���������������� �������������������������������� �"�

@����� ���@���9

D.Sc. (Hist.), associate professor,History of Azerbaijan Chair for the Humanities Departments,

Baku State University(Baku, Azerbaijan).

���� ��/��� �/� ���/���/� ���� ��� ��&�������� .��"���

������ ���� ���=01�(.��%&� 23�(� �$�)� �>

� $ � � � � �

�� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �

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 twostates so far remains outside the scope of scholarly attention. The encyclopedic dictionary of demo-graphics interprets the term “migration” as the movement of people (migrants) across borders forthe purpose of permanent (or long-term) settlement. There is external (emigration and immigra-tion) and internal migration. The former involves crossing state borders (it is also known as inter-national population migration); internal migration is part of the population movement between set-tlements.2 Migration policy can be described as the sum total of all the methods and measuresemployed to channel migratory movement in the right direction.3 Migration may be generated byobjective factors (economic, social, political, natural calamities, etc.) or by armed clashes betweenlarge powers.

Migration between Russia and Iran became a problem during the Russo-Iranian wars of 1804-1813 and 1826-1829 waged over the Azeri lands. Before that the population migrated between thesouthern 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 populationmovement from internal into external migration. At first this was a very specific movement, which

�he author offers his analysis of the po-litical and legal side of population migra-tion in the context of Russia’s purpose-

ful efforts to change the ethnic composition

of the Central Caucasus and reveals the hid-den mechanisms and purely political reasonsbehind the resettlement of Armenians in theCentral Caucasus and Azerbaijan.

1 See: N.A. Kuznetsova, Iran v pervoy polovine XIX veka, Moscow, 1983; Russko-iranskaia torgovlia. 30-50-egody 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.

�" �������������������������������������������������� ���������

differed from anything observed in the neighboring states and which forced the sides to readjust thepolitical 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 theCaucasus, Northern Azerbaijan in particular, which means that an in-depth investigation of migrationwill present some issues of Azerbaijan’s past in a new light: the settlement of Armenians in Azerba-ijan, the relations between Southern (Iranian) and Northern (Russian) Azerbaijan, the shaping of theAzeri nation, etc.

&�#������� � �� ��� �5�� ���?����5��� �����*

Migration issues were first discussed in the Turkmanchai Treaty of 1828. Russia’s migrationpolicy formed part of its general efforts to weaken Iran and fortify its own position in the region. Asa multisided phenomenon, migration was dealt with in several articles, Arts XIV and XV in partic-ular: “Art XIV. None of the high contracting parties will ever demand extradition of the defectorsand deserters who became subjects of the other side before the last war or during it. To preventharmful effects potentially created by deliberate contacts between some of the defectors and theirformer compatriots the Persian Government pledges to ban those who are personally indicated bythe Russian Government or will be enumerated later from its possessions between the Arax and theline formed by the Chara River, Lake Urmia, the Jakatu and Kizil Ozan rivers up to the place it fallsinto the Caspian. His Imperial Majesty, Emperor of All Russia, in turn, promises to prevent Persiandefectors from settling or living in the Karabakh and Nakhchyvan khanates, or in the ErivanKhanate on the right bank of the Arax. It goes without saying that this condition remains and willremain 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, per-suasion, or secret contacts might exert harmful influence on their former compatriots whom theyruled or whom they continue ruling. As for the common people of both States, the high contractingparties have agreed that their subjects who moved or will move from one State to another can settleand live everywhere the Government, under which they will live, allows them; Art XV. His Majes-ty the Shah moved by the noble and salutary intention to restore calm in his Power and relieve hissubjects from everything that might increase the misfortunes already created by the war, which thepresent treaty has luckily ended, extends his complete and whole-hearted forgiveness to all the peopleand Officials of the Region called Azerbaijan. None of them, irrespective of their status, should bepersecuted or insulted because of their opinions, deeds or conduct during the war or during the tem-porary occupation of this Region by the Russian troops. More than that: the Officials and commonpeople will be granted a period of one year starting from this day to freely move together with theirfamilies from the Persian to the Russian Regions, to move or sell their movable property without anyhindrances from the Government or the local Officials without paying dues or taxes on the propertysold or moved. In relation of real estate there has been established a five-year period during whichsuch property can be sold and disposed of in any other way. However, this period of grace does notextend to those who during the one-year period mentioned above will commit a crime punishable bylaw.”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 (toIran.—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 Armeni-ans 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 Armenianresettlement was funded by the Iranian contribution, which accounts for the fairly speedy fulfill-ment of Art XV.8

