A New Turn in Russian Ethnography

Science and Cultural Politics at Moscow’s

First Ethnographic Exhibition of 1867

This article is available open access under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license as part of Berghahn Open Anthro,
Mariam M. Kerimova and Maria V. Zolotukhina

a subscribe-to-open model for APC-free open access made possible by the journal’s subscribers.
Abstract
The article is based on the text analysis of previously unknown
archival documents (letters, petitions) to assess the impact of Pervaa
Vserossiiskaya etnographicheskaya vystavka (the first all-Russian ethno-
graphic exhibition) had on different spheres of Russian life – rang-
ing from reinterpreting Slavic identity and rallying Western and
Southern Slavs around the empire to growing museum attendance.
Demonstrating the diversity of ethnic groups in Russia, in addition
to emphasising its imperial power managed to also serve the pur-
pose of structuring and further developing academic knowledge,
and presenting its results to the larger public in an easily accessible
yet sophisticated way: the Ethnographic Department of the Impe-
rial Society of Devotees of Natural Science, Anthropology and Eth-
nography at Moscow University was founded in 1868, and the first
ethnographic museum (Dashkov Museum) in Moscow used the items
for its collection. Russian ethnography exercised this new chance of
proclaiming itself as an independent and actively evolving discipline
and field of knowledge.

Keywords
first ethnographic exhibition of 1867, history of Russian ethnogra-
phy, pan-Slavism, Society of Devotees of Natural Sciences, Western
and Southern Slavs

Focusing on the text analysis of previously unknown archival docu-

ments (letters, petitions), the article argues that the founding basis of
the Pervaya Vserossiiskaya etnographicheskaya vystavka (the first all-Russian
ethnographic exhibition) was the combination of primarily academic
and cultural tasks – ‘a cultural renaissance’ (Dianina 2010): the cre-
ation of Dashkov Ethnographic Museum as part of Rumyantsev and
Public Museum in Moscow and the Ethnographic Department of the
Imperial Society of Devotees of Natural Science, anthropology and
ethnography at Moscow University. These two events following the
exhibit signified a new stage of the development of the ethnographic
field in Russia.
Anthropological Journal of European Cultures Volume 31, No. 2 (2022): 112-132 © The Author(s)
doi: 10.3167/ajec.2022.310207 ISSN 1755-2923 (Print) 1755-2931 (Online)
A New Turn in Russian Ethnography

The Organisers and the Preparation: Balancing

between Authenticity and Design of the Exhibit
An abundance and richness of the artefacts collected for the 1867
exhibition served its main political, scientific and educational goals –
to demonstrate both the diversity and the unity of the peoples of the
immense Russian Empire and foreign Slavic regions – the diversity
that would subsequently be referred to by Ivan Il’yin as the ‘burden
of narodnost’ (the burden of ethnicity) (Kogat’ko and Tkhakakhov
2010: 43). While the political and cultural aspects had been previously
well-documented by other authors, this article attempts to underscore
the academic approach as a basis for initiating the exhibit and making
sure its legacy lives on in the form of museums.
It took an energetic young professor from Moscow University,
Anatoly Petrovich Bogdanov (1834–1896) already a renowned
anthropologist and zoologist at that time (Figure 1), to make the
exhibit happen. He became the ideological inspirer, organiser and
author of the original plan and programme of the 1867 Moscow Eth-
nographic Exhibition. Judging by the well-known materials from the
archives and the new archival documents that we analysed, the idea
to hold an exhibition in Russia came to Bogdanov in 1862 or even
earlier (Krivosheina 2014: 278), after the second visit to the World
Exhibition of 1851 in the suburbs of London held in the beautiful
Crystal Palace of Sydenham. It is of no surprise that Bogdanov was
impressed. The effect of the London exhibition (subsequently fol-
lowed by a whole series of others: in Paris in 1867, 1878 and 1889;
in Philadelphia and Chicago in 1876 and 1893; in Moscow in 1867,
1872 and 1879) was influential. Bogdanov’s dream was in a way a
reflection of the international trend. The awareness that Russia had
been left behind in terms of public displays of academic knowledge
was perhaps one of the main driving forces behind the creation of
the exposition. What is interesting is Bogdanov’ s grasp of Russia’s
particular needs and specific context is his interpretation of the fun-
damental organisational and educational support for the exhibition
to become successful. He saw it in the creation in May 1864 of a new
scientific Society of Devotees of Natural Sciences (also translated as
the Imperial Society of Friends of Natural Sciences) (Krivosheina
2014: 276), with a wide membership, at the Imperial Moscow Uni-
versity. This was a voluntary association that brought science into
the public sphere. Its Imperial title was supposed to be granted at
the opening of the exhibition.

