1. “Central Asia” has no precise definition. However, since January 1993 the five former Soviet republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tadzhikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan have adopted this term as the collective regional designation for the territory they encompass. It is used in this sense here. For a history of the term and its usage, see M. Yapp, “Tradition and Change in Central Asia”, in S. Akiner (ed.), Political and Economic Trends in Central Asia [hereinafter, Political Trends] (London: Academic Press, 1994), at 1–10.
2. ASA Monographs,1989
3. E. Allworth, “A Theory of Soviet Nationality Policies”, in H. R. Huttenbach (ed.), Soviet Nationality Policies: Ruling Ethnic Groups (London: Mansell, 1990), at 24–46, draws attention to the semantic confusion surrounding the various ethno-socio-political terms used in Soviet sources with reference to “nationality” questions. The analysis (at 35–8) of the range of nationality policies, from the positive steps that were initiated to establish or revive some groups, to the disintegrative actions directed at others, is clear and concise.
4. The most comprehensive study in English of the pre-modern history of the region is D. Sinor (ed.), The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990). See also F. H. Skrine and E. Denison Ross, The Heart of Asia: A History of Russian Turkestan and the Central Asian Khanates from the Earliest Times (London: Methuen, 1899); despite its age and occasional inaccuracies, this account remains one of the liveliest and most readable works on the subject.
5. Detailed diachronic and synchronic descriptions of these Turkic languages are to be found in J. Deny et al. (eds), Philologicae Turcicae Fundamenta, vol. 1 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1959); see also V. V. Radlov, Opyt Slovaria Tiurkskikh Narechii (St Petersburg, 1893–1911).