The Development of Crimean Studies in the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, and Ukraine.’ Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 64:4 (2011): 437-452. (original) (raw)
Related papers
Crimean Antiquities as Viewed by Foreigners in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centurie
Światowit Supplement Series C: Pontica et Caucasica, vol. II: Interdisciplinary Research on the Antiquity of the Black Sea, 2021
This paper presents considerations on the earliest stage of the investigation of the past of the Crimea that started after the first Russian annexation of the peninsula in 1783. Although Russian ideology underlined classical heritage of the northern Black Sea coast, travellers and researchers had their views of the antiquities and used them for different purposes. Travellers discovered the site of ancient Chersonese, supplied information how Scythian Neapolis was found, and made first analyses of old coins discovered in the region. Their travelogues explained the significance of archaeological monuments for European grand tours. However, they also produced long-living phantoms, such as the tomb of Mithradate in Kerch and that of Maria Potocka in Bakhchisarai, or the traces of the great flood in the Crimean mountains; these and other myths are still alive among local residents and tourists. The travellers developed the idea of the Crimea as a substitute of Greece, the must-see area of classical heritage, and suggested that archaeological artefacts should be taken abroad for “better protection”. Many attempts were made to relate modern residents of the Crimea with this or that ancient people known from Herodotus and Strabo, like the Russians as the Greeks or the Karaites as the Melanchleni. Finally, archaeology was used as an “ideological tool” directed on the Russians, accusing them of intentional destruction of cultural heritage. Many of these myths and stereotypes are still alive.
International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 2020
Significant changes taking place in the socio-economic and cultural life of Crimea, in connection with joining the Russian Federation, determine priorities in the field of national policy and education, the main of which are the formation of national and universal values, ensuring the educational needs of Crimeans, preserving cultural and historical traditions of education and training of the younger generation. The development of primary education in Crimea at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries differs significantly from other regions due to the specificity of ethno-religious identities. The ethno-confessional situation in the territory of Crimea in the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries was rather complicated. Multi-faceted study of the history of the Crimea show that Crimea remained multinational at any given period of history, such as the dominance of one of the ethnic groups of the peninsula, the various state systems.
ournal of Education and Science “ISTORIYA” , 2021
This paper will be published in Russian in the Journal of Education and Science “ISTORIYA” (“History”). Our research addresses integration processes and administrative practices in the Crimea, their influences on local society, and the peninsula’s incorporation into the sphere of European culture. It has been shown that the government permanently corrected their policy under the influence from recently discovered circumstances. The aim was to demonstrate Russian empire’s progressiveness with use of advanced scientific and philosophical thought. Objective and subjective reasons for the delay in integration have been uncovered. Flexibility of religious, tax, social policies aimed at the securing the locals’ loyalty and gradual “teaching” them all-Russia ways has been revealed. The reasons for the problems in commercial, economic, and legal spheres and the influence of newly-formed stereotypes on the regional development have been indicated. Collective and individual adaptation practices developed by the members of varied ethno-confessional communities have been singled out. It has been established that Russia’s policy towards the Crimea was not a version of colonialism. The development of tourism which contributed to the region’s appearance on Western mental maps and its inclusion into the space of Russian and foreign cultures has been demonstrated.
This paper analysis the growth of interest to the Byzantine heritage of the Crimean Peninsula after its annexation by Russia in 1783. The cases of “cave towns,” Prince Vladimir’s baptism, and alleged Rus’ raid on the Crimea in the eleventh century allows to trace how late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries intellectual travellers and historians used to discuss narrative sources’ accounts and material monuments related to the Byzantine past of the Crimea. Conceptualizing the Crimean Peninsula as a part of Byzantine heritage, they tried to make its history a component part of complicated narratives, which covered the entire history and civilization of Russia. Some of the ideas produced in the period in question, such as those related to the origin of “cave monasteries” by runaway Byzantine monks, to eleventh-century Rus’ attack on Kafa, or to the Crimea’s especial role for Russian religion and culture appeared to be extraordinary strong and survived in scholarly and public discourses to these days.
Advances in Ancient Black Sea Studies: Historiography, Archaeology and Religion, 2019
The expressions ‘Late Scythian culture’ and ‘Crimean Scythia’ are modern concepts. The first term appeared soon after 1946, and it was intended to designate the material culture of the Scythians, supposedly superseded by the Sarmatians in the 3rd century BC and later replaced by the Slavs, thus making a direct historical bridge from Scythians to Russians. The Late Scythian culture consisted of two enclaves, the Crimean-Dnieper and the Thracian one. The Crimean-Dnieper enclave was represented by two slightly different variants located in the Crimea and in the Lower Dnieper region. The term ‘Crimean Scythia’ was invented in late 1980s – early 1990s, and reflects the idea of the formation of a new separate Scythian statehood in the Crimea. According to the predominant point of view, the Late Scythian culture of the Crimea was constantly transforming in the course of the Sarmaticization’ process. This position seems to be unsustainable. In fact, some migrations to the Crimea from the North Pontic steppe or the Caucasus could have likely occurred. However, the newcomers (‘Sarmatians’?) certainly had a much lesser effect on the functioning of the social networks and the economic and cultural appearance of the ‘Crimean Scythia’ than the proximity of the ancient centres and geopolitical aspirations of the world hegemonic powers.