Politically motivated migrations from the Central Caucasus to Iran and back took place duringthe two Russo-Iranian wars. Judging by Part 1 of Art XIV both sides wanted to neutralize politicalmigrants. In fact, political migrants from the Central Caucasus, and from Northern Azerbaijan in par-ticular, did fight on the Iranian side against the Russian Empire (at the early stages of the 1826-1828war former rulers or descendants of those who had ruled the liquidated North Azeri khanates cameback from Iran to lead the Muslims uprisings of 1826) but no organized political opposition emergedeither in Iran against Russia or in Russia against Iran.

Gradually, general migration issues came to the fore, which explains why Part 2 of Art XIVcaused friction in the relations between the two countries; in the 1830s and early 1840s it becamemuch harder to regulate population movements between them. The issue reached its highest pointunder Baron Rozen, who was Caucasian viceroy in 1831 through 1837, and E. Golovin, who cameafter him and remained viceroy until 1842. It was under these two officials that migration-relatedinitiatives and instructions first appeared. In December 1832, Baron Rozen informed the vice-chancellor (that is, deputy foreign minister) about the problems created by Art XIV of the Treaty ofTurkmanchai. As a result, “in 1833 our (Russia’s.—K.Sh.) mission in Teheran was instructed toreach an agreement with the Persian government about the rules that would allow the subjects ofboth countries to cross border only with the permission of local authorities.”9 The death of FataliShah in 1834, which caused political complications in Iran, discontinued the talks.10 “On the in-structions Golovin issued on 5 March, 1841 all information about the rules observed in the Tran-scaucasian area by the officials of the quarantine control and gubernia bureaucrats when dealingwith the Persians moving into inner gubernias (the bulk of the migrants came from Southern Az-erbaijan.—K.Sh.) who arrive at the borderline without passports and those who have papers issuedeither 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 permissionissued by the Persian government, or without documents or with documents issued by our consu-lates were allowed to cross into Russia.”11 “After discovering that there are Persian subjects livingin Russia with only one document issued by their government on plain paper without signatures orstamps and without passports issued by our consulate in Persia on the strength of Art 317 of the 14Code of Passports and Fugitives (issued in 1832), General Skalon instructed that these foreignersbe detained and sent back.”12

7 V.A. Parsamian, “A.S. Griboyedov i pereselenie armian,” in: Is istorii vekovoy 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 to-

man raidje, or twenty million silver rubles” (Dogovory Rossii s Vostokom…, 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.

�"" �������������������������������������������������� ���������

Later, on 15 June, 1842, Golovin initiated a decision that said in part: “In future, until the gov-ernment issues permanent rules related to the legal passports to be demanded from Persian subjectsarriving in Russia, the local authorities should treat leniently those who fail to present legal docu-ments 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 anynoticeable degree, the political and legal aspects of population movement between the two coun-tries.

The rescript Nicholas I (1825-1855) issued on 12 November, 1842 to newly appointed Gover-nor of the Caucasus Neydhardt says: “There is another, no less important question closely connectedwith stronger peace on the Persian border. Art XIV of the Treaty of Turkmanchai allowed Russianand Persian subjects to freely move between the two states. Today the article is interpreted too widelyand the freedom given to the people on both sides of the border is abused. To discontinue the resultantdifficulties the Teheran court started negotiations to arrive at conditions that would clarify Art XIV ofthe Treaty.”14

On 3 July, 1844 the prolonged negotiations about Art XIV of the Treaty of Turkmanchai pro-duced a convention on the movement of subjects of both countries. It said in part: “In order to cutshort frequent violations and abuses caused by people living in the border regions of Russia and Per-sia when crossing the border, the plenipotentiaries of the contracting sides, with the permission andon the instructions of their governments, signed the following articles:

� Art I. The subjects of both Powers cannot in future cross the border between them withoutpassports and formal permission from their governments;

� Art II. Any subject of either of the two states who crosses into the other without a passportwill be detained and transferred to the nearest border officials or to the minister, chargéd’affaires, or consul of his state with all his clothing, weapons, and other belongings;

