1
9. Epilogue: Why Etnos (Still) Matters
Nathaniel Knight
The concept of etnos occupies a liminal, contested, yet remarkably durable niche in
the array of categories of identity. Etnos was first articulated in the Russian context
in the waning days of the old Tsarist Empire as a fusion of sorts joining an
ethnographic tradition rooted in the humanities, with a cluster of fields in the
natural sciences seeking to understand human diversity on the basis of bodily
features. The most fervent promoters of etnos, Nikolaĭ Mogili͡anskiĭ and Sergei
Shirokogoroff, were of a rising generation of ethnographers, trained internationally,
with substantial research experience, and poised to move into leading positions in
the field. Both focused on areas at the periphery of the empire, and in the aftermath
of the revolution found themselves cast into these peripheral regions, where they
participated in political movements in opposition to the Bolshevik regime, before
being forced into emigration. Consequently, the concept of etnos took shape in the
1920s and 1930s outside the emerging field of Soviet ethnography within which it
came to be seen as ideologically suspect.
Yet etnos eventually did penetrate into Soviet parlance, tentatively at first in the postwar years and with greater force by the 1960s. By the 1970s, it had been officially
enshrined as a central tenet of Soviet ethnography, largely through the efforts of
I͡Ulian Bromleĭ, director of the Academy of Sciences Institute of Ethnography
2
(Bromleĭ 1973). The concept attained still broader circulation in the late 1980s and
1990s with the publication of the semi-suppressed works of Lev Gumilëv (Gumilëv
1989). But no sooner had etnos gained a foothold in the Russian public sphere than it
was subjected to a blistering critique by post-Soviet ethnographers led by Valeriĭ
Tishkov, Bromleĭ’s successor at the Institute of Ethnography (Tishkov 2003).
Tishkov’s “requiem for etnos”, however, proved premature – the deceased was alive
and well and living in Astana, Bishkek, Ulan Bator, Iakutsk, and any number of
other locations in the post-Soviet space, including Moscow itself. Not only is etnos
well established in public discourse, it has been embraced with particular fervour by
minority groups in the very peripheral regions that gave rise to the concept at its
outset.
The continuing vitality of the concept of etnos, despite its sporadic rejection within
the academic sphere, is a phenomenon that deserves serious and careful
consideration. It is not enough simply to label etnos as a “category of practice”, as
Rogers Brubaker suggests — a kind of ethnographic false consciousness, colouring
the way that the uninitiated view the world, but unworthy of application as an
authentic “category of analysis” (Brubaker 2004, 2002). And while etnos may have a
certain value in legitimatizing claims both symbolic and material on the part of
minority groups, an “instrumental” reading of the concept as a tool in the hands of
ethnic entrepreneurs is insufficient to explain its pervasiveness and persistence
(O’Leary 2001). Even if we resist the temptation to reify etnoses — viewing them, in
3
the style of Gumilëv, as quasi sentient beings — we must acknowledge that the
concept would not persist if it did not have a certain elemental traction, an
explanatory power that cannot easily be evoked through other means. This is all the
more true if we extend our view, as the authors of this collection suggest, from the
actual term etnos to a broader “etnos thinking”.
Simply put, etnos offers a middle ground. Free from the rigid, hierarchical, and antihumanistic connotations of biological determinism associated with the concept of
race, Etnos, at the same time, is not so contingent and ephemeral that identity
becomes purely a matter of individual choice. It is this niche that Teodor Shanin had
in mind in identifying etnos as the “missing term” lacking in the existing array of
sociological concepts (Shanin 1986). An etnos is hard and durable, persisting over
multiple generations, yet it is not immutable. It has a history and an origin, changing
over time and facing the prospect of eventual disappearance. Thus the common
characterization of etnos as a “primordialist” concept built around the notion of a
fixed unchanging essence may not be entirely justified.
In relation to individuals, etnos can be deployed in complex and dynamic patterns.
The concept itself is sufficiently commodious to accommodate a range of
interpretations, variations, and nuances. Not only do monolithic understandings of
etnos tend not to gain footing, even clear definitions are often hard to come by.
Nonetheless, etnos offers a kind of structured flexibility in explaining how
individuals accommodate themselves to larger collectivities. Thus in chapter 8 we
4
learn from Maria Nakhshina and Natalie Wahnsiedler that the Pomors of the
Russian north can consider themselves part of their own distinctive subetnos without
diminishing their broader identify as Russians – in fact, the Pomors are sometimes
seen to embody a deeper, purer essence of the Russian etnos. Depending on the
context and contingency, individuals can accentuate their closer local identity
without negating their belonging to a larger overarching etnos. Nor is it beyond the
realm of possibility for individuals to pass from one etnos to another or even
maintain separate etnos affiliations concurrently. What is firm and persistent about
etnos are the categories themselves, leaving individuals the opportunity to identify
with these categories in more nuanced, contingent ways. It was precisely in an effort
to move beyond the inconsistencies and unpredictability of individual identity, that
Sergei Shirokogoroff gravitated toward the notion of etnos as a means to articulate a
transcendent essence of identity existing above and beyond the individuals who
might comprise it.
Why, however, should we as scholars lend credence to this notion of etnos, given its
tangled history and the problematic strains it has been seen to engender? Why not
simply embrace the notion of hybrid individual identities leave it at that (Ab Imperio
Editorial Board 2018)? Yet even acknowledging the prevalence of hybrid identities in
the modern world, one still needs to account for the elements out of which hybrids
are formulated. A hybrid can only exist, after all, when it is composed of identifiable
components; otherwise, it becomes a thing in itself and loses its hybrid features.
5
Thus essentialist categories may not be so easy to evade. Etnos, moreover, need not
be seen as a monolithic formation. In so far as etnos, in practically all of its renditions,
denotes a totality of distinctive elements — language, material culture, religious
beliefs, folklore and traditions, as well as physical features — it can encompass
variation, differing combinations and hues, without ceasing to comprise an integral
whole. Etnos implies recognisability, not absolute purity.
Most of all, however, etnos thinking deserves to be taken seriously because it offers a
mode of understanding the social world that, regardless of the views of scholars, is
compelling to large numbers of individuals and communities throughout the world.
However much we may wish the world to be otherwise, etnos, particular for
minority populations who face the threat of assimilation, is a reality that cannot be
sacrificed. Like the related concepts of nation, tribe, and ethnicity, etnos engenders a
sense of connectedness that gives rise to social meaning. For the present day Evenki
and Orochen — to whom Jocelyn Dudding showed photographs taken by early
twentieth-century ethnographers (see chapter 7) — it was a matter of fundamental
importance that they shared an ethnic identification with the individuals depicted.
Etnos provided for them a pathway into the past, a link to their ancestors, a
repository of lost knowledge that amounted to a tangible asset, such that inability to
recognize the markers of etnos constituted a palpable loss. Likewise, the diachronic
ties of etnos stretching over time engender synchronic links among individuals
sharing connections to past ancestors and enacting common cultural traits and ways
6
of life rooted in the past. As recent events continually show, despite technological
tools that allow the creation of virtual communities transcending the bounds of
culture, locality, and even language, the call of etnos has not lost its force.
The authors of the essays in this volume focus particular attention on the context and
milieu in which the concept of etnos took shape in its initial iterations — etnos 1.0, if
you will. In chapter 4, Sergei S. Alymov and Svetlana Podrezova pinpoint quite
convincingly the St Petersburg anthropological school of Fedor Volkov as the
seedbed upon which the concept of etnos first took root. In chapter 3, Alymov shows
as well how the Ukrainian national movement which inspired both Volkov and his
protégé Mogili͡anskiĭ added a critical element which led these scholars to infuse the
biological models drawn from the French anthropological school of Paul Broca with
a strong ethno-national awareness. In Chapters 5 and 6, David G. Anderson and
Dmitry Arzyutov trace the fieldwork of Sergei and Elizaveta Shirokogoroff, showing
how they turned to the concept of etnos as a means of bringing order to the chaos of
ethnographic nomenclature based on untidy, overlapping criteria of language,
lifestyle, religious observances, and other traits. By reducing complex identity to an
essence of etnos, Sergei Shirokogoroff believed he could reveal the underlying
equations that govern ethnic relations and express them with mathematic precision.
In chapter 6, Arzyutov in particular shows how Shirokogoroff’s vision of etnos
seeped into the political realm. Allowed to function unhindered, Shirokogoroff
suggested, the dynamics of etnos would set in motion spontaneous processes of self7
organization. Ethnic nations, thus, could realize their fundamental interests and
enact the popular will without sinking into the destructive and divisive realm of
politics. Shirokogoroff, who died in Chinese exile leaving his major works available
only in English or unpublished altogether, might appear to have carved out an
intellectual dead end, a scholarly path not taken. But ideas that appear obscure and
neglected can have a surprising afterlife. This was certainly the case with
Shirokogoroff’s etnos, which left an imprint on Chinese and Japanese concepts of
ethnic nationality (minzu) and played a large role in the rediscovery of etnos by
Bromleĭ and his associates in the 1960s and 1970s.
More could be said about the context in which etnos emerged and the timing of its
appearance. While much of etnos was new and distinct, it emerged out of an
ethnographic tradition directed toward the phenomenon of narodnost’ – usually
rendered as ethnicity or nationality in the cultural sense. Russia in the nineteenth
century was a world of nations, in which ethnic difference served as a primary
marker delineating the vertical contours of social space. Narodnost’ — as defined by
Nikolaĭ Nadezhdin, an early architect of the Russian tradition of ethnography —
represented the totality of features allowing a population to be recognized as
distinct. In turn the spirit of narodnost’ found concrete actualization in peoples
(narody), the natural units that structured the composition of the human race. The
task of the ethnographer was to study narodnost’ and peoples in their natural setting
8
in order to identify their distinguishing features and establish their relationship to
one another. (Nadezhdin 1847).
The notion of ethnography as the science devoted to ethnic distinctiveness set the
field in Russia on a somewhat different trajectory from the developing fields of
anthropology and ethnology in western Europe, which were directed more toward
general problems of the differentiation of the human race as a whole. With the rise of
evolutionist theory, anthropology took as its subject a universal human culture
divided into a set of discrete stages or levels expressed in particular cultural spheres.
An evolutionist anthropologist might focus on a topic such as housing,
transportation, musical instruments or religious practices and compare a broad
range of artefacts from many different groups to show how the successive stages of
cultural evolution were expressed in this particular area (Chapman 1985; Stocking
1995). Elucidating the distinctive features of particular ethnicities was at best a
secondary task clearly subordinated to the challenge of tracing the universal
trajectory of cultural evolution.
The tradition in Russia of ethnographic research focusing on ethnic distinctiveness
remained well entrenched, but by the 1890s, evolutionist models had begun to make
inroads. Moscow was particularly receptive to evolutionism. Maksim Kovalevskiĭ,
the pioneering Russian sociologist, was an early and prominent proponent of
evolutionist thought who remained influential despite the fact that he was obliged to
leave his position at Moscow University for political reasons in the early 1890s and
9
move to France (Glebov 2015). Dmitriĭ Anuchin, the polymath social scientist whose
research encompassed the fields of physical anthropology, ethnography and
geography, was somewhat more restrained in his evolutionist proclivities, but
nonetheless adhered to aspects of the evolutionist model. Anuchin’s protégé, Nikolaĭ
Kharuzin, an indefatigable young ethnographer whose career was tragically cut
short by his untimely death in 1901, was much less constrained in his embrace of
evolutionist models. His posthumously published textbook on ethnography was a
veritable manifesto of evolutionist theory and practice (Kerimova 2011; Knight 2008).
In St Petersburg, the evolutionist camp was well represented by Lev Shternberg, the
former political exile, known for his studies of the Giliaks of Sakhalin Island and for
his collaboration with Franz Boas (Kan 2009).
The concept of etnos emerged, I would suggest, in the context of a backlash
against evolutionist ideas and methods among Russian ethnographers. The two
primary theorists of etnos in its earliest iteration, Mogili͡anskiĭand Shirokogoroff,
both formulated their ideas in dialogue with specific evolutionist scholars, who
served as foils against which the new ideas took shape.1 Mogili͡anskiĭ first made use
of the term etnos in his 1902 review of Kharuzin’s textbook, later published in 1908
(Mogili͡anskiĭ 1908). In his expanded treatment published in 1916, Mogili͡anskiĭ drew
a sharp dividing line between his approach based on the centrality of etnos and
1
Sergei Glebov makes a similar argument about the reaction against evolutionism as a factor in the formation of
Eurasianist theory (Glebov 2015).
10
evolutionist scholars such as Kharuzin and Shternberg who saw ethnography
essentially as a history of culture writ large. “For a historian of culture”, Mogili͡anskiĭ
wrote, “all of humanity as a whole stands in the foreground […] A people, etnos, is a
mere substrate on which some phenomenon or another takes place” (Mogili͡anskiĭ
1916: 9). Specific examples from the real life of peoples, drawn from the most diverse
and disparate groups are used merely to illustrate the larger patterns of human
development. Mogili͡anskiĭ proposed that ethnography move in a different direction:
“an ethnographer should not ignore the concept of etnos” (Mogili͡anskiĭ 1916: 10).
Sergei Shirokogoroff’s path to the concept of etnos is somewhat harder to trace given
that in his theoretical works on the topic he neglected to acknowledge the precursors
to his ideas or to place them in the context of the development of Russian
ethnography. Anderson and Arzyutov, in their exhaustive research into
Shirokogoroff’s career and work presented in Chapters 5 and 6, have, however,
uncovered some suggestive hints. A key figure in the development of
Shirokogoroff’s thinking was undoubtedly Shternberg, A mentor, perhaps even a
father figure, Shternberg served at the same time as an intellectual antagonist, a
negative point of reference against which Shirokogoroff formulated his own
thinking. In a 1932 letter to a Polish collaborator, cited in chapter 6, Shirokogoroff
refers to Shternberg’s evolutionism and notes with emphatic distaste Shternberg’s
embrace of the work of James George Frazer, whose magnum opus, The Golden
Bough, exemplified the comparative method of “historians of culture”. Had it been
11
Shternberg who confronted the confusion of ethnic identities among the Tungus and
Orochen of Zabaĭkal’e and Manchuria, he would likely have found it of little
consequence and perhaps even seen it as confirmation of the position that “the
individual elements that appear in among separate peoples, do not act
autonomously. They are always inextricably tied to […] the evolutionary
development of culture overall” (Zhurnal zasedanii͡a 1916: 6). For Shirokogoroff, in
contrast, identifying a distinct overarching Tungus and Orochen etnos was a critical
imperative, necessary to distil a deeper truth out of the confusion of everyday
nomenclature.
In asserting the primacy of etnos over the evolutionist “history of culture”,
Mogili͡anskiĭ and Shirokogoroff were echoing the older tradition of ethnography as
the study of narodnost’. For Shirokogoroff, who says little about his predecessors and
addresses an international audience, the connection is implicit, but Mogili͡anskiĭ is
open in acknowledging the continuity. He writes of “preserving etnos as the basis for
scientific ethnography”, not introducing etnos as an innovation (Mogili͡anskiĭ 1916:
11). Looking back to previous conceptions of ethnography, he cites the conceptions
of Nadezhdin and Aleksandr Pypin envisioning ethnography as the study of
narodnost’ and refers approvingly to Anuchin’s endorsement of detailed
monographic studies of specific peoples as the central task of ethnography.
“Ethnography”, Mogili͡anskiĭ concludes, “is above all the study of peoples
(narodovedenie)” (Mogili͡anskiĭ 1916: 12). Shirokogoroff in turn defines etnos in terms
12
synonymous with narodnost’ as a “group of people, speaking the same language,
recognizing their common origin, possessing a complex of customs and a social
system, which is consciously maintained and explained as tradition and
differentiated from those of other groups” (Shirokogoroff 1924: 5). Just as Nadezhdin
understood ethnography as the study of narodnost’, Shirokogoroff defined the field
as the science that studies etnos.
Is etnos and ethnography as envisioned by Mogili͡anskiĭ and Shirokogoroff, therefore,
simply a matter of old wine in new bottles? The one aspect of both conceptions that
appears distinct and innovative is the insistence that etnos be understood to include a
biological component. But if etnos is, as the editors of this volume suggest in Chapter
2, a biosocial concept, where exactly does the biological connect with the social? It
would appear that Mogili͡anskiĭ and Shirokogoroff each approach this problem from
a different angle. Mogili͡anskiĭ argued that biometric research — detailed studies
characterizing the group from the perspective of physical anthropology and
connecting it to larger racial categories — needed to be included as an integral
component of etnos. Therefore ethnography, in his view, should be understood as a
compound science, akin to archaeology, that draws on the skills of specialists from a
range of fields to address its specific aim (Mogili͡anskiĭ 1916: 15). A model for
Mogili͡anskiĭ’s conception can be found in his friend and mentor Volkov’s exhaustive
and controversial two-volume study of the Ukrainian people which, above and
beyond demonstrating the independent status of the Ukrainian language and the
13
distinctiveness of Ukrainian folkways, depicted the Ukrainians as a single and
separate anthropological type.2
Shirokogoroff in his early 1920s formulations of the concept of etnos was less
insistent on the role of biometric classification. In an arrangement somewhat similar
to the Boasian four-field system, he envisioned anthropology and ethnography as
separate entities — one based in the natural sciences, the other in the humanities —
which joined together with linguistics to form the overarching field of ethnology
(Shirokogorov 2002 [1923]: ch. 2). Anthropology, in his view, was a purely biological
science viewing humanity from a zoological perspective. But Shirokogoroff, perhaps
influenced by his own attempts at anthropometric classification and analysis, came
to question the value of racial classification. He notes the wide variety of schemes of
racial divisions, the lack of stable definitions, and the disjuncture between racial
types and recognized ethnic or national groups. Ultimately he concluded that the
very idea of a limited number of races, which had guided research agendas and
classification schemes up to that time, was “unsatisfactory in light of a closer
acquaintance with separate peoples” (Shirokogorov 2002 [1923]: 63). Biometric
analysis, he added, was of more use in shedding light on the historical origins of
modern populations, foreseeing, perhaps, the modern uses of genomic studies.
2
Volkov’s study and the reaction it provoked is described in detail in chapter 3. See also Marina Mogil'ner
(2008: 138-44).
14
More important than biometric data in defining etnos was the nature of the etnos
itself as an autonomous organic entity. Etnos, in Shirokogoroff’s view, was the core
unit through which humans adapted to their environment and engaged in the
struggle for survival. As such, the etnos had the capacity for independent action and
self-regulation above and beyond the volition of the individuals who composed it.
Shirokogoroff writes, “an etnos is always struggling for its existence, and, if it can
oppose other etnoses and becomes victorious, it may continue expanding in territory,
which is one of the external manifestations of its growth” (Shirokogoroff 1924: 7).
Shirokogoroff’s conception of etnos easily spilled over into the realm of geopolitics,
as nations, infused with the spirit of the etnos, competed with one another for
dominance and survival. The etnos, in its reified form, engaged in this autonomous
action through its psychological and cognitive capacities, the primary adaptive
mechanism through which it engaged in the struggle for survival (Shirokogorov
2002 [1923]: 64). Thus, when Shirokogoroff spoke of etnos as a biological unit, he was
referring not to the shared physical traits of a given population, but to the biological
functions of adaptation and self-regulation that took place on the level of the etnos
and insured the survival of the individuals who comprised it. Shirokogoroff’s
conception transcended the view of the organism as a metaphor and endowed the
etnos with a hard ontological substance as a living being in its own right, with its
own lifecycle and role as the essential actor in the process of human evolution.
15
Thus, we find, in Mogili͡anskiĭ and Shirokogoroff’s conceptions, two contrasting
views of etnos, one weighted toward the material sphere, the other arising out of the
metaphysical realm. This duality could even be seen to have reappeared in etnos 2.0
– the models of etnos developed in the 1960s and 1970, particularly the contrasting
visions of Bromleĭ and Gumilëv. To be sure, the parallel is by no means exact.
Bromleĭ’, for example, relied far less on the presence of shared biometric traits in his
vision of etnos than did Mogili͡anskiĭ. Moreover, the two scholars differ in their
placement of ethnography with the larger framework of the human sciences:
Bromleĭ, in keeping with the Soviet tradition, situated ethnography within the
humanities, while Mogili͡anskiĭ insisted on its close relation to the natural sciences, a
position shared by Gumilëv. Yet the contrast persisted between views of etnos as an
assemblage of distinguishing features and etnos as a reified organic whole.3
*
*
*
*
*
A closer look at Mogili͡anskiĭ and Shirokogoroff’s concepts of etnos provides
some insights as to why this concept has proven so controversial yet at the same
time so resilient. Like other categories of identity, etnos, whether understood as a
community defined by shared traits or as a social organism, retains the potential to
evoke violence. Once the etnos is recognized as a conceptual object, it can serve as a
3
Bromlei, in fact, directly notes the correspondence between Shirokogoroff and Gumilëv’s organic
understandings of etnos (Bromleĭ 1973: 26).
16
point of reference: elements in the surrounding world are viewed from the
perspective of the benefits or harm they confer on the etnos. The resulting interests of
the etnos can attain the status of a moral absolute. Individual rights, respect for
cultural diversity, maintenance of international order and stability, adherence to law
and ethical standards all potentially yield to the overarching interests of the etnos.
The events of the 1990s, from the massacres in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda to
the turmoil in the former Soviet republics, revealed the destructive potential
inherent in visions of collective identity. The surge of ethno-nationalism and
tribalism in the current political climate reminds us that this potential is far from
exhausted.
Yet while the dangers of etnos are readily apparent, the remedies are far from clear.
Is etnos itself the problem, or is it more appropriate to focus on the immediate causes
— the hatred, xenophobia, and chauvinistic pride that so often infect ethnic
consciousness? If etnos is an organism, are these maladies its diseases? In this case, is
it not better to think about how to effect a cure? It is possible to envision a healthy
incarnation of etnos, cleansed of its malevolent content? And what are the
alternatives? Is it realistic to expect populations to abandon their terms of group
identity, terms that often provide the basis for claims, both practical and symbolic,
on state and society, in response to abuses for which they may feel no responsibility?
Whether we view etnos as a dangerous illusion or a useful means to understand
longstanding affinities based on shared culture and history, the phenomena of etnos
17
thinking will continue to exist. Whether couched in the language of tribe, nation,
ethnicity or etnos, individuals will continue to seek meaning and coherence by
envisioning their lives in the context of larger collectivities whose roots in the past
and trajectory into the future extend beyond the finite bounds of individual
mortality. The concept of etnos, and the broader etnos thinking that accompanies it,
offer a framework for describing and analysing these behaviours. Whatever the
inconsistencies and weaknesses of the concepts developed by Mogili͡anskiĭ,
Shirokogoroff and their later Soviet successors, these are ideas that still speak to us
in the present day.
18
References
Ab Imperio Editorial Board. 2018. 'The Impossibility of Pure Forms: Normative
Hybridities as a "Banality of Life"', Ab Imperio 1: 15-9.
Bromleĭ, I. U. V. 1973. Ėtnos i ėtnografii͡a (Moscow: Nauka).
Brubaker, R. 2002. 'Ethnicity without Groups', European Journal of Sociology/Archives
Européennes de Sociologie XLIII (2): 163-89.
———. 2004. Ethnicity Without Groups (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Chapman, W. R. 1985. 'Arranging Ethnology: A. H. L. F. Pitt Rivers and the
Typological Tradition', in Objects and Others: Essays on Museums and Material
Culture, ed. by G. W. Stocking. (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press),
15-48.
Glebov, S. V. 2015. 'N. S. Trubetskoi’s Europe and Mankind and Eurasianist
Antievolutionism: One Unknown Source', in Between Europe and Asia: The
Origins, Theories, and Legacies of Russian Eurasianism, ed. by M. Bassin, S.
Glebov, and M. Laruelle. (Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press), 4867.
Gumilëv, L. N. 1989. Etnogenez i biosfera Zemli (Leningrad: LGU).
Kan, S. 2009. Lev Shternberg: Anthropologist, Russian Socialist, Jewish Activist (Lincoln,
NE: University of Nebraska Press).
Kerimova, M. M. 2011. Zhizn', otdannai͡a nauke. Sem'i͡a ėtnografov Kharuzinykh. Iz
istorii rossiĭskoĭ ėtnografii (1880-1930-e gody) (Moscow: Vostochnai͡a literatura).
Knight, N. 2008. 'Nikolai Kharuzin and the Quest for a Universal Human Science:
Anthropological Evolutionism and the Russian Ethnographic Tradition, 18851900', Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 9 (1): 1-29.
Mogil'ner, M. 2008. Homo Imperii: Istorii͡a fizicheskoĭ antropologii v Rossii (konet͡s XIX
- nachalo XX v.) (Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie).
Mogili͡anskiĭ, N. M. 1908. 'Ėtnografii͡a i ee zadachi' Ezhegodnik Russkogo
antropologicheskogo obshchestva 3: 1–14.
———. 1916. 'Predmet i zadachi ėtnografii' Zhivai͡a starina 25: 1–22.
Nadezhdin, N. I. 1847. 'Ob ėtnograficheskom izuchenii narodnosti russkoĭ', in Zapiski
Russkogo Geograficheskogo Obshchestva (Tipografii͡a Imperatorskoĭ Akademii
Nauk: Sankt-Peterburg), 61-115.
O’Leary, B. 2001. 'Instrumentalist Theories of Nationalism', in Encyclopedia of
Nationalism, ed. by A. Leoussi. (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction), 148-53.
Shanin, T. 1986. 'Soviet Theories of Ethnicity: The Case of a Missing Term' New Left
Review (158): 113.
Shirokogoroff, S. M. 1924. Ethnical Unit and Milieu: A Summary of the Ethnos
(Shanghai: E. Evans and Sons).
19
Shirokogorov, S. M. 2002 [1923]. Ėtnos - issledovanie osnovnykh print͡sipov izmenenii͡a
ėtnicheskikh i ėtnograficheskikh i͡avleniĭ (Vladivostok: Izdatel'stvo
Dal'nevostochnogo universiteta).
Stocking, G. W. 1995. 'Prologue: Tylor and the Reformation of Anthropology', in
After Tylor: British Social Anthropology, 1888-1951 (Madison, WI: University of
Wisconsin Press), 3-14.
Tishkov, V. A. 2003. Rekviem po etnosu (Moscow: Nauka).
Zhurnal zasedanii͡a. 1916. 'Zhurnal zasedanii͡a Otdelenii͡a ėtnografii IRGO 4
marta 1916 goda', Zhivai͡a starina 2-3: 1–11.
20