113
Kerimova and Zolotukhina

The next important step was the acquisition of the location for the
exposition. Previously unknown and unpublished documents in the
Central State Archives of Moscow (CSAM) that we discovered help
to more fully illuminate the history of the exhibition as a key part of
Bogdanov’s persistent effort to establish a solid base for advancing
the new field of science. The archive contains a document of 1865,
signed by G. E. Shchurovsky, the president of the Society of Devotees
of Natural Science, requesting permission to hold an ethnographic
exhibition in Moscow’s Exzierzirgauz (meaning the Manege building
in the centre of Moscow) (Figure 1). The letter was addressed directly
to the Head Director of Moscow Educational District requesting the
emperor’s consent to follow the prospective exhibit’s programme.
Several letters addressed to the emperor and a number of leading
Russian officials (including Count D. A. Tolstoy, the Minister of Edu-
cation and Count P. A. Valuyev, the Minister of Domestic Affairs)
had been sent in the period of 1865–1867. Ultimately the society was
granted the Imperial title. The academic emphasis Bogdanov deemed
so important can be noted in crucial organisational details: the col-
lection of the future exhibit was to be transferred to Moscow Public
Museum (where it was to be always available for the members of the
society) – and Moscow University.
A programme plan was developed. Bogdanov felt the need to pro-
vide strong arguments for what would be the most appropriate and
favourable way of setting up the exhibit. Bogdanov clearly played a
major role in drafting this synopsis, which provides a preliminary
outline of his ‘exhibition method’, that is, the use of large-scale exhibi-
tions as a means of dissemination of scientific knowledge. In this Bog-
danov kept abreast of the times (Krivosheina 2014: 286). While clearly
following the examples of other exhibits favouring the geographic
display, his vision combined his original global plan to present the
world (which as we mentioned did not work out) and emphasised
the vastness and richness of Russia – something he thought had not
been represented in London. A. P. Bogdanov attached the text of
this programme to the request to hold the exhibition: ‘Each group of
tribes represented at the exhibition must be placed in a geographi-
cal sequence’. This geographical method of arranging the items was
subsequently applied at similar exhibitions in other countries. The
exhibits often became part of newly established museums. That was
the case during the creation of the Ethnographic Museum of the Tro-
cadero after Paris 1878 World Exhibition, the Belgian Museum of
Congo following the 1897 Brussels exhibition and Field Museum after

114
A New Turn in Russian Ethnography

Chicago exhibition of 1983 (Matos 2013). Reflecting on such an expe-

rience Bogdanov writes:
Visitors to the exhibition, who began their inspection with the inhabit-
ants of the polar countries, gradually move to the tropics. . . . Groups
of different tribes can be surrounded by typical plants and animals of a
particular area. . . . To organize such an exhibition, according to rough
estimates, you need to collect twenty thousand rubles in silver. This
amount was necessary because expeditions of specialists and artists to
the North and South of Russia will be required, who will have to make
original mannequins (full-length figures) from representatives of differ-
ent tribes, fix folk costumes and various household items (CSAM).

What strikes us here is the specific estimate and a very clear under-
standing of the amount of means and work needed.
As a result of Bogdanov making his point so clear and operating in
a very short period of time – from 1865 to the spring of 1867, colossal
work was done to collect and decorate the entire grandiose exhibi-
tion. One of the ways of meeting the deadline was to attract gubernia
(provincial) statistical committees. The famous philanthropist Vasily
Andreevich Dashkov (1819–1896), deputy director of the Rumyantsev
Museum in Moscow was appointed as the head of the organising com-
mittee of the exhibition. He donated eighteen thousand silver rubles
for the organisation of the exhibition (interestingly this amount was
fully returned to him after the closing of the exhibition).
In the summer of 1865 the issues of the placement of the exhibi-
tion in the Manege, the date of its opening in the spring of 1867, and
the provision of assistance to its organisers and curators were finally
resolved. The speed and the effectiveness with which this gigantic scope
of work had been done in just two years was astounding. Under the
leadership of Dashkov and with the help of Bogdanov, forty-five meet-
ings of the organising committee took place. They approved the addi-
tions and adjustments made to the plan and resulted in creating five
special commissions. One of them was the expeditionary commission
for the selection of typical elements of different ethnic groups, sam-
ples of the natural environment and special artistic designs that were
all put together to assemble the exhibition. A special fund was set up
for collecting decorative and architectural accessories; a photographic
department was established to compile collections of portraits and pho-
tographs for sculptors; botanical collections were meant to portray the
natural background of the territories and, finally, financial department
had to oversee the development of rules for the contribution of money
by legal entities and individuals (All-Russian Ethnographic Exhibition

115
Kerimova and Zolotukhina

and Slavic Congress 1867: 259–294). Dashkov made sure local statisti-
cal committees received the letters requesting assistance in preparing
the exhibit. It appears that a whole network, itself a manifestation of
modern possibilities offered by Russia’s entering the age of modernity
(Mironov 2019: 15–21), had been set up and put into motion.
Yet science and culture did side with politics: to implement the
ideological discourse of celebrating a Pan-Slavic identity so prominent
at the time, N. A. Popov (1833–1891), the famous historian, Slavist,
archivist, and professor at Moscow University, initiated the creation
of a special Slavic department at the exhibition. He managed to estab-
lish contact with foreign scholars and track the collection, production
and delivery to Moscow of numerous exhibits from the lands of the
Western and Southern Slavs of Central and South-Eastern Europe
(Churkina 2018: 53). In addition, he was one of the initiators of a
series of celebrations for Slavic guests in Moscow and St. Petersburg,
called the Slavic Congress (Lapteva 1994: 19; Nikitin 1960) and also
managed to receive private donations.
The recognition of the need to promote the coming event and its
academic premise are also clear from the documents describing how
the Society of Devotees of Natural Science at Moscow University
organised charitable event to raise additional funds. The professors
gave public lectures on various historical, ethnographic and anthro-
pological issues, and concerts were held. Famous scientists took part
in the lectures. To name a few – A.P. Bogdanov, I. D. Belyaev, I. K.
Babst, N. A. Popov, S. M. Soloviev, M. P. Pogodin and others. Some of
the funds raised were used to support the chair (department) of physi-
cal anthropology at Moscow University and its craniological collection
the OLE (the Russian acronym for the Society – M. K.) exhibitions
started from nothing, which meant that there was a lot of time-con-
suming and laborious preparatory work. Although the exhibitions
were held in Moscow, the society managed to recruit and instruct
people from far-off regions of the country, who joined in the collecting
activities. Moreover, to attract more visitors, the exhibition itself was
preceded and accompanied by high-level lectures on the topic for the
educated public and free scientific demonstrations and readings for
people with lower educational status. Bogdanov tried to sidestep the
manifestation of ‘Pan-Slavism’ (Krivosheina 2014: 286) – embodied
in the never ending pompous and extravagant dinners and feasts that
the congress essentially turned into.
The preparation of the exhibition of 1867 did follow a care-
fully designed academic plan. In addition to collecting objects and