� Art III. All requests by subjects of either state to their governments for permission to migrateshould be submitted without outside interference;

� Art IV. If officials of either government, in view of the friendship that unites them, require pass-ports 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 mutualclaims.16

�5�� �������� ���� �����������&�#������� ����� ����� ��� � ��� ���

�� � ������

After the Russo-Iranian war of 1826-1828, when the political situation in the Central Caucasusstabilized, 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 Tran-scaucasian 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 Cas-pian 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 betweenRussia and Iran. N. Belova had the following to say on this score: “Czarist officials described theeconomic migrants as ‘Persians,’ ‘Persian laborers,’ etc. in their documents. The czarist officials andIranian authorities preferred to ignore the real nationality of the workers who came to Russia fromIran. 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; Rus-sia was even prepared to negotiate its liquidation.19

The convention could not be liquidated, however special rules were instituted in the CaucasianVicegerency (the first vicegerency in the Caucasus existed between 1844 and 1881) to facilitate aninflow of Iranian population to the Central Caucasus. A circular letter of 11 December, 1868 pointedout 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 withtheir national passports, requiring no visas from the Russian consuls when they come to Russian bor-der towns or villages on business or in search of employment.”20 A.M. Dondukov-Korsakov (1882-1890), Director of Civilian Affairs in the Caucasus (between 1881 and 1905 the all-Russia adminis-trative system functioned in the Caucasus), confirmed the circular letter by his edict of6 June, 1887.

On 14 December, 1887 a new edict was issued to clarify the situation21; a circular letter of30 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 crossinto Russia from Iran and Turkey with passports bearing no visas from our consulates should be allowedto stay only in the border areas and for no longer than half a year… On our side of the Persian borderthese 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 hiscircular letter of 28 June, 1903 No. 761, the Director of Civilian Affairs in the Caucasus wrote: “Ac-cording to the information that my department possesses today there is a considerable number ofPersian subjects living in the Caucasian Area who either came here at different times without nationalpassports or who lost them on arrival or who carry Persian passports without visas of our consulatesin Persia. I believe it necessary to settle the status of all who live illegally within the area under myadministration by extending to them a non-recurrent and extraordinary measure in the form of certainprivileges in relation to the order and time of obtaining legal residence permits. I deem it necessary toissue the following decision to all Messrs. Governors and regional heads:

“1. All Persian subjects without legal national passports endorsed by our consuls in Persiashould be given six months starting on the day this edict is issued to obtain the abovemen-tioned documents with obligatory visas of our consulate in Persia.

“2. The children and grandchildren of those Persian subjects who have been living in the Cau-casian 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 Cauca-

sus), Inventory 1, File 191, sheet 23.

��� �������������������������������������������������� ���������

ble for foreigners living in the Empire (Arts 292-301 of the Passport Code) should receivesuch permits if it is established that they were born in the Caucasian Area and have beenliving permanently in it. Otherwise they should be asked to present, on the strength of thePassport Code, within six months national passports with visas from the Russian consulatesin Persia.”23 During the 1905-1907 revolution, the czarist authorities deported the greaterpart of the Persian subjects from the Caucasus, especially from Baku.24 This did not stemthe process, which continued unabated.

How did Iran treat the outflow of its population? Its government was concerned by the greatnumber of migrants leaving for Russia. This explains why the 1844 convention was not annulled.25 Itwas 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 toEurope in search of employment; they paid 2 tumans for a passport valid for six months; a monthlywork permit for Russia and nearby countries cost 2 krans; those who failed to pay the tax faced afine of 7 tumans.27

