190068 Saint Petersburg
123 Griboedov channel, Room 123
190068 Saint Petersburg
123 Griboedov channel
The Department of History was created in 2012. The overarching goal of the department is systematic development of the field of global, comparative, and transnational history as a potent tool of overcoming the limitations of national history canon, fostering interdisciplinary dialogue in the field of social sciences and humanities, and brining new public relevance to historical knowledge. The department mission includes the development of new type of historical undergraduate and graduate education in Russia and pioneering new research fields in Russian historiography in dialogue with the global historical profession.
Gökarıksel S., Gontarska O., Hilmar T. et al.
L.: Routledge, 2023.
Slavonic and East European Review. 2024. Vol. 102. No. 2.
In bk.: Sweden, Russia, and the 1617 Peace of Stolbovo. Vol. 14. Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2024. P. 99-118.
Khvalkov E., Levin F., Кузнецова А. Д.
Working Papers of Humanities. WP. Издательский дом НИУ ВШЭ, 2021
The text of the thesis was evaluated with magna cum laude (“very good”) while for the defense and oral exam in Global History and History of Eastern Europe Ivan Sablin received summa cum laude (“very good” with honors).Ivan Sablin’s project is devoted to the issues of post-imperial reconfigurations in the border region of Siberia and Mongolia where in 1917–1923 a number of projects aiming at creating new political entities were developed and fully or partially implemented. The creation of the Buryat-Mongolian Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic within the Soviet Union in 1923 and the independent Mongolian People’s Republic a year later was supposed to provide for effective control over the strategic border region between the recently collapsed Russian and Qing empires and its highly diverse population, and demonstrate a globally applicable model of transcultural governance tofollow the World Revolution. Although both republics were nominally based on ethno-national categories (Buryat-Mongols and Mongols), the non-national religious, political and economic considerations played a major role during the development of the Soviet project, and the newgovernance structures were accepted by the majority of the regional polyethnic, multi-religious and otherwise socially diverse population.The ultimate disentanglement of the geographical space into two territories was preceded by several alternative suggestions about how to draw new boundaries on the remains of the largest Asian empires. Among these projects that were developed and partly implemented in theBaikal region in North Asia in 1917–1923, there were ethnic autonomies, superethnic federations and sovereign theocracies. The participants of the power relations behind the projects includedAmerican, Japanese, Czechoslovak, Italian, French, British, Canadian, Chinese, Serbian, Hungarian, Austrian and German military personnel brought to the region by the Xinhai Revolution (1911–1912), the Great War (1914–1918), the October and February Revolutions (1917), the Civil War and the Allied Intervention in Russia (1917–1922), and a number of previously marginalized local groups, Buddhist monks and lay indigenous intellectuals.The proponents of the ethno-national republics considered the experience of the failed attempts and paid much attention to the identities they sought to articulate. Furthermore, many actors whodeveloped or opposed the unsuccessful projects entered the interactions leading to the creation of the two republics, both of which were constructed with substantial participation of regional intellectuals.Although all suggested boundaries technically partitioned the earth’s surface, they were constructed not in the geographical space, but in the many relational spaces – spaces formed by various relationsbetween people, places, institutions and other objects. In some of these transcultural (entangled and overlapping) spaces, boundaries were imagined and articulated in terms of group identities (ethnic,religious, occupational) and then projected onto the geographical space suggesting demarcation of territories. In others, the boundaries were designed to establish control over communication networks and economic resources.In order to grasp the interconnections and interrelations between and within the various transcultural spaces, a geographic information system was developed. The GIS allowed for exploring each boundary project in a geographically nuanced manner. The use of time function allowed for analyzing the process of boundary construction in its dynamics. Following the post-representational approach to cartography, the four-dimensional GIS did not aim at reconstructing a historic reality, but combined many different views of it instead, contributing thereby to transcultural studies’ quest for relationality and multipolar argumentation.Even though the disentanglement projects were implemented locally, they were shaped by global and local power and discursive crossings. For social mobilization the many actors interested in establishing new power structures in the Baikal region appealed to the globally circulating ideas of self-determination and social justice, while utilizing local ethnic, clan, superethnic, political and religious categories.The case study of the Baikal region in 1917–1923 allowed for in-depth exploration of relations between transculturality, power and space which are especially relevant nowadays, when the human diversity, interconnectedness and interdependency had been realized and addressed on global scale.Source material used for the study was accessed at the State Archive of the Republic of Buryatia, the State Archive of the Russian Federation, the Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History, theNational Library of Russia, the Russian State Military Archive, the US National Archives, and the Japan Center for Asian Historical Records.Ivan Sablin would like to thank his colleagues and students, “Working and exchanging with my great colleagues and talented students at the Faculty of History not only helped me to successfully complete the dissertation project but also allowed for making significant improvements to the final text. The presentations and discussions at the regular sessions of the academic seminar “The Boundaries of History” played a very important role in preparing for the defense. The discussions and especially the conclusions which we made together with my students during the undergraduate seminars on General and Historical Geography, Global and Comparative History and History ofRussian Statehood were very helpful during the oral exam. The experience at the Faculty of History and fruitful exchange with my colleagues helped me to answer all the questions. I would especiallylike to thank my colleagues and students for moral support over the past year”.