I am grateful to Sergei Arutiunov, Daniel Brower, Sheila Fitzpatrick, Francine Hirsch, Alexander Kazhdan, Johanna Nichols, Ethan Pollock, Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, Alexander Vucinich, Reginald Zelnik, and to the anonymous reviewers for Slavic Review for offering stimulating comments and helpful suggestions. I apologize to one of the anonymous reviewers for my inability to follow the excellent recommendations and still retain the article's original focus and size.

1. Quoted in Charles, Frankel, The Faith of Reason: The Idea of Progress in the French Enlightenment (New York, 1948), 44.Google Scholar

2. Quoted in Hans, Aarsleff, From Locke to Saussure: Essays on the Study of Language and Intellectual History (Minneapolis, 1982), 158–59.Google Scholar

3. See the Müller-Lomonosov, debate in M. V. Lomonosov, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 11 vols. (Moscow, 1952), 6: 67–.Google Scholar

4. Ibid., 6: 77–78.

5. Ibid., 6: 25–80. The preceding discussion is based on Yuri Slezkine, “Naturalists versus Nations: Eighteenth-Century Russian Scholars Confront Ethnic Diversity,” Representations 47 (Summer 1994): 170–95.

6. Veselovskii, A. N., Sobranie sochinenii (St. Petersburg, 1913–14), 1: 7, 10, 44; 16: 86Google Scholar; Veselovskii, A. N., hbrannye stat'i (Leningrad, 1939), 501–14Google Scholar; Yuri, Slezkine, Arctic Mirrors: Russia and the Small Peoples of the North (Ithaca, 1994), 124–26Google Scholar; Trigger, Bruce G., A History of Archaeological Thought (Cambridge, Eng., 1989), 161–Google Scholar. For excellent recent work on nineteenth-century Russian ethnography, see Robert Paul Geraci, “Window on the East: Ethnography, Orthodoxy, and Russian Nationality in Kazan', 1870–1914” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1995); Nathaniel Knight, “Constructing the Science of Nationality: Ethnography in Mid-Nineteenth Century Russia” (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1994); and Paul William Werth, “Orthodox Mission and Imperial Governance in the Volga-Kama Region, 1825–1881” (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1996).

7. Anuchin, D. N., “Velikorussy,” in Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ (St. Petersburg, 1892), 5A: 837 Google Scholar. On Bogdanov, A. P. and Volkov, F., see Levin, M. G., Ocherki po istorii antropologii v Rossii (Moscow, 1960), 101, 123–25.Google Scholar

8. See Sobolevskii, A., Review of N. Iu. Zograf, Antropometricheskiia izsledovaniia , nuzhskago velikorusskago naseleniia Vladimirskoi, Iaroslavskoi i Kostromskoi gubernii (Moscow, 1892)Google Scholar in Zhivaia starina 3, no. 1 (1893): 115–22. Anuchin's summary is based on Zograf s work.

9. Levin, Ocherki, 133; Zalkind, N. G., Moskovskaia shkola antropologov v razvitii otechestvennoi nauki o cheloveke (Moscow, 1974), 83.Google Scholar

10. Quoted in Levin, Ocherki, 124–25.

11. E. M., Chepurkovskii, “O neobkhodimosti edinogo plana rabot po antropologicheskomu analizu naseleniia Rossii i zhelatel'nosti etnograficheskogo issledovaniia nekotorykh opredelennykh oblastei,” Russkii antropologicheskii zhurnal 13, nos. 1–2 (1923): 99–101.Google Scholar

12. See, for example, V. V., Bunak, “O smeshenii chelovecheskikh ras,” Russkii evgenicheskii zhurnal 3, no. 2 (1925): 121–38.Google Scholar

13. For interesting discussions of similar problems in other contexts, see Malcolm, Chapman, The Celts: The Construction of a Myth (New York, 1992)Google Scholar; and Colin Renfrew, Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins (London, 1987).

14. Polivanov, E. D., Stat'i po obshchemu iazykoznaniiu (Moscow, 1968), 195 Google Scholar. For very useful surveys, see Wolfgang Girke and Helmut, Jachnow, Sowjetische Soziolinguistik: Probleme und Genese (Kronberg, 1974), 18–50Google Scholar; Thomas John Samuelian, “The Search for a Marxist Linguistics in the Soviet Union, 1917–1950” (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1981); and Michael G. Smith, “Soviet Language Frontiers: The Structural Method in Early Language Reforms 1917–1937” (Ph.D. diss., Georgetown University, 1991). For an interesting interpretation, see Patrick Sériot, “Changements de paradigmes dans la linguistique soviétique des années 1920–1930,” Histoire Epistémologie Langage 17, no. 2 (1995): 236–51.

15. For biographical information on Marr, see “Avtobiografiia” (1927), in Marr, N. Ia., Izbrannyeraboty, 5 vols (Leningrad, 1933), 1: 6–13Google Scholar (hereafter IR); Mikhankova, V. A., Nikolai lakovlevich Marr (Moscow, 1948)Google Scholar; and “Iz vospominanii o N. la. Marre,” Problemy istorii dokapitalisticheskikh obshchestv 3–4 (1935).

16. N. la. Marr, “Avtobiografiia,” IR 1: 6; Katerina, Clark, Petersburg, Crucible of Cultural Revolution (Cambridge, Mass., 1995), 216.Google Scholar

17. Mikhankova, Nikolai lakovlevich Marr, 8; Marr, “Avtobiografiia,” IR 1: 9. See also Aptekar, V. B., N. la. Marr i novoe uchenie o iatyke (Moscow, 1934), 11–13Google Scholar; Alpatov, V. M., Istoriia odnogo mifa (Moscow, 1991)Google Scholar, 14; Zhirmunskii, V. M., “Lingvisticheskaia paleontologiia N. la. Marra i istoriia iazyka,” in Vinogradov, V. V. and Serebrennikov, B. A., eds., Protiv vul'garizatsii i izvrashcheniia marksizma v iazykoznanii, 2 vols. (Moscow, 1952), 2: 172–.Google Scholar

18. N. la. Marr, “Priroda i osobennosti gruzinskogo iazyka” (1888), IR 1: 15.

19. N. la. Marr, “K voprosu o zadachakh armianovedeniia” (1899), IR 1: 17; Marr, “Vvedenie k rabote ‘Opredelenie iazyka vtoroi kategorii Akhmenidskikh klinoobraznykh nadpisei po dannym iafeticheskogo iazykoznaniia'” (1912), IR 1: 50–51; Marr, “Ob iafeticheskoi teorii” (1924), IR 3: 1. Political anticolonialism becomes a dominant theme in early 1920 (see Marr, “Iafeticheskii Kavkaz i tretii etnicheskii element v sozidanii sredizemnomorskoi kul'tury,” IR 1: 90–93), but a vigorous dislike of the linguistic establishment and a conviction that true scholarship is guided by “the innate feeling of affection for one's native antiquities and folktales” animates Marr's earliest work (the quote is from Marr's speech at his dissertation defense in May 1899, IR 1: 18).

