Moscow: Aleteya Publ., 2007, 304 p.

I opened the book, I admit, with a certain amount of bias. The fact is that I know Abashin's work quite well and assumed that it was a summary, a repetition of what he had written earlier. However, as I read the Preface, I became more and more convinced that the reviewed work was significantly different from the previous ones.

The preface answers a very specific question: what exactly does the author want to say and prove in his work, what positions does he declare for discussion? S. N. Abashin immediately declares his fundamental disagreement with the "theory of ethnos", most fully formulated by Yu.V. Bromley. And further develops it through the analysis of the history of the formation of the "theory of ethnos" and his vision of the position of Russian ethnographers in relation to this theory. At the same time, S. N. Abashin emphasizes that "already in the mid-1980s, when I knew practically nothing about Western theories and disputes, a protest against the "theory of ethnos" arose in my mind" and that, as he believes, " it would be naive and even unfair to think that Soviet ethnographers we did not see or understand the contradictions that arise from the" theory of ethnos "as soon as its fundamental postulates collide with empirical material" (p. 6).

Of course, empirical, field material raised questions that the "theory of ethnos" did not formally answer, but this could often be due to a lack of such material, including in cases of poorly studied peoples and regions, or because the empirical material was not subjected to a full-fledged historical analysis and generalization. The references given in the preface to the works of T. A. Zhdanko and B. H. Karmysheva, as the author himself seems to understand, do not indicate the need to abandon the "theory of ethnos", but rather indicate the need for further accumulation of field material and its scientific understanding, taking into account, among other things, "Western" theoretical thought.

In the first chapter, "On the Self - consciousness of the peoples of Central Asia (how Alexander Igorevich argued with John)", S. N. Abashin discusses a correspondence discussion between the American anthropologist D. Schoberline and a specialist from Uzbekistan A. I. Shevyakov. From the analysis of the two opinions, he draws, in my opinion, the correct conclusion: "This is not just a dispute between two researchers who disagree about certain facts. Before us is a discussion about how to interpret the entire history of Central Asia, what types or types of self-consciousness existed in the past in this region, and how the process of ethnization of consciousness of modern Central Asian society took place" (p.13).

The author presents his position and examines the ethnic and social groups of the Central Asian population named in the above discussion, highlighting the types of their self-consciousness (tribal for the Kipchaks, estate for the Khojas, local for the Samarkandans, socio-economic for the Sarts) and the process of replacing these types with the ethnonym "Uzbek". At the same time, S. N. Abashin is not quite firm in his conclusions. "The choice of the term 'Uzbek' as a national name, "he writes," was largely accidental, just like the term 'Uyghur', 'Tajik', etc. And it is quite obvious that all of them were really planted in the minds of people in the 1920s and 1930s. At the same time, however, it should be understood that the widespread use of the name "Uzbek" was not necessarily violence. There was a well-justified need for modernization in Central Asian society, and the ethnization of self-consciousness was part of this process" (pp. 33-34). It is quite possible to agree with this position of the author, adding only that on a number of issues raised in the chapter, various opinions have been expressed in the last decade, including those that do not coincide with the author's opinion, which it would be correct to mention.

In the second chapter, "Mindon people in the XVIII-early XX centuries: a history of changing self-consciousness", S. N. Abashin gives a historical interpretation of the ethnic history of the population of the large "Uzbek" village of Mindon. This story is constructed by him on the basis of a survey of local residents and the totality of documented historical and literary information about the population of the Ferghana Valley.

The author's review of the Kalmyks (Kalmok), one of the ethnic groups of the village, is interesting. Its value lies in the fact that there has not yet been a detailed study of the history of the Kalmyks in Ferghana. The author quite rightly emphasizes "the really huge role that the Kalmyks played in the history of the Ferghana Valley and the entire Central Asia in the late Middle Ages" (p.45). A very interesting excursion about the Kashgar people and their place in the process of adding up the population of Mindon is very interesting. This is not least due to a certain underestimation of the role of Kashgars in the formation of the Ferghana population as a whole, although we have fairly detailed documented sources about their migrations in the XIX-early XX centuries. In addition to the sources and studies mentioned by the author, there are also a number of works that mention Kashgars in Ferghana, their settlement and sometimes their number and occupation. It seems that historians and ethnographers will have to reconsider the role and significance of such migrations. Finally, a short excursion is devoted to Tajiks, immigrants from Southern Tajikistan. Although such migrants are quite well known in relation to other villages of the Ferghana Valley, it is important to note that the population of the village of Mindon in the past spoke Tajik at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. it was bilingual, and later switched to Uzbek.

Yet the conclusions of the second chapter seem too categorical. The author again repeats a fairly common point of view about the artificial "directive creation of nations" (p. 71).

In the third chapter - "Archeology of Central Asian nationalisms" - the author examines the self-consciousness of the population of Bukhara, which, in addition to scientific interest, has a continuing practical significance. In connection with this problem, he analyzes well-known sources: "The Pilgrimage of Philip Yefremov", "Description of the Bukhara Khanate" by N. V. Khanykov and " Bukhara. XIX-early XX century" by O. A. Sukhareva. The main question for S. N. Abashin is the interpretation of the ethnic "nature" of the city's population by these authors. If F. Efremov, in his report published in 1784 in St. Petersburg, called the inhabitants of the city and district simply "Bukharians", and N. V. Khanykov in his book (1843) - Tajiks, then O. A. Sukhareva, who collected materials in the 40-50s of the XX century and published her research in 1966 In fact, it bypassed the question of the ethnic name of the city's residents, calling them a "local type". This conclusion about the uncertainty of the ethnic composition of the population of Bukhara and its districts seems to be interpreted by modern Tajik politicians in favor of the statement about its Tajik historical identity.

The fourth chapter is entitled " The Problem of the Sarts in Russian historiography of the XIX - first half of the XX century." For quite a long time in Central Asian historiography, there was a discussion about the ethnic " face "of the Sarts, while the issue was discussed in the context of the opposition" Tajiks-Uzbeks", and only V. V. Barthold, who wrote a number of works on this topic, established that the Sarts are not an ethnonym, but a socio-economic term. This topic, in my opinion, has already passed into the field of history and is not considered a problem by serious scientists. S. N. Abashin does not explicitly mention this, which can cause a false impression among non-specialists about the intensity of the problem in our time.

The fifth chapter- "The history of the origin and current state of Central Asian nationalisms" - is perhaps one of the main, most important semantic sections of the book. It begins with a short story about a certain anecdotal story that happened to N. S. Khrushchev during his visit to Uzbekistan in 1955, when in his welcoming speech he confused Uzbeks with Tajiks. The author explains this fact by the fact that these peoples were allegedly perceived by the country's leadership as antipodes. In my opinion, this case shows just the opposite - there is no tangible difference between Tajiks and Uzbeks. Another thing is important: here the author speaks, as a well-known fact, about the existence of a latent, seemingly officially undeclared conflict between Tajiks and Uzbeks: "two neighboring Central Asian states are in a state of imperceptible war... they are concerned about how to annoy the opponent" (p. 178). This really well-known fact is important for understanding the subsequent text, where SN. Abashin analyzes in great detail the processes of formation, formation and development of Uzbek and Tajik nationalisms, and does it against a good historical background, using largely non-trivial examples and on a very good foundation of sources. However, along with the Uzbeks and Tajiks, it would be quite possible to mention the well-known contradictions between other Central Asian peoples. If the title contains the topic of "Central Asian nationalisms", then the reader has the right to expect

at least an appropriate analysis of Turkmen, Kazakh, and Kyrgyz nationalisms, since they actually exist.

The sixth chapter, "Gellner,' descendants of saints 'and Central Asia: Between Islam and Nationalism", continues the theme of the previous chapter and introduces a new one - on the identity of Central Asian 'saints'. It is very important that S. N. Abashin not only names and lists "holy" groups, but also examines them in detail on the examples of specific families in the North Tajik village of Ashoba, paying special attention to the relationship between them and between these groups and the population. Since the author examines in detail the history of the mentioned village, he probably should have given at least references to ethnographers who wrote about this village (Tursunov, Chvyr, Bushkov).

The seventh chapter," Regionalism in Tajikistan: The Emergence of ethnic discourse", begins with a perfectly correct statement that the concept of" regionalism " in its modern meaning was formed during the beginning of the civil war in this Central Asian state in the early 1990s. It is also true that experts and researchers did not give a detailed analysis of the essence of the differences between the two countries. S. N. Abashin writes that "the first manifestations of instability in Tajikistan were outlined in February 1990, when riots occurred in Dushanbe" (p.236). This is incorrect, since social discomfort in Tajik society and trends in its development were identified as early as the first half of the 1980s. Then it became known to the union leadership. And it was then that it was clear that the result of these processes could be a civil war.

The rest of the chapter is written in a traditional way, but "filled" with significantly new and interesting content. S. N. Abashin included the ethnic factor in the explanatory part of the concept of "regionalism", trying to consider it from the point of view of incomplete ethnic consolidation of Tajiks, which is a long-accepted point of view and which Tajik scientists do not object to either.

In the end, the author writes that "history itself gave its assessment to those experts who convinced themselves and others that the conflict in Tajikistan was a natural and inevitable result of the previous development" (p.258), implying incompetence and, accordingly, the wrongness of their assessments. I can't agree with the author. In my opinion, the entire post-war development of the republic fully confirmed the conclusions made earlier about the causes of the civil war.

The last, eighth chapter - "A friend among strangers, a stranger among his own (ethnographic reflections on A. Volos 'novella" Your Own")" - in fact, does not give anything new for the main content of the book, since the novel in question, as the author himself admits, is based on the rarest, exceptional case. At the same time, the chapter is a highly qualified and in-depth analysis of a work of art.

Despite the fact that the book is based on the texts of articles published by S. N. Abashin in various publications, they were so revised and supplemented that they are perceived as an independent and integral work. And even the controversial nature of many of the author's statements does not cause an unbiased reader any negative attitude. Written in good language, the book is read with great interest and will undoubtedly be very useful to anyone who deals with such issues. Perhaps a new modern theory will grow out of all this.

Permanent link to this publication: