Dittmar Schorkowitz

Historical anthropology in Eurasia “… and the way thither"

This contribution reconsiders various notions and conceptions of historical anthropology as a tool to enhance our knowledge and understanding of social and cultural processes. Different ways of conducting historico-anthropological studies are explored in order to determine which perspectives may be applied to Eurasia. The approaches discussed include ethnohistorical research, studies of transformation and persistence of social organization and cultural identity, interethnic relations, and relations between ethnic minorities and the state. With respect to methodological and theoretical implications inherent in the interdisciplinary relationship between history and anthropology, a concise outline of the new Max Planck Institute focus groups research is given. A framework is thus provided for discussing arguments that focus on the need to establish a new format of (post-)colonial studies adjusted to the peculiarities of this macro-region, entailing a close cooperation with ethnologists from Russia, the Commonwealth of Independent States, and China, where both disciplines have gained new significance in recent years.

Dealing with nationalities in imperial formations: how Russian and Chinese agencies managed ethnic diversity in the 17th to 20th centuries

At first glance, government actions of Great Powers today have apparently little in common with those principles and factors that governed their policies in the past. This supposed discrepancy is particularly striking when we compare the Postsocialist positions of Russia and China with the situation in the age of new imperialism (1860–1914): in both empires, we seem to witness an almost diametric reversal. This perspective has, however, been challenged for quite some time by a vivid debate on the imperial dimensions of Russia and the Soviet Union, insisting on the significance of cross-epochal legacies for imperial formations. Condensed to what has become known as the imperial turn, this controversy gained substantial momentum due to recent investigations focussing on Russia as a multinational state that have considerably widened our understanding of the complex relationships between the state and nationalities (ethnic groups).1 In their comments on the course taken by this debate and