20. Marr, “Ob iafeticheskoi teorii,” IR 3: 1.

21. Ibid., 3: 49. See also P. S. Kuznetsov, “Oshibki N. la. Marra v ego vzgliadakh na rodstvo i istoricheskoe razvitie iazykov,” in Vinogradov and Serebrennikov, eds., Protiv vul'garizatsii, 2: 210–12.

22. N. la. Marr, “Chem zhivet iafeticheskoe iazykoznanie?” (1921), IR 1: 176; Marr, “Ob iafeticheskoi teorii,” IR 3: 1.

23. Marr, “Chem zhivet,” IR 1: 177. Cf. a recent feminist restatement of this thesis in Marija Gimbutas, The Language of the Goddess (San Francisco, 1989), xxi: “We are still living under the sway of that aggressive male [i.e., Indo-European] invasion and only beginning to discover our long alienation from our authentic European Heritage— gylanic, nonviolent, earth-centered culture.” The coinage “gylanic” denotes sexual equality. See also Anthony, David W., “Nazi and EcoFeminist Prehistories: Ideology and Empiricism in Indo-European Archaeology,” in Kohl, Philip L. and Fawcett, Clare, eds., Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology (Cambridge, Eng., 1995), 82–.Google Scholar

24. Marr, N. la., “Znachenie i rol’ izucheniia natsmen'shinstva v kraevedenii” (1927), IR 1: 235.Google Scholar

25. Marr, N. la., “Osnovnye dostizheniia iafeticheskoi teorii” (1924), IR 1: 215 Google Scholar. Marr was greatly influenced by Lucien Lévy-Bruhl's Primitive Mentality. For an analysis, see Thomas, Lawrence L., The Linguistic Theories of N.Ja. Marr, University of California Publications in Linguistics 14 (Berkeley, 1957), 78–81.Google Scholar

26. Marr, N. la., “Kavkazovedenie i abkhazskii iazyk” (1916), IR 1: 59, 70.Google Scholar

27. “The Great Ethnological Predicament” is my own term, of course, but the feeling that nations and their origins were in theoretical trouble was quite widespread if not always clearly defined.

28. Girke and Jachnow, Sowjetische Soziolinguistik, 18–50; Smith, “Soviet Language Frontiers,” 101–23. The last quote is from E. D. Polivanov, “Gde lezhat prichiny iazykovoi evoliutsii,” in E. D. Polivanov, Stat'ipo obshchemu iazykoznaniiu (Moscow, 1968), 75–89.

29. Trubetskoi, N. S., “Vavilonskaia bashnia i smeshenie iazykov” (first published in 1923), in Ponomareva, L. V., ed., Evraziia: Istoricheskie vzgliady russkikh emigrantov (Moscow, 1992), 143.Google Scholar

30. See, in particular, Trubetskoi, “Vavilonskaia bashnia “; Trubetskoi, “Ob istinnom i lozhnom natsionalizme,” in Iskhod k Vostoku (Sofia, 1921), 71–85; and Trubetskoi, Evropa i chelovechestvo (Sofia, 1920). For Trubetskoi-Marr parallels, see Patrick Sériot, “Un conflit de métaphores: Eurasistes et marristes,” forthcoming in Sylvain Auroux, ed., Histoire des idées linguistiques, vol. 8 (Brussels, 1995), and Smith, , “Soviet Language Frontiers,” 159. For implicit but highly suggestive comparisons, see Boris Gasparov, “The Ideological Principles of Prague School Phonology,” in Pomorska, Krystyna et al., eds., Language, Poetry, and Poetics: The Generation of the 1890s: Jakobson, Trubetzkoy, Majakovskij (Berlin, 1987), 49–78Google Scholar; Patrick Sériot, “Aux sources du structuralisme: Une controverse biologique en Russie,” Etudes de lettres (January-March 1994): 89–104; and Patrick Sériot, “La double vie de Trubetzkoy, ou la clôture des systèmes,” La gré des langues 5 (1993): 88–115. For the English translations of Trubetskoi's essays, see N. S. Trubetzkoy, The Legacy of Genghis Khan and Other Essays on Russian Identity, edited with a postscript by Anatoly Liberman (Ann Arbor, 1991).

31. Marr, N. la., “Predislovie k ‘Iafeticheskomu sborniku, t. V” (1927), IR 1: 251.Google Scholar

32. Marr, N. la., “Iafetidologiia v Leningradskom gosudarstvennom universitete” (1930), IR 1: 255.Google Scholar

33. Marr, N. la., “Predvaritel'noe soobshchenie o rodstve gruzinskogo iazyka s semiticheskimi” (1908), IR 1: 23–38Google Scholar; the quote is from 1: 24. For a detailed critique of Marr's methodology, see Thomas, The Linguistic Theories ofN.Ja. Marr, 5–18. Also Girke and Jachnow, Sowjetische Soziolinguislik, 50–62.

34. Marr, , “Predvaritel'noe soobshchenie,” IR 1: 23, 26.Google Scholar

35. Leonti, Mroveli, Zhizn’ karlliiskikh tsarei, trans, and ed. Tsualaia, G. B. (Moscow, 1979), 21 Google Scholar. I am grateful to Sergei Arutiunov for pointing out the connection.

36. Marr, , “Predvaritel'noe soobshchenie,” IR 1: 36–37.Google Scholar

37. See Trigger, A History of Archaeological Thought, 163–67; and Ingo, Wawjorra, “German Archaeology and Its Relation to Nationalism and Racism,” in Diaz-Andreu, Margarita and Champion, Timothy, eds., Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe (London, 1996), 173–75.Google Scholar

38. Parsons cited in Mallory, J. P., In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth (London, 1989), 10–11, 143.Google Scholar

39. Marr, , “Iafetidologiia v Leningradskom gosudarstvennom universitete,” IR 1: 271.Google Scholar

40. Marr, N. la., Kavkaz i pamiatniki ego dukhovnoi kul'tury: Perepechatano iz lzvestii Akademii nauk za 1912 god (Petrograd, 1919), 15–16Google Scholar. See also Marr, N. la., Ob istokakh tvorchestva Rustaveli i ego poeme (Tbilisi, 1964)Google Scholar, esp. 17–42; Aptekar', N. la. Marr, 22–25, 32; Mikhankova, Nikolai Iakovlevich Marr, 134–35, 143, 239–45. Marr's pan-Caucasian patriotism became a substantial political asset after the formation of the Transcaucasian Federation in 1922.

