This article analyses the historical period during which the multiethnic population of Kyrgyzstan came into existence, extending from the latter half of the nineteenth century until the establishment of Soviet power. The selection of this era is predicated on the observation that at the inception of Tsarist Russia’s colonisation of Central Asia, migratory patterns followed three orientations: firstly, from the European part of Russia, secondly, from Southern Siberia, and thirdly, from China. The indigenous nomadic population, predominantly engaged in cattle breeding, encountered a novel sedentary culture and peoples (Russians, Ukrainians, Dungans, and Uyghurs). The emergence of new settlements – villages, hamlets, and cities – in the northern regions of Kyrgyzstan gave impetus to the development of a pro-European civilization. The authors of this study examine the formation of diaspora populations in Northern Kyrgyzstan, drawing upon statistical materials from the historical period in question. They identify shifts in the ethnic and region’s diverse peoples. In addition to the works of Russian scholars, the article refers to materials from Hungarian researchers György Almásy and Gyula Prinz, who conducted numerous scientific expeditions in the early twentieth century. The new territories of Semirechye attracted not only peasants, but also scientists, travellers, geologists, orientalists, and ethnologists. While conducting scientific expeditions, they encountered diverse ethnocultural communities. Consequently, a substantial corpus of materials is available for the study of multiethnic populations. A thorough analysis of the shifts in the ethnic composition, size, and demographics of the population illuminates the transformations that occurred in Kyrgyz society during the period under investigation. The study of Kyrgyz history, taking into account the factor of multi-ethnicity, remains relevant. It is imperative to acknowledge the ethnic diversity of the population when attempting to establish patterns of socio-economic, cultural, and political processes in the country and the region.

This article explores the perspectives on Russian history held by the eldest sons of Emperor Alexander II, with a focus on their attitudes toward the image of Emperor Peter I. Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich (1843–1865), who passed away at a young age, and Grand Prince Alexander Alexandrovich (1845–1894), who later became Emperor Alexander III, were raised during the period of the Great Reforms. During this time, discussions about Emperor Peter I gained a significant socio-political dimension. Therefore, the attitude of the grand princes towards the first Russian emperor could testify to their views on the development of the Russian Empire. It is unsurprising that historiography often contrasts Emperor Alexander III with Emperor Peter I, as the reign of the “peacemaker tsar” was marked by a deliberate cultivation of the ideology of returning to Muscovite heritage. An analysis of historical sources indicates that Grand Princes Alexander Alexandrovich and Nikolai Alexandrovich were adherents of the official cult of Russia’s first emperor, and that Alexander Alexandrovich’s allegiance to this tradition persisted even after his accession as Emperor Alexander III. The article draws upon materials from lecture courses by professors S. M. Solovyov and K. P. Pobedonostsev of Imperial Moscow University, K. N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin of Imperial St Petersburg University, and N. Kh. Bunge of Imperial St Vladimir University, who gave lectures to the grand princes in different years. Additionally, the author cites correspondence between the grand princes and the diary of Tsarevich Alexander Alexandrovich, as well as excerpts from contemporaneous memoirs; the article also reconstructs the reading circle of Emperor Alexander II’s elder sons. The study is based on an analysis of unpublished archival documents stored in federal archives (GARF and RGIA), manuscript departments of national libraries (RSL and RNL), and the manuscript department of the Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House) of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

This article examines the situation in which the Republic of Armenia found itself in 1919 in connection with a series of ethno-political events that took place in Transcaucasia. In 1919, the diplomatic situation surrounding the Azerbaijani-Georgian defensive military-political alliance of June 16 became increasingly intense. Azerbaijan and Georgia exerted significant open pressure on the government of the Republic of Armenia, forcing it to join the alliance against A. Denikin’s Volunteer Army. The position of White Russia contributed to a certain extent to the stabilisation of the Republic of Armenia’s precarious position. The Georgian-Azerbaijani military-defensive treaty of June 16, 1919, was directed precisely against Denikin and his ally, the Republic of Armenia. Armenia was hesitant to join the Georgian-Azerbaijani alliance, fearing complete isolation in the region. However, the Armenian government and the diplomatic institutions representing its interests in Tiflis and Baku did not yield to the pressure. As a result, Armenia prudently avoided joining the Georgian-Azerbaijani military-political defence alliance, which was not in its best interest. Even in this situation, however, the primary tasks were to maintain friendly relations with neighbours, in particular with the Republic of Georgia, to resolve the differences that had arisen during the Georgian-Armenian conflict of December 1918, and to resolve disputed issues of territorial demarcation with neighbours, despite the Georgian-Azerbaijani military-defence agreement.

