ETHNOGRAPHERS WRITE ABOUT THE RUSSIAN EAST BY YU. Y. KARPOV. A LOOK AT THE HIGHLANDERS. VZGLYAD S GOR. MIROVOZRENCHESKIE ASPEKTY KUL'TURY I SOTSIAL'NYJ OPYT GORTSEV DAGESTANA [WORLDVIEW ASPECTS OF CULTURE AND SOCIAL EXPERIENCE OF MOUNTAINEERS OF DAGESTAN]. SPb: Peterburgskoe vostokovedenie, 2007, 656 p.

B. GRANT. THE CAPTIVE AND THE GIFT: CULTURAL HISTORIES OF SOVEREIGNTY IN RUSSIA AND THE CAUCASUS. Ithaca, London: Cornell University Press, 2009. XVIII, 188 p. (Ethnographica Petropolitana)*

"How much we have given them, and yet, wherever you look, you see how badly they have treated what they have received from us. How everything has changed now, after they decided that they don't need us anymore," a Ukrainian woman, a former graduate student at the Moscow Institute of Ethnography, complains about ungrateful Caucasians who have forgotten the benefits of Russia. She was struck by the chaos that prevails in post-Soviet Abkhazia, where she spent a happy Soviet childhood in the 1960s and 1970s and returned after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Abkhazian-Georgian war of the early 1990s. On the other side of the post-Soviet Caucasus, a native of Northwestern Azerbaijan complains that after the collapse of the USSR, silk production stopped and residents of the city of Shaki are out of work. But when he brings his American guest to the obligatory point of the local tourist program, the Khan's Palace, he is encouraged: for him, this is a visible symbol of the former greatness and prosperity of his native city on the Silk Road. Noticing the bewilderment on the face of his interlocutor, he smiles broadly in response: "Back in the ninth century, we were at the zenith of glory, while Russia did not rise to the level of Kievan Rus. What will the Russians tell you? They brought us culture.. So who civilized whom? " (Grant, p. IX, 112).

A Dagestani from the Botlikh district self-critically blames his fellow countrymen for the moral decline: "As a child, I thought: how happy I am, I was born in the USSR - this is the strongest country in the world, then I live in the RSFSR - this is the largest republic, then-in Dagestan-there are the strongest wrestlers. I was proud of it. Then I was proud of the fact that I live in the Botlikh district, that I myself am a Botlikh; no, first an Avar - they (Avars) are the largest people in Dagestan, then (I am)an Avar. botlikh is a native of the Avars. I don't know what exactly defined pride in being a Botlikhite. When we were at school, it was considered a disgrace for us not to be a Botlikhite... Since childhood, my sense of homeland was acute. My children are also proud to be Botlikh residents. And now it turns out that the worst country is Russia. I was in the Emirates in 1994, and I was advised not to say that I was a Russian. A Russian is bad. America and Europe are good. Say that you are a Dagestani, from Dagestan (the root "- stan " is a Muslim country). Dagestan is now the most pariah state in Russia. Chechens are feared in Russia, and the anger is directed at Dagestanis. Try

Grant B. Captive and Gift: A Cultural History of Russian Rule in the Caucasus. Ithaca, London: Cornell University Press, 2009. XVIII, 188 p.

being a Dagestani in Moscow is murderous. Now being an Avar in Dagestan is bad, it is not prestigious, it is prestigious to be a Dargin or Lakh, kumyk, but not an Avar. Because the Avars are so divided, the Avars sell themselves in this way. Only Avars sell themselves, others don't."

The last lengthy quote is taken from the final chapter of the peer-reviewed monograph of the St. Petersburg ethnographer Yu. Y. Karpov "A Look at the Mountaineers. A view from the mountains "(Karpov, p. 553). Two previous opinions about great ancestors and Russian heritage begin the book "The Prisoner and the Gift"by his American colleague B. Grant. Against the background of short-lived ephemera, both books stand out sharply by the significance of the stated problem, the originality of the approach and the external lightness of the language, which sometimes hides a complex ethnological theory. Who hasn't written about Russia in the Caucasus in the last 15-20 years? Even the best works, like the monograph by Ch. King's "Beyond the Ghost of Freedom" (King, 2008) usually does not go beyond the hackneyed military-political narrative that dates back to the 19th century, reducing the imperial and Soviet history of the region to its Russian conquest. In the end, the life of the Russian Caucasus is presented in the form of a tedious enumeration of treaties, wars (primarily the Caucasian war of the XIX century) and uprisings.

