Identification by the Don Cossacks of the 19th Century of Their Place in the Ethnocultural Space of Eastern Europe

封面

如何引用文章

全文:

开放存取 开放存取
受限制的访问 ##reader.subscriptionAccessGranted##
受限制的访问 订阅存取

详细

This article is an attempt to reconstruct how the Don authors of the 19th century imagined (defined) the place of Cossacks in the ethnocultural space of Eastern Europe. The author shows that the attempts to analyze the Don Cossacks using such categories as «ethnicity» and «subethnicity» led to contradictory results: while the most authoritative ethnographers (particularly, S.A. Tokarev) attribute part of the Don Cossacks to the Russian ethnicity and part – to the Ukrainian one, the most authoritative historians (particularly, V.M. Kabuzan) consider Cossacks a subethnicity of the Russian people. M.A. Ryblova offered a way out of this contradiction by studying the Don Cossacks as taking into account the «changing of sociocultural model». However, analyzing the Don Cossacks of the 18th–19th centuries, she did not quite understand the specificity of the Don authors, claiming that they considered Cossacks to be an «ethnosocial group». The article shows that, for Don authors of the 19th century, the basis for self-identification was not belonging to the Cossacks, but belonging to the Don Host. At the same time, the Don Host didn’t possess any traits characteristic to an ethnicity or subethnicity in a traditional sense: various authors identified two or three groups of Don Cossacks differing in anthropological type, language and character. Moreover, the Don authors definitely considered the Don Cossacks a unity separate from Great Russians/Little Russians, but, at the same time, they constructed this unity not through ethnicity, but through corporatism, through their pride in history of the Don Host, which united people of different languages, origins and even faiths. Language, character and anthropological type, on the contrary, were used to distinguish different groups among the Don Cossacks, and the differences between them were emphasized – but, at the same time, didn’t break the historical and corporate unity.

全文:

受限制的访问

作者简介

Artyom Peretyatko

Institute for Sociology and Regional Studies SFedU

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: ArtPeretatko@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2779-2223

PhD (History), Head of the Science Laboratory

俄罗斯联邦, Rostov-on-Don

参考

  1. Kabuzan V.M. Chislennost’ i razmeshchenije kazakov Rossiiskoi imperii v XVIII – nachale XX v. Trudy Instituta rossiiskoi istorii. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 2008, vol. 7, pp. 302–326. (In Russ.)
  2. Kornijenko B.S. Pravyi Don: kazaki i ideologiia natsionalizma (1909–1914). St. Petersburg, EUSP Press Publ., 2013, 232 p. (In Russ.)
  3. Korolev V.N. Staryje Veshki. Povestvovanije o kazakakh. Rostov-on-Don, Kn. izd-vo Publ., 1991, 464 p. (In Russ.)
  4. Leskinen M.V. Mify i obrazy sarmatizma. Istoki natsional’noi ideologii Rechi Pospolitoi. Moscow, Institute of Slavic Studies RAS Publ., 2002, 178 p. (In Russ.)
  5. Leskinen M.V. Velikoross/velikorus. Iz istorii konstruirovaniia etnichnosti. Vek XIX. Moskow, Indrik Publ., 2016, 680 p. (In Russ.)
  6. Mininkov N.A. Praktiki istoriopisaniia i zarozhdenije istoricheskoi nauki v kul’ture Dona pervoi poloviny XIX veka. Terminologiia istoricheskoi nauki. Istoriopisanije. Moscow, 2010, pp. 266–285. (In Russ.)
  7. Peretyatko A.Yu. Between Local and National History: Analysis of the Specifics of the Don Pre-Revolutionary Historiography. Bylye Gody. 2022, 17(3). pp. 1163–1176. (In Russ.)
  8. Popov M.A. Literaturnaia i nauchnaia deiatel’nost’ mitropolita Stanislava Bogusha-Sestrentsevicha. Vesnik Mahilioŭskaha dziarzhaŭnaha ŭniversitėta imia A.A. Kuliashova. Seryia a. Humanitarnyia navuki: historyia, filasofiia, filalohiia. 2011, no. 1, pp. 42–51. (In Russ.)
  9. Russkije, eds. V.A. Aleksandrov, I.V. Vlasova, N.S. Polishchuk. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1999, Narody i kul’tury, 828 p. (In Russ.)
  10. Ryblova M.A. Donskoje kazachestvo: k voprosu ob «istokakh» i sotsiokul’turnykh transformatsiiakh. Etnograficheskoje obozrenije. 2010, no. 6, pp. 158–174. (In Russ.)
  11. Sokolovskii S.V. Kriasheny vo Vserossiiskoi perepisi naseleniia 2002 goda. Moscow, Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology RAS Publ., 2004, 248 p. (In Russ.)
  12. Tokarev S.A. Etnografiia narodov SSSR. Moscow, Moscow University Press Publ., 1958, 615 p. (In Russ.)
  13. Tokarev S.A. Istoriia russkoi etnografii. Moscow, Institut russkoi tsivilizatsii Publ., 2015, 656 p. (In Russ.)
  14. Tolstoi N.I. Sarmatizm: mif – istoriia – natsional’noje samosoznanije – kul’tura. Istoriia i kul’tura. Tezisy. Moscow, Institut slavianovedeniia i balkanistiki AN SSSR Publ., 1991., pp. 66–71. (In Russ.)
  15. Volvenko A.A. Kazakomanstvo. Don case (the 1860th). Part II. Russkaya Starina, 2015, vol. 14, iss. 2, pp. 94–107. (In Russ.)

补充文件

附件文件
动作
1. JATS XML

版权所有 © Russian Academy of Sciences, 2025