This article examines the ideas about the nature of state power and the relationship between the ruler and the state in Russia between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. In the field of historiography, a thesis has been proposed regarding the patrimonial nature of the rulers’ power in the Muscovite Tsardom. This thesis posits that the realm was regarded as the ruler’s personal property. Russia’s position was distinct from that of Europe, where by the sixteenth century, lawyers had established the principle that “property and rights of the state are public and cannot be the private patrimony of any individual”. The author demonstrates that in pre-Petrine Russia, there existed an idea of the indivisibility of the tsardom as a necessary condition for preserving the common good. However, this concept was articulated not through legal terminology, as was the case in Europe but through theological concepts and images, among which the Gospel metaphor of a “kingdom divided against itself” played an important role. The concept of a patrimonial monarchy, in which the ruler had the right to divide the state among their children, emerged in Russian political thought during the first quarter of the eighteenth century. This development was influenced by exposure to European legal ideas. This is reflected in Feofan Prokopovich’s The Justice of the Monarch’s Will (1722). However, as the example of V. N. Tatishchev demonstrates, this concept did not gain support in Russian political thought. Drawing on both natural law and the metaphor of the “kingdom divided against itself”, Tatishchev postulated the thesis that “the realm is an indivisible property”. Thus, the transfer of Western ideas did not bring about the discovery of the concept of the state’s indivisibility. On the contrary, it introduced the innovation of its potential division. This, however, failed to supplant the deeply rooted Russian notion of the tsardom, indestructible for the common good. This perception would later manifest itself during the reign of Alexander I, when rumours circulated about the emperor’s desire to restore the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Shape-shifting is a belief based on archaic people’s desire and need for resemblance, protection, and sanctification to ensure that they are not defeated in their struggle with nature and the living beings with whom they share nature. The motif of shape-shifting, which is based on the belief that individuals possess superior abilities by incorporating animal elements into their bodies, is a prevalent theme in the folk narratives of the Turks. Throughout history, the Turks, who have adopted a wide variety of religions and entered their cultural circles, have kept the traces of these cultures alive in their daily lives, belief practices, and narratives. The motif of transformation into a wolf, which is one of the deadliest and most frightening creatures in nature, has a place in many archaic belief systems starting from their creation; moreover, this motif is observed in Slavic literature as one of the most common types of shape-shifting, i.e., the volkolak type. However, this motif in texts from Turkish and Slavic cultures demonstrates some similarities. This study aims to throw light on the prevalence and diversity of shape-shifting in the cultural history of the Turks, with a focus on the volkolak, a striking example from Slavic literature that is known for its prominent aspect of shape-shifting. According to Russian researchers, the motif of shape-shifting attributes associated with the embodiment of the human soul in an animal, plant, or object extends to totemic beliefs. In this context, the most mythologized animal in Slavic culture, the wolf, can be considered one of the fundamental reasons for the study shaping through the volkolak type. Indeed, in terms of divine qualities an analogy has been observed between the sacred wolf in Slavic and the Turkish wolf. This study will compare the aims, reasons, and approaches of shape-shifting in Turkish and Slavic narratives. Moreover, this study will define the type of volkolak resulting from transformation and evaluate the possible sources of shape-shifting. In the study, the Volkolak type from Slavic culture is examined from the old sources in the historical process. For this purpose, the method of historical document analysis, one of the qualitative research methods, is utilized.