Some attempts to modernize this rather boring way of writing the history of the Caucasus ended either with a return to orientalist fears of "mountain predation", which, along with the" raiding economy " of the mountaineers, serves as a justification for the need for Russian conquest of the Caucasus (see, for example: [Bliev and Degoev, 1994]), or by turning the history of the empire in the region into one endless Caucasian history. the war, as it turned out for the St. Petersburg historian V. V. Lapin [Lapin, 2008]. Few people tried to go any other way. Among the works in this direction, I would like to mention an interesting experience of discursive analysis of power and Muslim law in rural communities of Dagestan in the XVIII-XIX centuries, undertaken by the German orientalist M. Kemper on the basis of local Eastern sources introduced by him into scientific circulation (Kemper, 2005).

Ethnographers of the Caucasus long remained aloof from the battles for the imperial past. On the one hand, the ethnographic schools that developed in the late Soviet period in the region itself, as well as in Moscow and Leningrad, largely focused on the study of material culture and ethnic identities, on the other hand, Anglo - American social and cultural anthropology traditionally does not like history. Grant and Karpov were pioneers here. Despite all the different approaches and historiographical traditions behind them, they are united by an attempt to view the imperial heritage through the prism of cultural exchange and representation.

Unlike his predecessors, Grant is not concerned with the real Caucasus of the 19th and 20th centuries, but with the cultural memory of Russian sovereignty, the key symbol of which he sees in the textbook image of a Caucasian captive who survived not only the era of the Caucasian War that gave rise to him, but also the empire and the Soviet system (Grant, p. XVI). The imperial authorities justified the seizure of the Caucasus with a cultural civilizing mission for Russia, which Grant defines as a" gift to the empire " (Grant, p. X). Grant tries to understand how cultural memory dominates the present historical time, in which the historian, ethnographer, and literary critic who studies these works live.

A discursive analysis of the gift of empire leads the author of the book to three major themes around which his narrative is built. First, it is the image of a Russian prisoner held by bandits in inaccessible mountain gorges. Grant sees his figure as a marker of the relationship between the Russian center and the South Caucasus periphery. Analyzing a long series of both historical and literary personifications of this image, he pays special attention to the semantics of the stolen body, in which he finds the heroism of the self-sacrifice of Russians for the possession of territories acquired by the empire (this is discussed in chapter 5). Secondly, Grant analyzes the narrative of the Caucasian captive in the Caucasian coordinate system associated with the figure of the noble robber Abrek and the customs of raiding neighbors, exchanging hostages, and stealing brides known from classical ethnographic descriptions of tsarist and Soviet times. Grant is interested in violence not in itself, but as a medium for gaining knowledge about the Russian Caucasus and the interaction of rival local societies (Grant, p. 62). These topics are discussed in Chapter 4.

Finally, the Grant examines the views of contemporary Caucasian and Russian scholars, writers, and filmmakers on Russia's cultural mission in the Caucasus, as well as on the cultural memory of violence and captivity. Interviews with them form the basis of the final chapters 6 and 7 of the paper.

The gallery of Caucasian captives and captives collected by Grant (Chapter 1) is striking in its diversity and length of time. The author looks for their archetype in the ancient Prometheus, which connects the two worlds.

imagine a folklore type of trickster who stole fire from the gods and gave it to people, an exile from the world of the gods and the first Caucasian captive. Starting with Byron's romance of the young Pushkin, its variations in Lermontov's The Caucasian Prisoner, Mtsyri (1839), the corresponding plots in Leo Tolstoy and Russian fiction of the 20th century, we follow together the odyssey of the image of the Caucasian prisoner in their epigones, from Bestuzhev-Marlinsky to the now-forgotten Soviet writer P. Ergushov (1929), A. Bitov (1969), and the contemporary novelist V. Makanin (1995). Not limited to the world of fiction, Grant shows how this wandering plot passed into opera, the Soviet ballet (1938), and even earlier - into the cinema, where it was first noted in a silent film in 1911. Relatively recently, the immortal plot was glorified in Leonid Gaidai's comedy "The Prisoner of the Caucasus" (1966) and Sergei Bodrov's drama- the film " The Caucasian Prisoner "(1996). Ethnological analysis of film materials is one of the main successes of the book.

Grant's approach and the logic of his reasoning are sometimes so unusual that they cause the reader a lot of questions and even bewilderment. First of all, how do such diverse texts relate and how do they relate to the empire and cultural exchange? If I understand the author correctly, this connection arises at the level of the subject of his research - cultural memory and history. No less controversial at first glance is the definition of imperial power in the Caucasus as a gift in the sense in which this concept has been used in ethnology since Marcel Mauss. After all, if the imperial politicians considered the spread of Russian power to the Caucasus region a boon for the highlanders, the latter thought differently, fleeing from this gift for the Caucasian line. However, in Chapter 3, Grant uses examples from various colonial powers, including Elizabethan England, to prove that the civilizing gift of imperial power could have been one-sided (Grant, 2009, p. 44, cf. p. 156-157). And this is the reason for the conflicting cultural memory of Russian rule in the Caucasus.

The book is not free from factual errors, but a number of claims should be forwarded to the literary critics on whose conclusions the Grant is based. On the conscience of the publisher of the English translation of Aeschylus Mark Griffith (Mark Griffith) unknown to historians "Greek Empire" of the fifth century BC from "Chained Prometheus" Aeschylus (Grant, p. 5). I do not know why he or Theodore Ziolkowski (Theodore Ziolkowski) took for mourning Prometheus" mountaineers " steppe Scythians, The fabulous peoples of the Amazons, the Khalib blacksmiths (whom Herodotus placed in the Ural region) , and the even more northern and no less fantastic Arimaspians (Grant, p. 7). By the way, in this tragedy, people, with the exception of Io turned into a heifer, do not act, but are only mentioned. All other heroes are gods, their older cousins titans, and Zeus-serving demons (Power and Violence). The idea of the literary critic Stephanie Sandler, supported by Grant, about the "negative pleasures" of captivity and violence in the plot of Pushkin's "Prisoner of the Caucasus" (Grant, p.102-105) is very logical, but too obscure. Grant's assessments of literary critics and film critics often add little to the works themselves, without clarifying changes in the perception of the plot of the Caucasian Captive by the Russian-speaking audience. However, Grant rejects the most ridiculous interpretations. Thus, he was skeptical of Rustem Vakhitov's interpretation of Comrade Saakhov from Gaidai's film "The Caucasian Captive" (Grant, 2009, p. 119, note. 31) the discredited forerunner of Caucasian nationalism (?!!).

Karpov's book takes us back from the foggy heights of anthropological theory to the sinful land, more precisely, to the mountains of Dagestan. Unlike Grant's book, it tells not about the legacy of the empire in the Caucasus, but about mountaineers who turned from "neighbors" into subjects and citizens of Russia. The main theme of Karpov's book is the culture of everyday life of the XVIII-XX centuries. The storyline here is formed by the highlanders ' experience of the surrounding world in the process of cultural reproduction of local society, their reaction to their own and other people's natural and social space. According to the number of "coordinates" of the mountain cultural space, the work is divided into six large chapters: "Mountain (Caucasus and Dagestan, upper and lower)", " House (and village)", " Custom (adat as a legal and everyday culture. - V. B.)", " Neighbors (near and far, new) ", "Persons", " Time (past and present)". The Empire, however, is constantly present in the book, not only in the form of its military and politicians, but also in the sources involved. In addition to his own field materials, the author makes extensive use of descriptions of the Caucasus region left by Russian military personnel, travelers, and scientists of tsarist and Soviet times.

In general, Karpov's arguments are logical and convincing. He considers the rural community (jamaat) to be the basis of the mountain cultural tradition. Like Grant, Karpov notes the convention of ponya-

These are the "mountaineers" who cannot be understood without their "neighbors" from Dagestan, Georgia, and Shirvan (Karpov, p. 608; cf. Grant, p. 21). On the one hand, the empire participated in the creation of the mountain cultural space, on the other hand, the highlanders formed the socio-cultural world of the borderlands of Russia. The conclusion about vertical social and spatial stratification of mountain society is of great interest. If the author slightly absolutizes the role of the Jamaat and its masculine culture, then the last chapter of the book (6) corrects the picture drawn by him. Resettlement to cities and towns on the plain, migration outside the mountainous zone, and then to Dagestan, and loss of interest in their native land have undermined the foundations of the jamaat, only some elements of culture are preserved in the post-collective village. It is impossible to return to the traditional jamaat, Karpov believes, and the prospects for its re-construction are uncertain (Karpov, p. 605).' The crisis of Dagestani society is directly related to the crisis of post-Soviet Russia. At the same time, despite all the twists and turns of history, the mountaineers generally preserved the general Dagestani cultural tradition, which was formed long before the arrival of the Russians.

Karpov's original explanation of Dagestani raids on " distant neighbors "(Georgia and the Russian Empire) is a vertical natural and social stratification of mountain societies with the dominance of "upper" over "lower"ones. At the same time, Dagestan's relations with its neighbors were not always limited to war (Karpov, p. 316). "Near neighbors", even Muslims and Christians, competed, but perceived each other as halves of one whole (Karpov, pp. 278-279). This feature of the mountain culture was preserved on the Dagestan border of the empire, only it was no longer dominated by Dagestanis, but by Georgians. Wittily criticizing the concept of the" raiding economy " of M. M. Bliev's mountaineers, Karpov downplays the role of Islam in the Mountainous Dagestan of the XVIII-XIX centuries. He forgets that the Caucasian War entered local chronicles and oral folklore as a jihad (or ghazavat) in support of Sharia, although it was not a purely religious movement. It was caused not so much by the confrontation between the "upper" and "lower" ones, but rather by the conflict between the Uzden community members and the nobility, the transition from the concept of hereditary power of the descendants of the prophet to Sharia rule, which was reflected in the decisions of the community unions noted by Karpov (Karpov, 2007, p. 376). Probably, here Karpov unconsciously went along with the late Soviet Laicist tradition in ethnography. For the same reason, he takes at his word the claims of pre-revolutionary Caucasian scholars and publicists about the penetration of Pan-Islamism into the Russian Caucasus at the beginning of the 20th century through pilgrims from the Ottoman Empire (Karpov, p. 432), which in reality was only a phobia.

At the same time, Karpov is an excellent connoisseur of sources, the analysis of which is always interesting to read. He is one of the few ethnographers who makes extensive use of sources in Eastern languages in his translations and comments by orientalists. The book contains many successful psychological portraits. In general, this work is more fundamental than Grant's research: Karpov has 656 pages about Dagestan alone and Grant has only 162 pages about the entire Caucasus. Karpov's huge book contains almost no factual errors. One of the few is found in the caption to the drawing on page 611: Karpov took for "ziyarat of the first Gazis in Kumukh" the gazebo built in 2001 on the sanctuary of Ahmad of Yemen, an Arab scholar from al-Azhar, who worked as a qadi already in Muslim Kumukh and died here of the plague in 1450. This inaccuracy is probably caused by the respondent's mistake. Most of the population of Kumukh today are immigrants from other villages, indifferent to its past and present, which confirms Karpov's conclusion about the decline of the old cultural centers of Nagorny Dagestan.

As already mentioned, the Grant has an order of magnitude more inaccuracies. For example, the concept of "free societies" was not applied to Circassians in Russian literature during the Caucasian War. This was the name given to the unions of Dagestani mountaineer communities (Grant, p. 13). Leaving the outdated ethnic nomenclature without comment, Grant confuses "Lezgins"(or Lezgins) XIX century with "Dagestani mountaineers in general", and sometimes with Avars (Grant, p. 36). The Russian academician Gmelin, captured by utsmiy Kaitagsky, was not killed, but died of illness in captivity in 1774 (Grant, p. 98). The famous Shamil associate and rival Hadji Murad did not belong by birth to the mountain nobility (Grant, p. 111), although he was the foster brother of the Avar khans. The Bolshevik practice of hostage-taking is unlikely to have Caucasian roots (Grant, p. 89). The first examples relate to Petrograd in 1917-1918, when the civil war in the Caucasus had not yet begun. The title shamkhal did not refer to "a wide range of hereditary rulers in the Caucasus", but only to the following:

¹ The social and cultural consequences of migration are discussed in a recent book by Yu. Y. Karpov, co-authored with E. L. Kapustina (Karpov and Kapustina, 2011).

to the rulers of Kumukh and Tarki in Dagestan. Its etymology has not been established (Grant, p. 164). Grant speaks excellent Russian, but does not accurately interpret the multi-valued concept of " edge "(Grant, p. 58): in the phrase Caucasian Region, it does not mean" outskirts, borderlands", but"region".

It is difficult not to notice the differences between the books of Karpov and Grant, because the interests and initial attitudes of the authors are very different. Karpov is a bright representative of the St. Petersburg ethnographic school, a tireless defender and an excellent connoisseur of Caucasian traditions, a fighter against constructivism. The book under review completes a series of three of his works devoted to traditional mountain society (Karpov, 1996; Karpov, 2001). Grant's interests lie in the present. Before turning to the Caucasus, he spent about ten years studying the Sovietization of the small peoples of the Soviet North and Far East. The result of fieldwork among Nivkhs on Sakhalin was his book " In the Soviet House of Culture: a Century of Perestroika "(Grant, 1995). Since 1999, Grant has switched to a comparative study of the cultural implications of the Soviet international project in Azerbaijan. The materials collected for this project are reflected in The Captive and the Gift in the analysis of Azerbaijani film director Eldar Guliyev's films In a Southern City (1969) and Family (1998). In relation to the Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh (Grant, p. 141-147), Grant develops the approach proposed by Yu. Slezkine in his famous work "The USSR as a communal apartment" [Slezkine, 1994, p. 414-452].

At the same time, the books of Grant and Karpov have one important similarity: this is a relation to time. Grant deliberately moves away from history, primarily through the Promethean narrative. The coordinate system in which it operates and key concepts are given without taking into account the changing local and imperial context. This, in my opinion, explains his close attention to the Caucasian customs of power, social violence, and cultural exchange discussed in Chapters 2-4. At the early stage of Russian expansion into the region, before the construction of the fortified border ("Line") and the beginning of the Caucasian War, the Russian military representing the empire was forced to recognize and even defend the Russian empire. use the local system of power and subordination, maneuvering between local elites. After the end of the conquest, when Transcaucasia was divided into provinces on the Russian model, and different systems of indirect government were established in the North Caucasus, the connection between local and imperial forms of power was lost. At the same time, the abstraction from history helped Grant to combine the imperial and Soviet past in one book, omitting the power systems that have changed more than once over the past two centuries and the gift of empire itself.

In Karpov's book, there seems to be no departure from history, no chronological failures. But he has a noticeable tendency to absolutize the mountain cultural tradition, limiting the story about it to the "prehistoric" era (before the inclusion of the mountaineers of the North Caucasus in the empire). Of course, Karpov could have ended his narrative with the end of the Caucasian War in the Eastern Caucasus in 1859. However, it was extremely interesting to look at the fate of the mountain culture today. (I will note in parentheses: it was clearly worth it to do this, it was a very exciting task.) For this reason, Karpov divided Chapter 6 of his work into two main sections: "Past tense" and"Present tense". Formally, the former ends with the Soviet period. However, both in this chapter and in the book as a whole, the lion's share of materials chronologically brings the narrative to the formation of the Dagestan region of the Russian Empire in 1,860. The era of peasant and other reforms of the late tsarist period, together with the Soviet transformations, fall into the "gap" between the middle of the XIX century and the border of the XX-XXI centuries. Thus, Karpov's" Past tense " turns into a pre-past, something like the Latin Plusquamperfectum.

Grant and Karpov complement each other quite well. Karpov's more detailed book serves as a good complement to Grant's short essay, which raises many interesting questions, but does not always provide convincing answers to them. Karpov contains many examples that make it possible to understand the significance of Grant's ethnological theory of the gift (Grant, p. 51-56). These are both feasts with gifting guests, reminiscent of the North American potlatch (Karpov, p. 208), and gifts at the accession to the throne of the utsmiyevs of Kaitaga and nuzalov Avari (Karpov, p.232, 335). Using concrete examples, Karpov reveals the semantics of the" vicious pleasures " of violence on the Caucasian frontier of the empire. The materials collected by the author show that the topic of "Caucasian captivity" and "gift" was also addressed by Soviet propaganda. What is the value of the leaflet he discovered in 1942, compiled on behalf of the oldest mountaineers of Dagestan, who tried to play both the mountain adat and the image of Prometheus approved by Marx himself?: "Are we really going to allow the mountaineers to be chained to a rock and the terrible vulture-fascism-to torment our body every hour? No!.. People born in the mountains don't know how to live on their knees... Custom commands all of us, from the old to the young, to rise to a sacred blood feud. Insults are not forgiven in the mountains... "(Karpov, p. 615).