41. Mroveli, Zhizn’ kartliiskikh tsarei, 21.

42. Quoted in Thomas, The Linguistic Theories of N.Ja. Marr, 23, 30 (emphasis in the original). Cf. Trubetskoi: “In matters of the ‘soul’ Slavs were drawn toward Indo-Iranians; in matters of the ‘body’ … to the western Indo-Europeans.” Proof: “Among specific coincidences of Proto-Slavic and Proto-Iranian lexicons, the terms referring, one way or another, to religious feelings, represent a very significant proportion. Specific coincidences of the Proto-Slavic and Western European [sic] languages are of a completely different nature. There may be more of them than between Proto-Slavic and Proto-Indo-Iranian, but … words to do with technology predominate decisively.” N. S. Trubetskoi, “Verkhi i nizy russkoi kul'tury (Etnicheskaia osnova russkoi kul'tury),” in Iskhod k Vostoku, 91–92. For an analogous (one might say, “Eurarabic “) construct elsewhere in Europe, see Margarita Díaz-Andreu, “Islamic Archaeology and the Origin of the Spanish Nation,” in Díaz-Andreu and Champion, eds., Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe, 78–79.

43. Marr, Kavkaz i pamiatniki, 19. Also Marr, “K voprosu o zadachakh armianovedeniia, “/# 1: 20.

44. Marr, “K voprosu o zadachakh armianovedeniia,” IR 1: 20; N. la. Marr, “O Chanskom iazyke” (1910), IR 1: 39; Marr, “Kavkazovedenie i abkhazskii iazyk,” IR 1: 69.

45. Marr, “Kavkazovedenie i abkhazskii iazyk,” IR 1: 69.

46. Ibid.

47. Thomas, The Linguistic Theories of N.Ja. Marr, 28–34.

48. Marr, “Iafeticheskii Kavkaz i tretii etnicheskii element,” IR 1: 90–91. The “madman” quote is from another one of Marr's ironic self-characterizations; see “Iafetidologiia v Leningradskom gosudarstvennom universitete,” IR 1: 255.

49. Thomas, The Linguistic Theories ofN.Ja. Marr, 48–51.

50. Marr, “Iafeticheskii Kavkaz i tretii etnicheskii element,” IR 1: 94, 116.

51. Ibid., 1: 118–20, 110–11.

52. Ibid., 1: 120–21.

53. Ibid., 1: 91.

54. Ibid., 1: 121.

55. N. la. Marr, “Predislovie k nemetskomu izdaniiu raboty ‘Iafeticheskii Kavkaz i tretii etnicheskii element v sozidanii sredizemnomorskoi kul'tury “’ (1923), IR 1: 151.

56. Marr, “Iafeticheskii Kavkaz i tretii etnicheskii element,” IR 1: 98–101, 116–17.

57. Ibid., 1: 98, 116, 101.

58. N. la. Marr, “Knizhnye legendy ob osnovanii Kuara v Armenii i Kieva na Rusi” (1922), IR 5: 65; N. la. Marr, “Iafetidy” (1922), IR 1: 133.

59. Marr, “Predislovie k nemetskomu izdaniiu,” IR 1: 151; Thomas, The Linguistic Theories of N.Ja. Marr, 85–86.

60. N. la. Marr, “Sena, Liutetsiia i pervye obitateli Gallii—etruski i pelasgi” (1922), IR 1: 138–43, 147; Thomas, The Linguistic Theories of N. Ja. Marr, 55; I. K. Zborovskii, “N. la. Marr i ukrainskii iazyk,” Iazyk i myshlenie 8 (1937): 36–38; V. D. Levin, “Kritika vzgliadov N. la. Marra i ego posledovatelei na proiskhozhdenie russkogo iazyka,” in Vinogradov and Serebrennikov, eds., Protiv vul'garizatsii, 1: 244–46.

61. Marr was not the only national chronicler bent on retroactive greatness—just the best placed and most successful. For similar scholarly efforts on behalf of the Tatars, Chuvash, Mari, and Belorussians, see Victor A. Shnirelman, “The Faces of Nationalist Archaeology in Russia,” in Díaz-Andreu and Champion, eds., Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe, 226–30. Outside the USSR, it was probably Heinrich Himmler's one-time favorite Herman Wirth who came closest to Marr in both style and spirit. In his 1928 Der Aufgang der Menschheit, Wirth announced his discovery of a primeval “Atlanto-Nordic” race that had taken advantage of its “metaphysicaltranscendental” gift in order to fulfill its “world-historical mission” of spawning all the known world cultures. (In 1938, Wirth was dropped by the Nazis in favor of the much less inclusive Hans Reinerth.) See Wawjorra, “German Archaeology,” 180–82. The term for this condition is Goropianism (after Goropius Becanus who traced all languages to Dutch). Another prominent victim was the founder of Indo-Europeanism, James Parsons, who derived the whole family from Irish.

62. N. la. Marr, “Terminy iz abkhazo-russkikh etnicheskikh sviazei ‘Loshad'’ i ‘trizna'” (1924), IR 5: 119.

63. Marr, , “Znachenie i rol’ izucheniia natsmen'shinstva,” IR 1: 241 Google Scholar; Marr, N. la., “Osnovnye dostizheniia iafeticheskoi teorii” (1924), IR 1: 197.Google Scholar

64. For the relationship between Marxism and Soviet science, see, in particular, Loren R. Graham, Science, Philosophy, and Human Behavior in the Soviet Union (New York, 1987); David Joravsky, Soviet Marxism and Natural Science 1917–1932 (New York, 1961); David Joravsky, Russian Psychology: A Critical History (Oxford, 1989); and Alexander Vucinich, Empire of Knowledge: The Academy of Sciences of the USSR (1917–1970) (Berkeley, 1984), esp. 149–70. For the rise of the “sociological method” in Soviet linguistics, see Girke and Jachnow, Sowjetische Soziolinguistik, 16–50; Smith, “Soviet Language Frontiers,” 87–106; and Samuelian, “The Search for a Marxist Linguistics,” 255–63, 278–80.

65. Clark, Petersburg, 218; Gorbanevskii, M. V., V nachale bylo slovo … Maloizvestnye stranitsy istorii sovetskoi lingvistiki (Moscow, 1991), 42–45Google Scholar; Samuelian, “The Search for a Marxist Linguistics,” 272, 309; Thomas, The Linguistic Theories of N.Ja. Marr, 89.

66. Marr, , “Znachenie i rol’ izucheniia natsmen'shinstva,” IR 1: 241 and 236Google Scholar; Marr, N. la., “Pochemu tak txudno stat’ lingvistom-teoretikom” (1928), IR 2: 399 Google Scholar; and Marr, , “Terminy iz abkhazo-russkikh etnicheskikh sviazei,” IR 5: 119 Google Scholar.

67. The unity of language and thought was a crucial revolutionary—and later Stalinist—concept. By transforming language, one transformed thought, and ultimately reality. See Clark, Petersburg, 201–23.

68. N. la. Marr, “Obshchii kurs ucheniia ob iazyke” (1927), IR 2: 85–86.

69. N. la. Marr, “Lingvisticheski namechaemye epokhi razvitiia chelovechestva i ikh uviazka s istoriei material'noi kul'tury” (1926), IR 3: 57.

70. N. la. Marr, “Aktual'nye problemy i ocherednye zadachi iafeticheskoi teorii” (1928), IR 3: 71. See also Marr, “Pochemu tak trudno stat’ lingvistom-teoretikom,” IR 2: 405.

71. Thomas, The Linguistic Theories of N. Ja. Marr, 103–7.

72. N. la. Marr, “Postanovka ucheniia ob iazyke v mirovom masshtabe i abkhazskii iazyk” (1928), IR 4: 58.

73. Marr, “Avtobiografiia,” IR 1: 11.

74. Marr, “Postanovka ucheniia ob iazyke,” IR 4: 61.

75. Marr, “Pochemu tak trudno stat’ lingvistom-teoretikom,” IR 2: 415.

76. N. la. Marr, “Iazyk i myshlenie” (1931), IR 3: 121.

77. Ibid., 3: 118.

78. Ibid., 3: 111–12. Cf. Thomas, The Linguistic Theories ofN.Ja. Marr, 108–11.

79. Marr's overview of his new doctrine was delivered as a series of lectures at the State University of Azerbaijan in Baku in 1927 and published in 1928. See Marr, “Obshchii kurs,” IR 2: 3–126, and Mikhankova, Nikolai Iakovlevich Marr, 341.

80. See Katerina Clark, The Soviet Novel: History as Ritual (Chicago, 1981), 114–29.

81. Marr's prose is frequently and not always deliberately at odds with Russian grammar and “formal logical thinking “; his lectures appear to have been virtually incomprehensible (see “Iz vospominanii o N. la. Marre,” Problemy islorii dokapitalisticheskikh obshchestv 3–4 (1935): 158.

82. Marr, “Ob iafeticheskoi teorii,” IR 3: 31; A. V. Desnitskaia, “O roli antimarksistskoi teorii proiskhozhdeniia iazyka v obshchei sisteme vzgliadov N. la. Marra,” in Vinogradov and Serebrennikov, eds., Protiv vul'garizatsii, 1: 49–51.

83. For an extremely interesting examination of Marr, Bakhtin, and Lysenko as representatives of a “neo-Romantic” strain within the late avant-garde, see Boris Gasparov, “Development or Rebuilding: Views of Academician T. D. Lysenko in the Context of the Late Avant-Garde,” in John E. Bowlt and Olga Matich, eds., Laboratory of Dreams: The Russian Avant-Garde (Stanford, forthcoming). Also Ivanov, V. V., Ocherki po islorii semiotiki v SSSR (Moscow, 1976), 12–65.Google Scholar

84. See his “Lamark,” in Mandel'shtam, Osip, Sobranie sochinenii v dvukh tomakh (Washington, 1964), 1: 168–69Google Scholar; and “Puteshestvie v Armeniiu,” in Osip Mandel'shtam, Sochineniia v dvukh tomakh (Moscow, 1990), 2: 100–132, esp. 105–6. For a discussion, see Gasparov, “Development or Rebuilding.” For a suggestive explication of “Lamark,” see Gregory, Freidin, A Coat of Many Colors: Osip Mandelstam and His Mythologies of Self-Presentation (Berkeley, 1987), 224–28.Google Scholar

85. Marr, , “Knizhnye legendy,” IR 5: 47;Google Scholar Marr, N. la., “Iazykovaia politika iafeticheskoi teorii i udmurtskii iazyk” (1930), IR 1: 282.Google Scholar

86. Marr, , “Iazykovaia politika iafeticheskoi teorii i udmurtskii iazyk,” IR 1: 286–87Google Scholar; Marr, N. la., “K voprosu ob edinom iazyke” (1928), IR 2: 394–95.Google Scholar

87. Marr, , “Predislovie k ‘Iafeticheskomu sborniku, t. V, '” IR 1: 250 Google Scholar. On various ethnogenetic projects by the “young scholarly communities,” see Shnirelman, “The Faces of Nationalist Archaeology in Russia,” 226–30.

88. N. M., Matorin, “Sovremennyi etap i zadachi sovetskoi etnografii,” Sovetskaia etnografiia 1–2 (1931): 11 Google Scholar; Tokarev, S., Review of Franz Boas, Um pervobytnogo cheloveka (Moscow, 1926)Google Scholar, translation of The Mind of Primitive Man (New York, 1911), in Etnografiia 1 (1928): 132; Sheila, Fitzpatrick, “Cultural Revolution as Class War,” in Fitzpatrick, , ed., Cultural Revolution in Russia, 1928–1931 (Bloomington, 1978), 3–38.Google Scholar

89. “Soveshchanie etnografov Leningrada i Moskvy 5/IV-ll/IV 1929 g.,” Etnografiia 2 (1929): 118.

90. As Marr's main spokesman in Moscow, V. B. Aptekar', explained at the Sociology Section of the Society of Marxist Historians (7 May 1928), “If you look into the history of ethnology, you'll see that it was created by priests, missionaries, merchants, slave owners, and travelers who founded colonies.” Arkhiv Rossiiskoi akademii nauk (Arkhiv RAN), f. 377, op. 2, d. 115, 1. 88. See also d. 130, 11. 2–38; d. 139, 11. 7–20; and op. 4, d. 29, 1. 12.

91. Cf. Sergei Tolstov, “K probleme akkul'turatsii,” Etnografiia 1–2 (1930); Matorin, “Sovremennyi etap,” 19–23; and “Rezoliutsiia vserossiiskogo arkheologoetnograficheskogo soveshchaniia 7–11 maia 1932 goda,” Sovetskaia etnografiia 3 (1932): 14.See also Slezkine, Arctic Mirrors, 246–64.

92. Arkhiv RAN, f. 377, op. 2, d. 129, 11 1–9; “Tselevaia ustanovka i novye zadachi GAIMK,” Soobshcheniia Gosudarstvennoi akademii istorii material'noi kul'tury 2 (1931): 2; A. N. Bernshtam, “Zhilishche Krymskogo predgor'ia: Opyt sotsiologicheskogo analiza,” hvestiia Gosudarstvennoi akademii istorii material'noi kul'tury 9, nos. 6–7 (1931): 2.

93. S. N. Bykovskii, “O predmete istorii material'noi kul'tury,” Soobshcheniia Gosudarstvennoi akademii istorii material'noi kul'tury, 1–2 (1932): 3–4; “Rezoliutsiia vserossiiskogo arkheologo-etnograficheskogo soveshchaniia,” 4–9; V. I. Ravdonikas, “Arkheologiia na Zapade i v SSSR v nashi dni,” Soobshcheniia Gosudarstvennoi akademii istorii material'noi kul'tury 9–10 (1932): 20.

94. I. I. Meshchaninov, “Piry Azerbaidzhana,” hvestiia Gosudarstvennoi akademii istorii material'noi kul'tury 9, no. 4 (1931): 2; S. N. Bykovskii, “O roli izucheniia iazykovykh iavlenii v bor'be za novuiu istoriiu material'noi kul'tury,” Soobshcheniia Gosudarstvennoi akademii istorii material'noi kul'tury 11–12 (1931): 4–7.

95. S. N. Bykovskii, “Iafeticheskii predok vostochnykh slavian—kimmeriitsy,” Izvestiia Gosudarstvennoi akademii istorii material'noi kul'tury 8, nos. 8–10 (1931): 94; V. I. Ravdonikas, “Peshchernye goroda Kryma i gotskaia problema v sviazi so stadial'nym razvitiem Severnogo Prichernomor'ia,” Izvestiia Gosudarstvennoi akademii istorii material'noi kul'tury 12, nos. 1–8 (1932), quoted in Mikhail, Miller, Archaeology in the USSR (New York, 1956), 81 Google Scholar. See also A. A., Formozov, “Arkheologiia i ideologiia (20–30-e gody),” Voprosy filosofii 2 (1993): 70–82Google Scholar; and Victor A., Shnirelman, “From Internationalism to Nationalism: Forgotten Pages of Soviet Archaeology in the 1930s and 1940s,” in Kohl and Fawcett, eds., Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology 126–29.Google Scholar

96. A. N., Lozanova, “K blizhaishim zadacham sovetskoi fol'kloristiki,” Sovetskaia etnografiia 2 (1932): 4, 6Google Scholar. See also “Diskussiia o sushchnosti i zadachakh fol'klora v leningradskom Institute rechevoi kul'tury,” Sovetskaia etnografiia 3–4 (1931): 239–42; “Diskussiia o znachenii fol'klora i fol'kloristiki v rekonstruktivnyi period,” Literatura i marksizm 5 (1931): 91–114 and 6 (1931): 105–23; and O. M. Freidenberg, “Vospominaniia o Marre,” Vostok-Zapad 3 (1988): 181–204. For outstanding examples of Marrist literary history ( “paleontology “), see I. Frank-Kamenetskii, “Pervobytnoe myshlenie v svete iafeticheskoi teorii i filosofii,” Iazyk i literatura 3 (1929): 70–155; Tristan i Isol'da: Ot geroini liubvi feodal'noi Evropy do bogini matriarkhal'noi Afroevrazii (Leningrad, 1932); and O. Freidenberg, Poetika siuzheta i zhanra: Period antichnoi literatury (Leningrad, 1936).

97. A. I., Iarkho, “Protiv idealisticheskikh techenii v rasovedenii SSSR,” Antropologicheskii zhurnal 1 (1932): 9–23Google Scholar (all the quotations are from this article). For a very spirited discussion of whether true Marxists should preserve the concept of race ( “the ultimate question being: are the Uzbeks capable of the same development as the Great Russians? “), see Arkhiv RAN, f. 377, op. 2, d. 52 (the quotation is from 1. 32). See also M. A. Gremiatskii, “Problema rasy v antropologii,” Trudy chetvertogo vsesoiuznogo s “ezda zoologov, anatomov igistologov v Kieve, 6–12 maia, 1930 (Kiev, 1931): 298–300; A. I. Iarkho, “Osnovnye napravleniia rasovoi antropologii v SSSR,” Trudy chetvertogo, 330–32; Plisetskii, M, “Na antropologicheskom fronte,” Sovetskaia etnografiia 1 (1932): 91–101Google Scholar; G. I., Petrov, “N. la. Marr i problema rasogeneza,” Problemy istorii material'noi kul'tury 5–6 (1933): 37–45Google Scholar; and Trofimova, T. and Cheboksarov, N., “Znachenie ucheniia o iazyke N. la. Marra v bor'be za marksistsko-leninskuiu antropologiiu,” Antropologicheskii zhurnal 1–2 (1934): 28–54Google Scholar. For the (rather less happy) fate of the other sociobiological disciplines, see Adams, Mark B., “The Soviet Nature-Nurture Debate,” in Graham, Loren R., ed., Science and the Soviet Social Order (Cambridge, Mass., 1990), 94–Google Scholar; and Adams, Mark B., “Eugenics in Russia 1900–1940,” in Adams, Mark B., ed., The Wellborn Science: Eugenics in Germany, France, Brazil, and Russia (Oxford, 1990), 153–216.Google Scholar

98. Polivanov, E. D., “Stenogramma 4 fevralia 1929 g: ‘Problema marksistskogo iazykoznaniia i iafeticheskaia teoriia, '” in Polivanov, E. D., Trudy po vostochnomu i obshchemu iazykoznaniiu (Moscow, 1991), 509.Google Scholar

99. Ibid., 546. G. A. Il'inskii was the only participant in the discussion who supported Polivanov.

100. Ibid., 509, 511, 513, 521–22, 530–33, 535. For a similar, and probably the last, public statement of this kind, see a speech by the physicist la. I. Frenkel’ as cited in Vucinich, Empire of Knowledge, 156.

101. Polivanov, “Stenogramma,” 512. Polivanov's own attempt to define Marxist linguistics did not go beyond general observations on the social nature of language. See ibid., 536–43, and Polivanov, E. D., Stat'ipo obshchemu iazykoznaniiu (Moscow, 1968), 176–77.Google Scholar

102. For Language Front manifestoes, see “Obrashchenie gruppy ‘Iazykovednyi front, '” Literatura i iskusstvo 1 (1930): back cover, and Revoliutsiia i iazyk 1 (1930). For surveys, see Alpatov, Istoriia, 87–111, and Smith, “Soviet Language Frontiers,” 170–204.

103. V. I. Ravdonikas, “Arkheologiia na Zapade i v SSSR v nashi dni,” Soobshcheniia Gosudarstvennoi akademii istorii material'noi kul'tury 9–10 (1932): 13; V. I. Ravdonikas, “Arkheologiia na sluzhbe imperializma,” Soobshcheniia Gosudarstvennoi akademii istorii material'noi kul'tury 3–4 (1932): 27. For a very useful survey of “internationalism” in Soviet archaeology, see Shnirelman, “From Internationalism to Nationalism,” 123–29.

104. S. N. Bykovskii, “Plemia i natsiia v rabotakh burzhuaznykh arkheologov i istorikov i v osveshchenii marksizma-leninizma,” Soobshcheniia Gosudarstvennoi akademii istorii material'noi kul'tury 3–4 (1932): 5–6.

105. V. B. Aptekar', “Iafeticheskaia teoriia N. la. Marra i istoricheskii materializm,” Arkhiv RAN, f. 377, op. 2, d. 110, 1. 5.

106. Ravdonikas, “Arkheologiia na sluzhbe,” 21.

107. S. N. Bykovskii, “O klassovykh korniakh staroi arkheologii,” Soobshcheniia Gosudarstvennoi akademii istorii material'noi kul'tury 9–10 (1931): 4–7; Ravdonikas, “Arkheologiia na sluzhbe,” 27. See also A. V. Shmidt, “O rabotakh russkikh arkheologov po finnam,” Soobshcheniia Gosudarstvennoi akademii istorii material'noi kul'tury 3–4 (1932): 35–43.

108. V. I. Ravdonikas, “O rabote D. N. Edinga ‘Sarskoe gorodishche, “’ Soobshcheniia Gosudarstvennoi akademii istorii material'noi kul'tury, 4–5 (1931): 64; G. Debets, “Tak nazyvaemyi ‘vostochnyi velikoruss, '” Antropologicheskii zhurnal 1–2 (1933): 54; Marr, Izbrannye raboty, 5: 314.

109. Alferov, Zh. I. et al., eds., Akademicheskoe delo 1929–1931 gg.: Dokumenty i materialy sledstvennogo dela, sfabrikovannogo OGPU (St. Petersburg, 1993)Google Scholar; F. D., Ashnin and V. M., Alpatov, “Delo slavistov”: 30-e gody (Moscow, 1994)Google Scholar; S. B., Bernshtein, “Tragicheskaia stranitsa iz istorii slavianskoi filologii (30-e gody XX veka),” Sovetskoe slavianovedenie 1 (1989): 77–82Google Scholar; V. S., Brachev, “'Delo’ akademika S. F. Platonova,” Voprosy istorii 5 (1989): 117–29Google Scholar; A. N., Goriainov, “Slavianovedy—zhertvy repressii 1920–1940kh godov: Nekotorye neizvestnye stranitsy iz istorii sovetskoi nauki,” Sovetskoe slavianovedenie 2 (1990): 78–89Google Scholar; Kaganovich, B. S., Evgenii Viktorovich Tarle ipeterburgskaia shkola istorikov (St. Petersburg, 1995), 38–54Google Scholar. For the fate of the “regional studies” (kraevedenie) movement, see Eileen Maniichuk's “Observing Homeland and Hinterland: The Construction of Local Identity in Soviet Ethnography and Kraevedenie, 1917–1937” (Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto, 1996); and A. Akin'shin and O. Lasunskii, ‘ “Delo kraevedov’ Tsentral'nogo Chernozem'ia,” Otechestvo 1 (1990): 56–66.

110. Dimitrov, D, “Slavianskaia filologiia na putiakh fashizatsii (k kharakteristike ee sostoianiia na Zapade),” lazyk i myshlenie 5 (1935): 125–33.Google Scholar

111. See “Ob uvekovechenii pamiati N. la. Marra” and other materials in Problemy istorii dokapitalisticheskikh obshchestv 3–4 (1935), esp. 3–6, 255–59. Also Mikhankova, Nikolai lakovlevich Marr, 427–28; Alpatov, Istoriia, 110–11. By all accounts, Marr was buried at the Aleksandr Nevskii Necropolis, but Alpatov reports having been unable to find his grave there. See Problemy istorii dokapitalisticheskikh obshchestv 3–4 (1935): 258, and Alpatov, Istoriia, llOn.

112. N. M. Matorin, “15 let Oktiabr'skoi revoliutsii,” Sovetskaia etnografiia 5–6 (1932): 12–13; “Na fronte istoricheskoi nauki: V Sovnarkome Soiuza SSR i TsK VKP(b),” Sovetskaia etnografiia 1 (1936): 3.

113. Alpatov, Istoriia, 112–42; L'Hermitte, René, Marr, marrisme, marristes: Une page de I'histoire de la linguistique soviétique (Paris, 1987), 47–54Google Scholar; Aksenova, E. P. and Vasil'ev, M. A., “Problemy etnogonii slavianstva i ego vetvei v akademicheskikh diskussiiakh rubezha 1930–1940kh godov,” Slavianovedenie 2 (1993): 91–92Google Scholar; Shnirelman, “The Faces of Nationalist Archaeology in Russia,” 233–36; Shnirelman, “From Internationalism to Nationalism,” 132–38. The terror of 1937–38 seems to have had little regard for scholarly differences: E. D. Polivanov, his lone defender G. A. Il'inskii, and his chief accuser V. B. Aptekar’ were executed within weeks of each other.

114. “Skhema piatitomnika po istorii SSSR,” Istorik-Marksist 1 (1938): 174–204; “Proekt skhemy mnogotomnika vsemirnoi istorii,” Istorik-Marksist 2 (1938): 143–91; V. Parkhomenko, “K voprosu o ‘Normanskom zavoevanii’ i proiskhozhdenii Rusi,” Istorik-Marksist 4 (1938): 106–11; “Soveshchanie po voprosam etnogeneza,” Istorik-Marksist 6 (1938): 201; N. N., Cheboksarov, “Mongoloidnye elementy v naselenii Tsentral'noi Evropy,” Uchenye zapiski MGU 63 (1941): 238 Google Scholar. Cf. Trofimova and Cheboksarov, “Znachenie ucheniia o iazyke,” 39. Also M. I. Artamonov, “Doklady na sessii Otdeleniia istorii i filosofii AN SSSR: Spornye voprosy drevneishei istorii slavian i Rusi,” Kratkie soobshcheniia o dokladakh i polevykh issledovaniiakh Instituta istorii material'noi kul'tury 6 (1940): 3–14.

115. Quoted in Aksenova and Vasil'ev, “Problemy etnogonii,” 99.

116. G. F., Debets, “Vepsy,” Uchenye zapiski MGU 63 (1941): 139 Google Scholar. Debets, Cf, “K probleme rasovogo tipa ‘protofinnov,” Uchenye zapiski MGU 63 (1941): 11–20Google Scholar; and especially Debets, “Rasy, iazyki, kul'tury,” Nauka o rasakh i rasizm, Nauchnoissledovatel'skii institut antropologii Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, Trudy, no. 4 (Moscow, 1938), 105–22.

117. Alpatov, Istoriia, 112–37; L'Hermitte, Marr, 47–54.

118. Quoted in Aksenova and Vasil'ev, “Problemy etnogonii,” 99. See also Alpatov, Istoriia, 136–37.

119. Alpatov, Istoriia, 138–42; Ashnin and Alpatov, “Delo slavistov,” 162, 168; L'Hermitte, Marr, 47, 54. For the general situation in Soviet science during this period, see Vucinich, Empire of Knowledge, 179–210.

120. B. N. Agapov and K. L. Zelinskii, “Net, eto ne russkii iazyk,” Literaturnaia gazeta, 29 November 1947. Quoted in Alpatov, Istoriia, 144. See also Ashnin and Alpatov, “Delo slavistov,” 178–80.

121. See, in particular, David, Joravsky, The Lysenko Affair (Chicago, 1970)Google Scholar; and Valerii, Soifer, Vlast’ i nauha: Istoriia razgroma genetiki v SSSR (Tenafly, N.J., 1989)Google Scholar.

122. F. P., Filin, “O dvukh napravleniiakh v iazykovedenii,” Izvestiia Akademii nauk SSSR: Otdelenie literatury i iazyka 7, no. 6 (November-December 1948): 488.Google Scholar

123. Ibid., 496. See also A. G. Spirkin, “Nauchnaia sessiia, posviashchennaia 85. letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia i 15-letiiu so dnia smerti N. la. Marra,” Voprosy filosofii 3 (1949): 326–37.

124. 1.1. Meshchaninov, “O polozhenii v lingvisticheskoi nauke,” Izvestiia Akademii nauk SSSR: Otdelenie literatury i iazyka 7, no. 6 (November-December 1948): 473.

125. Ibid., 474. For “discussions” among linguists, see Alpatov, Istoriia, 143–67, and L'Hermitte, Marr, 55–67.

126. Bunak, V, “Pis'mo v redaktsiiu,” Sovetskaia etnografiia 1 (1949): 2 Google Scholar. Mongait, A. L. and Fedorov, G. B., Review of A. V. Artsikhovskii, Vvedenie v arkheologiiu (Moscow, 1947)Google Scholar, in Kratkie soobshcheniia o dokladakh i polevykh issledovaniiakh Instituta islorii material'noi kul'tury 28 (1949): 123–26; S. P. Tolstov, “Sovetskaia shkola v etnografii,” Sovetskaia etnografiia 4 (1947): 14–19; V. K. Sokolova, “Diskussii po voprosam fol'kloristiki na zasedaniiakh Sektora fol'klora Instituta etnografii,” Sovetskaia etnografiia 3 (1948): 139–46; V. Kirpotin, “O nizkopoklonstve pered kapitalisticheskim zapadom, ob Aleksandre Veselovskom, o ego posledovateliakh i o samom glavnom,” Oktiabr’ 1 (1948): 3–27; “Protiv idealizatsii ucheniia A. Veselovskogo,” Izvestiia Akademii nauk SSSR: Otdelenie literatury i iazyka 7, no. 4 (1948): 362–64; “Protiv burzhuaznogo liberalizma v literaturovedenii (po povodu diskussii ob A. Veselovskom),” Kul'tura i zhizn', 11 March 1948 and 31 March 1948; M. Levin, Ia. Roginskii, and N. Cheboksarov, “Angloamerikanskii rasizm,” Sovetskaia etnografiia 1 (1949): 18–39; “Itogi sessii VASKhNIL i sovetskaia antropologiia,” Sovetskaia etnografiia 1 (1949): 182–83.

127. Rossiiskii tsentr khraneniia i izucheniia dokumentov noveishei istorii (RTsKhlDNI), f. 17, op. 132, d. 164, 11. 16–39. The Agitprop sponsored (RTsKhlDNI, f. 17, op. 132, d. 132, 1. 39) two special publications on the subject: N. Bernikov and I. Braginskii, “Za peredovoe sovetskoe iazykoznanie,” Kul'tura i zhizn', 11 May 1949 and 10 July 1949; and G. Serdiuchenko, “Ob odnoi vrednoi teorii v iazykovedenii,” Kul'tura izhizn', 30June 1949.

128. RTsKhlDNI, f. 17, op. 132, d. 164, 11. 17, 27–29, 33, 42–43. The quotation is from 1. 42.

129. RTsKhlDNI, f. 17, op. 132, d. 164, 1. 21. For an enlightening discussion of “discussion” as a genre (and a good summary of the linguistic discussion in particular), see Alexei Kojevnikov, “Games of Soviet Democracy: Ideological Discussions in Sciences around 1948 Reconsidered,” Max-Planck-Institut fur Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Preprint 37 (1996): 1–31. A revised version of this article will appear in Russian Review.

130. Rossiianov, Cf. K. O., “Stalin kak redaktor Lysenko: K predystorii avgustovskoi (1948) sessii VASKHNIL,” Voprosy filosofii 2 (1993): 56–69.Google Scholar

131. I. I., Potekhin, “Zadachi bor'by s kosmopolitizmom v etnografii,” Sovetskaia etnografiia 2 (1949): 17.Google Scholar

132. Ibid., 20.

133. P. I. Kushner (Knyshev), “Uchenie I. V. Stalina o natsii i natsional'noi kul'ture i ego znachenie dlia etnografii,” Sovetskaia etnografiia 4 (1949): 17.

134. Sokolova, V., Review of V. M. Zhirmunskii and Kh. T. Zarifov, Uzbekskii narodnyi geroicheskii epos (Moscow, 1947)Google Scholar, in Sovetskaia etnografiia 2 (1949): 226; S. Tolstov, “Kniga po istorii tadzhikskogo naroda,” Kul'tura i zhizn', 22 April 1950; “Bessmertnyi epos karelo-finskogo naroda,” Sovetskaia etnografiia 2 (1949): 6.

135. Chikobava was one of the first members of the new Georgian Academy of Sciences, the chair of the Department of the Languages of the Caucasus at the University of Tbilisi, the head of the Section of the Caucasus Mountain Languages at the Institute of Linguistics of the Georgian Academy, and the editor in chief of the eightvolume Dictionary of the Georgian Language. See Alpatov, lstoriia, 170.

136. A. S., Chikobava, “Stadial'naia klassifikatsiia iazykov akad. N. Marra,” Ezhegodnik iberiisko-kavkazskogo iazykoznaniia 12 (1985): 19.Google Scholar

137. A. S., Chikobava, “Kogda i kak eto bylo,” Ezhegodnik iberiisko-kavkazskogo iazykoznaniia 12 (1985): 9–14Google Scholar; A. Chikobava, “O nekotorykh voprosakh sovetskogo iazykoznaniia,” Pravda, 9 May 1950.

138. Pravda, 9 May-4 July 1950 (every Tuesday); RTsKhlDNI, f. 17, op. 132, d. 336, 11. 4–6; Alpatov, Istoriia, 167, 169–90.

139. Pravda, 20 June 1950. For comments on the formatting, see L'Hermitte, Marr, 69, and Alpatov, Istoriia, 181.

140. Stalin, I. V., Sochineniia, 16 vols. (Stanford, 1967), 3[16]: 150 and 114–22Google Scholar; Klara, Zetkin, Reminiscences of Lenin (New York, 1934), 11–12Google Scholar, quoted in Joravsky, Russian Psychology, 239.

141. Stalin, Sochineniia, 3[16]: 122–23, 119, 134.

142. “Istoriia govorit, chto natsional'nye iazyki iavliaiutsia ne klassovymi, a obshchenarodnymi iazykami, obshchimi dlia chlenov natsii i edinymi dlia natsii.” Ibid., 123.

143. Ibid., 147, 143.

144. Ibid., 146–47.

145. Ibid., 144.

146. Ibid., 130; Polivanov, “Stenogramma,” 538. Cf. Alpatov, Istoriia, 197–98.

147. Rossiianov, “Stalin kak redaktor Lysenko,” 65.

148. Chikobava, “Kogda i kak,” 13.

149. Stalin, Sochineniia, 3: 146. For a later restatement of these views, see his “The Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR,” in Sochineniia 3: 188–245, esp. 189–91.

150. Joravsky, The Lysenko Affair, 150–55; Joravsky, Russian Psychology, 405–6; Vucinich, Empire of Knowledge, 247–56. The assumption that professional standards were valid in their own right was clearly shared by most, however. A special Politburo commission on Academy elections questioned its own legitimacy by distinguishing between a “political” veto (based on the existence of “compromising materials “) and a “professional” one (based on an insufficient number of “serious publications “). Scholars who protested to the Central Committee about the persecution of non-Marrists emphasized the fact that the leader of the pogrom (G. P. Serdiuchenko) “did not have serious scholarly publications and was primarily engaged in administrative work and teaching.” It is remarkable how many people who responded to Stalin's article seemed to take his injunctions seriously. “You write that no science can develop without a struggle of opinions, without freedom of criticism,” begins the letter from a high school teacher in Tula province. “I am sure, therefore, that you will not object to criticism of your own writings. Please allow me to expound my views.” RTsKhlDNI, f. 17, op. 125, d. 445, II. 102, 144; op. 132, d. 336, 11. 5, 141.

151. Stalin, Sochineniia, 3: 134, 138–39, 143. For major programmatic statements, see Izvestiia Akademii nauk SSSR: Otdelenie literatury i iazyka 9, nos. 1 and 2 (1950); P. la. Chernykh, “O sviazi razvitiia iazyka s istoriei naroda v svete trudov I. V. Stalina po iazykoznaniiu,” Izvestiia Akademii nauk SSSR: Otdelenie literatury i iazyka 10, no. 3 (1951): 240–56; V. P. Petrus', “Slavianskaia iazykovaia obshchnost’ i slavianskie iazyki,” Izvestiia Akademii nauk SSSR: Otdelenie literatury i iazyka 10, no. 4 (1951): 354–66; and Vinogradov and Serebrennikov, eds., Protiv vul'garizatsii, 1 and 2.

152. The quotes are from “V Institute mirovoi literatury,” Izvestiia Akademii nauk SSSR: Otdelenie literatury i iazyka 9, no. 2 (1950): 150; and V. I. Chicherov, “O porochnykh vzgliadakh N. la. Marra i ego posledovatelei v oblasti fol'kloristiki,” Sovetskaia etnografiia 3 (1952): 3–4. See also A. I. Beletskii, “Znachenie trudov I. V. Stalina po iazykoznaniiu dlia sovetskogo literaturovedeniia,” Izvestiia Akademii nauk SSSR: Otdelenie literatury i iazyka 10, no. 1 (1951): 21; and A. M., Astakhova, “Znachenie trudov I. V. Stalina po voprosam iazykoznaniia dlia razvitiia nauki o narodnom poeticheskom tvorchestve,” Izvestiia Akademii nauk SSSR: Otdelenie literatury i iazyka 10, no. 6 (1951): 533–46.Google Scholar

153. Debets, G. F., Levin, M. G., and Trofimova, T. A., “Antropologicheskii material kak istochnik izucheniia voprosov etnogeneza,” Sovetskaia etnografiia 1 (1952): 24–25Google Scholar; and N. N., Cheboksarov, “K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii narodov ugrofinskoi iazykovoi gruppy,” Sovetskaia etnografiia 1 (1952): 36–50Google Scholar. See also M. F. Nesturkh, Chelovecheskie rosy (Moscow, 1958).

154. S. A., Tokarev and N. N., Cheboksarov, “Metodologiia etnogeneticheskikh issledovanii na materiale etnografii v svete rabot I. V. Stalina po voprosam iazykoznaniia,” Sovetskaia etnografiia 4 (1951): 76 Google Scholar. Also S. P., Tolstov, “Znachenie trudov I. V. Stalina po voprosam iazykoznaniia dlia razvitiia sovetskoi etnografii,” Sovetskaia etnografiia 4 (1950): 3–23Google Scholar; S. P., Tolstov, “Itogi perestroiki raboty Instituta etnografii AN SSSR v svete truda I. V. Stalina ‘Marksizm i voprosy iazykoznaniia,” Sovetskaia etnografiia 3 (1951): 3–14Google Scholar. See also Slezkine, Arctic Mirrors, 308–23.

155. The quote is from “Itogi arkheologicheskikh issledovanii v 1946–50 godakh,” Vestnik Akademii nauk SSSR 8 (1951): 107. See also S. V. Kiselev, “Voprosy arkheologii pervobytnogo obshchestva v svete trudov I. V. Stalina po iazykoznaniiu,” Kratkie soobshcheniia o dokladakh i polevykh issledovaniiakh Instituta istorii material'noi kul'tury 36 (1951): 3–13; “Obsuzhdenie trudov I. V. Stalina po voprosam iazykoznaniia,” Kratkie soobshcheniia o dokladakh i polevykh issledovaniiakh Instituta istorii material'noi kul'tury 36 (1951): 203–9; “Sessiia otdeleniia istorii i filosofii,” Vestnik Akademii nauk SSSR 8 (1951): 42–43; E. V. Veimarn and S. F. Strzheletskii, “K voprosu o slavianakh v Krymu,” Voprosy istorii 4 (1952): 94–99; A. P. Smirnov, “K voprosu o slavianakh v Krymu,” Vestnik drevnei istorii 3 (1953): 32–45; Miller, Archaeology in the USSR, 132–68; and Protiv vul'garizatsii marksizma v arkheologii (Moscow, 1953), 45–47.

156. Ashnin and Alpatov, “Delo slavistov,” 180, RTsKhlDNI, f. 17, op. 132, d. 336, 11. 77–78, 87.

157. Gurvich, I. S., ed., Etnogenez narodov Severn (Moscow, 1980), 4.Google Scholar

158. M., Ermatov, Etnogenez i formirovanie predkov uzbekskogo nasroda (Tashkent, 1968), 8–9, 15–16Google Scholar. For a survey of the Tatar-Chuvash controversy, see Shnirelman, Victor A., Who Gets the Past? Competition for Ancestors among Non-Russian Intellectuals in Russia (Washington, D.C., 1996)Google Scholar. See also Philip L. Kohl and Gocha R. Tsetskhladze, “Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology in the Caucasus,” in Kohl and Fawcett, eds., Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology, 149–74.

159. P. N. Tret'iakov, “K voprosu o vozniknovenii i drevnei istorii finno-ugorskikh piemen Povolzh'ia,” in Etnogenez mordovskogo naroda (Saransk, 1965), 7. For very thoughtful early analyses of the Soviet ethnological predicament, see G. S., Knabe, “Vopros o sootnoshenii arkheologicheskoi kul'tury i etnosa v sovremennoi zarubezhnoi literature,” Sovetskaia arkheologiia 3 (1959): 243–57Google Scholar; and A. L., Mongait, “Arkheologicheskie kul'tury i etnicheskiess obshchnosti,” Narody Azii i Afriki 1 (1967): 53–76.Google Scholar