Academician Nikolai Yakovlevich Marr was a remarkable figure in Russian linguistics during the first half of the twentieth century. He contributed to the fields of historical linguistics and ancient history, having formulated original hypotheses in these areas. The scholar put forward bold, even fantastical hypotheses to refute the main postulates of comparative linguistics. However, he was unable to prove them. Following the October Revolution, Marr’s ideas enjoyed significant popularity in the Soviet Union. Many supporters of the revolution, particularly young people, sought to reject traditional scholarship and embrace new ideas. The “new theory of language” aligned with these aspirations, prompting Marr to adapt his concepts to the evolving landscape. He was the only member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences to join the Communist Party, and Soviet leaders supported him at that time. In 1929, Marr’s ideas were formally recognised as Marxism in the field of linguistics. Following Marr’s triumph, numerous prominent scholars found themselves unable to continue their research, and some were repressed. For 16 years after his death, Marr was officially considered a “great scholar”. However, many linguists at that time distanced themselves from his ideas. In 1948–1950, some linguists from the Marrist camp initiated a campaign against several specialists accused of cosmopolitanism and “bourgeois propaganda”. Their main demand was to return to all of Marr’s ideas. However, the party newspaper Pravda unexpectedly announced a discussion on issues of linguistics. The discussion was participated in by prominent linguists, but it was merely a prelude to Joseph Stalin’s speech (June 20, 1950). He condemned Marr’s theories, and traditional Russian linguistics became the standard.

The search movement for the search and burial of the dead on the territory of the USSR can be regarded as a kind of subculture with its own system of values, moral beliefs, norms, rules, internal rituals, and folklore. The movement, which was formed in the “perestroika era” (and was initially informal), has retained both its internal diversity (the presence of people of different ages, professions, and political views) and a certain independence, a personal assessment of the events of the Great Patriotic War. For most searchers, dissatisfied with the official version of events, it became important to be on the battlefield itself, to feel the “tragedy of the place” and injustice towards the fallen (forgotten) soldiers. Hence the acceptance of extreme search conditions and the real danger from unexploded ordnance, as well as attention to the fate of a particular deceased soldier. Accepting help from various government agencies and not objecting to the authorities’ desire to lead the movement and give it a patriotic orientation, the searcher sought to maintain the informal nature of their activities. These problems and the current state of the search movement are discussed with L. G. Vokhmyakov, an authoritative Yekaterinburg-based search engine, and K. V. Yakimov, a historian. Each of them talks about how they became acquainted with the search movement, the specifics of the organisation and methods of detecting burials, specific results and internal problems, relations with officials and residents. The awareness and frankness of the participants in the conversation make it possible not only to record the “strategy and tactics” of the searchers, little-known facts from the history of military operations in Russia, but also to understand how their worldview was formed and evolved. The desire to comprehend the military trauma of Soviet society and the search for the remains of the dead not only allowed them to join the tragic page of Russian history but also gave them the right to declare their “truth of war”.

The primary objective of this paper is to undertake a comprehensive reconstruction of the church and administrative division of the Southwestern frontier of the Principality of Ryazan during the period of Mongol invasion. The research is centred on the upper reaches of the Don River, a historical and geographical region traditionally known as Kulikovo Field. This region was located on the territory in question between the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The research methodology is based on the comparative historical method, retrospective analysis, and traditional archaeological methods, including typological, cartographic (e. g., the method of scaled alignment of eighteenth-century maps with the archaeological map of the region from the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries), classification, and comparative statistics. To achieve the goal, data from historical sources on the historical and geographical region Kulikovo Field was combined with data received through archaeological works on ancient Russian sites in the upper reaches of the Don River. The authors carry out a comparative analysis of the parish structure of Epiphan Uyezd of Tula Province of the nineteenth century with the plan of identified medieval subsoil burial grounds of the Kulikovo Field of the twelfth-fourteenth centuries. These burials can be interpreted as medieval Christian cemeteries, as most of the excavated burials are typical Christian burials of the thirteenth-fourteenth centuries. Each of these necropolises is located near a large cluster of ancient Russian sites. The authors of the article suggest considerng the complex of sites – which includes a subsoil burial ground and a nearby cluster of synchronous settlements – as a postulated centre of administrative and church unit (a parish) of the Ryazan diocese in the period in question. Based on mapping of these centres and comparison of the acquired map with the data from written sources of the later periods, framework and methods for further reconstruction of church, administrative, and territorial structure of the Kulikovo Field in the thirteenth-fourteenth centuries have been developed. The established spatial connection between the necropolises of the twelfth-fourteenth centuries with the centres of the parishes of the eighteenth-nineteenth centuries makes it possible to optimise further fieldwork on the identification of new funerary sites of the Old Rus’ epoch.

This article examines the biography of Andrei Savvinovich Postnikov, the tsar’s confessor and protopope of the Annunciation Cathedral in the Moscow Kremlin. For several years, Postnikov conflicted with Patriarch Joachim. The aim of the work is to demonstrate, taking into consideration newly discovered archival information, that this confrontation can be put into a broader sociocultural context than just the personal hostility of the two clerics, as was previously believed. The source base of the study is diverse and includes, among others, the Palace Ranks, files and orderly notes of the Prikaz of Secret Affairs, the inventory of the Annunciation Cathedral, the condemnation of the protopope, documents of the Apothecary Order and a charter of the Patriarchal Rank Prikaz from the National Library of France. The main results of the study are related to the discovery of contacts between the tsar’s confessor either with foreigners (doctors) or with secular persons, advocates of borrowing Western practices (A. S. Matveyev) and their promotion. It also demonstrates Andrei Savvinovich’s interest in translated European works on geography and history (The Chronicle of the Whole World by M. Bielski, Mercator’s Cosmographia and several volumes of Atlas Maior by J. Blaeu), which luxuriant copies protopope Andrei ordered for his library. It is established that the tsar’s confessor entered into confrontation with Patriarch Pitirim before the conflict with Joachim. The latter was one of the irreconcilable opponents of everything European. In this regard, it is concluded that the emergence of a conflict between the patriarch and protopope Andrei is quite natural: in addition to personal grievances, they were people with completely opposite views on Western innovations. Enjoying the special patronage of the sovereign and Tsarina Natalia Kirillovna, supporting A. S. Matveyev, the protopope essentially expressed the interests of the secular authorities in these matters. This inevitably led to the emergence of antagonists in the form of the guardian patriarchs Pitirim and Joachim. The clash with the latter ended for Andrei Savvinovich in a long exile, which turned out to be longer than previously thought, by at least six years.

This article explores a novel topic in the contemporary sociocultural sphere, concerning the shift of the “surrogacy” issue from the realm of reproductive medicine, a specialised field of research, to the broader public domain, encompassing social and cultural dimensions. Mass culture has long been fulfilling the mission of a translator of the basic requests and values of the average person. The TV series is a cultural phenomenon that captures the changes occurring in traditional societal structures, particularly family, motherhood, and childhood. The issue of surrogacy has evolved from a purely medical concern to a matter of public interest. It is evident that surrogacy has become a prevalent topic in various serial genres, ranging from comedy to detective and thriller series. Given the broad appeal of the TV series, its engagement with a novel topic is noteworthy. This engagement serves to underscore the importance of the issue and fosters greater interest among viewers in exploring the problem further. Therefore, the TV series identifies the subject of the conversation, its content (semantics), and demonstrates the technical and technological aspects of the new phenomenon, satisfying the viewer’s interest in answering the question “how it works” (pragmatics). The article identifies common misconceptions about the phenomenon under study. It employs a multidisciplinary approach, drawing from cultural and sociological studies to highlight the nuances of artistic mastery and the authentic perspectives of the subjects involved in the surrogacy process, including surrogate mothers, recipients, medical professionals, legal counsel, and specialists from recruitment agencies. The materials for the study include a corpus of TV series on the topic and 16 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with surrogate mothers.