However, as far as modernity is concerned, Karpov's desire to link the present with the former mountain tradition is often unconvincing. For example, after reading the above-quoted "Prometheus" leaflet of 1942, questions arise: how successful was the game of the Soviet government with local customs during the Patriotic War? Did the highlanders respond to the call of the authorities, and if so, how? What was the government's response? The author is silent about this, although he is excused for the secondary nature of this plot in the context of the book as a whole.

To understand all the nuances of the texts and statements collected by Grant and Karpov, you need to better understand the participants in the discussions and the situations in which this or that opinion was expressed. Take, for example, the accusations against the Highlanders in the introduction to Grant's book, which I quoted at the beginning of this review. It is interesting that the critic of the ungrateful highlanders and the defender of the imperial cultural tradition here is a Ukrainian woman, many of whose compatriots in Ukraine perceive their Russian past as a captivity no better than the Caucasian one. On the contrary, Abkhazians, especially after the recent war with Georgia, tend to transfer accusations of imperial ambitions to the latter. Karpov's Botlikh example (also cited at the beginning of the review) shows that the gift of empire can now be perceived very positively by mountaineers. The same Avars, about whom he writes a lot, with " (prev)past tense" (before the Russian conquest) and up to the present time have come a long way, turning from sworn enemies of Russia into its ardent patriots.

Botlikhts ' seemingly private recollection of his happy Soviet childhood, recorded by Karpov, leads to the global problem of openness and asymmetric relations raised by Grant (post)Soviet sovereignty. The concept of sovereignty, whose cultural histories Grant explores, is ambiguous in English and implies not only "supreme power, dominion", but also"sovereignty". Speaking about the Soviet experience of colonial conquest, Grant believes that the Soviet government made " the Russian Ivan... a brother to the conquered", creating a kinship through conquest between the descendants of the conquerors and the Caucasian mountaineers, as the Russian generals of the XIX century dreamed of (Grant, p. 57, 105, 129). At the same time, he opposes the assimilation of the Soviet experience to the colonial one. As Karpov's book shows, the connections of the population and elites of the North Caucasus with Russia do not fit in with the idea of the binary power-subordination relationship between the center and the periphery inherent in colonialism. The Soviet era left in the cultural memory of Caucasians (especially in the North Caucasus) a sense of belonging to the great empire in which their fathers still lived. At the same time, it has given rise to a whole series of resentments among Caucasians, sometimes not so much against Russians as against other fellow members of the Soviet family, as evidenced by the disputes recorded by Grant and Karpov about great ancestors and accusations of distant neighbors in stealing cultural property from each other.

The reviewed books by B. Grant and Y. Karpov make us think about the diversity of the historical experience of the empire and the complex problems of Caucasian historical anthropology, which in itself is already important. These works are extraordinary works of modern ethnological thought and are of interest not only for Caucasian scholars, but also for a wider range of readers who are interested in the historical heritage of the empire in the region.

list of literature

Blisv M. M., V. V. Degoev. Kavkazskaya voina [The Caucasian War], Moscow, 1994.

Dzhigit i volk: Men's unions in the socio-cultural tradition of mountaineers of the Caucasus, St. Petersburg, 1996.

Women's Space in the culture of the peoples of the Caucasus, St. Petersburg, 2001.

Karpov Yu. Y., Kapustina E. L. Highlanders after mountains. Migration processes in Dagestan in the XX-early XXI century: their social and ethno-cultural consequences and prospects. St. Petersburg, 2011.

Lapin V. V. Army of Russia in the Caucasian War, XVIII-XIX vv. SPb., 2008.

Grant B. In the Soviet House of Culture. A Century of Perestroikas. Princeton, 1995.

Kemper M. Herrschaft. Recht und Islam in Daghestan. Von den Khanaten und Gemeindebunden zum gihad-Staat. Wiesbaden, 2005.

King C. The Ghost of Freedom: A History of the Caucasus. Oxford, 2008.

Slezkine Yu. The USSR as Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism // Slavic Review. 1994. Vol. 53.

Permanent link to this publication: