ i zarozhdenie rabochego klassa Irana, Baku, 1963, pp. 192-193.
28 See: Kavkaz, 8 May, 1882.
29
30 Ibid., Record group 5, Inventory 1, File 5396, sheet 10
SHAG, Record group 11, Inventory 1, File 2264, sheets 3-19, 20. Ibid., Record gro Ibid., sheets 6-8.
governors and in the uezd police departments at their place of permanent or temporary resi-
dence.”32
On the whole, the passport system retained serious flaws that permitted numerous abuses,33 the entire burden of which was borne by economic migrants. Azeri poet M.A. Mojuz (1873-1934) wrote in his “Mechta” (Dream) poem: “Allah, if you have no cash, open people the road to Russia or soften the heart of the consul so that he issue passports to them.”34
The majority crossed the border without passports to avoid the numerous problems this process entailed. A document dated 1855 says: “.the number of Persian subjects who arrive in Russia without written documents has increased considerably. Not detained at the border, they do not remain in the border areas but move further on.”35 Another document dated 1877 speaks of the considerable growth in the number of Persian subjects without documents living in Russia.36 The Baku governor presented the following document dated 10 November, 1901 to the Caucasian Director of Civilian Affairs: “The Imperial Russian Mission in Teheran informed me that there are laborers, Persian subjects, who cross the border into Russia and asked me to take measures,”37 etc.
The Shahsevan Question “Resolved”
The nomadic tribes who roamed between Russia and Iran in the 19th and early 20th centuries were another specific feature of the population movement of the time. The Shahsevan nomads stood apart because of their numbers, social status, and place in Russo-Iranian relations of the 19th century. So far many of the important features of this numerous tribe (its genesis, ethnic consolidation, social and economic development , etc.) have not been adequately studied despite the vast body of relevant information found in written sources, archival materials, and academic writings especially related to the 19th century.38
When the Afshars and Qajars, who played an important role in Iran’s political life, lost their privileged positions, the Shahsevans came to the fore on the country’s socioeconomic and political stage. Having consolidated in the early 19th century, they developed into a mighty economic and political force.39 They acquired even more power after the Treaty of Turkmanchai. An edict issued to Minister Plenipotentiary A.S. Griboyedov on 1 May, 1828 pointed out that the nomads presented dangers for Russia’s borders and indicated what should be done to avert them.40 Later, under the 1831
32 Ibid., sheet 23.
33 Ibid., Record group 11, Inventory 1, File 3170, p. 36; Record group 12, Inventory 1, File 924, sheets 2-3.
34 M. Mojuz, Works, Baku, 1982, p. 66 (in Azeri).
35 SHAG, Record group 11, Inventory 1, File 2975, sheets 72, 73.
36 Ibid., Record group 5, Inventory 1, File 4847, sheet 1.
37 Ibid., Record group 12, Inventory 2, File 437, sheet 3.
38 SHAG Record group 7 (Administration of Property, Forests, Agricultural Affairs and Industry at the Main Administration of the Viceroy of the Caucasus), Inventory 1, File 42; G. Markov, “Shahsevany na Mugane,” in: Zapiski Kavkazskogo otdela Imperatorskogo russkogo geograficheskogo obshchestva, Book XIV, Issue 1, Tiflis, 1890, pp. 1-2; I. Ogranovich, “Svedenia o Shahsevanakh,” in: Kavkazskiy kalendar’ na 1871g., Tiflis, 1870, pp. 68-84; F.B. Rostop-chin, “Zametki o Shahsevenakh,” Sovetskaia etnografia, Issue 3-4, 1933, pp. 88-118; I.A. Ibragimov, Iranskiy Azerbaijan v posledney chetverti XIX veka i ego mesto v russko-iranskikh otnosheniakh (candidate thesis), Moscow, 1968, pp. 46-72.
39 See: V.V. Trubetskoy, “Rol’ osedlo-kochevykh plemen Irana v period novogo vremeni,” in: Ocherki novoy is-torii Irana, Moscow, 1978, p. 179.
40 See: Akty, Vol. VII, pp. 622-624.
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
convention signed in Iran, the Shahsevans received permission to winter in Mugan.41 From this time on they spent the winters in Mugan. To limit their settlement to Mugan the borders of the Shemakha kishlags were specified.42
The czarist authorities, however, dissatisfied with these measures, banned border crossings for the Shahsevans. In 1884, they were stopped by the force of arms from crossing the border into Mugan.43 The year remained in popular memory as “top gaytaran il” or “the year of those who were turned back by guns.” V. Markov wrote on this score: “From 1885 until today the Shahsevans remained calm and never tried to cross the border without permission.”44 These measures deprived the Shahsevans of their best kishlags. By the same token, however, czarist Russia (despite the Shahsevans’ repeated attempts to return to Mugan) mainly resolved the question responsible for a lot of tension between the two countries. Russian Caucasian studies insist that this measure was applied at the request of the shah.45
There is no doubt, however, that this was done to include the Mugan lands in the landed fund from which Russian settlers received landed plots. They were moved there to create a much more reliable defense system on the border in full accordance with the new stage in the czarist settlement policy that took shape in the 1880s.46
C o n c l u s i o n
Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries the migration issue loomed prominently in Russo-Iranian relations when Russia relied on the Treaty of Turkmanchai (Arts XIV and XV) to impose its conditions. The basic principles registered in the Treaty were replaced, after negotiations, with new ones favorable for Russia (the 1844 Convention).
Russia exploited the migration policy to resolve its own outstanding sociopolitical and economic problems: first, by moving Armenians to the Central Caucasus, it changed its ethnodemo-graphic structure (in Northern Azerbaijan in particular); second, Iran never developed into a center of Northern Azeri political opposition; third, the Russian economy profited from cheap labor from Iran, etc.
After the coup of October 1917 the Russian Empire fell apart; a new situation emerged bringing new political and legal migration rules with it.
41 Ibid., Vol. XI, Tiflis, 1888, p. 587.
42 SHAAR, Record group 7, Inventory 1, File 142, sheet 1.
43 See: I. Ogranovich, Provintsii Ardebilskaia i Serabskaia, Tiflis, 1876, pp. 202-203; L.F. Tigranov, Iz istorii ob-shchestvenno-ekonomicheskikh otnosheniy v Persii, St. Petersburg, 1909, pp. 11-115.
44 V. Markov, op. cit., p. 57.
45 See: L.K. Artamonov, Severnyy Azerbaijan. Voenno-geograficheskiy ocherk, Part 2, Tiflis, 1890, p. 193.
46 See: P. Petrovich (M. Avdeev), Mugan i Salianskaia step, Baku, 1927, p. 15; D.I. Ismail-zade, Russkoe krestian-stvo v Zakavkazie. 30-e gody XIX-nachalo XX v., Moscow, 1982, pp. 58-64.
