The Red Book of the Peoples of the Russian Empire

By Margus Kolga, Igor Tõnurist and Lembit Vaba

The publisher of this book was a man who was born in 1938, in a free and democratic country (Estonia), with Estonian identity and citizenship. That all was amended in 1940 by Russian Empire as a result of the occupation of a sovereign country. The book was written with help of leading specialists of that time and with an attempt to stay neutral, almost as bystanders. The purpose was to describe cultures and ethnic groups of people who have suffered or have been eradicated under the power of "Russian Empire". Oppression of neighbors has taken place for over 500 years, and continues even today with Russian Federation changing daily into more totalitarian and dangerous state in an attempt to restore it`s former glory. Also Russian Federation is the only surviving colonial country in the world, from whose clutches have fled only a few nations, who gained sovereignty. Still this is not an complete view of the Empire, because the 84 nations covered in this book is only a third of more than 200 nations and cultures, whose fate is evanesce and disappearance into the larger Russian population by aggressive social politics. This relentless process is irreparable loss to world cultural heritage, diversity and democratic freedoms. On the other hand, it is also a loss to these nations economy, because the aggressor ravages and robs natural resources while destroying the environment.

The idea of the book the author, publisher and financier â Thomas Niimann.

• Language: English
• Publisher: eBookIt.com
• Release date: Apr 26, 2016
• ISBN: 9789949330980

Book preview

2013.

To the Publisher

My congratulations and admiration on publication of the Red Book of the Peoples of the Russian Empire. I am convinced of the huge role the book will have in publicising the situation of oppressed nations. Undoubtedly it will set an example for compiling the publisher of a similar book with regard to of the book for the whole world. UNPO is looking forward to early publication of translations.

Linnart Mäll

Deputy Secretary-General Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation

Address on the publication of the Red Book of the Peoples of the Russian Empire in Estonian

On behalf of the Republic of Estonia I thank the publisher of the book. It is the duty of Estonia to inform the world of the situation of the small nations in Russia.

Mart Laar,

Prime Minister of the Republic of Estonia

On presentation of the book, in Estonian

The idea of the publication of the book is to make the world concious of the dangers of living in the neighbourhood or among an imperialistically aggressive large nation.

Toomas Niimann,

publisher of the book

On presentation of the book in Estonian

FOREWORD

In the early 1930s, Vladimir Bogoraz wrote an ABC-book for the Chukchi language and called it The Red Book. Unfortunately, the ensuing 60 years have brought the Chukchi — and many other nations — to a deplorable position of being candidates for the pages of another Red Book, the one usually associated with rare plants and animals. The necessity of a book detailing endangered peoples has been recognized for some time, though mostly in the form of rhetorical questions musing whether the time has really come for the Mordvins, for example, or for all the minorities of Siberia, or of the whole former Soviet Union, to be entered in a Red Book. The present volume represents the first major attempt to draw public attention to those peoples whose existence is truly marked by the threat of extinction. The public at large may have heard at least something of the Khatyn mass murder and of the Molotov­Ribbentrop Pact, but there is still little awareness of an even greater crime of Russian chauvinism: veiled with slogans promising everybody a brighter future, this chauvinism has been working methodically towards the elimination of ethnic entities and cultures. This is a crime against the whole of humanity.

Setting out to compile such a book, one first has to define the conditions under which a people could be classified as an endangered people. The cultural revolution and the gigantic economic projects have inflicted serious damage on all national cultures, the Russians included, by severing their roots, forcing enormous crowds to migrate from place to place, and tearing the life-web of cultural contacts between generations. In laying down their criteria of selection the authors of this book decided to include only those peoples who

a. are not yet extinct,

b. whose main area of settlement is on ex-Soviet territory,

c. whose numbers are below 30,000,

d. of whom less than 70% speak their mother tongue,

e. who form a minority on their ancient territory,

f. whose settlement is scattered rather than compact,

g. who have no vernacular school, literature or media.

These criteria disqualify those peoples already extinct (like the Meryans, Motors and Koibals) as well as those whose main territory lies elsewhere (like the Germans and Koreans). The other criteria are less strictly observed, particularly in regard to the population. A combination of several features were generally to be considered, some of which tended to show mutual correlation (for example, scattered settlement and being in the minority on their own territory, or lack of vernacular schooling and poor competence in their mother tongue). As a result, the final decision on inclusion was usually based on our assessment of the general situation rather than on individual criterion. Of the 96 peoples on the original list, the book now contains data on only 85. In several cases a decision had to be made whether a possible entry was indeed a separate nation or simply a dialect group (for example, the Solons were treated as part of the Evenks, but the Khufis and the Roshanis separately). In some cases it was impossible to find any written material at all (the Modern Assyrians are one example). There were also some exceptions made due to other circumstances: the Karelians were included (unlike other nations having their own autonomous republic) out of consideration for the rapidly diminishing proportion they make up in the population of their own ancient aboriginal territory, and also because of their extremely unfavourable demographic and linguistic situation.

The Soviet Union was, until recently, a huge place, which, unfortunately, made it impossible for the authors to bear eyewitness to the situation of every single ethnic group included in this book. This volume then, cannot claim to contain the whole and absolute truth, rather, it may be the opening part of a long-term research project. We truly hope that the forthcoming issues will be excluded from future editions, either for a joyous or a sad reason.

The Red Book of the Peoples of the Russian Empire is being compiled in complicated times: the borders and names of administrative units are changing, the whole national doctrine of the central power is being reconsidered, and entire nations are awakening from apathy. By the time you read this book some of the above processes will have led to new and perhaps unexpected developments that may shed new light on the story of some of the included peoples. It was not the authors aim to foretell future developments but just to attempt to characterize the situation of the endangered peoples living in the Soviet Union at the end of the 1980s.

The changing times are also reflected in the title of the book. What was begun as a description of the peoples living in the Soviet empire has become an overview of nationalities who have — throughout centuries — been living in the Russian empire, the Soviet period being but one period in the history of Russian expansion.

What is especially valuable about this book is that it discusses different manifestations of Russian and Soviet national policies and their impact on peoples of very different cultures. The detrimental effects of sovietization are illustrated on civilized nations with their own well­ established literary traditions (like the Ingrians) as well as on people living in their natural state (like the Saame Lapps of the Kola peninsula). Entries show that the disappearance of a people can be slow and relatively smooth (as with the metamorphosis of the Itelmens into the Kamchadals), but also sudden and all the more brutal (the Siberian Eskimo). Usually, a clear point or period of breakdown can be discerned. The turning- point tends to be especially noticeable in the case of primitive peoples as their self-image differs from that of nations with a literary tradition. The identity of a primitive tribe can be extinguished by the mere destruction of their natural environment, entailing no open display of hostility.

The national policy of the Soviet government can be divided into two major phases. The first phase began with the establishment of Soviet power (the time differed from place to place) and ended in the midle 1930s. The second phase last­ ed until very recently. The nature of the first phase is somewhat contradictory as the recognition of small nations and a certain encouragement of their self-consciousness proceeded in parallel with collectivization and the heavy repressions known as class struggle. For most of the Red Book peoples collectivization meant forced settlement. In addition, former economic systems were dissolved by a liquidation of small villages and households. Economy being an inseparable part of culture, this was an initial step in the ruination of national cultures. Collectivization was accompanied by a centralization of the economy which began alienating people from their work and environment, separated them from nature, and made them dependent on centrally apportioned supplies. At the same time it should be appreciated what was done for the development of literacy among small peoples. Many languages received their own newly devised writing systems. These were based on the Latin alphabet as pending World Revolution even Russian was intended to be transferred to Roman letters.

Towards the end of the 1930s the situation changed radically. The Stalinist regime abandoned the least pretences of adherence to the principles of freedom and equality, and embarked on a course of blatant russification. National writing systems were either replaced by the Cyrillic alphabet or cast into disuse. Local intellectuals were dispersed and killed. For many nations the final blow was dealt by World War II. In the postwar period, most of the minor nations suffered from the lack of vernacular schooling and letters. Their habitats were flooded with (mostly Russian) migrants. At the same time, official propaganda constantly intensified its efforts to depict Russians as the chosen people who would lead the whole world into Communism. This, together with the obvious political supremacy of the Russians, led several minor peoples to develop inferiority complexes to the extent that they denied their own nationality.

The migrant influx was resisted only by those peoples protected by forbidding (mostly Caucasian) mountains and a traditionally militant mentality. The insufficiency of a severe climate as sole protector is proved by the sad fate of the Nganasans.

Surpassing both alphabetic somersaults and ideological hammering, it was the destruction of local economies that had the most destructive effect on Soviet minority peoples. Wasteful exploitation has ruined the frail tundra environment of the North as well as the orchards of the South, it has forced hundreds of thousands of people to engage in work that suits neither their abilities nor habits, nor even their understanding of the world. It has forced some nomadic tribes to settle, and, vice versa, it has led hordes of migrants to previously rationally tended tundra, forests and valleys. In Central Asia people suffocate on cotton, the northerners are plagued by the mineral resources discovered on their lands (cf diamond prospecting in Kimberley or rubber plantations on the Amazon). Public concern has been aroused by the condition of the rain forests but it is high time to begin paying some attention to the tundra of northern Eurasia, too. The preservation of minor nations is not a mere caprice of nostalgically-minded scholars, it is a vital issue. What is meant is not a formal preservation, where a nation is termed ‘alive’ when there are about 20,000 speakers of the language left. Rather, a nation is alive when the national economy, social organization and culture constitute a whole. This in its turn means that all the manifestations and forms of national life are in compliance or, at least, in the process of adaptation with the imperatives inherent in that particular culture. Viewed in those terms almost all the peoples in this book have ceased to be nations and have instead become just groups of people sharing some ethnic peculiarities — be they linguistic, anthropological or customary. The Chukchi are no longer Chukchi if some force other than nature should cut them off from whale and walrus hunting. Divorced from their natural mode of life, their traditional dress, (fairy) tales and (traditional) wisdom lose much of their meaning.

To a certain extent a mutilated culture can be cured. Limited damage sustained over a short period may be healed by the culture itself if the conditions are favourable. There are possibly several nations that would find their feet again if they were immediately allowed to resume their as yet unforgotten tradition­ al lifestyle. In a number of cases, however, this would require the departure of migrants from their lands, the shut-down of derricks and an end to pollution. Obviously this is not going to happen in a day and much special attention would be required. However, it is conceivable that even oil-wells could be operated without causing too much pollution and without creating impassable obstacles to the path of reindeer.

This is not to say that the sole path for small nations is straight back to the 19th century or earlier. A modem snowmobile fits the Arctic way of life just fine. However, the nations must be given a chance. Unfortunately, it is also quite evident that for many minor nations the capacity for cultural reintegration has been exhausted. Instead of assimilating new phenomena within their own traditions they have to take them over as they come. This breeds tension, conflicts, hopelessness and indifference towards oneself as well as towards the environment. Those are the bitter, yet unavoidable, fruits of the Soviet national policy.

This book is the result of a joint effort between historians and linguists. The differences in the academic backgrounds of the authors are reflected in slight differences in emphasis between the entries. As there was no strict or uniform format the entries also differ slightly in length, factual density and style. Nevertheless, the authors have sought to provide for every included people, characteristic data on their population, native language status, and the proportion they form among the inhabitants of their own territory. Unfortunately, it has proved extremely difficult in most cases to discover the present-day situation. Where possible the percentage of those competent in their mother tongue is given, not the total number of the speakers of the language. The number of speakers of Nenets, for example, has long surpassed the number of the Nenets people, whereas the number of Liv speakers has always been smaller than that of the Livonians.

The articles are arranged alphabetically notwithstanding the possible close linguistic or territorial proximity of the peoples in question. In highlighting the damaged spheres of life and the imminent dangers the authors’ aim has not been to merely form a catalogue of destruction, rather, the aim has been to provide a comprehensive picture of every single ethnic group and its typical lifestyle. There is an article on each nation, plus a general section on the peoples of the Pamirs. A general survey was considered for the Dagestan peoples, but the idea was abandoned, because Dagestan is also home to many nationalities whose existence is not in jeopardy, unlike the Pamir region where all native peoples are in danger.

WHAT TO DO WITH PEOPLES

There are more than 5,000 peoples in the world. The number of states is much smaller — only more than 200, whereas not all of them have international recognition.

Although there exist state institutions with limited sovereignty and autonomies within one state the general situation is depressing — most peoples are forced to live in the territory of states that have been established by other nations, though in many cases it is their ancient homeland.

It is obvious that they have not surrendered their independence voluntarily. Destiny of nations has greatly been determined by conquests, collusive agreements, individual interests of the persons involved, unethical diplomacy, corruption of leaders and other measures.

At the present age absence of independent statehood brings along decay of the nation because language and culture which are the main factors that guarantee its survival can not develop without restraint under conditions of a foreign power.

It is possible to prolong the process of gradual perishing but the main precondition of an alternative solution can only be independence.

Besides its benefits, globalisation that characterises the contemporary world is a new challenge for nations. According to the most pessimistic prediction, in a hundred years there will be three essential languages remaining in the World — Chinese, Spanish and English. Even French, German, Japanese, Arabian and Russian will be regressed to the level of local usage. Evolution of this tendency is relatively easy to notice.

Disappearance of cultural variety would be a great loss for culture of the human race as it is the only basis of veritable unity. Retention of nations is not regarded as essential although importance to preserve the maximum of the species in the nature is understood. Moreover, a nation as such has not been given any rights. States and individuals have rights, not nations that are actually the bearers of language and culture and which enable and guarantee formation of a human being.

This book constitutes a warning example of the destructiveness of imperialist manner of thought. Russia, having been called a prison of nations from the ancient times already, has destroyed subjugated peoples for centuries. Fortunately many of them still exist and some succeeded to become independent after the collapse of the Soviet Union. But most peoples are still oppressed and fight for their rights.

6 September 1990 a conference took place in Tartu, Estonia where it was decided to establish the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization. It is meaningful that Tibetans who have been enslaved by another communist empire — the Republic of China — also took part in the conference among the representatives of the Soviet Union peoples. The establishment and elaboration of that organisation (53 nations of which several are registered in the Red Book are members of the organisation) shows that in addition to the tendency mentioned above another tendency contrary to the first one exists — peoples’ growing selfconsciousness and attempt not only to survive but to reach a higher level of civilisation through self-development.

To ensure this trend Universal Declaration of the Rights of Peoples was compiled in UNPO Tartu Coordination Office. 17 February 2001 UNPO VI General Assembly, gathered in Tallinn, Estonia, adopted the Declaration.

Linnart Mäll

Chairman of UNPO

PREFACE

The English version of The Red Book of the Peoples of the Russian Empire, published m 1993 in the Estonian language, is making its appearance before a wider public. Despite the passage of years, the content and the main message of the book have not lost their significance. The Soviet Union (22.4 million square kilometers) has indeed disappeared and is now part of history. It has been replaced by the Russian Federation (17.1 million square kilometers). With eleven of the former Soviet Republics, Russia has formed an economic and political union, the Commonwealth of Independent States ( Sodruzhestvo Nesavisimyh Gosudarstv). Still Russian units guard the Tajik-Afghanistan border, Russian troops are stationed in Abkhazia and Moldavia and the Russian navy is based in the Ukrainian Black Sea ports. Thus, if only in symbolic form, the Russian Empire continues to exist out of inertia, its spirit having by no means dissolved. At present only the Baltic States can view themselves as totally independent.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the following nations described in the Red Book ceased to be residents of Russian territory: Abkhaz* (Abkhazia), Bats (Georgia), Budukhs (Azerbaijan), Central Asian Jews* (Uzbekistan), Crimean Jews* (Ukraine), Crimean Tatars* (Ukraine), Georgian Jews* (Georgia), Karaims* (Lithuania, Ukraine), Khinalugs (Azerbaijan), Kryz (Azerbaijan), Kurds* (Transcaucasia), Lithuanian Tatars (Lithuania), Livonians (Latvia), Pamir peoples such as Bartangs, Ishkashmis, Khufis, Oroshoris, Roshanis; Shughnis, Wakhs, Yaghnabis, Yazgulamis (Tajikistan), Tats (Transcaucasia) and Talysh (Azerbaijan). Thus, 61 of the 85 peoples mentioned in the Red Book have remained under Russian jurisdiction, whereas only the Lithuanian Tatars, the Livonians and some of the Karaims are outside the domain of the CIS.

In a country of such magnitude, even after the collapse of the communist ideology, reforms and changes of direction are slow to occur, because of the inertia created by the country’s large seale as well as for historical reasons. Economic and mtemal reorganization tends to take much more time than the rapid surface changes — the symbols, the names, etc. A number of the former national autonomous republics and oblasts (i.e. Khakass, Yakut, Kabardian-Balkar, Kalmuk, Komi, Mari, Tuva, Udmurt) were renamed republics during the years 1990 —1992. Of course this was not pure coincidence: the decay of the Soviet Union brought with it a real upsurge of national movements. As a reaction against the former all-flattening russification, national identity and languages gained great importance both in culture and education.

During the zealous times of preliminary democratization from 1991 onwards, much attention was also paid to legal reforms in Russia. As far as national relations are concerned, we should at least point out the following documents: the law of «Rehabilitation of the Repressed Nations» (26.4.1991), The Act of the Languages of the People of the Russian Soviet Socialist Federal Republics (25.10.1991), the presidential ukase, Of Urgent Measures for the Protection of the Territories and Economic Activities of Small Arctic Nations (22.04.1992) and the new constitution of the Russian Federation (12.12.1993). In 1992 a draft law, The Basis of Legislation for the Legal Status of the Small Aboriginal Nations of the Russian Federation was drafted, which has to date, regrettably, failed to become law. In 1994 the leaders of the states of the CIS Signed The Convention of the Defence of the Rights of National Minorities.

In 1996 the law of cultural autonomy fostering organized local initiative came into effect. In Russia there are three levels of cultural autonomy, organized pyramid-fashion: local (e.g. the Mordvinians), regional (e.g. the Karelians of Tver) and pan-Russian (e.g. the Russian Germans). To obtain local cultural autonomy, three local organizations need to apply; for regional cultural autonomy, three local autonomous units need to apply; and for pan-Russian cultural autonomy three regional units need to apply. Problems may arise if the organizations claiming sole representation of cultural autonomy abound: the Tatars in Moscow, for example, have fifteen. In the same year (15 June 1996) the Concept of National Policy of the Russian Federation was concluded with the objective of regulating national relations and giving the more than 100 languages and cultures legal and political guarantees essential for their development. Unfortunately this too has not yet become law.

As some laws have remained merely plans or exist only on paper, real life has had to do without them — although in a more complicated environment. Peaceful existence has been interrupted by political instability and even violent warfare, as in the Northern Caucasus, Transcaucasia and Central Asia. During the 1990s the deterioration of the economic situation has affected ethnic relations. In 1998 the national movements are again taking a low profile because of the economic crises and hardships. Survival in everyday life is consuming everyone’s energy. Although overt russification has slowed down, it now continues in a hidden and indirect form. Many examples can be drawn from the Finno-Ugric nations: townspeople originally from the country are moving back to the countryside — closer to the food supply. Since they have meanwhile been russified in the town, they now become spreaders of Russian mentality and language in the village, formerly the stronghold of national identity. The land and natural resources of the peoples of Western Siberia and the Arctic regions are acquired for pennies by great industrial companies providing the aborigines with fuel, primary goods, tinned food, etc. The international conference «Aboriginal Nations, Oil and the Law» held in Hanty-Mansiisk drew a conclusion that during the 1990s the situation of the aboriginal nations has by no means improved. On the contrary, the devastating effects of the oil industry are becoming more severe, the unpunished licence and violence of oilmen towards the aborigines continues. Local national activists are trying to obtain from the oil drilling companies a little more just recompense for the withdrawal of man and nature from the path of the derricks. Ironically, economic difficulties proved helpful here. Since the price of oil in the world market has fallen and the development of the oil industry in Western Siberia has stopped for the time being, the territories of the Arctic peoples have escaped further economic pressure.

The Red Book of the Peoples of the Russian Empire is a completed project and not continuing research; therefore the facts have not been updated. Its basic content, however, seems to be valid and to have withstood the test of time in the 1990s. The present publication of the English version makes the facts accessible to the Western reader. As we know, Russia is and continues to be a unique great power, one in which modem liberalism and western democracy are of little use. In a situation where market economy fails to take root, a shadow economy prospers and a dream of a controlled economy strongly survives, the country is steering towards its traditional autocratic political system. This is the unfortunate reason why the book’s content will probably be relevant for quite a while longer. It is possible that the census of the year 2000 will provide material for some elaboration and addenda, and perhaps also an incentive for an eventual new publication.

20 August 1998

Jiiri Viikberg

THE ABAZIANS

The self-designation is Abaza, which is how they are known by the neighbouring nations of the Cherkess, Adyghians and Kabardians. The Abkhaz know them as ashvy. Abaza belongs to the Abkhazo-Adyghian group of the Caucasian languages. It is close to Abkhaz, but contains also elements characteristic of Kabardian. Of all languages spoken in the former USSR, Abaza phonetics are considered the most difficult. The Abaza language is divided into two dialects corresponding to the two kinship communities Tapanta and Shkaraua. There are five subdialects: Abazakt, Apsua, Kubin-Elburgan, Kuvin and Psyzh-Krasnovostok.

The habitat of the Abazians lies in the foothills of the main range of the Great Caucasian mountains on the upper reaches of the Big and Little Zelenchuk, Kuban and Kuma rivers. Most of the Abazian people live in 13 villages of the Karachay-Cherkess Autonomous Area, Stavropol District, but some of them live scattered in Kabardinian, Nogay and Adyghian villages. Two Abaza villages are situated near Kislovodsk.

Population data exists only since the end of the 19th century:

The data is indicative of a continuous growth in population and a rather high, although decreasing, number of mother tongue speakers.

Anthropologically the Abazians belong to the Balkano-Caucasian race and bear the features of the Pontic and Caucasian type. They have relatively light skin, a round head and are of medium stature.

The religion of the Abazians is Sunnite Islam, embraced in the 17th—18th centuries to replace Christianity. Yet both the earlier Christianity and the later Islam are heavily mixed with pagan customs and beliefs the influence of which can be observed even today.

The ethnological development of the Abazian people resembles that of the Abkhaz people. Both peoples are descended from the proto-Abkhaz tribes who in the first millenium BC inhabited an area near the Black Sea (from the present-day Tuapse to Sukhumi). By the 8th century four different tribal groupings (Apsil, Abazg, Svanig, Misimian) had produced the Abkhaz and by the 8th—9th centuries the Abaza people. The central part in the development of the Abazians is considered to belong to the Abazgi tribe living in the northwestern part of Abkhazia from the Bsyb river to the present-day Tuapse. The territory remained home for the Abaza until the 13th century at which point there was a mass migration to the northern Caucasus. According to archaeologists, there are traces of movement in that direction dating back to the 8th century, yet the 13th—14th centuries witnessed the resettlement of the whole Tapanta tribe, to be followed by the Shkaraua tribe. 18th-century written records of the northern Caucasus already contain the names of all Abaza tribes. Part of the Shkaraua-Abaza people, however, remained to live on the coast of the Black Sea and were assimilated by the Abkhaz and Cherkess. Records from the 15th—16th century depict the Abaza as a strong and militant nation. Constant home troubles and hostilities lowered them to dependence on the Kabardian sovereigns in the 17th century. In the 18th—19th centuries the Abaza territory became an knot of discord in the imperial policies of Russia and Turkey. To subordinate the resistance of the Abaza people arms were used by both powers, yet the most popular way was the deportation of the people to territories under the conquerors’ rule. As a result whole Abazian villages were resettled either to Turkey or to Russia. Although the victory belonged to Russia, the Abazians felt more akin with the losing party, which was also reflected in their extensive resettlement to Turkey. The emigration was accelerated by a government order of 1862 demanding that the Abaza people leave the area between the Labo and Belyi rivers and go either to Kuban or abroad. As a result of the massive exodus only 9,000 of the 50,000 people were remaining on the territory by 1880. Indirectly it has been concluded that the number of Abaza emigrants to Turkey was about 30,000—45,000. The Kuban lands given to the Abazians by the tsarist government were populated by 9921 people, two thirds of whom belonged to the Tapanta people. The mass migration destroyed the traditional tribal division of the Abazians. Only four villages remained ethnically pure. The territories emptied of the Abaza people were filled by immigrants from Russia, mostly Slavs. This meant a radical change in the ethnic map of the region.

The economic life of the Abazians was shaped by their environment. Before the 1860s when they lived in the mountains rich in pastures the main emphasis was laid on raising livestock.

There were flocks of sheep and goats, and there were also some bigger horned animals. The Abaza were also famous for their herds of pedigree horses. The Tapanta who lived on flatter lands dealt more with field cultivation. The main crop was millet, ousted by maize in the 19th century. Free land being abundant the usual practice was to use one field 2—3 times after which a new plot was ploughed up.

The joining of Kuban with Russia brought about a considerable increase in Slavic immigration. During 1867—1897 the Abazians found themselves living in the newly-created Batalpashinsk Area, the population of which was 69.3% Russian. During the land reform carried out on the former Abaza territories the new settlers got more than two million acres of land.

The Abaza were concentrated into communities that were given land on the same basis as the new settlers. The reform turned the Abaza economy topsy-turvy. Livestock-breeding as a means of livelihood was reduced to an irrelevant status as the pastures had passed into private hands and the rent had become prohibitive. Land tillage grew in popularity. In 1866 a pecuniary state tax was enacted which speeded up the development of financial and commercial relations in the village. The reform also changed the structure of the Abaza village. According to government standards one community had to contain at least 200 households and so several smaller villages were united.

As a result kinship systems were destroyed and mixed villages appeared. Eight Abaza villages were formed: Kuvin, Loov-Kuban, Shakhgireyev, Kuma-Abazin, Loov-Zelenchuk, Dudarukov, Klychev and Biberdov. Of these only the first four were ethnically pure Abaza villages.

History. On February 7, 1918, Soviet power was proclaimed in Batalpashinsk. This was followed by a civil war. There were Abaza soldiers fighting both in the Red Guards and the White Guards. Two White mounted regiments called Tapanta and Bashkhyag achieved considerable fame. The Abazians displayed no ambitions toward national independence. Although the major White troops were defeated by the 1920s, some of the White forces continued to be active in the region until 1930 when they were finally liquidated after a failed mutiny.

Several administrative changes took place. The Abaza villages were divided between two new administrative units: the Karachay Autonomous Region and the Cherkess National Area. The Abaza were joined together as one administrative unit only on January 9, 1957, when the Karachay-Cherkess Autonomous Region was set up.

In the middle of the 1920s several Abaza villages were renamed on ideological grounds as the former names alluded to sovereigns or nobles. Some new Abaza vilages emerged on the lands emptied during the ideological struggle and the extermination of the kulaks.

The main changes in Abaza society over the past 70 years were effected by two Soviet-style campaigns: collectivization and cultural revolution. Collectivization aggravated the antagonism between different social layers. A solution was found in the deportation and execution of people unacceptable to the central authorities. The atmosphere of terror hastened the formation of kolkhozes.

The aim of collectivization was the consolidation of the Soviet economic system while the ideological struggle was to be won by means of education and culture. The education available to an Abaza person before the advent of Soviet power was the village school or the mosque. Occasionally a luckier or brighter student could also enter secondary school. In 1918 the aim was set at secondary education delivered in the local vernacular. This, however, became possible only after 1923 when Talustan Tabulov created a Latin-based Abaza script. Vernacular education for the Abaza lasted for six years only. In 1938 the central government ordered that the Abaza literary language adopt the Cyrillic alphabet and Russian be made the official language of instruction (the Abaza language and literature were retained as subjects in the curriculum). In spite of that, there was in the Abaza cultural life: vernacular prose developed (Tabulov, Zhirov) and an Abaza theatre was established. In 1938 a newspaper was published in the Abaza language. On the other hand, the more advanced education system helped the central power to realize its ideological objectives.

Imperial policy as well as the Pan-Slavic and Soviet propaganda have left an impact on both the everyday life and mentality of the Abaza people. Their clothing and household appliances reflect the advance of European culture.

The mass produced factory goods certainly do not bear the imprint of a centuries-long tradition. Homes can be built only according to one of three standardized designs approved by the state. The traditional villages where households were situated haphazardly and sometimes quite far apart have been replaced by Russian-style gridded villages. Religion is retreating before Soviet ideology. Of the traditional rites and customs those connected with funerals seem to display the most resistance. The identity and unity of the Abaza people may soon be endangered by two tendencies that have emerged during the past two decades, notably the growing number of mixed marriages and urbanization. In 1979 people living in towns made up 21% of all Abazians against the near zero figure of the turn of the century.

THE ABKHAZ

Self-designation. The name the Abkhaz call themselves is apsua and their ancient territory they call Ashvy (the land of the Abkhaz). Neighbouring peoples refer to them by different names like aigba and mdauei (Karachays, Kabardians), baskhyg (Ubykhians), mephaz (Svans), aphaza (Megrelians), apkhazi (Georgians), abaza (Turks). The Abkhaz form has gained popularity through Russian. The Abkhaz language belongs to the Abkhazo-Adyghian group of the Caucasian family It has practically the same phonetic and morphological system as the Abaza language. The two have been regarded as separate languages only since the 20th century, mainly because of their territorial separation and the different development of their literary standards. Being extremely rich in consonants (68 according to G. Klimov) the Abkhaz language is considered to be one of the most difficult to acquire of all the languages spoken on the ex-Soviet territory. There are two dialects: Abzhui and Bzyb.

Habitat. The people live in a mountainous region called Abkhazia that is situated on the southeastern coast of the Black Sea. This narrow strip of land is characterized by an extreme variety of natural conditions. There are three different vegetation zones: subtropics, mountain lakes, springs of mineral water and abundant forests. The natural borders of Abkhazia are the Psou river in the west, the Ingur in the east, the Black Sea in the south and the main range of the Caucasus in the north. Administratively Abkhazia belongs to Georgia as an autonomous republic. Abkhazia is divided into five districts, two of which (Gudauta and Otshamthira) are populated mainly by the ethnic Abkhaz.

Population. At the middle of the 19th century the number of Abkhaz was estimated at 130,000 (together with Abazian and Ubykhian peoples). More precise data has been available only since the end of the 19th century:

The substantial decrease in the population from 1897 to 1926 and the unnaturally small increase from 1926 to 1939 reflect the consequences of civil war and collectivization together with Stalinist national policies.

In addition there is a small Abkhaz community living in the Adzhar ASSR, Georgia. They have inhabited the place since the Caucasian wars, in the middle of the 19th century. According to the 1970 census statistics the community consisted of 1,361 Abkhaz people, 72.2% of whom spoke their mother tongue, the rest preferring to communicate in Georgian or Russian.

Anthropologically the Abkhaz belong to the West-Caucasian type of the Balkano-Caucasian race. They are characterized by an above-average stature, a slight build, relatively light skin, sharp features and dark eyes.

Religion. Amongst the Abkhaz Christianity mixes with Sunnite Islam and ancient pagan traditions. Contacts with Christianity were made early as the first missionaries reached the place already in the 1st century AD. The first reports of a local Christian congregation date back to the 4th century when Stratophilus, the Archbishop of Pitsunda took part in the first Council of Nicaea held in AD 325. The Abkhaz deserve credit for helping spread Christianity among other peoples of northern Caucasia. One cannot underestimate the role of Christianity in the political and cultural convergence of Abkhazia and Georgia. The 16th century Turkish invasion brought along a spread of Islam that retained its position as a state religion consolidating the central power of Turkey until the beginning of the 19th century. Both religions were first embraced by the nobility. The ruler’s faith was also received by his subordinates, but this was a rather formal act. The country people retained their pagan traditions, slightly accommodated to the prevailing religion, and in this way preserved their place of prime importance in their life and mentality.

Ethnologically the Abkhaz people belong to the aborigines of Caucasia. Their material culture is typical of Caucasia having developed in close cultural and political contact with the Proto-Georgian tribes. The first written mention of the Abkhaz people is believed to be the note on the Abesla tribes living in Asia Minor, found in the records of the Assyrian ruler Tiglathpileser. The Proto-Abkhaz tribes Apsil, Misiman, Abazg, and Svanig were known to the ancient Greek and Roman historians like Hekateus of Miletus, Strabo and Flavius Arrianus. In the 1st century AD the Proto-Abkhaz tribes set up their own principalities that were united with the Cazika Principality in the 4th century. The 7th—8th centuries witnessed the consolidation of the Proto-Abkhaz tribes into the Abkhaz nation. In 740 Abkhazia was separated from Lazika, in 780, Leon II, Prince of Abkhazia united western Georgia into the unitary state of Abkhazia, the capital of which was Kutaisi. In 978 the Abkhazian throne passed into the possession of a dynasty that ruled Georgia. Abkhazia was incorporated in to Georgia until it regained its independence in the 16th century under Prince Shervashidze. During the rule of that dynasty Abkhazia became protectorate of the Turkish Sultanate. At first it meant mainly an obligation to pay a yearly tribute, but in the 18th century Turkey aimed for the political subordination of Abkhazia. The Shervashidzes turned to Russia for help, and in 1810 Tsar Alexander I issued an order declaring Abkhazia a Russian protectorate. The following Crimean and Caucasian wars were very closely connected with the Abkhaz people. Yet, after the final victory in 1864 Abkhaz autonomy became unnecessary for the Russian government. The last Prince Shervashidze was sent into exile, and tsarist power and Russian bureaucracy were established. The Abkhaz people revolted in 1866. As a result of the heavy suppression of the mutiny mass emigration to Turkey ensued (the so-called Manadzhir Movement). About 70,000 people are believed to have left Abkhazia during 1866—1878. This is also when the Adzhar community of the Abkhaz people sprang up. The tsarist government reacted by banning the name Abkhazia and introducing an extensive colonial policy leasing the empty lands to peasants immigrating from Russia. This unsettled the ethnic composition of the region an the extreme which is exemplified by the following list of villages situated in the vicinity of Sukhumi at the beginning of the 20th century: 1 Abkhaz, 6 Russian, 2 German, 5 Megrelian, 10 Greek, 3 Estonian and 1 Bulgarian. .

For the Abkhaz society annexation to Russia meant the final establishment of feudal relations and the consolidation of serfage privileges. Land passed entirely to the hands of princes ( ataua), nobility ( aamsta) and clergy.

The Abkhaz economy is a reflection of the enviroment. On the coast and foothills the main occupation was field cultivation and, to a certain extent, also horticulture. The main crop was millet, but from the 19th century on its place was taken by maize. Cotton, flax and hemp were also grown. The technology of cultivation was quite primitive resulting in low yields. Mountain-dwellers dealt mainly with raising livestock as pastures were abundant. The main stock consisted of sheep and goats; horses were fewer. Apiculture and hunting were highly developed.

The Russian state reforms of 1870 laid the basis for an acceleration in the