The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

Ethnicity and borders in the North Caucasus on the eve of the Russian revolutions of 1917.



 © 2007 A. Matveev

ETHNICITY AND BORDERS IN the NORTH CAUCASUS ON THE EVE OF the RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONS of 1917

The resettlement problem in the North Caucasus, by recognition of experts, throughout many centuries before establishment of the Russian jurisdiction generated critical conflict situations and "... claims of some people to others" [1]. Territorial disputes were constants here and led to bloody collisions. Correlation of administrative and ethnic borders in the region when fixing in the state borders of Russia because of such heritage was business difficult and was carried out by means of the corresponding reforms.

Practices of the Russian policy in this sphere have not only the retrospective potential important for deepening of scientific representations, but also are relevant for the present. But achievements and the missed opportunities at their realization remain not studied in all completeness. Finding of objective knowledge on this direction will allow to understand more deeply the existing territorial disagreements though, certainly, parallels with experience of the past not always give direct answers to time calls.

In the second half of XIX - the beginning of the 20th century the North Caucasus found typical signs of the outskirts of the domestic East. Not the last role in it was played by administrative-territorial transformations. Separate aspects of their carrying out received reflection in Zh.A. Kalmykov, G.N. Malakhova, A.I. Khasbulatov's monographs, etc. [2]. However still there is no complex systematization on all edge, especially in refractions of revolutionary events in Russia 1917, and they cleared up a lot of things in the historical reality which developed in the North Caucasus.

The analysis of the Russian approaches to the administrative organization of the territory of the outskirts was carried out also in a number of articles [3] where the conflicts in the southern parts of the area united once in the borders of Russia which arose during a Post-Soviet era were mentioned mainly. Also the foreign authors proving the provision on accessory to Iran of the considerable spaces of the region lost, allegedly, "owing to the Russian imperialistic expansion" [4] concern the same subject.

The unilaterality according to it is inherent also in publications of domestic scientists of D. Danilov, A. Zvereva and others, inclined, as well as most of foreign authors to allocate only negative sides of the Russian policy [5]. In our opinion, only the research of the French author F. de Paou who called in question exaggeration of a progressive role of the adjacent powers of Iran and Turkey in the Caucasus [6] differs in objectivity.

In recent years there were developments showing other sides of the Russian policy pursued here when forming the state unity, and that is very remarkable, its positive results.

It is necessary to distinguish from researches of such orientation B.V. Vinogradov's works, Yu.Yu. Klychnikov [7]. In the same conceptual number of domestic Caucasus studies there is also very interesting collective generalization on ethnic migrations in Kuban reflecting not only retrospective aspects, but also a modern situation [8].

The extensive data which were earlier not introduced for scientific use allowed to recreate a large-scale historical panorama of movements of the population within Northwest and parts of Central Caucasus Mountains from 60th of the 18th century before full inclusion of edge in structure of Russia in 1864 [9]. In relation to this period also processes of establishment of ethnic borders, influence of various circumstances on their formation are analyzed [9]. Theoretical aspects of functioning of contact zones, features of their civilization interaction as in European (S.G. Agad-zhanov), and regional contexts were exposed to special study (D.I. Oleynikov) [10].

This subject, as we know, is directly connected with a spatial factor. Such researches were not undertaken concerning the period of the second half of XIX - the beginning of the 20th century, especially in the generalized format across all North Caucasus. Need for them became ripe long ago. The administrative-territorial transformations which were carried out mainly after the termination of the armed opposition in the North Caucasus had also integrative purpose, meaningless up to the end in historical science.

By analogy with other peripheral parts of the Russian Empire not only provinces, but also the areas differing in the specific structure of the population were created here. On the established practice till 1917 the existence of areas, departments and districts was peculiar for the outskirts. The association of several provinces allowed in them in some cases led to establishment and larger administrative units which received the name of Governorate-Generals [11].

Division of the outskirts corresponded, as a rule, to et-nodemografichesky features of areas and did not break the realities which developed in the past. The rural device within inoetnichesky enclaves of the domestic East also had the feature. In the North Caucasus there was, for example, no division into volosts and there was mainly only one administrative unit - rural societies. And they were formed on absolutely other beginnings, than in internal Russia, and actually represented both the volost, and rural organization [12].

In the provision "About Aulny Societies in the Mountain Population of the Kuban and Tersky Regions." razjyas-

nyalos that they "are formed from all residents of one aul, without distinction on what earth they would not live (on state or private)" [13]. Owing to various changes caused by the subsequent adjustments by 1917 the aulny societies by the legal regulating criteria had similarity to country societies of the internal provinces of Russia, but at the same time kept the specifics which developed earlier. It was noted also in official office correspondence [14].

In a research of the designation "edge", "outskirts", "region" are used according to features of the Russian Empire. The edge is considered as its part with ethnically not the uniform structure of the population which developed at the same time in the uniform administratively organized system including various areas and provinces. In the version of the explanatory dictionary of V. Dahl this word is interpreted as "a limit, a boundary, the party...". In it also other semantic stratifications are noticed. It was so designated in the middle of the 19th century when collecting data for systematization and the subsequent edition, "the earth, the area and the people was made.". V. Dahl revealed in the concept "edge" and display of sense "local, native..." [15, t. 2, page 184]. These shades reflected language reality of the studied historical era and are considered in the offered interpretation of the term.

According to this reality the term "native" which is opened by V. Dahl as ".mestny, relating to known is used. areas", and derivative definition "native" is accompanied by explanation "the .zdeshny, local native, the natural resident of the country about which the speech" [15, t. 4, page 440, 441]. Opposition "inoplemenny, foreign, apparently, was closely connected with it.", characterizing accessory ".k to other tribe, a sort" [15, t. 2, page 46]. In one row also the used expression "inoverny., the gentile is put.", who specified "a .ucheniye and ceremonies. not dominating. confessions, beliefs." or belonging to other belief [15, t. 2, page 45]. These concepts, apparently, had no discriminating and humiliating loading attributed to them during the Soviet period. They were widely used at the time by scientists and in statistics which was based on the data of domestic science [16].

Therefore lawful the recommendation of their perception from positions of the "political correctness" offered in the polemical publication of the Rostov historian A.V. Shcherbina is hardly submitted. The term "okrainets" opposed to them to definition "foreigners" [17] in the dictionary by V. Dahl reproducing very precisely linguistic practice did not receive reflection, is equal as it was not used as widespread in broad use along with noted.

And in the explanatory dictionary by S.I. Ojegov which was formed during the Soviet period in definition "foreigner" it is not allocated any humiliating shades. In the accompanying explanation it is only noted that the native of the outskirts of the country, mainly east, prinadle-treated them "in tsarist Russia" everyone "

zhashchiya to one of ethnic minorities" [18]. Addition "ino", according to its version, indicates first of all contrast ".iny, another": "inoplemenny", i.e. belonging to "other tribe, the people", "gentile" - the representative of "other belief", etc. The variation means "foreign", according to S.I. Ojegov, the alien environment or a situation.

Apparently, and in this linguistic systematization the need to call into question "political correctness" of the terms used in researches on the North Caucasus till 1917 that is found possible, nevertheless, by A.V. Shcherbina [17] is not looked through. Marking out the distinctions of expression existing in the population "okrainets" in the explanatory dictionary by S.I. Ojegov too it is not recorded though several values of the concept "outskirts" are given. As those in Russia till 1917 the territories remote "from the central regions were perceived. the states", brought closer to external borders. So the periphery of the empire, most often was called east. S.I. Ojegov did not ignore and the used derivative sayings, for example specification "suburban" [18].

Reflecting color of an era, all listed terms fall under category historical and researchers, in our opinion, has no right to change something in this regard. The preference and the possibility of use of former names are acknowledged also by other scientists [19]. The stated interpretations to some extent act as the sources allowing to transfer in proportion fulfillments of the past. But they, certainly, cannot be applied in characteristic of processes after 1917 or at the present stage.

The instruction "foreign" was used, it is necessary to notice, and with obviously expressed ethnic sense reflecting not East Slavic accessory. V.M. Kabuzan on the basis of the various statistical sources which absorbed the demographic information about the people of the Russian Empire established what belonged to this category ". not the Russian, Ukrainian or Belarusian population" [20]. This explanation contains, nevertheless, a print of the ponimaniye which took roots in science during the Soviet period of its development.

It is necessary to specify that east Slavic peoples officially and at the level of mass consciousness were perceived till 1917 as unseparable community, Ukrainians and Belarusians were not ranked as foreigners. After the restored unity in the middle of HUL of century, the East Slavic ethnic field functioned quite solidary. The North Caucasian region which formation of peculiar regional features at that time continued was not an exception. Carried to the Russian people ". the known tribes and nationalities united by community of customs, beliefs, legends." [11]. In the light of these representations the Ukrainians and Belarusians as foreigners were not considered.

Therefore when carrying out a census in the Russian Empire 1897 they statistically were not allocated [21]. At elections to the State Dumas at the beginning of the 20th century, for example, "the Ukrainian provinces" on acting

in this regard to the laws which were based on previous were not considered as "national". The number of representatives from them increased even then when for various reasons decreased from other inoetnichesky peripheral areas [22]. Carried to foreigners then all citizens of "the non Slavic tribe". They had "the special right to cope and have legal proceedings on the customs, the elective.", had some other privileges and concessions including performed by fiscal duties [23].

The designation "outskirts" was applied in value of spatial opposition to the central regions of the country or sometimes to other parts of the region. At the same time the concepts "edge" and "outskirts" have both identity, and variability. In each case on the Russian inoetnichesky periphery they found specifics, for example, opposition in the Caucasus with the designation "outskirts" of the northern and southern parts which had civilization and ethno-demographic not similarity.

Their tough division in the second half of XIX - the beginning of the 20th century did not exist. It was established later, at implementation of the Soviet project of "the national republics". The concept "region" is derivative of the designations "edge" and "outskirts". In it steadier civilization and state unity is reflected. Emergence of Russian regions was a consequence of transformations of the regions and outskirts occurring, certainly, prior to revolutionary events of 1917

As an indicator of completeness of this process the preodolennost to a degree of a condition of civilization and state estrangement acted. Formation of Russian regions continued also during the Soviet era. In each case, especially in the conditions of foreign countries, the concepts "edge", "outskirts", "region" have the concrete historical shades. The offered systematization relies first of all on domestic realities. V. Dahl managed to reveal in application coincidence of terms "native" and "native", the absorbed instructions, peculiar for interethnic contact zones, "... the first settlers of edge; .iskonny, century, patrimonial, .starozhila." [15, t. 1, page 2]. The concept "native", unlike the outskirts rejected by further development as a part of Russia of definitions "native" and "foreigner", is still applied to the corresponding designations.

However the word "native" was not used in domestic reality for designation of ethnic distinctions, probably, because of more external, than an internal soriyentirovannost. Its parameters V. Dahl joined also specification "aboriginals". According to modern ethnology all who it is long have to be recognized as them and constantly lived in any given territory [24, page 50]. For the North Caucasus as showed N.N. Velikaya and S.A. Golovanova's researches, tersky Cossacks [25], as well as other groups vos-were indigenous, for example,

tochnoslavyansky population. Definition "native" has opposition "newcomer" [26]. Therefore it in the context of the analysis is not used. The Russian outskirts, contrary to the dependent periphery of the western and other empires, had the equal status that caused the originality of the ethnopolitical processes proceeding on them differing from foreign realities.

the Subject compatibility of the North Caucasus with other parts of the state space only with a share of regional features is traced by

also in administrative-territorial differentiation. Before the end of the armed opposition it passed across military districts, but further fixing as a part of Russia brought to need to create and here the structure [27], typical for the central regions, keeping at the same time which developed in the past specifics. At the same time practice of arrangement of other Russian administrative educations, in particular Poland, Finland and Siberia where the systems of the organization of the power considering local features [28] were also introduced was considered.

On the North Caucasian outskirts three areas were formed: in 1860. Dagestan (before since 1846 was called the Derbent province) [16], Kuban, Tersky (from the right and left flanks according to the liquidated at the same time Caucasian line which had not only boundary, but also administrative functions) [29], and two provinces: even before noted reorganization in 1847. Stavropol (before the Caucasian area) [16], and in 1896. Black Sea (before district of the Kuban region) [30]. Till 1860, management of mountaineers happened on the military districts created "for each nationality separately". Division of the North Caucasus into areas was connected with the being outlined transition to civil management [31].

To a northern, but not the southern area of the Caucasus also the Sukhumi military department formed in 1864 of the Abkhazian principality, of the status equated also to the province had pronounced ethnocultural inclination. As a part of the Russian Empire this principality was as autonomous subject unit since 1810 [32]. His independence in regulation of internal traditional schedules, including in the sphere of cultural life, was maintained by the promises made at establishment of unity recorded in contracts. Their observance was maintained, in general, strictly, at deviations the situation was returned in an initial state [33].

The Soriyentirovannost of Abkhazians into the North Caucasus developed historically and at stay within Russia amplified over time. Similar realities in the region were not single and were predetermined, according to modern experts, by the sociocultural integrity developing substantially on the basis of "ethnogenetic relationship" [34]. Its existence is confirmed, in particular, by similarity of traditional ways, only with some share of distinctions, and languages [35]. Same formal, "purely external" communication with Transcaucasia was traced also in otnoshe-

scientific research institute of the Dagestan area attached organizationally for management as well as the Sukhumi military department, to the southern parts of the region [36, 66, l. 4].

Disconnected in the administrative relation owing to spatial situation were South and North Ossetia, representing uniform ethnic community [36, 9, l. 2], the having steady inclination to Russia [1]. Similar administrative separation was caused by the fact that at delimitation the feature of "area topography", the massif depriving management of "administrative conveniences" [37] because of "a .razbrosannost of mountain tribes was taken into account first of all." [38]. At integrity of the Russian state at Ossetians of Transcaucasia, also as well as at other people which fell into a similar state, separation was perceived as formal and did not cause concern. The administrative borders established taking into account a geographical relief did not create obstacles for cultural and other contacts, including confessional as for professing Orthodoxy, and Islam.

As the population in the Caucasus differed in combination of structure, in 1846 at design of transformations was recognized not to mark out ethnic sign at the name of the territory. It cannot be referred to category "national" as such kind of consolidation did not develop neither on that, nor at the subsequent stages [28, page 42]. At establishment of the Russian jurisdiction on the outskirts, also as well as in other parts of the empire, crushing was not allowed, and the universalist principle of open geopolitical space within which various communities were combined in a uniform sograzhdanstvo [39] was implemented. This feature extended to all inoetnichesky periphery.

Compliance to it was reached in the North Caucasus and in the second half of the 19th century. So, in 1871 in the Tersky region the renaming of the Ossetian district in Vladikavkaz was made, and Kabardian - in Of St. George [40]. Such approach in the Russian policy it is free or involuntarily promoted formation of multiethnic territorial community and finally the general civil synthesis [24, page 179, 237]. The priority territorial, but not national, subjects is, according to experts, justified especially in situations of lack of uniformity of the population [41].

Administratively organized space also promotes its unity in the people as regional and state community. At the same time the Russian unity in edge incorporated a local variety [42]. Domestic practice cleared in the studied period and the fact that coincidence of ethnic and administrative borders as it was already noted, acts as guarantee of stability. But in the Caucasus it was extremely difficult to sustain this condition. Considerably Russia got Cherespolosny resettlement and a problem of a discrepancy of ethnic borders of the past. Orderliness in this regard

here never existed. The argumentativeness of territories within edge quite often provoked interethnic collisions and even wars. It was caused and other reasons.

Disengagement were quite often carried out under the influence of various military events, the undertaken international obligations at the previous negotiations, etc. [43]. By comparison of the migrations on Northwest and Central Caucasus Mountains happening in the second half of XVIII - the first half of the 19th century, Z.B. Kip-keeva came to a conclusion that the pursued Russian policy and in that period promoted maintaining compactness of location of aulny societies and did not destroy "ethnic self-identification" [9, page 340]. Only in 1917 after numerous descents and congresses at which the moods which appeared in the conditions of increase of revolutionary crisis were expressed it was recognized as necessary when it is possible to make territorial redistribution "on signs ethnographic" [37, l. 3].

The exception was made by the Dagestan area in which such division with primary coincidence of ethnic and administrative borders was initially reached. Most likely, this results from the fact that unifying processes in east and western parts of the North Caucasus, unlike it, did not find ethnic definiteness. L.N. Gumilev referred such amorphy of contours of the developing integrity to an initial phase of genesis of ethnic group [44, page 135]. The theoretical heritage of this scientist which is not deprived of weak links more often is exposed recently to criticism [45]. But its contribution to development of ethnological knowledge is also undoubted and derogation of its importance is hardly lawful.

The limitation of conceptual designations of L.N. Gumilev was caused, in our opinion, by a support on tough "Marxist-Leninist" schemes out of which impossible was any scientific creativity during the Soviet era. But it is necessary to see also that he was beaten out for a framework of usual representations and came to a number of perspective decisions. And the negative result allows to find other ways in search of the truth, and without it any construction confirming it is doomed to unilaterality. From mistakes any scientist is not insured. As we know, it was not succeeded to cope with the inconvenient ideas even by means of inquisition. The exhausting and not defiant objections of concepts of science do not exist. These are first of all conventions in which capacious characteristics of the studied phenomena and processes are offered. Each scientist has the right to have the vision of their essence.

The attention and in was already paid to limitation and inaccuracy of some terminological formulations in L.N. Gumilev's works, with recognition of originality of the conceptual constructions useful to further scientific search offered them, [46, page 37]. In particular, the legitimacy of classification of the Russian unity of the people as "superethnic" is called in question [44, page 498]. Into confirmation it was brought

absence in it the ethnic mutually coherence and a system included by L.N. Gumilev in the category of the major typological signs. Need of specification of the ethnological definitions offered them was noted. It was pointed out at the same time their substantial limitation for the description of all range of evolutionary transformations in development of the people and the probability of their replacement with other generalizations. Need of allocation of variety of transitional states for them was proved [46, page 37, 38].

Representatives of the Russian power just also faced one of them in the North Caucasus in the studied period. In a number of areas the phase of ethnic consolidation was not overcome. The "Stability and consolidation" distinguished from other characteristic signs of ethnic group with L.N. Gumilev should be considered in selection of the concretizing symbols adequate to the analysis, without ignoring practices of other categorial versions. The concept "ethnicity" which is most used in modern science, also indicates steady original features of any given community. On V.A. Tishkova, she serves as a form of "the organization of cultural differences" [24, page 230]. The stated interpretations do not contradict each other and equally can perform functions of the bearing classification designs.

However they for carrying out a research need additions with other theoretical data allowing to make necessary specifications and to outline more accurately perception range. At all ambiguity of interpretations of the generalizing convention "ethnic group" to the North Caucasian realities of the second half of XIX - the beginnings of the 20th century in the greatest measure corresponds, in our opinion, the definition of the Russian scientist S.M. Shirokogorov formulated in 1921 - 1922 in the lecture course on ethnography given at the Far Eastern Federal University. In the monographs by the author published in emigration, this definition was complemented with very constructive variations. In S.M. Shirokogorov's understanding associations of people, "the customs speaking one language, recognizing the uniform origin, possessing a complex, tenor of life kept and the covered traditions and distinguished fall under this classification... from those other groups" [47, page 59].

At the same time the ethnic group was characterized as "the .tselostny phenomenon", with established ".ravnovesiy. components". Its "the dynamic effect" as S.M. Shirokogorov considered, is expressed also in an interethnic context to which adaptability occurs through "different forms of consciousness". In such system of the relations the ethnic group acts as primary integrity. In it the scientist marked out also such important sign as "belonging to the certain culture" ensuring safety of patrimonial properties. The discrepancy in which different vectors and aspects of expression, "set of procedural states" face is inherent in formation of ethnic groups. In S.M. Shirokogorov's systematization "the condition of ethnic group" is put into dependence on growth of population,

the level of development of culture and the territory [47, page 61-64, 66] which is also promoting consolidation of communities.

The undertaken analysis of the major theoretical paradigms allows to notice that ethnicity is an indicator of the formed community or derivative size from already developed. Through administrative-territorial transformations in the North Caucasus the system balance within edge as parts of the Russian state space was reached, the problem of ethnic and interethnic balance was solved. During their carrying out in the second half of XIX - the beginning of the 20th century folding of the consolidated communities was in a condition of transformations and entered a completion stage under the influence of the Russian policy. Ethnicity already only as a part of Russia began to find the concretizing systemacity with the complex cooperation of elements established on a constant basis [48].

To mark out the corresponding sign in the name of the administrative territory under such circumstances it was business difficult. At the same time such approach, on the one hand, did not create obstacles for consolidation of communities, and with another, - promoted formation not of the ethnonations, as in Western Europe, and sograzhdanstvo with the general signs of the Russian nation. According to authoritative representatives of domestic Caucasus studies of a boundary of the XX-XXI century of V.V. Degoyev and R.Yu. Ibragimov, the "provincial principle" embodying equality of the state subjects in practice serves as the most important counteraction of separatist isolation [49]. Its realization just also happened at administrative-territorial transformations in the region during the studied era.

Ethnicity during reforms in the North Caucasus in the second half of XIX - the beginning of the 20th century, directed to administrative combination with Russia, received reliable protection within the established differentiations of the territory and was not exposed to destruction. On the contrary, all conditions for its development were created. The administrative-territorial differentiation which was established on the North Caucasian outskirts, thus, was carried out, on the one hand, by transformation of historically developed realities, and with another - taking into account ethnodemographic features of areas. The major condition for ethnic development was in most cases sustained: principle of "continuous territory" [50]. This regularity is noted also by the prominent Soviet ethnographer S.I. Brook. Coincidence of borders to ethnic resettlement, according to it this scientist, is the key to stability [51].

But if it did not develop, the parity of accommodation in zones of the mixed structure of the population to which in the Russian Empire also a number of areas of the North Caucasus belonged has to be maintained. It is impossible to agree, in our opinion, with a statement that ". fixation on coincidence ethnic and administrative." borders treats the category of "nationalist", being "a classical error" of those who

aspires to it [24, page 50]. Representatives of the Russian power to carrying out transformations in edge in the second half of XIX - the beginning of the 20th century in practice, apparently, faced need of such compliance.

The value of a territorial factor for maintaining ethnicity is confirmed with researches and Z.B. Kip-keeva who was carrying out collecting information about the foreign North Caucasian diasporas formed owing to resettlements (muhajirun) in borders of the Ottoman Empire at a boundary of the XX-XXI century. According to her, all of them because of the absence of rallying spaces are subject to assimilation. The native communities of edge which remained in Russia, on the contrary, kept the territory and respectively the cultural originality reflected in ethnicity [9, page 8].

In zones of the mixed structure of the population the combination of these orientations of their development, naturally, was unattainable, and was applied to them, reflecting the Russian variety, the principle of ethnocultural autonomy. For a number of areas of the North Caucasian outskirts this approach also was lawful, as well as the administrative-territorial forms of arrangement assuming the subject equality based as on provincial, and regional versions.

The outstanding Russian scientist V.I. Vernadsky, summing up the result of policy of Russia till 1917, paid attention to value of continuous openness of the continental space united by it, ".ogromny continuity. territories", the extracted "blood and sufferings. stories.". Also advantages which ".dat are noted by it. state, big by the sizes." [52]. At its formation as the philosopher I.A. Ilyin noticed, absorption of the foreign parts keeping, as a rule, the former borders was not allowed. In his opinion, ". Russia turned not into the mechanical sum of territories and nationalities. and in organic unity" [53, page 54, 163].

Combined were, besides, ". geographical., state and strategic unity." [53, page 171]. At the same time, as I.A. Ilyin considers, domestic realities and till 1917 promoted that "... all people. various beliefs and confessions" to a degree joined to "... to the Russian national act" [53, page 272]. These estimates are correlated entirely and to the North Caucasus. The transformations which are carried out at the previous stage as the facts testify favored to this prospect.

In the conditions of the happening changes in 1917 the folding of balance of ethnic and administrative borders in the North Caucasus continued. The carried-out boundary works by results of which investment with "the earth of mountain tribes" was supposed also could affect its dynamics. For this purpose in the Ministry of Justice necessary justifications were preparing by Management of a boundary part. Information on it came to office of Provisional government shortly before the critical events in the fate of the Fatherland on October 10, 1917 [54].

In process of increase of revolutionary crisis, first of all, the problems which are not solved at the previous stage were opened. In them historically caused orientation of development was designated. The designated reality of maintaining territorial integrity of Russia developed historically that was promoted by administrative transformations in the North Caucasus in the second half of XIX - the beginning of the 20th century. In them prerequisites and threats for destruction of ethnicity were not created.

Literature

1. V.D. Dzidzoyev. National policy in the North Caucasus: calls and answers of the 21st century (problems of the Russian statehood)//Izv. higher education institutions. Sowing. - Kavk. region. Societies. sciences. 2006. No. 3. Page 55.
2. Zh.A. Kalmykov. Establishment of the Russian administration in Kabarda and Balkaria. Nalchik, 1995; G.N. Malakhova. Formation of the Russian administration in the North Caucasus at the end of XVIII - the first half of the 19th century. M.; Pyatigorsk, 1999; A.I. Khasbulatov. Establishment of the Russian administration in Chechnya (the II floor. XIX - the head of the 20th centuries). M, 2001.
3. Koppiters Greater Caucasus as safety complex//Disputable borders in the Caucasus / Under the editorship of Bruno Kop-piters. M, 1996. Page 220-221.
4. A. Ramezanzade. A role of Iran as intermediary in the Nagorno-Karabakh crisis//In the same place. Page 182-198; Firuze Nakhavandi. Russia, Iran and Azerbaijan. Historical sources of foreign policy of Iran//In the same place. Page 171-181.
5. D. Danilov Russia in Transcaucasia: in search of the international legitimation//In the same place. Page 155-170; A. Zverev. The ethnic conflicts in the Caucasus, 1988-1994 of//In the same place. Page 10-76; D. Trenin. The interests of safety and the politician of Russia in the Caucasian region//In the same place. Page 102-115.
6. F. Paou. Policy of Turkey in Transcaucasia//In the same place. Page 199-212.
7. B.V. Vinogradov. Specifics of the Russian policy in the North Caucasus (1827 - 1840). Slavyansk-na-Kubani, 2005; Yu.Yu. Klychnikov. The Russian policy in the North Caucasus (1827 - 1840). Pyatigorsk, 2002.
8. O.V. Matveev, V.N. Rakachev, D.N. Rakachev. Ethnic migrations in Kuban: history and present. Krasnodar, 2003.
9. Z.B. Kipkeeva. People of Northwest and Central Caucasus Mountains: migrations and resettlement (60th years of the XVIII-XIX century). M, 2006.
10. S.G. Agadzhanov. The main problems and problems of studying contact zones of Eastern Europe//Contact zones in the history of Eastern Europe: intersections of political and cultural interferences. M, 1995; D.I. Oleynikov. The theory of contact zones and dialogue of cultures in relation to advance of Russia into the North Caucasus in 1810 - the 1860th//Actio nova 2000. Sb. nauch. articles. M, 2000.
11. Russia. Encyclopedic dictionary (B.: F.A. Brockhaus and Euphronios. And. SPb., 1898). L., 1991. Page 161.
12. RGIA, t. 1276, op. 19, 26, l. 2-about.
13. RGVIA, t. 1, op. 1, 28963, l. 114.
14. RGVIA, t. 400, op. 1, 4212, l. 7.
15. V. Dahl. Explanatory dictionary of living great Russian language. M, 1955.
16. See: The first general population census of the Russian Empire 1897 / Under the editorship of N.A. Troynitsky. T. 65. Kuban area. SPb., 1905; The Review of the Stavropol province for 1914 Stavropol, 1915; The Caucasian calendar for 1917. Statistical department. Tiflis, 1916.
17. A.V. Shcherbina. To a question of specifics of the Russian Empire and imperial type of statehood (on materials of modern researches)//Izv. higher education institutions. Sowing. - Kavk. region. Societies. sciences. 2004. No. 3. Page 45-46.
18. S.I. Ojegov. The dictionary of Russian / Under the editorship of N.Yu. Shvedova. M, 1989. Page 250.
19. KalmykovZh.A. Decree. soch. Page 6.
20. Kabuzan VM. The people of Russia in the first half of the 19th century: Number and ethnic structure. M, 1992. Page 8.
21. The first general population census of the Russian Empire 1897; etc.
22. D. Bondarenko, N. Krestovskaya. The Ukrainian question in the State Duma (1906 - 1917)//Russia. The 21st century. 2001. No. 6. Page 101.
23. A.I. Vdovin. Russian nation: National and political problems of the 20th century and national Russian idea. M, 1995. Page 38.
24. V.A. Tishkov. Ethnology and policy: Scientific journalism. M, 2001. Page 50.
25. Great N.N. Cossacks of East Ciscaucasia in

XVIII -The 19th centuries Rostov N / D, 2001; It. To the history of relationship of the people of East Ciscaucasia in the XVIII-XIX centuries Armavir, 2001; Golovanova S.A. Regional groups of the Cossacks of the South of Russia: experience of the system analysis. Armavir, 2001.

26. O.V. Matveev. A historical picture of the world of the Kuban Cossacks (the end of XVIII - the beginning of the 20th century): categories of military mentality. Krasnodar, 2005. Page 347.
27. GARF, t. 1318, op. 1, 645, l. 34-35.
28. Z.M. Bliyeva. The Caucasian namestnichestvo
i you cannot find in the middle that it is necessary for you? Try?
Sandra Gudrun Pia
Other scientific works: