Везде
Identification by the Don Cossacks of the 19th Century of Their Place in the Ethnocultural Space of Eastern Europe
Table of contents
Annotation Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
Identification by the Don Cossacks of the 19th Century of Their Place in the Ethnocultural Space of Eastern Europe
Annotation
PII
S0869544X25010019-1
DOI
10.31857/S0869544X25010019
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Artyom Peretyatko 
ORCID: 0000-0003-2779-2223
Occupation: PhD (History), Head of the Science Laboratory
Affiliation: Institute for Sociology and Regional Studies SFedU
Edition
Issue number 1
Pages
5-21
Abstract
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.
Keywords
донское казачество самоидентификация казачий дискурс верховые казаки низовые казаки этнография
Acknowledgment
Government of the Russian Federation.
Received
20.04.2025
Number of purchasers
0
Views
18
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite   Download pdf Download JATS

References

1. Кабузан В.М. Численность и размещение казаков Российской империи в XVIII – начале XX в. // Труды Института российской истории. Вып. 7. М.: Наука, 2008. С. 302–326.

2. Корниенко Б.С. Правый Дон: казаки и идеология национализма (1909–1914). СПб.: Издательство Европейского университета в Санкт-Петербурге, 2013. 232 с.

3. Королев В.Н. Старые Вешки. Повествование о казаках. Ростов-на-Дону: Кн. изд-во, 1991. 464 с.

4. Лескинен М.В. Мифы и образы сарматизма. Истоки национальной идеологии Речи Посполитой. М.: Институт славяноведения РАН, 2002. 178 с.

5. Лескинен М.В. Великоросс/великорус. Из истории конструирования этничности. Век XIX. М.: Индрик, 2016. 680 с.

6. Мининков Н.А. Практики историописания и зарождение исторической науки в культуре Дона первой половины XIX века // Терминология исторической науки. Историописание. М., 2010. С. 266–285.

7. Попов М.А. Литературная и научная деятельность митрополита Станислава Богуша-Сестренцевича // Веснік Магілёўскага дзяржаўнага ўніверсітэта імя А.А. Куляшова. Серыя а. Гуманітарныя навукі: гісторыя, філасофія, філалогія. 2011. № 1. С. 42–51.

8. Русские / отв. ред. В.А. Александров, И.В. Власова, Н.С. Полищук. М.: Наука, 1999. Народы и культуры. 828 с.

9. Рыблова М.А. Донское казачество: к вопросу об «истоках» и социокультурных трансформациях // Этнографическое обозрение. 2010. № 6. С. 158–174.

10. Соколовский С.В. Кряшены во Всероссийской переписи населения 2002 года. М.: Институт этнологии и антропологии РАН, 2004. 248 с.

11. Токарев С.А. Этнография народов СССР. М.: Изд-во Моск. ун-та, 1958. 615 с.

12. Токарев С.А. История русской этнографии. М.: Институт русской цивилизации, 2015. 656 с.

13. Толстой Н.И. Сарматизм: миф – история – национальное самосознание – культура // История и культура. Тезисы. М.: Институт славяноведения и балканистики АН СССР, 1991. С. 66–71.

14. 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.

15. Volvenko A.A. Kazakomanstvo. Don case (the 1860th). Part II // Russkaya Starina. 2015. Vol. 14. Iss. 2., pp. 94–107.

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate