Abstract
The rethinking and decolonization of Russian history has become a significant challenge for historians. This process should cover primarily the history of the Russian empire. The study of different regions of the Russian empire is one of the possible approaches because the empire was heterogeneous. The history of imperial institutions would thus move to the sidelines, while the history of regions, cities, different social, ethnic and religious groups, as well as the interaction within and between them should become the primary focus of historians. This approach would foster a shift from a Moscow-centric view.
This article is devoted to the key trends which exist in the study of the history of South Ukraine and Crimea from the annexation of these territories by the Russian empire in the 18th century to the Crimean War. Primarily, in my focus are Russian and Ukrainian historiography and the most prominent works of in English-language historians. The current political situation requires investigating the past of this region to dispel the myth that it is a Russian-native territory and dismalting the Russian-dominated imperial concepts, which have had a significant historiographic influence on scholars and public consciousness. The revaluation of this region’s past will make a significant contribution to the decolonization of Russian history because it takes a special place in imperial narratives.
The need to rethink Russia’s history in today’s context is unquestionable. One of the most popular approaches is an appeal for decolonization. However, in this article, I avoid using the term “decolonization” and prefer to use the term “rethinking” because the definition of “decolonization” is fuzzy and its subject has different interpretations today.1 I agree with Sergey Abashin that “Supporters and opponents of decolonization can be united, if not terminologically, then practically, by a common ethos that includes equal dialogue among different academic schools and disciplines, expanding the sources, paying more attention to the diversity of contexts, and overcoming any form of centrism – be it Russocentrism, Eurocentrism, or a new Eurasianism.”2 In this context, rethinking means not only the transformation of already accumulated knowledge but also the expansion of the research field, the use of new sources, and the need to search for new data from well-known sources. Alongside this, the question of how we can rethink Russian history remains open.
First and foremost, we must shift away from Russo-centric (Moscow-centric) concepts and from the study of the post-Soviet space solely from a Russian perspective. Secondly, the shift from a “colonization but” stance to a “colonization and” framework3 can be made possible through the investigation of various regions within the Russian (and Soviet) empire. In addition, we need to abandon the narrative that we have a poor understanding of Russia. The issue lies in the fact that, in reality, we often cannot identify what processes took place in the different parts of the empire or perceive these processes from a “core” perspective. Moreover, many historians acknowledge that the empire was heterogeneous, but still use definitions like “Russian” or “Russia” for all territories and populations of the former empire. Today it is more important for historians to understand how representatives of different ethnic and social groups perceived and interacted with the empire, than how the empire perceived these people and which strategies it developed for their colonization. The shift in focus does not mean that we should completely abandon existing approaches, it means that the shift in focus will enable future comparative research that encompasses an analysis of both approaches.
After the dissolution of the USSR, historians in post-Soviet countries faced the significant task of constructing the history of their newly independent countries. This was an extremely challenging task. During the existence of the Russian empire and Soviet Union, the most talented scholars were encouraged to build their careers in Moscow or St. Petersburg (Leningrad), thus, diminishing the research capacity within the different parts of the state. Furthermore, any attempts to create “national narratives” that contradicted official doctrines faced harsh criticism and could result in various negative consequences for historians. In the early 1990s political demands primarily encouraged historians to write national history, which was envisioned as a fundamental cornerstone of state-building. Historians had to write from scratch, with a lack of traditions and established approaches and as a result, were often thrown from one extreme to another. English-language historians could not provide assistance in this, because, they did not have such experience too and most of them used the Moscow-centric prism4 and until recently would “refer to the Soviet Union as Russia as if the other 14 Union republics did not exist.”5
A completely different situation existed in the early 1990s in the Russian Federation. Here, leading academic institutions from the Soviet period remained intact, and the transformation of history as a discipline primarily involved the inclusion of previously inaccessible archival documents, the lifting of restrictions on the study of specific subjects, as well as the abandonment of Marxist-Leninism. As a result, a rapid adaptation of imperial narratives and their symbiosis with Soviet ones occurred. While Western historians were concerned that post-Soviet countries might develop a “nationalistic history,”6 in the Russian Federation, close attention was paid to the history of the empire. This often promoted the formation of an idealistic narrative without critical revaluation. Thus, a neo-imperial concept was rapidly taking shape. The voices of Russian scholars who did not adhere to this concept grew weaker against the backdrop of state support for the neo-imperial concept, and they played a less prominent role.
In this article, I focus on the transformation of approaches in studying the history of South Ukraine and Crimea during the last quarter of the 18th and the first half of the 19th centuries, which occurred after the collapse of the USSR and particularly after the annexation of Crimea in 2014. These events have contributed to an intensified interest in the region and the transformation of existing paradigms. I primarily pay attention to Ukrainian and Russian historiography. Among the works of English-language historians, I only consider those that exert the most significant influence on existing concepts and transform current approaches, as well as shed new light on existing blind spots in this field. My aim is not to conduct an exhaustive analysis of all works but rather to focus on the most significant ones. Additionally, I do not review non-academic works created purely for propagandistic purposes.7
As an object of study, this period and area was the focus of historians for different reasons. For the Russian empire, it was a time of annexation and the beginning of the colonization of this region. This led to a transformation of the empire itself and its perception by other countries. Therefore, this period is intriguing for historians, and they concentrated their attention on local history, especially imperial history. At the same time, despite all efforts, the history of the region remains poorly explored and filled with myths generated by various political concepts and goals. For example, historians even use different toponyms for this region: Southern Ukraine, Northern Shore of the Black Sea region, or “Novorossiya.” Additionally, for political reasons, particularly in the Russian Federation, Crimea often stands apart in historical studies from the broader region, despite its historical significance as an integral component of these territories. Another example of distorting the past is the intense focus on imperial accomplishments. For instance, the dissemination of the imperial propaganda myth about the transformative power of the Russian empire, capable of swiftly colonizing “a desolate Wild Field,” has been so strong that it continues to be cultivated by many historians both in Russia and in Western countries. This is precisely why the identification of blindspots and the analysis of existing historiography should contribute to the reassessment of current perspectives and the development of new concepts.
1 Russian Historiography
Interest in the history of South Ukraine and especially Crimea was traditional for historians from the Russian Federation,8 although it remained rather limited to specific issues until 2014. For example, the history of the White Army during the years of the Russian Civil War became particularly popular, as this theme was not explored during Soviet times.9 After the Crimean annexation and aggression in Western Ukraine, a political agenda and propaganda played a key influence on historians. The Russian Federation sought to justify ideologically the annexation of Crimea and actively promoted the idea of “Novorossiya” as a region that was not a part of Ukrainian lands. In addition, the media attention on the region created demand from non-professional readers. This led to the publication of the first works about the history of South Ukraine and Crimea in 2015.10 These early works were not academic and were intended for a general audience. However, they already exhibited trends that developed in subsequent works. Concurrently, at the Institute of Russian History, the Russian Academy of Sciences (IRH RAS) began work on the preparation of two comprehensive collective works: “Istoriia Kryma” in two volumes and “Istoriia Novorossii.”11 These volumes were published in 2017 and have a similar structure, content, fact selection, and main idea – to demonstrate the connection of these lands to the Russian Federation. The approach in which the history of Crimea is separated from the history of the Northern Black Sea region undoubtedly underscores the political slant of these editions. Historically, Crimea has always been a part of this region, along with some parts of Russia’s Rostov Oblast and Krasnodar Krai. The borders of the Crimean Khanate extended far beyond the peninsula itself. During the Russian imperial period Crimea was a part of the Taurida governorate, which also encompassed “mainland uezds” and, for a time, the territory of the Black Sea Cossack Host. Only during the Soviet era was a separate administrative unit established in Crimea. In other words, in these editions “Novorossiya” is not a historical region but a political construct.
The main distinction between these two editions lies in their authorship. “Istoriia Kryma” was created by two main groups of historians from Moscow (primarily IRH RAS) and Crimea. This fostered the creation of a work which included the recent results of local historians. In contrast, “Istoriia Novorossii,” was predominantly written by historians from Moscow and St. Petersburg and based on the historical works of the 19th–20th centuries, especially the works of famous soviet historian Elena Druzhinina.12 For most of its authors, previously the history of the Northern Shore of the Black Sea region was not their main field.13 For these authors, participation in this project was a one-time endeavor, and none of them pursued further research in this field. Moreover, they did not utilize Ukrainian historians’ works due to political and linguistic reasons. As a result, this book is half the size of “Istoriia Kryma” and its content fundamentally out of date.
The period I examine is approached by the authors through the lens of administrative history, focusing on the actions of the emperors and the most prominent bureaucrats. Additionally, certain aspects of social and economic development are also explored. The annexation of these territories by the Russian empire, and the role of Catherine the Great and Potemkin are at the center of the authors’ attention. Catherine the Great is traditionally portrayed as an “Enlightened ruler” who laid a firm foundation for the development and prosperity of the “Wild Field.” This thesis is widespread in historical works not only among Russian historians but also in Western historiography, where it serves as a lynchpin. This thesis was formulated during Catherine the Great’s reign and persisted for many years within the Russian empire, extending its influence far beyond its borders. However, upon closer examination, its validity becomes less obvious.
For an extended period, the Northern Shore of the Black Sea region served as a frontier for the Ottoman Empire (the Crimean Khanate), the Russian empire, and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.14 This region had a specific economy and unique interaction between different ethnic and religious groups. During the Russo-Turkish wars in the second half of the 18th century, this order was destroyed and lands were ravaged. For the population of this region, the annexation by the Russian empire turned into a tragedy. Many people, including Cossacks, Crimean Tatars and the Crimean Christian population, were compelled to abandon their customary places of residence, either voluntarily or under the coercion of imperial authorities.15 Russian and foreign travellers at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries vividly described abandoned Crimean cities and villages.
Most scholars concentrate on Potemkin’s projects, the influence of Enlightenment ideas on Catherine the Great’s decisions, and her travels to the southern regions of the empire. However, they often overlook a fundamental question: what were the outcomes of the measures undertaken by the Russian empire? If we do not formulate such questions and attempt to understand the processes that took place in the region, we continue to operate within the framework created by imperial logic. In reality, positive shifts occurred in the region at an exceedingly slow pace. Whether these changes were the result of imperial policy remains an unanswered question. For example, at the end of the 18th century, arable farming dominated only in the areas where Cossacks historically lived. The leading sector of the economy traditionally for these lands was animal husbandry. Senators Kushelev and Alekseev conducted an audit of the Novorossiya governorate in 1800 and wrote: “The economy and grain cultivation develop in the following uezds: Bakhmut, Pavlograd, Novomoskovsk, Novorossiysk, Elisavetgrad, parts of Olyviopol and Kherson on the left side of the Bug River. These lands were settled from ancient times, and this is the secret of their development.”16 The same situation prevailed in the first quarter of the 19th century. For example, Taurida governors did not notice progress in the development of the economy. Population growth also remained insignificant.17 The region’s growth began in the second quarter of the 19th century and coincided with the overall economic growth of the Russian empire.
In conclusion, neither “Istoriia Kryma” nor “Istoriia Novorossii” brought anything new to the region’s past. The main achievement of the authors is the systematization of already existing material, but in fact, they spun a narrative not about the history of the region, but about the history of the Russian empire in this region. The publication in 2021 of the “Istoriia Sevastopolia” in three volumes continued the series of books created under the patronage of the Russian Federation.18 The authors expressed their desire to write a complex history of the city, but they used the same approaches as the authors of the above-mentioned works. Therefore, this book contains the same shortcomings. The second volume of this edition is devoted to the period under review. In the introduction the authors declared: “We sought to present the history of the city not only in the context of its heroic naval and military past. The authors of the book attempted to reveal the full history of Sevastopol, shedding light on the everyday life of Sevastopol dwellers, the features of urban governance, and the development of education and culture, with attention to the multinational and multi-confessional composition of its inhabitants.”19 However, only two chapters in this volume are dedicated to the history of the city and its dwellers: “The First Educational Organizations” and “June 1830: A Riot or an Uprising.”20 The rest of the chapters are devoted to the history of the Black Sea Fleet.
The main idea of this edition is obvious. The authors highlighted the role of Russia and Russians in Sevastopol’s history and tried to prove the myth about “Sevastopol as a city of Russian Glory.” This myth was created to justify in the public consciousness the defeat of the Russian empire in the Crimean War and it acquired renewed currency after the end of World War II. For example, one of the leading Soviet scholars of the Crimean War, Evgenii Tarle, titled his book “City of Russian Glory: Sevastopol in 1854–1855.”21 Sevastopol undoubtedly holds a significant place in the history of the Russian empire and the Soviet Union. At the same time, the city’s population and the ethnic composition of officers and sailors in the Black Sea Fleet were diverse. In the 19th century Greeks and representatives of other European nations played a significant role in the naval officer corps alongside Russians. The sailors of the fleet were mainly recruited from the inhabitants of the neighbouring governorates – Taurida, Kherson, Ekaterinoslav, Poltava, and Podolia. These governorates were never considered part of the “Great Russians (Velikorusskie)” and had a multi-ethnic population where Ukrainians were the majority. These aspects are not addressed in this book. Neither is the typical imperial policy of repression, relocation, and eviction of representatives of certain ethnic groups considered. For example, in the case of Sevastopol, multiple evictions of Jews and Crimean Tatars occurred. Overall, an exploration of the interactions between representatives of various ethnic groups and imperial authorities in Sevastopol could shed new light on important, yet unknown aspects of the city’s history.
Ukrainian historian Larisa Levchenko explored the administrative history of Mykolaiv and Sevastopol and a key aspect of the Russian empire’s Black See Fleet development. In 2006 she published the book “Istoriia Mykolaivskoho i Sevastopolskoho vi
The Russian Federation supported not only the preparation of comprehensive works but also the organization of conferences and the publication of collections of articles. The authors of these works often use new archival materials and study different aspects of local history. But these works nevertheless develop the imperial narratives that their titles imply: “Rossiiskaia imperiia i Krym”24 and “Problemy integratsii Kryma v sostav Rossii, 1783–1825.”25 In the introduction of these works, a common theme emerges: “Crimea is a region of utmost importance to Russia, not only geopolitically but also in terms of national identity. … Literary and artistic classics have made Taurida an integral part of Russians’ self-conception, their country’s place in the world, and its historical mission.”26 However, some articles in these editions are interesting for understanding the processes occurring in the region. For example, some historians explore the influence of scientific descriptions of Crimea on the development of colonization strategies, the perception of southern territories by foreign and Russian travellers, and some aspects of the status of various ethnic groups in the context of imperial politics. The authors acknowledge the existing blind spots: “Today, scholars face the task of filling gaps in the history of ethnic and religious groups that existed in the territory of Crimea in the past and continue to exist today.”27 Unfortunately, none of the authors called for a change in concepts and approaches to studying the region, and all “reinterpretation” seems only to emphasize the significance of these lands in the history of the Russian empire and the Russian Federation.
Valerii Vozgrin began the study of the history of Crimean Tatars in the Russian Federation. His first publication devoted to Crimean Tatars appeared in Moscow in 1992.28 This work was published at the time of the mass return of Crimean Tatars from deportation and it had a significant impact on their self-awareness. The author lived and worked in St. Petersburg and had close collaboration with the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People. In 2013–4, Vozgrin published “Istoriia krymskikh tatar: ocherki etnicheskoi istorii korennogo naroda Kryma” in four volumes.29 He attempted to cover a significant time period – the entire history of Crimean Tatars. This is quite a challenging task for a single scholar. The publication turned out to be superficial with weak utilization of archival materials. Additionally, the author often provides emotionally charged assessments. However, this work represents one of the directions that was more typical of Ukrainian historians than Russians and was characterized by an attempt to expose the repressive nature of the policies of the Russian Empire (later the USSR). Finding such facts in history is not difficult; indeed, the empire by its nature, was repressive. However, the empire’s main goal concerning different ethnic groups was to create loyal subjects serving its interests. To achieve this goal, it used not only repressive measures.
After the annexation of Crimea, a group of authors began work on a “Istoriia Krymskikh tatar” in five volumes. Today, only the third volume “Crimean Khanate in 15–18 centuries” has been published.30 This edition differs from the editions mentioned above because this work involved researchers from Europe, USA, and Turkey. In the foreword, one can come across statements that deviate from the previously published works: “Crimean Tatars, who were against the Russian empire and felt pressure from the Russian administration, began to leave Crimea in large numbers [after the annexation of Crimea in 1783] … The editors of the volume did not seek to standardize author texts and approaches. Only the spelling of personal names has been standardized.”31 Indeed, the concepts and views of the authors on various events differ, and even the period of the Crimean annexation is described quite objectively.32 Certainly, there is no mention that this southward expansion was a vivid manifestation of colonialism, but it is quite clear from the content of the chapter. The volume dedicated to the history of Crimean Tatars under the Russian empire’s rules has not yet been published. There are concerns that in today’s circumstances, most non-Russian authors will refuse to participate in this edition, and we will most likely see the history of the Russian empire in Crimea again, rather than the history of the Crimean Tatar population.
The study of Crimean history’s mythologization and its connection to the Russian imperial ideology began with the work of Andrei Zorin, titled “Kormia dvuglavogo orla …,”33 which has become a classic for scholars who study Russian literature and history at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries. The author comprehensively examined the role of the “Crimean myth” in Russian culture. This work is well-known to scholars, and a detailed analysis of it in my article seems unnecessary. A potential continuation of this work could be Vladimir Orekhov’s book, “V labirinte krymskogo mifa.”34 The author stated that his goal was to “better understand the nature of the mythologization of Crimean history.” However, in the introduction, he restricts his research to the following narrative: “One thing can be stated with absolute certainty: the Russian myth about Crimea was formed with the participation of Europeans but often in contradiction to them.”35 Orekhov’s work is dedicated to the analysis of travel literature and the deconstruction of the myth about a romance between Russian writer Mikhail Lermontov and French traveler Adele Hommaire de Hell. While successfully accomplishing this task, the scholar finds himself in a new “labyrinth of the Crimean myth” in which any imperial repressive measure can be justified for the empire’s prosperity.
Nikita Khrapunov continued research in this direction and dedicated his monograph to the travel notes of British empire subjects in Crimea: “Angliiskie puteshestvenniki i Krym: konets 18–pervaia tret’ 19 veka.”36 The author declared that his book is “a first comprehensive study in the historiography of the image of Crimea, formed by English travellers who visited the peninsula after its annexation to Russia.”37 Khrapunov introduces to the Russian-speaking audience the translations of travelogues and provides its commentary. Such publications deserve attention because they utilize sources not created by imperial institutions or the Russian bureaucracy. Travel literature provides an opportunity to view ongoing events from an external perspective. However, the use of this type of source requires researchers to be well-prepared and have a good understanding of the context, as travellers often distorted reality. The book is commendable, although one may not always agree with the assessments provided by the authors.
The history of the region in the context of the activities of the Taurida governors is presented in my monograph “Dela i dni: tavricheskie gubernatory, 1802–1854.”38 I include my work in this group because it was written in Crimea, under the influence of the trends existing in history at that time. I have to admit that I also did not propose new approaches to the study of the region’s history. My main achievement is the construction of a chronological narrative of the history of the Taurida governorate in the first half of the 19th century through the prism of the governors’ activities. I attempted to pay attention to the role of informal links and structures of patronage as one of the most important phenomena in the administrative system of the Russian empire. In my book, I highlighted that in the first fifty years after the annexation of the Crimean Khanate, the Russian Empire, despite its efforts, failed to make Crimea “its own,” and the economy developed at snail’s pace.
The history of Southern Ukraine and Crimea was not the main field for Russian historians neither before 2014 nor after. In recent decades, works dedicated to various topics have emerged, varying in their quality and execution. Since 2014, the state and political orders have played an increasingly significant role in the study of the region. The state has actively financed projects related to the study of the region’s past, especially Crimea. This has led to the appearance of several comprehensive editions, in which the authors systematized previously accumulated materials. Russian historians seldom raise controversial and problematic issues, often leading to a focus not on the region’s history and its population, but on the history of the empire in the region. This inevitably leads to a distortion of the past.
2 Ukrainian Historiography
The historical knowledge in Ukraine has developed in different directions.39 In the first decade following the dissolution of the USSR, Southern Ukraine was primarily the focus for historians studying the Zaporozhian Sich, the National Liberation War (Khmelnytsky Uprising), and Cossack’s history. Undoubtedly, these issues were pivotal for constructing a national history. Furthermore, the exploration of these issues during the existence of the Russian empire and the USSR was restricted by ideological frameworks. The study of South Ukrainian history after its annexation by the Russian Empire was more complicated and required new approaches from Ukrainian historians because they traditionally linked the development of this region mainly with the Russian empire’s efforts. For the knowledge that existed at that time, the integration of South Ukrainian history of the late 18th–19th centuries into Ukrainian national history seemed challenging. After the first decade since the dissolution of the USSR “The integration of Ukrainian historians into the global academic community has led to the rethinking of a range of issues of Ukrainian studies (Ukra
After the annexation of Crimea in 2014, in comparison with the Russian Federation, Ukrainian historians did not publish comprehensive works on the history of the region. A type of response to the annexation was the publication of work in the popular science genre, such as “Krym: shliakh kriz viky: istoriia u zapytanniakh i vidpovidiakh.”42 As the authors mentioned in the preface: “We attempted to answer pressing questions, not only concerning lesser-known or forgotten aspects but also well-known facts of Crimea’s multi-century history and the peoples who have inhabited it since Ancient times.” Another notable publication was a collection of articles titled “Krym vid antychnosti do sohodennia.”43 The authors of this publication were primarily Ukrainian scholars, some of whom were based in Crimea. The work provides detailed coverage of the periods of Antiquity and the Middle Ages. The period under my consideration is represented by just two articles: “Historical memory about South Ukraine in the Turkish-Tatar period in the light of Ottoman sources” and “Attempts to implement a Porto Franco in the Crimean Peninsula in the late 18th to the first half of the 19th century in the context of the struggle for “Free Trade” in South Ukrainian cities.” Additionally, an annual conference titled “Our Crimea (Nash Krym)” was organized, and its materials have been published in collections of articles.44 In short, the first historians’ reaction as well as that of Ukrainian society was emotional, but later it led to recognition of the necessity of a complex study of this region.
Yaroslava Vermenych proposed a new approach to the study of the Ukraine region’s history. In her monograph “Pivdenna Ukraina na tsyvilizatsiinomu pohranychchi,”45 she emphasized the need to consider the history of Southern Ukraine as a borderland subregion. This approach expands the possibilities of research and enables the examination of issues that do not fit within the framework of “national history.” Vermenych investigated the history of the region from the 7th century BC to the early 21st century. Her goal is not a detailed description of the past but rather to illustrate the general patterns in the region’s development and its connection to the current political situation. This approach has been further developed in her subsequent publications.46 Valeriy Smoliy, in the foreword to her publication “Pivdenna Ukraina na tsyvilizatsiinomu pohranychchi,” rightly noted the positive effects of using such an approach: “The shift in regional studies from a linear chronological sequence and the presentation of material “by periods,” provided an opportunity to create new approaches, a new perception of historical methods, and expanded the evaluation criteria. The traditional core-periphery relationship framework has been fundamentally reconsidered. Simultaneously, historians began to use the concept of borderland as an optimal explanatory approach. The establishment of a new, much more flexible view of regionalism compared to previous approaches has opened the way to understanding the multifaceted nature of borderland phenomenon in real life.”47
Historians have also continued their efforts to write a “national history” based on regional materials. Such works focus on Ukrainians, Crimean Tatars, and sometimes Karaites. The authors extensively examine the Russian empire’s repressive measures against various groups of the local population.48 However, as the authors of “Imperial identities in Ukrainian history” rightly noted: “Focusing solely on the negative aspects of being part of an Empire significantly impoverishes the picture of Ukrainian history as an important element of the broader cultural landscape of Eastern Europe.”49
The integration of Ukrainian historians into the global academic community has contributed to the expansion of research themes, including those that were previously overlooked. This expansion seems to be the most appropriate, as it enables the utilization of various methodologies and concepts while accumulating knowledge about the region’s past. This, in turn, may lead to a higher level of systematization and generalization in the future. Taras Goncharuk dedicated his research to the social and economic history of the region. His recent collaboration with Viktor Savchenko is titled “Povsiakdenne zhyttia Odesy na zlami epokh.”50 This book extensively examines the history of Odesa during a relatively short chronological period – the time of the city’s existence as a free port (Porto Franco).51 The authors provide a detailed account of the struggle between local authorities, represented by Novorossiya governor-general Mikhail Vorontsov, and central authorities, represented by Finance Minister Georg Cancrin, for the preservation of the free port status. Goncharuk’s approaches revealed the fact that various financial and industrial circles had developed within the empire by this time, and they attempted to defend their interests through both formal and informal mechanisms. The empire was undergoing transformation, and at the same time, the mechanisms of governance were changing as well. The book comprehensively describes the city’s development process and the lives of its city-dwellers, shedding light on various aspects of ethno-confessional policies. What makes this book particularly valuable is its introduction of a significant amount of new archival materials into scholarly discourse for the first time.
The work of Andrii Portnov “Dnipro: An Entangled History of a European City”52 is a good example of combining microhistory and general research devoted to one city’s comprehensive past. The author masterfully combines extensive use of archival materials and modern methodological approaches. The author primarily focuses on the Soviet period of the city’s history but he also examines key aspects of the imperial period, drawing attention to the contradictions between imperial expansionist ideology and the regional reality: “At ideological level, Russia’s southward expansion, on the one hand, symbolized the way back to the birthplace of Orthodox Christianity. On the other hand, it was extolled as bringing order to chaos and civilization to a desert country. The fact that the “desert” was home to Cossack settlements, which turned into the strongholds of the imperial urbanization, did not in the least detract from the “novelty” of the imperial project in the eyes of its masterminds.”53 Dispelling the stereotype that the empire transformed “a desert” is extremely important. Such myths support the imperial narratives and justify repressive policies. Thus, works of microhistory allow us to supplement existing historical knowledge, and reconsider established conceptions.
Various aspects of the region’s history are described in the works of Igor Liman.54 The author pays attention to the history of the port city of Berdians’k. Additionally, Igor Liman in collaboration with Victoria Konstantinova, have established a series of books dedicated to the activities of foreign consuls in Southern Ukraine.55 In these works, the authors emphasize the need to expand the source base in research work, as existing sources, especially archival ones, were created predominantly by imperial bureaucracy. This fact significantly reduces their informativeness. Hence, the utilization of sources from different origins is deemed crucial: “We have at our disposal comprehensive sets of English-language sources that allow us to see the South of Ukraine year by year through the eyes of persons who represented the interests of the British Empire in the “long” 19th century.”56
A significant contribution to the history of the region is Vadim Adadurov’s monograph, ““Napoleonida” na Skhodi Yevropy: Uiavlennia, proekty ta diialnist uriadu Frantsii shchodo pivdenno-zakhidnykh okrain Rosiiskoi imperii na pochatku 19 stolittia.”57 Imagology played a significant role in his work, especially in the analysis of the assessment by French political and military elites of the southwestern territories of the Russian Empire during the preparations for Napoleon’s invasion of the Russian Empire. For French political elites, South Ukraine and Crimea were a border between “civilized and barbaric worlds.”58 The author utilized archival materials from various European countries and attempted to reconstruct the overall regional situation in the context of international politics. This work is characterized by a systematic approach and can serve as a model for conducting similar studies that explore perceptions of these territories in other countries and the transformation of such perceptions.
Valeri Tomazov and Andrei Makidonov made important contributions to our understanding of the region. Tomazov in his work “Hreky-khiostsi na Pivdni Ukrainy (kinets 18 st.–1917 r.)”59 used microhistorical approaches and prosopography for the reconstruction of biographies of famous Greek families in Southern Ukraine. Andrii Makidonov created different biographical dictionaries devoted to bureaucrats, clergymen and officers who served in the region.60
For Ukrainian historians, the main obstacle for a long time has been the perception of this period in the region’s history as imperial, and therefore raising concerns about its integration into the “national history.” Such an understanding of the past has been influenced by myths that emerged during the imperial period and the disregard of many regional historical issues during the Soviet period. The investigation of different problems and the utilization of various methods and approaches seem to be successful and productive. The absence of comprehensive works does not restrict historians with rigid frameworks. Increasing the quantity of research on diverse problems and the application of new sources will contribute to the integration of regional history into the national history of Ukraine. Due to geographical peculiarities, Ukrainians have significantly influenced its development. However, historians should not make this integration their primary task, as it may lead to a distortion of the past. Further progress in this direction will result in more complex concepts and an expanded research methodology, elevating studies to a new level.
3 English-Language Historiography
There are two main groups of historians studying Ukraine’s past in English- language historiography. The first group represent the Ukrainian diaspora who have been engaged in investigating various aspects of history and have applied Western methodologies and concepts. Since the existence of the Soviet Union, they have researched the most important issues of Ukrainian national history and after the dissolution of the USSR had a powerful influence on historians based in Ukraine. The second group includes the representatives of various European, American, and Canadian academics. The origins of scholars often influence the choice of research topics. For example, historians from Germany and Canada mainly focused on German colonists in South Ukraine and Crimea. British and French academics often examined the region’s history in the context of the Crimean War, occasionally describing the situation in the region before the war and the prominent compatriots on Russian service.61 The dissolution of the USSR led to increased interest in various regions of the former empire, and South Ukraine and Crimea were no exception. By that time, several works dedicated to the region’s past had become classics.62 In the conditions of limited access to archival materials, the works of English-language historians are characterized by a high level of analytical elaboration of data and qualitative comparative analysis. The new surge of interest happened after the Russian aggression in 2014 and still continues.
Two interrelated studies by Michael Khodarkovsky and Willard Sunderland are fundamental for understanding general patterns of regional development. Khodarkovsky’s research focuses on the interaction between the Tsardom of Muscovy and later the Russian empire with the Steppe.63 Although his work is devoted to an earlier period than mine, this research is important in terms of the approaches used by the author and the concepts he developed. Khodarkovsky first tried to shift the focus to the colonization mechanisms of these territories and the influence of the Russian historians on studying this problem: “Because these lands were contiguous, Russian historians and the public in general made no clear distinction between conquest and colonization, which was presumed to be in the interests of the Russian empire and, by extension, of all the imperial subject (Such was the view of all major Russian historians in the eighteen and nineteen centuries: N.M. Karamzin, Prince M.M. Shcherbatov, S.M. Solov’ev, and V.O. Kliuchevskii).”64 A thorough analysis of the “Wild Steppe” conquest allowed him to reach the following conclusion: “Russia’s systematic and persistent expansion proved to be far more successful than that of the neighboring Ottoman and Persian empires. … Russia’s success can be attributed not only to unquestionable superiority of its arms, but also to Western methods of colonization. Unlike the Persians, who were content to launch occasional punitive campaigns to compel their putative subjects to submit tribute, or the Ottomans, who only sporadically fortified their frontiers and brought in occasional settlers.”65 This conclusion is useful for the reconceptualization of South Ukraine and Crimea history.
Sunderland continued research in this direction. He noted the influence of Khodarkovsky and Andreas Kappeler on his work.66 Among the important questions for my research, Sunderland attempted to identify differences in the colonization of the region under review by the “Little Russians,” “Great Russians” and foreign colonists and traced the impact of imperial colonization on the local population and the mechanisms of this colonization. The author attempted to determine the attitude of the imperial authorities to these territories: “The European steppe as a whole was never described as a colony, presumably because it was not geographically separated from the rest of the state, though in other respects – most obviously, the name of New Russia – the implication of colonial status seemed clear. The inherent ambiguity of all this revealed a basic truth about the steppe that would not go away: at once different enough to demand exploration, dangerous enough to require the settlement of Cossacks and the rule of military viceroys, un-Russian enough to be conquered and appropriated, and still remote enough …. The Russians thus began their most intense period of steppe colonization by invoking much of the rhetorical style of European colonialism yet without clearly identifying the colony in question as a colonial place.”67 The works of Khodarkovsky and Sunderland contributed to the formation of a new direction in research in which the Russian empire was a colonial state. The same can be said about Kappeler’s works, which although not directly related to the region, offer new approaches.68 The proposed histoire croisée approach deserves special attention from historians, as it can be used to study the interactions between representatives of different ethnic groups in the region under consideration.
An important place among many works is occupied by Kelly O’Neill “Claiming Crimea”.69 This work is dedicated to the history of Crimea in the least explored period after its annexation by the Russian Empire and before the start of the Crimean War. The author’s focus is on the integration of the Crimean Tatars into the imperial space. O’Neill views Crimea as part of the “Southern empire,” which is entirely justified. The author also highlights a significant shortcoming of Western historians: “Scholars … have worked both to reestablish the Crimean Tatars as agents in Crimean history and to expand the conceptual framework of Crimean history by engaging with questions of colonialism, nationalism, and ethnic identity. They have done so without tapping into archival materials, however, and Russian history tends to look quite different when viewed through the lens of the archive particularly that of the local archive.”70 The analysis conducted by the author allowed her to claim that “Though a few Crimeans [Tatars] did assimilate, the vast majority retained their cultural identity and sought acceptance within imperial society on their own terms.”71 As I see it, this point can also be applied to representatives of other ethnic groups. The study of colonization and assimilation processes remains blind spots – and awaits further exploration. Additionally, O’Neill, like most historians, pays close attention to Catherine the Great. However, the local bureaucracy was not a silent executor of the empire’s will. The bureaucracy was heterogeneous, and multinational, and pursued its own goals, which might not have coincided with the empire’s ones.
Mara Kozelsky conducted several studies devoted to the different aspects of Crimean history.72 In “Christianizing Crimea,” Kozelsky investigates the process of Crimea’s Christianization in the nineteenth century and its impact on colonization, especially: “the era of Nicholas I, when borderlands politics thrust Crimea into the center of nationalist discourse and religion became synonymous with identity.73” The author draws upon a wide range of archival sources, adding credibility to her conclusions. In her recent collaboration with Lucien J. Frary, she examined the region’s history in the context of international relations, particularly the Eastern Question. Kozelsky’s latest work is dedicated to the transformation of Crimea during the Crimean War: “It focuses also on military-civilian policy. Areas of interest include the nature of the Russian home front; the war’s impact on Crimean peoples and landscapes; and Russian post-war recovery efforts. … A primary line of inquiry thus analyzes the evolution of military management of civilians through various stages of war.”74 While this work primarily focuses on a later period, the author still addresses events that occurred on the peninsula before the war. Kozelsky’s works expand our understanding of the region’s history.
Among the settlements in the region, Odesa has attracted the particular attention of English-language historians. The city’s history is truly captivating. Odesa stood out from typical Russian imperial cities because of its ethnic composition, economic development, and trade. The interest in the city’s history has been consistently reflected in publications appearing from the 19th century onwards. The improved accessibility of archives since the beginning of Perestroika and especially after the dissolution of the USSR led to a surge of interest among English-language historians. Patricia Herlihy and Charles King have studied various aspects of the city’s history, addressing issues such as the “Myth of Odesa,” the demographic situation, and the development of trade and the economy.75 The authors emphasised several ethnic groups, including Jews, Greeks, and Ukrainians. Their books are distinguished by their attempts to connect the city’s past with the contemporary situation.
Evrydiki Sifneous proposed her own approach to the investigation of the history of Odesa. She sought to study “the interaction of the economic and social activities among the different ethnic groups that constituted Odessa’s social fabric.”76 The author refuted the extent of the fragmentation of Odesa’s population along ethnic and religious lines. For Sifneous the interaction between these groups led to a strong assimilationist trend. Departing from studying separate ethnic groups in the region’s history and examining the interactions between them seems crucial. Undoubtedly, this interaction in rural areas was not as intense as in cities, where the rapid development of capitalist relations erased ethnic and social boundaries despite the state’s resistance. In addition, Sifneous’s proposed approaches can be used to explore the role of the state and economic development in the processes of assimilation of different ethnic groups living in the region. The works of English-language academics differ from the previously mentioned book by Ukrainian researchers Goncharuk and Savchenko. Western historians attempted to find analogies in the history of the processes taking place in the city. Thus, they highlighted the foreignness of Odesa to the Russian imperial space, leading to attempts by imperial authorities to “tame” the city and control the processes taking place there.
Similar to the above-mentioned authors who explored the history of Odesa, John R. Staples examined the history of the Mennonites in the Molochna River Basin. In his book “Cross-Cultural Encounters on the Ukrainian Steppe” based on the example of one microregion, he examines the processes of colonization and transformation of the environment on the Ukrainian steppe frontier and the role of state policy.77 Staples formulates an important question: “Why did the diverse groups of settlers in Molochna River Basin of New Russia (now southern Ukraine) pursue sharply divergent paths of development?”78 Based on a thorough analysis of archival materials, the author provides his answer to this question in his book. The uniqueness of the research lies in the fact that the scholar was the first to examine the interaction of representatives of different ethnic groups in the restricted rural area. Staples’s research, as a particular example, confirms many of the theses put forward by Sunderland.
Staples’ subsequent work included his collaboration with Harvey L. Dyck and Ingrid I. Epp on the preparation and publication of documents from the Mennonite collection of the renowned leader of Mennonite colonies, Johann Cornies, along with his many correspondents.79 Introducing new documents into historical discourse, especially in the current circumstances of limited access to archival materials, should be one of the primary priorities for historians. The published documents revealed “Russian imperial policy and life on the empire’s southern frontier in the early nineteenth century,” explored the relationship between central and regional authorities, as well as the intersection of religion and empire.80 The publication of such sources is crucial because “The Mennonites provide a rare regional perspective on the Russian empire.” Such types of sources are scarce, making them highly valuable and providing an opportunity to examine many well-known processes from an entirely new perspective.
This is not an exhaustive list of works by English-language historians. Various aspects have found reflection in the works of Edward Lazzerini, Brian Glyn Williams, Andreas Schonle, and Robert Paul Magosci, among others. However, the aforementioned works allow us to understand our current situation. Unfortunately, difficulties in accessing archival materials have left a certain imprint on a significant number of works, but this trend has gradually changed. More and more Western scholars have begun to utilize new archival materials. The main achievement of Western historiography is the use of advanced approaches to studying the region. Only the continued expansion of research into various aspects of regional history will improve our understanding of the past of Southern Ukraine and Crimea, as well as the Russian Empire as a state entity.
4 Conclusion
Today, there is a considerable amount of research dedicated to South Ukraine and Crimea in the last quarter of the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries. These works differ in the quality of the scholarship and in the reasons for their creation. Some of these works were created after the collapse of the USSR, others after the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in 2014 and the aggression in Eastern Ukraine. However, 2014 was a significant turning point not only in the surge of interest in regional history, but also in affecting a shift in paradigms and approaches to its study. This process affected historians in Ukraine, the Russian Federation, and Western countries. Despite this volume of research, the region remains insufficiently explored, and the works of historians are replete with myths and stereotypes. For the Russian Federation, the study of the imperial period in the region’s history has acquired particular significance, as Sergii Plokhy points out: “Russia’s use of imperial history to justify its annexation of Crimea and, in particular, its failed attempt to split Ukraine by creating a quasi-state of “Novorossiia” (New Russia) vaguely based on the area once claimed by an imperial province with the same name, rekindled long-standing Ukrainian interests in the history of the Cossacks, who settled the steppes of southern Ukraine prior to Russian expansion there in the eighteenth century.”81
For Russian historians, the region was not an important object of study before 2014, mainly because they did not see this territory as part of Russia. Primarily, they studied issues specifically connected to Crimea’s history. Moreover, the political turbulence in the Russian Federation has led to a situation where Russian historians today cannot precisely define the location of the southern part of Russia.82 Kappeler remarks on this issue: “The New Russian civilizational discourse acquired a southern geographic dimension. However, the newly invented New Russia came to be regarded as part of Southern Russia, and not its territorial equivalent. The latter was much older and broader than the former. At the same time, the southward direction of Russian expansion included a newer “southwestern” vector articulated by Catherine II during the partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth”.83 In this regard, it is not surprising that among all the comprehensive works published in the Russian Federation, only “Istoriia Krima” can be considered relatively successful, as a study of the region under review. This is largely due to the fact that it was prepared in cooperation with Crimean historians who were generally highly engaged in issues of local history. The main goal of the comprehensive works that emerged after 2014 was to demonstrate the historical connection of the South Ukraine and Crimea with the Russian Federation. This connection is not difficult to achieve, provided that the continuity between the Russian Federation and the Russian empire is declared. Indeed, in the past, the region was in fact a part of the Russian empire.
Ukrainian and Western historians, in contrast to Russian academics, shifted the focus onto the history of people and different social and ethnic groups, rather than the history of the empire itself. This perspective is more expedient for Ukrainian scholars, as most of the region’s population was ethnically Ukrainian and such an approach highlighted this ethnic and social influence. Western historians have applied existing modern methodologies to rethink the history of the region, studying the relationships between various population groups. However, Ukrainian and Western historians often portray the empire as a faceless imperial force or as a power represented only by emperors and famous administrators (for example, Catherine the Great, Potemkin, and Vorontsov). This approach can lead to a distortion of the past, as it overlooks the fact that ordinary bureaucrats in the Russian empire were often representatives of the local population. The process of building relationships between various population groups and the empire thus requires special attention, especially in the context of rethinking the Russian empire as a colonial state.
The key task facing historians today is to expand the range of research topics using new research methodologies. There is no need to create comprehensive editions and thus establish the framework for future research, especially if these comprehensive editions will be based on the works of historians written in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is necessary to delve into the history of various ethnic groups and examine the socio-economic development and its impact on the population, as well as considering issues of gender and the history of separate settlements and regions within the South Ukraine and Crimea. The aim should be to incorporate as many new sources into scholarly discourse as possible and to find new interpretations of well-known texts. Furthermore, it is necessary to reconsider existing works from this new perspective, where the Russian empire is not seen as a mono-ethnic state, but rather as a colonial power with complex resulting strategies of governance. It is important to integrate these studies into the overall imperial and pan-European context, rather than retain a Russo-centric vision of regional history. Placing research within this context will enable a thorough understanding of the Russian empire’s ability to influence events and processes taking place within its borders. As scholars have often perceived the natural progress as the achievements of the empire and its governing institutions, a new interpretation is therefore needed to de-centre this imperial narrative.
Expanding the scope of research will contribute to a rethinking of Russian history. Moreover, studying various regions and incorporating new sources into current research will help to shift scholarly interest away from Russo-centric (Moscow-centric) concepts. Studying South Ukraine and Crimea is not only an exploration of the region’s history; rather, delving into this region will provide an opportunity to view the Russian empire from a new perspective, revealing the histories that have long been concealed behind the veil of imperial propaganda and its constructed narratives.
Acknowledgment
I am deeply grateful to Andreas Schonle and Lisa Hanson for their invaluable assistance and support.
See for example Nikolay Smirnov, “Crisis of Decoloniality and Inevitability of Decolonization,” Posle, March 10 (2023). https://posle.media/language/en/crisis-of-decoloniality.
Sergii Abashin, Decolonising Decolonisation, Austrian Academy of Science. https://www.oeaw.ac.at/sice/sice-blog/decolonising-decolonisation.
Susan Smith-Peter first declared the need for a change in one of the key approaches to studying the history of Russia: “The field of Russian history in the United States has tended to have a “colonization but” stance. This argues that Russian history is a history of colonization, but that it involved more non-Russians than other Western empires and integrated the peoples in it to a greater extent. This is based on an understanding of other empires that is not up to date with the latest literature. Instead, we should move to a “colonization and” framework that openly accepts that Russia was a colonizing power.” See more: Susan Smith-Peter, “What does decolonizing Russian history Mean?: Moving from “Colonization but” to “Colonization and” Frameworks,” Clio and Contemporary. The past and present, https://clioandthecontemporary.com/2023/06/14/what-does-decolonizing-russian-history-mean-moving-from-colonization-but-to-colonization-and-frameworks.
Andreas Kappeler, Nerivni braty. Ukra
Lewis H. Siegelbaum, “Bumping Up Against Ukraine as a Historian of Russia,” Region 10, no. 1 (January 2021): 137.
Mark von Hagen, “Does Ukraine Have a History?,” Slavic Review 54, no. 3 (1995): 658–73.
For example: Aleksandr Chalenko, Noveishaia istoriia Novorossii: sbornik statei i interv’iu, 2007–2022 (St. Petersburg: Alteia–Nezavisimyi al’ians, 2023); Aleksandr Miasnikov, Novorossiia. VoZVrashchenie: kratkaia istoriia ot Ekateriny II do Putina, 1782–2022 (Moscow: Veche: Rossiiskoe voenno-istoricheskoe obshchestvo, 2022).
Andrey Zorin “Krym v istorii russkogo samosoznaniia,” Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie 31 (1998): 124–38.
See for example: Aleksandr Puchenkov, Ukraina i Krym v 1918–19 goda. Ocherki politicheskoi istorii (St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriia, 2013).
Aleksandr Shubin, Istoriia Novorossii (Moscow: OLMA Media grupp, 2015); Igor Spivak and others, Istoriia Kryma (Moscow: OLMA Media grupp, 2015).
Andrei Iurasov, ed., Istoriia Kryma, 2 vols. (Moscow: Kuchkovo pole, 2017); Viktor Zakharov, ed., Istoriia Novorossii (Moscow: Centr gumanitarnykh initsiativ, 2017).
Elena Druzhinina, Severnoe prichernomor’e v 1775–1800 gg. (Moscow: Akademiia nauk SSSR, 1959); Iuzhnaia Ukraina 1800–1825 gg. (Moscow: Nauka, 1970).
Only Nina Bessarabova studied the region in the context of Catherine the Great’s travels. See Nina Bessarabova, Puteshestvie Ekateriny Velikoi po Rossii: ot Iaroslavlia do Kryma (Moscow: Eksmo, 2014).
Sunderland Willard, Taming the Wild Field: Colonization and Empire on the Russian Steppe (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 2006): 3–5.
Alan W. Fisher, The Russian Annexation of the Crimea, 1772–83 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970): 145–6.
Russian State Historical Archive (RGIA), f. 1341, op. 1, d. 255, ll. 3–4.
See more: Andrei Nepomniashchii, Aleksandr Kravchuk, “Krym v nachale preobrazovanii: na obochine Imperii,” Krym: problemy istorii. Sbornik statej, pod redaktsiei A.V. Iurasov (Moscow: Indrik, 2016): 142–55.
Iurii Petrov, ed., Istoriia Sevastopolia, 3 vols., Vol. 2: Sevastopol’ v epokhu Rossiiskoi imperii. Konets 18 veka–1917 g. (Moscow-Sevastopol: IstLit Publ., 2021).
Ibid., 7.
“June 1830: A Riot or an Uprising” this chapter is devoted to the history of the “plague riot.” This riot stands as one of the most significant narratives in the city’s history, vividly illustrating the inability of local military and civil officials for rational administration. Additionally, the riot serves as an illustration of the repressive nature inherent in the model of Russian imperial governance.
Evgenii Tarle, Gorod russkoj slavy: Sevastopol’ v 1854–5 gg. (Moskva: Voenizdat, 1954).
Larisa Levchenko, Istoriia Mykolaivskoho i Sevastopolskoho vi
Melvin Mungo, Sevastopol’s Wars. Crimea from Potemkin to Putin (Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2017), 22.
Denis Konkin, Nikita Khrapunov, ed., Rossiiskaia imperiia i Krym: sbornik statei (Simferopol: Izdatel’skii dom KFU, 2020).
Denis Konkin, Nikita Khrapunov, ed., Problemy integratsii Kryma v sostav Rossii, 1783–1825 (Sevastopol’: Al’batros, 2017).
Konkin, Khrapunov, ed., Rossiiskaja imperiia, 6–7.
Dmitrii Prokhorov, “Etnokonfessional’nye obshсhiny,” Rossiiskaja imperiia i Krym: sbornik statei (Simferopol: Izdatel’skii dom KFU, 2020): 165.
Valerii Vozgrin, Istoricheskie sud’by krymskikh tatar (Moscow: Mysl’, 1992).
Valerii Vozgrin, Istoriia krymskikh tatar: ocherki etnicheskoi istorii korennogo naroda Kryma in 4 vol. (Simferopol: K″artbaba prodakshn, 2014).
Il’ia Zaitsev, ed., Istoriia Krymskikh tatar in 5 vols., Vol. 3: Krymskoe Khanstvo: 15–18 veka (Kazan: Institut istorii im. Sh. Mardzhani AN RT, 2021).
Ibid., 3–4.
Ibid., 385.
Andrei Zorin, Kormia dvuglavogo orla. Literatura i gosudarstvennaia ideologiia v Rossii v posldnei treti 18–pervoi treti 19 veka (Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2001).
Vladimir Orekhov, V labirinte krymskogo mifa (Simferopol, Nizhnii Novgorod: OOO «Rastr», 2017).
Ibid., 7.
Nikita Khrapunov, Angliiskie puteshestvenniki i Krym: konets 18–pervaia tret’ 19 veka (Sevastopol: Al’batros, 2022).
Ibid., 17.
Aleksandr Kravchuk, Dela i dni: tavricheskie gubernatory, 1802–54 (Simferopol: Biznes- inform, 2019).
I consider works that directly relate to the region’s history. For more details on the development of Ukrainian historiography, see: Serhy Yekelchyk, Writing the nation: the Ukrainian historical profession in independent Ukraine and the diaspora (Stuttgart: Ibidem Verlag, 2023).
Valentyna Shandra, Olena Arkusha, ed., Ukraina u 19 stolitti: liudnist ta imperii (Kyiv: Akademperiodyka, 2022), 8.
See more about the development of terminology: Volodymyr Kravchenko, “In Search of “Ukraine” in the Russian Empire (End of Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries),” Eighteenth-Century Ukraine: New Perspectives on Social, Cultural, and Intellectual History (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University, 2023): 57–96.
Valerii Smolii, ed., Krym: shliakh kriz viky: istoriia u zapytanniakh i vidpovidiakh (Kyiv: Instytut istorii Ukrainy NAN Ukrainy, 2014).
Valerii Smolii, ed., Krym vid antychnosti do sohodennia: Istorychni studii (Kyiv: Instytut istorii Ukrainy NAN Ukrainy, 2014).
Dmytro Hordienko, Viacheslav Kornienko, ed., Nash Krym = Our Crimea = BizimQirimimiz, Vol. 1: Zbirka statei za materialamy Pershoi Mizhnarodnoi naukovoi konferentsii “Krym v istorii Ukrainy”, prysviachenoi 700-littiu sporudzhennia mecheti khana Uzbeka v Staromu Krymu (Kyiv, 2015).
Iaroslava Vermenych, Pivdenna Ukraina na tsyvilizatsiinomu pohranychchi (Kyiv: Instytut istorii Ukrainy NAN Ukrainy, 2015).
Iaroslava Vermenych, Fenomen pohranychchia: Krym i Donbas v doli Ukrainy (Kyiv: Instytut istorii Ukrainy NAN Ukrainy, 2018); Ukrainsko-rosiiske pohranychchia: istorychnyi dosvid ta suchasni vyklyky rehionalnoho rozvytku (Kyiv: Instytut istorii Ukrainy NAN Ukrainy, 2023).
Vermenych, Pivdenna Ukraina, 9.
For example: Shandra, Arkusha, Ukraina u 19 stolitti.
Vadim Adadurov, Volodymyr Sklokin, ed., Imperial identities in Ukrainian history (The 18th and the first half of the 19th century): collective volume (Lviv: Ukrainian Catholic University Publishing House, 2020), 13.
Viktor Savchenko, Taras Honcharuk, Povsiakdenne zhyttia Odesy na zlami epokh. Odesa Lanzherona-Vorontsova, 1819–1839 (Kharkiv: Folio, 2022).
Free trade.
Andrii Portnov, Dnipro: an entangled history of a European city (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2022).
Ibid., 56.
Igor Liman, Derzhavna tserkva i derzhavna vlada: Pivdenna Ukraina, 1775–1861 (Zaporizhzhia: RA «Tandem-U», 2004).
Victoria Konstantinova, Igor Lyman, Anastasiya Ignatova, European Vector of the Northern Azov in the Imperial Period: British Consular Reports about Italian Shipping (Berdyansk: Tkachuk O.V., 2016); Igor Liman, Victoriia Konstantinova, Evgen Danchenko, British Consul and Industrialist John Edvard Greaves (Berdiansk: Izdatel Tkachuk O.V., 2017); Victoria Konstantinova, Igor Lyman, Nimetski konsuly v Pivnichnomu Pryazovi, 19–pochatok 20 st. (Dnipro: Lira, 2018); The Ukrainian South as Viewed by Consuls of the British Empire, Nineteenth–Early Twentieth Centuries. Vol. 1: British Consuls in the Port City of Berdyans’k (Kyiv: Vidavnychyi budynok MMD, 2018); Hretska hromada ta konsuly Hretsii u Berdians’ku 19th–pochatku 20th stolittia (Melitopol: Vydavnychyi budynok Melitopolskoi miskoi drukarni, 2020).
Lyman, Konstantinova, The Ukrainian South, 7.
Vadim Adadurov, «Napoleonida» na Skhodi Yevropy: Uiavlennia, proekty ta diialnist uriadu Frantsii shchodo pivdenno-zakhidnykh okrain Rosiiskoi imperii na pochatku KhIX stolittia, 2nd edition (Lviv: Vydavnytstvo Ukrainskoho Katolytskoho Universytetu, 2018).
Ibid., 97.
Valerii Tomazov, Hreky-khiostsi na Pivdni Ukrainy, kinets 18 st.–1917 r.: mizh tradytsiiamy natsionalnoho samozberezhennia ta praktykamy sotsiokulturnoi adaptatsii (Kyiv: Instytut istorii Ukrainy NAN Ukrainy, 2020).
For example: Аndrii Makidonov, Istoryia Dneprovskoi lynii. Novie dokumenty i materialy, 1770–1797 (Zaporozh’e: STATUS, 2021); K svetskoi i tserkovnoi istorii Novorossii: 18–19 vv., 3rd edition (Zaporozh’e, Prosvіta, 2008).
See for example: Madeleine du Chatenet, Traversay, Un Français ministre de la Marine des Tsars (Paris: Louvain, 1997); Emmanuel de Waresquiel, Le Duc de Richelieu (Paris: Perrin, 1990).
See for example: Alan W. Fisher, The Russian Annexation of the Crimea, 1772–83 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970); The Crimean Tatars (Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press, 1978): 142–3.
Michael Khodarkovsky, Russia’s steppe frontier: the making of a colonial empire, 1500–1800 (Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2002).
Ibid., 4.
Ibid., 225.
Willard Sunderland, Taming the Wild Field: Colonization and Empire on the Russian Steppe (Ithaca, London: Cornel University Press, 2006).
Ibid., 89.
Kappeler, Nerivni braty.
Kelly O’Neill, Claiming Crimea. A history of Catherine the Great’s Southern Empire (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2017).
Ibid., 32.
Ibid., 277.
Mara Kozelsky, Christianizing Crimea: Shaping Sacred Space in the Russian Empire and Beyond. (DeKalb: IL, 2010); Crimea in War and Transformation. (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2018); Mara Kozelsky, Lucien J. Frary, Russian-Ottoman borderlands. The Eastern question Reconsidered (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2014).
Kozelsky, Christianizing Crimea, 5.
Kozelsky, Crimea in War, 9–10.
Patricia Herlihy, Odessa Recollected: The port and the people (Boston, MA: Academic Studies Press, 2019); Charles King, Odessa: genius and death in a city of dreams (New York: W.W. Norton, 2012).
Evrydiki Sifneous, Imperial Odessa: Peoples, Spaces, Identities (Boston: BRILL, 2017), 1.
John Roy Staples, Cross-Cultural Encounters on the Ukrainian Steppe: Settling the Molochna Basin, 1783–1861 (University of Toronto Press, 2003).
Ibid., 3.
Harvey L. Dyck, Transformation on the Southern Ukrainian Steppe. Letters and Papers of Johann Cornies in 3 vol., Vol. I: 1812–1835 (Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press, 2015); Vol. II: 1836–1842 (Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press, 2020).
Dyck, Transformation on the Southern Ukrainian Steppe, Vol. 1, 20.
Serhii Plokhy, The Frontline: Essays on Ukraine’s Past and Present (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2021), xiv.
For example, scholars at the Institute of Russia’s Regional History at HSE University define the “South of Russia” as a “kind of post-Soviet construct, the potential continuity of which in relation to the imperial tradition is not always evident.” The boundaries of the region change in accordance with the evolving political situation and are forced to consider the contemporary administrative divisions within the Russian Federation. See more: https://regionalhistory.hse.ru/region/yug/.
Kappeler, Nerivni braty, 66.