�� -��� � ���� &�#���� %��� � ���� �����*

It was only after 1844 that migrants were required to present their passports, which means thatthe process of obtaining a passport at home and registering it in Russia became very important. Ma-terials of the Kavkaz newspaper28 and archival documents show that in Iran the process was moreor less spontaneous and was seen as a source of state income and personal enrichment of state of-ficials. The passport reform did nothing to regulate the process.29 Upon their arrival in Russia new-comers had to present their passports to the gubernia administration in one of the cities. Afterchecking the personal information of the passport bearer, the administration marked his passport asinvalid and exchanged it for a residence permit.30 To remove the difficulties created by this processEnvoy Plenipotentiary of Iran in St. Petersburg Mirza Abdulla Khan suggested that the guberniaadministrations replace national passports of Persian subjects with residence permits.31 On 5 Jan-uary, 1880 the Law Department of the State Council accepted this suggestion. One of the archi-val documents says: “Transferred from the Caucasian Committee of His Imperial Majesty, theViceroy of the Caucasus (at that time Grand Prince Mikhail Nikolaevich (1862-1881) filled thispost.—K.Sh.) on the changed order of issuing passport documents to Persian subjects living inthe Caucasus. The Law Department believes: the corresponding articles of the Code of Lawsshould be changed and rules that: Persian subjects who arrive in the Caucasus and TranscaucasianArea are allowed to receive passports for residence and travel in the Empire in exchange of theirnational 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 SHAG, Record group 11, Inventory 1, File 2264, sheets 3-19, 20.30 Ibid., Record group 5, Inventory 1, File 5396, sheet 10.31 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 theentire burden of which was borne by economic migrants. Azeri poet M.A. Mojuz (1873-1934) wrotein his “Mechta” (Dream) poem: “Allah, if you have no cash, open people the road to Russia or softenthe 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 processentailed. A document dated 1855 says: “…the number of Persian subjects who arrive in Russia with-out written documents has increased considerably. Not detained at the border, they do not remain inthe border areas but move further on.”35 Another document dated 1877 speaks of the considerablegrowth in the number of Persian subjects without documents living in Russia.36 The Baku governorpresented the following document dated 10 November, 1901 to the Caucasian Director of CivilianAffairs: “The Imperial Russian Mission in Teheran informed me that there are laborers, Persian sub-jects, who cross the border into Russia and asked me to take measures,”37 etc.

�5�� �5�5 �B��� H�� ����“� ��B��”

The nomadic tribes who roamed between Russia and Iran in the 19th and early 20th centurieswere another specific feature of the population movement of the time. The Shahsevan nomads stoodapart 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, socialand economic development , etc.) have not been adequately studied despite the vast body of relevantinformation found in written sources, archival materials, and academic writings especially related tothe 19th century.38

When the Afshars and Qajars, who played an important role in Iran’s political life, lost theirprivileged positions, the Shahsevans came to the fore on the country’s socioeconomic and politicalstage. Having consolidated in the early 19th century, they developed into a mighty economic andpolitical force.39 They acquired even more power after the Treaty of Turkmanchai. An edict issued toMinister Plenipotentiary A.S. Griboyedov on 1 May, 1828 pointed out that the nomads presenteddangers 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 Ad-

ministration of the Viceroy of the Caucasus), Inventory 1, File 42; G. Markov, “Shahsevany na Mugane,” in: ZapiskiKavkazskogo 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 Azerbai-jan 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.

��� �������������������������������������������������� ���������

convention signed in Iran, the Shahsevans received permission to winter in Mugan.41 From this timeon they spent the winters in Mugan. To limit their settlement to Mugan the borders of the Shemakhakishlags were specified.42

The czarist authorities, however, dissatisfied with these measures, banned border crossings forthe Shahsevans. In 1884, they were stopped by the force of arms from crossing the border into Mu-gan.43 The year remained in popular memory as “top gaytaran il” or “the year of those who wereturned back by guns.” V. Markov wrote on this score: “From 1885 until today the Shahsevans re-mained calm and never tried to cross the border without permission.”44 These measures deprived theShahsevans of their best kishlags. By the same token, however, czarist Russia (despite the Shah-sevans’ repeated attempts to return to Mugan) mainly resolved the question responsible for a lot oftension between the two countries. Russian Caucasian studies insist that this measure was applied atthe request of the shah.45

There is no doubt, however, that this was done to include the Mugan lands in the landed fundfrom which Russian settlers received landed plots. They were moved there to create a much morereliable defense system on the border in full accordance with the new stage in the czarist settlementpolicy that took shape in the 1880s.46

� �� �� �� �� �� � �� �� �

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 itsconditions. The basic principles registered in the Treaty were replaced, after negotiations, with newones favorable for Russia (the 1844 Convention).

Russia exploited the migration policy to resolve its own outstanding sociopolitical and eco-nomic 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 centerof Northern Azeri political opposition; third, the Russian economy profited from cheap labor fromIran, etc.

After the coup of October 1917 the Russian Empire fell apart; a new situation emerged bringingnew 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.