116
A New Turn in Russian Ethnography

recording information about various items and their original owners,

watercolour and pencil sketches and photographs were made. The
instruction by the Russian Imperial Geographic Society (drawn by N.
I. Nadezhdin) was used when collecting the items of the exhibition.
It listed all the everyday objects they were looking for. It was sent
to different guberniyas (provinces); however, it turned out to be not
so easy to get the full response as some regions failed to supply the
items. Some of them were purchased using the funds given by the
members of the Imperial family and state officials. A large part of the
collection to represent the Russian Empire was given as a gift by mem-
bers of the Society of Devotees, those who were collectors of antiques
among the nobility, the entrepreneurs (merchant) and the intelligen-
tsia. The committee invited sculptors (Professor N. A. Ramazanov,
academician S. I. Ivanov) to make mannequins and artists to create
folk costumes: M. L. Sevryugin, Ya. M. Yakovlev, S. P. Zakrevsky, A.
M. Lyubimov. They worked on the basis of photographs (and in some
cases – drawings) obtained from different regions of Russia and for-
eign Slavic countries, reflecting people and natural settings. (Bodrova
and Suleymanova 2017: 78–79) (Figures 2 and 3). The success story
of the ethnographic photograph seemed unstoppable – the all-Russian
ethnographic exposition in Moscow in 1867 already showed more
than two thousand pictures (Cvetkovski 2012: 14).

The Opening of the Exhibition and its Main

Departments: The Scope and The Colourfulness
The first all-Russian ethnographic exhibition opened on April 23,
1867. According to S. V. Maksimov, an ethnographer, it was an
‘unusual, unprecedented, surreal’ sight. For two months the exhi-
bition was visited by about ninety thousand people (83,048).1 This
caused a great public outcry not only in Russia but also in various
countries of Western Europe. Among the visitors were people of dif-
ferent social categories and professions. The number of foreign guests
(eight-one in total) whose identity was perceived as Slavic was impres-
sive. They represented Slavic countries, which were under the rule of
Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. The list of guests included
famous fighters for freedom and independence, prominent historians,
linguists, writers, translators and journalists, lawyers, biologists, doc-
tors, as well as representatives of the clergy and entrepreneurs (mer-
chants), and even students.

117
Kerimova and Zolotukhina

The solemnness of the opening underscored the importance of

the event only to be further intensified by a prayer service. Grand
Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich was declared the honorary chairman
of the exhibition. On April 24, the exhibition was visited by Emperor
Alexander II with his retinue, the heir to the Tsarevich and his wife
Maria Feodorovna. For almost three hours they got acquainted with
the exposition ‘with interest’; Alexander II thanked the organisers of
the exhibition and approved the idea of its holding.
The style of exhibition was intended to make it seem a colourful
theatrical performance. About three hundred skilfully made manne-
quins in traditional folk costumes were placed on special sites. The
main area/space of the exhibition (first department) consisted of three
sections (All-Russian Ethnographic Exhibition 1867: 30). The first one pre-
sented dummies of aboriginal peoples stressing the vast expanses of
Russia – from Alaska, Siberia and the outskirts of the European part
of the Russian North to the Caucasus and Crimea, the Baltic States,
Central Asia (thirty groups and one hundred sixteen dummies) (Fig-
ures 4 and 5). The Eastern Slavs (Russians, Ukrainians and Belaru-
sians (ten groups and 118 dummies) made up the second section and
Western and Southern Slavs of Central and South-Eastern Europe
constituted the third section (Figures 6 and 7).
Despite a strictly academic approach to collecting the items, the
very idea of exhibiting the diverse nature of the ethnic groups, cover-
ing a large geographical area, was also conveyed via the colourful,
festive, and celebratory flavour. Sixty-two full-size dummies with wax
heads representing different ethnic types introduced the public of the
Western and South Slavs. Often taken from plaster casts of faces or
photographs of real people, they produced a lasting impression of
authenticity with their variety and originality. Appropriate clothing
accessories, hats and jewellery were carefully selected to represent
the ethnic and cultural demarcation lines. They conveyed both the
individual character of any specific figure and the main types of tribal
groups, local ethnic communities and already established nationali-
ties as they had been categorised at that point. We find that it appeals
to two of the discourses of modernity – that of an individual with his
or her particular features worthy of being (re)presented and that of
constructed nationalities within or across established state borders.
Visitors were meant to be impressed by the decorative background
as well. The mannequins were surrounded by a variety of plants, care-
fully selected for the corresponding climatic zones. Models of snow-
capped mountain peaks, authentic homes, clay huts, yurts, caravans,

118
A New Turn in Russian Ethnography

tools of artisans, hunters, fishermen and even stuffed animals, deer,

horses and dogs.2
The second general ethnographic department displayed four hun-
dred sets of everyday and festive men’s and women’s clothing; 1,200
household items, models of buildings and tools, two hundred draw-
ings and photographs; and more than five hundred different musical
instruments, including a harp, a tambourine, a shaman’s tambourine,
clay and wooden whistles and even Aleutian castanets made from bird
beaks, shaman tambourines.
One more argument in favour of the academic nature of Bogda-
nov’s original plan in the are the elements of the third department
of the 1867 exhibit – that of physical anthropology with an archaeo-
logical collection created with his personal funds of. It consisted of
1,500 exhibits, including six hundred skulls, three hundred anatomi-
cal drawings, twenty-three anthropological instruments, among which
there were such craniological devices as Anselm’s cephalometer and
Broca’s craniometer. The archaeological collection included artefacts
extracted from the burial mounds (kernels, coins and other archaeo-
logical artefacts – three hundred items), old manuscripts. This part
was mainly intended for specialists, and yet its presence was signifi-
cant for the general public as well.
Bogdanov, keeping abreast of the times (Krivosheina 2014: 284),
played a major role in drafting a preliminary outline of his ‘exhibi-
tion method’, that is, the use of large-scale exhibitions as a means of
dissemination of scientific knowledge. M. Mogilner (2013: 82) points
to the dynamic coexistence and interaction of racial-biological and
cultural models of groupness (exemplified by anthropology and eth-
nography, respectively) in late imperial Russia (Elfimov 2013: 55).
As previously stated, the main political idea of the exposition was
to accentuate the Pan-Slavic identity of Russians (Great Russians),
Ukrainians, Belarusians, Western and Southern Slavs. The Great Rus-
sian part of the exposition was designed as the most sophisticated and
the most impressive – a demonstration of the diversity in economic
activity of the peasant and urban population of several central prov-
inces of Russia. To achieve this effect signifying the new ‘modern’
times, three staged expositions were created: an example of making
goods (a form of production), a fair and a home of a well-off peas-
ant. The hut with three windows of the prosperous peasant-artisan
and merchant was designed in its natural size. It was richly adorned
with interior decoration: popular prints of the seventeenth century, an
icon placed in the corner, a bed covered with a blanket of colourful

119
Kerimova and Zolotukhina

patchwork. All of these items were donated by N. S. Tikhonravov,

professor at Moscow University and historian of Russian literature.
The yard of the hut was packed with carts, wheels, brooms, stools, and
next to the house there was a shop with all kinds of products made of
wood, leather, copper, tin and glass. It was full of goods that satisfy the
daily needs of the peasants: weaving products, crosses of various con-
figurations, decorated with copper and enamel; toys, mirrors, enamel
earrings and even glasses for ten rubles a dozen – a sign of urban life
entering the rural areas.
The fair scene was especially picturesque. One could walk around
the fair and look at folk costumes of the mannequins depicting people
of different professions: a blacksmith, a coachman, a bookseller, popu-
lar prints and spoons, a boy selling kvass, an old man driving a bear,
and so on. Interestingly, Alexander II and the Grand Duchess Maria
Feodorovna visited this particular part of the exhibit.
Such an homage to modernity, in terms of the diversification of
jobs and new professions and the difference between the city and the
rural area, was comparable to the ways in which other global exhibits
demonstrated change (Inozemtseva 2009; Zaitzev 2001). In contrast to
the 1855 Exposition, dominated by the category of race to match Brit-
ish industrialisation, in 1867 the empire’s ‘social’ doctrine, embodied
by the exposition’s organisers, staged industry and labour not only
as economic values but as cultural facts, envisioned in socio-ethno-
graphic terms if not as forms of spectacle. The World’s Fair in France
(1867) brought together approximately fifty thousand exhibitors from
thirty-two countries and attracted an estimated eleven million visitors
over eight months. It appears that the Russian case showed signs of
change in all these directions (Barth 2008; Brunet and Talley 2008).
The Russians were followed by an exposition of Ukrainians (Malo-
russians) and Belarusians. The Ukrainians were represented by six-
teen mannequins in folk costumes from the Kharkov, Voronezh, Kiev,
Podolsk, Chernigov provinces, again offering in plot scenes from the
life of peasants, and a life-size model of a hut. Belarusians were repre-
sented by six figures involved in genre scenes representing domestic
life and the main occupations of the peasants of the Mogilev province.
The specific layout of the exhibition emphasises the richness of the
Russian part of the imperial collection with the clear emphasis on
the Great Russians and underscores Pan-Slavic unity and common
identity.
Visitors were attracted by a collection of popular prints, albums
of old clothes of ethnic groups of Czech Hanaks, Dalmatians and

120
A New Turn in Russian Ethnography

Danube Bulgarians; lithographs of Austrian Slavs (Czechs, Slovaks,

Croats and Slovenes), Serbs and Rusyns of southern Hungary, numer-
ous photographs of residents of the Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Sla-
vonia and Dalmatia; a photo of Czech deputies of the Prague Sejm,
expelled from it at the very beginning of the formation of the dualist
empire of Austria-Hungary. 2,000 items were purchased and donated
by M. F. Raevsky (1811–1884), the priest of the Russian Church in
Vienna, as well as other figures of the Slavic national revival who
brought in a huge contribution to the creation of the exposition of the
Southern and Western Slavs.
Donors and collectors from among the foreign guests of the exhibi-
tion did their best to make it as complete and varied as possible: some
of the exhibits represented local ethnic groups, differing in clothing,
rituals and dialect features.
For the first time, questions about the existence of various types of
ethnic communities, about “local” names and dialects were raised by
P.-Yu. Shafarik, the author of the outstanding works ‘Slavic antiqui-
ties’ (1837) and ‘Slavic description of peoples’ (1842), translated into
Russian by O. M. Bodyansky in 1841 and 1848. The works of the first
Russian university Slavists: I. I. Sreznevsky, O. M. Bodyansky, P. I.
Preis and V. I. Grigorovich for the study of the Southern and Western
Slavs became an important milestone in the history of ethnographic
Slavic studies (Kerimova 1997: 60–102). Based on the previous world
by V. Ganka, V. Karadjic, and F. Palatsy, a very detailed and carefully
thought through representation of the Slavic peoples and their small
ethnic communities found its material implementation at the exhibit.
Until the middle of the nineteenth century little, if any attention had
been drawn to such comprehensive categorisation. For instance, the
Czechs and Slovaks, who settled in the nineteenth century in Bohemia,
Moravia, Slovakia, Slavonia, Austria, Hungary and partly in Prussia
and Galicia, were presented at the exhibition in folk festive costumes
collected by the famous Czech poet and translator K.-J. Erben, the
Slavonian manufacturer F. Lay and the priest of the Russian embassy
church in Vienna. M. F. Raevsky. The figures of Czech peasants from
the Domažlice district represented the local ethnic group of the Hodos
(or Bulaks) – they were settled along the border, protecting the Czech
lands from the Bavarian Germans – something the exhibit intended
to emphasise as the cultural barrier against the non-Slavic neigh-
bours. Their costumes were more echoes of old clothes and reflected
the influence of the new urban culture (leather and suede trousers,
fur coats and hats). The second scene represented male and female

121
Kerimova and Zolotukhina

costumes from the vicinity of Pilsen, drawing special attention to the

characteristic features in costumes of this particular region. The third
group were Czechs-Ganaks and Slovaks from Moravia (from the vicin-
ity of Kromeriz and Podivin). Seven figures demonstrated the Slovak
costume of South Moravia and Hungary.
The Polish exposition consisted of four groups: Velikopolyans from
the borderland with East Prussia and Poznan, Poles-Krakowians from
Kieleck province, Poles-Mazurs – inhabitants of Warsaw district,
Poles-Kurpiks of Lomzha province. Traditional clothes, household
items and photographs from the Kingdom of Poland were donated
by the Prince V.A. Cherkassky, generals A. I. Rozhnov and N.A. Buts-
kovsky, Baron N. V. Medem, by collegiate adviser A. A. Gervais.
In the Croatian exposition, spectators could find themselves most
attracted by the group of border guards again stressing the border
character of the settlement (southern borders of Austria) and the dif-
ference with the Other. That was made possible thanks to the acquisi-
tion of their folk costumes. The exposition, four dummies in military
ammunition, Slavonian folk costumes, a collection of photographs,
musical instruments were mainly purchased with the money of the
guest of the exhibition, the manufacturer F. Lay as well as the fore-
mentioned priest of the Russian embassy church in Vienna M. F. Rae-
vsky who asked the editor of Slawische blattes newspaper in Vienna. A.
Lukshich, a Croatian, in May 1866 visited Pesht, Novy-Sad, Vukovar,
Zagreb, and Ljubliana to hold talks with the outstanding leaders of
national movements to send the ethnographic items to the exhibition.
Lukshitch not only contacted the leaders directly but also published
this information in his newspaper – asking people to send whatever
ethnographic objects they deemed appropriate (Raevsky Archive
1975: 273). Many Slavic activists responded to his call – whether
because of them sympathising with Russia or due to the political situ-
ation in Habsburg’s monarchy.
In the nineteenth century, Croats lived in the Triune Kingdom of
Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia, which was at first under the rule of
the Habsburg monarchy, and from 1867 under the rule of the dual-
istic Austro-Hungarian empire; they were settled partially in Istria,
on the military border and in the west of Herzegovina. There were
many local ethnic groups of Croats: Morlaks, Zagors, Bunyevats,
Chichi, Lichans, Bezyaks and others. Among them were the Zagors
people (Zagoryan and Zagoryanka), the border guards of the Slu-
insky regiment and the Croats of the Central Zagreb region (the
vicinity of the town of Karlovac). The Yugoslav Society for History

122
A New Turn in Russian Ethnography

and Language in Zagreb played an important role in the acquisition

of folk costume.
Slovenes were meant to look rather exotic and colourful. Scattered
across the lands of Carinthia, Styria and Krajina, which were part of
Austria-Hungary, they did their best to protect and reproduce their
distinctive ethnic culture. A Catholic priest Matija Mayar (1809–1892)
(Index to the Ethnographic Exhibition 1867: 70–76), an outstanding
Slovenian public figure, philologist and ethnographer, provided items
for a festive scene of rural wedding of local ethnic group of Slovenes
zilyan (four men and two women from the Ziel Valley) bordering with
Italy. The bishop denied him a trip to Moscow, but he managed to
send photographs and drawings depicting the main characters of the
Slovenian wedding to the preparatory committee of the exhibition in
1866 (Figure 8). Mayar accompanied the exhibits with descriptions of
all the details of the wedding ceremony presenting more as a treatise,
which outlined Mayar’s views on the history and customs of Slovenes
(Churkina 1986: 75–76). The composition attracted the attention of
the ancient rite of “breaking the barrel” (a symbol of a happy marriage
and loss of virginity by the bride and groom on their wedding night).
The hut, decorated with picturesque wood carvings, was meant to
attract the visitors as they entered. The wedding scene was set up so
that the audience could personally participate in the action. Despite
all the obstacles, Mayar managed to visit the exhibition in Moscow
(Jezernik 2011).
The next ethnic group, although originally non-Russian, already
had their small enclave within the boundaries of the empire: Serbs were
settled in the Serbian principality, vassal of the Ottoman Empire, and
Bosnia and Herzegovina. Some of them lived in Austria and south-
ern Hungary. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Serbs
moved to Russia from Austria, where the Slavic Serb district of the
Ekaterinoslav province was formed. In the Serbian exposition (four-
teen figures), a group depicting a blind guslar surrounded by fourteen
peasants from different regions of the principality against the back-
ground of the monastery wall was especially picturesque. The singer’s
dummy was made from a cast and a photograph of one minister of a
village church. The donors of costumes and some items were Prince
Mikhail Obrenovich, Priest J. Milutinovich, and Archpriest B. Petra-
novich. The idea for this scene belonged to N. A. Popov, who from
1862 to 1864, on his own initiative, travelled to many Slavic lands. It
is possible that drawing special attention to an emotional aspect of the
scene was meant to evoke compassion and solidarity.

123
Kerimova and Zolotukhina

Montenegro brought about different sentiments and attracted the

Russian public as practically the only unconquered corner in the Bal-
kans – a stronghold of freedom and independence for all southern
Slavs who had fought against the Ottoman and Austrian invaders
for centuries. The original Montenegrin lands (Boka-Kotorska or
Kotor region), which were of great importance for Montenegrins as
an outlet to the sea, since 1815, together with Dalmatia, were part
of the Habsburg monarchy. Being in a state of constant confronta-
tion between the Ottoman Empire and Austria, Montenegro in the
nineteenth century remained a predominantly peasant country with
elements of tribal relations.
The strive to remain independent could be traced to deep historical
roots: the local ethnic group of Bokez was attributed to the Monte-
negrins who continued to live in the Kotor district (there were other
groups: Dobroits, Parastans, Risans). Therefore, in the Montenegrin
exposition there were figures of two Bokez residents, in whose clothes
the Italian influence was felt. There were also three Montenegrins in
ancient festive clothes (men with daggers and pistols; women with a
characteristic massive folk belt decorated with three rows of carnelian
and silver scissors). Their figures looked stern and majestic against the
background of high mountain peaks. Folk costumes were donated by
Prince Nikolai of Montenegro, Princess Darinka and Archimandrite
N. Ducic. At the same time a more modern, Italian influence was felt
in the two Bokez residents, in whose clothes the Italian influence was
felt.
Bulgarians were represented by mannequins in women’s and men’s
clothing from the Tarnovo District, the Macedonians – twelve sets of
clothing from the Bitolsky District and the left bank of the Struma
River (Kerimova 2009: 120).
The arrival of the Slavic guests in Russia left a deep and vivid
impression both for them and for the Russian public. According to
contemporary interpretations, the exhibition was designed to awaken
a deep awareness of common interests, cultural unity and brother-
hood of Slavic peoples, and it helped them to get closer and help each
other (Zhakova 2009: 23). The closing ceremony of the ethnographic
exhibition in Moscow on 19 June 1867 turned into a grand event with
the representatives of all European countries and all social strata of
the population of Moscow present thus symbolising a common iden-
tity – be it the historical roots, everyday practices, the preparedness
to invest in education and enlightenment, and common religion and
political unity.

124
A New Turn in Russian Ethnography

Together with other members of the Imperial Society of the Devo-

tees of Science, Bogdanov was persistent in emphasising the academic
character of the exhibit. Even though the representation of the ethnic
groups forming the non-Slavic and Slavic territories of Russia and
beyond drew the most attention it was the third – anthropology –
section of the exhibition that once again underscores the academic
nature of Bogdanov’s personal quest to promote science in Russia. In
his understanding, the exhibit was meant to be a tool for studying and
popularising ethnographic and anthropological knowledge.
It is A. Hofmeister’s comparative analysis of British and Russian
imperial-scientific cultures that reminds of the need to view knowl-
edge as a technique and cultural resource. Especially for the late
Tsarist period, alongside distinctions such as religious confession,
economic stage, degree of civilization, or infrastructural relevance,
ethnicity was largely used as a political instrument for branding intra-
imperial difference (Cvetkovski 2014: 4). Its use in this case implied a
sophisticated academic level.

The Origins of the Big Ideas: The Intersection

of Politics, Science, and Culture
The historiography of the First Russian Ethnographic Exhibit of
1867 often emphasises its political goals, which included demonstrat-
ing imperial ambitions of Russia and bringing together the foreign
(non-Russian) Slavic peoples: ‘originally thought of as a world exhibit
it soon turned into a Pan-Slavist congress similar to those seen in
other countries according to some prominent politicians of the time’
(Jezernik 2011: 47). Some connect the political and the academic:
the history of the ethnographic exhibition is then discussed (Knight,
2001) in terms of Russian ethnic identity and transition from ‘Official
Nationality’ to Great Russian nationalism.
The archives and sources we analysed from that time demonstrate
that the core idea of the exhibit – both at the stage of its prepara-
tion and the execution – exemplified new approaches to presenting
and comparing historical and ethnographic data. It intended to cover
everyday life, rituals, religion and customs of both the peoples in
Russia and outside the state borders (namely, Southern and Western
Slavs). The exhibition not only emphasised the similarities (as well as
distinctions) between the ethnic groups but actually promoted intercul-
tural interaction in the form of expanding knowledge and attempting

125
Kerimova and Zolotukhina

to contrast the traditions of different peoples. The detailed character

of the exhibition, its colourfulness and authenticity all played a part
in making these efforts successful. Looking at what had been going
on during various stages of the exhibit allows us to make arguments
in favour of viewing the event as an academic endeavour.
According to some interpretations, Russian ethnography origi-
nated as first and foremost an empirical and practical knowledge-
based field; the accumulation of data about the peoples of Russia
started as early as the twelfth century Povest vremennykh let – The Tale
of Bygone Years – and gradually continued throughout the seven-
teenth century. It intensified considerably in the eighteenth to the
first half of the nineteenth century and was finally formed as a field
with the establishment of the Ethnographic department (therefore,
ethnography was the term until much later – the beginning of the
twentieth century) Russian Imperial Geographic Society. Large-scale
expeditions were organised by the Academy of Sciences covering a
wide territory throughout Russia (Tokarev 1951).
The growing interest towards ‘Others’ – different peoples and eth-
nic groups/communities in the nineteenth century appear to be closely
related to the development of self-knowledge, self-reflection and the
striving for national identity. Given what modernity called for – politi-
cally and culturally – ethnography in Russia contributed both to the
cultural consolidation of the peoples of the Russian Empire and to
the perception of the existing hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox
and non-Russian Orthodox ethnic groups. One of the new effective
means of presenting this knowledge could be found in displaying the
imperial gallery of peoples (ethnic groups) that inhabited the terri-
tory of Russia in the eighteenth and first half of the nineteenth cen-
tury. In fact, beyond the political context, the presentation of Western
and Southern Slavs can be interpreted as a means of deepening and
expanding ethnographic knowledge. The exhibition’s most popular
sites – namely the Russian fair and the Slovenian wedding – testify to
the fact that such an approach was successful, bridging the old and the
new by the use of a scene of a fair and displaying diversity of the Slav
brothers while also stressing the closeness of their ethnic traditions:
the main idea of pan-Slavism was to show the unity and the coming
together of Slavs under the auspices of Russia (something that caused
great concern in the foreign press).
At the same time, one cannot help but see another consequence
of the new times: the exhibition offered the chance to pay close eth-
nographic attention to the actual people as individuals (mannequins

126
A New Turn in Russian Ethnography

representing a person – somehow signifying the shift to modernity

and its emphasis on the individual). Categorisation and classification
went hand in hand with an attempt to see a person in specific life set-
tings. Given this duality, Russian ethnography in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries followed its route in a manner somewhat similar
to Western ethnological and anthropological studies. However, the lat-
ter tended to synthesise the general course of human evolution from
fragments of different cultures, while the Western evolutionist para-
digm looked more closely at the development of the cultural stages the
peoples of the world had attained and less so to the individual ethnic
groups (Golovnev 2018: 13). This slight difference in approaches to
examining and presenting the complexity of the world in its everyday
manifestations was accentuated at the exhibition.
We argue that that in the second half of the nineteenth century
the ethnographic academic field was firmly established not only in
Western Europe and America, but also in Russia. The 1867 exhibi-
tion serves as a good example of what an enormous amount of factual
material had been accumulated, in part, thanks to the foundation of
the Russian Geographical Society in 1846. The very search for this
material throughout Russia reflected a growing interest in the field on
the part of the developing academic community: the collecting con-
tributed to the emergence of generalising analytical works, to elabo-
rating theoretical concepts (K. M. Baer, N.I. Nadezhdin and K. D.
Kavelin formulated the main principles of the Russian ethnography),
the establishment of ethnographic societies and special periodicals
(‘Russian Imperial Geographical Society Notes’, ‘Ethnographic Col-
lections of the RIGS’, ‘RIGS Notes on Ethnography’, ‘RIGS Bulletin’,
‘Works of the Russian Imperial Academy of Sciences’, etc.).
The Russian Empire, being the only Slavic independent state,
supported the Slavic countries in terms of maintaining cultural ties,
publications, subsidies etc. It now strived to come up with a very
materialistic implementation of that support – something that could
actually be displayed and demonstrated on a level that would appear
credible in its everyday and scientific way. The reason for the congress
of scholars from foreign Slavic regions to coincide with the exhibit
stemmed from the idea of the unity of the languages and cultures of
the Slavic peoples – across the then-existing borders.
The scope of such demonstration reflected a strong belief in a com-
mon fate in the past (now embodied in colourful similar traditions)
and hope for the future. Moreover, on a political and ideological level
such tendencies were associated with new outbursts of resistance of

127
Kerimova and Zolotukhina

the Western and Southern Slavs to ‘Germanisation’, ‘Magyarisation’

and ‘Ottomanisation’. The exhibition not only signified a keen inter-
est in Slavic identity but also offered the interpretation of what it
meant to be Slavic, through colourful visual imagery.
As Hoffenberg writes: ‘Empire and nation could be envisioned,
illustrated, and imagined according to common ethnographic terms
and visual modes at the exhibitions. The envisioning of the material
and social worlds at the exhibitions made public and visible much that
was generally private and invisible’ (2001: 18). He continues: ‘exhibi-
tions offered the objects and activities of mass education and enter-
tainment, providing the public culture necessary for the participatory
remaking of history, memory, and identities’ (Hoffenberg 2001: 273).
The exact proportions of science behind these other elements can be
conditionally measured given the context of what ‘scientific’ meant at
the time (generally speaking and depending on a specific country) and
what is the way of interpreting it now.

Conclusion
The all-Russian ethnographic exhibition opened a new stage in the
development of ethnographic science in Russia by carrying out its
goal – to demonstrate both the power of Tsarist Russia and the diver-
sity of its ethnic groups and peoples, while rallying the Southern and
Western Slavs around Russia. Its characteristic feature was that of
reflecting a modernising society by choosing the means of interpret-
ing and representing reality and sending a powerful message (Jezernik
2011).
The exhibit – possible in its entirety thanks to the unlimited
efforts by Bogdanov and others and their truly visionary qualities and
approaches – signifies a turn to a culturally distinct and novel Russia
as it combines the following key features. One is the emergence of
interest and sufficient agency on the part of a scholar to promote such
a grandiose event. Another is the presence and simultaneous devel-
opment of the infrastructure to execute the plan. The third point is
the cultural demand for an ethnic/political identity being constructed
on an intra-nation level beyond the Russian borders. The latter was
achieved through representing as detailed and thoroughly categorised
array of ethnic communities – the ones that had not been previously
recognised on such scale. That alone suggested a new stage in the
development of ethnography. Finally, the exhibit reflected a new

128
A New Turn in Russian Ethnography

demarcation line and another type of ‘othering’ – that of exorcising

the peasants and the rural areas for the eyes of the city public.
On the basis of the collected exhibits, the first ethnographic
museum in Moscow was created. The exhibition contributed to the
founding (in 1868) of the Ethnographic Department of the Imperial
Society of Devotees of Natural Science, Anthropology and Ethnog-
raphy at Moscow University. Thus, Russian ethnology loudly pro-
claimed itself a separate independent science in a voice that could
now be heard way beyond the academic community. The precious
collection of the exhibition is still kept in the Russian Ethnographic
Museum in St. Petersburg.
The main purpose of the exhibition was to create the first ethno-
graphic museum in Moscow and the Ethnographic Department of the
Imperial Society of Devotees of Natural Science, Anthropology and
Ethnography at Moscow University. These important developments
support our argument in favour of emphasising the academic and
cultural nature of the efforts that brought about the exhibition. At the
same time events surrounding the exhibition (i.e., the Slavic Congress)
clearly had a political subtext to them.

◆
Mariam M. Kerimova is leading researcher at the
Inst. of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Russian
Academy of Sciences. She has a PhD in Russian His-
tory and a DSc degree. Her research interests include:
studies of sources and historiography of ethnology,
ethnology and history of the Balkans, historical eth-
nography/ethnology of the ethnic groups/peoples in
Yugoslavia, Russian abroad, interethnic relations/
conflicts and medical anthropology. E-mail: mkeri-
[email protected]. ORCID: 0000-0003-3064-1012

Maria V. Zolotukhina is assistant professor at the

Russian State University of Humanities and holds a
PhD in history. She has been teaching at several Rus-
sian universities, and her academic interests include:
ethnic identity, history and social anthropology of
childhood and family in the US and Russia, gen-
der issues, memorial culture/collective memory and
oral history. E-mail: [email protected].
ORCID: 0000-0002-6825-7131
◆
129
Kerimova and Zolotukhina

Notes
1. https://amarok-man.livejournal.com/1406844.html, accessed 12 September
2021.
2. http://russiahistory.ru/e-tnograficheskaya-vy-stavka-1867-goda-v-moskve,
accessed 14 September 2021.

Sources
Central State Archives of Moscow (CSAM). F.418. Op. 36. D.140. L.19; F.455. Op.
1. D.4, 13; F.459. Op.2. D. 2976. LL. 1.4.6.8; F.16. Op.24. D.5096; F.229. D.16;
F.16. Op. 24. D.5093. All-Russian Ethnographic Exhibition and Slavic Congress
in May 1867. (Moscow: University Printing House) 1867: 259–294.
Ethnographic Exhibition 1867: News of the Society of Devotees of Natural Science,
Anthropology and Ethnography at Moscow University, 29 (1) (Moscow: Type. M.
N. Lavrov and K., 1878: 1–32.
Foreign Slavs and Russia: Documents from V. F. Raevsky’s Archive (1840–1880)
(Moscow, Nauka 1975): 273.

References
Balakhonova, E. Y. (2015), ‘Bogdanov and the Founding of the First Russian Asso-
ciation of Anthropologists’, Anthropology, no. 3: 123–129.
Barth, V. (2008), ‘The Micro-History of a World Event: Intention, Perception and Imagi-
nation at the Exposition Universelle de 1867’, Museum and Society, 6, no. 1: 22–37.
Bodrova, O. A. and O. A. Sulejmanova (2017), ‘Ethnographic Mannequin as a Means
of Representing the Ethnic: For the Centenary of the Ethnographic Exhibition
in 1867’, Proceedings of the Kola Scientific Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences 9,
no. 12: 76–85.
Brunet, François and J. Talley (2017). ‘Exhibiting the West at the Paris Exposition of
1867: Towards a New American Aesthetic Identity?’, Transatlantica 2: 1–26. doi:
10.4000/transatlantica.11280.
Churkina, I. V. (1986), ‘Russians and Slovenes: Academic Ties in late XVIII Century – 1914’
(Moscow: Nauka) 75–76.
Churkina, I. V. (2017), ‘Ethnographic Exhibition and Slavic Congress, in O. A.
Bodrova and O. A. Sulejmanova (eds), Ethnographic Mannequin as a Means:
to the Centenary of the Ethnographic Exhibition in 1867’. Proceedings of the Kola
Scientific Center RAN, 9–12 (8).
Churkina, I. V. (2018), ‘Ethnographic Exhibition and the Slavic Congress in Moscow
in 1867’, in S. I. Danchenko (ed), Slavs and Russia: Slavs in Moscow (Moscow: RAS
Inst. of Slavic Studies), 48–79.
Cvetkovski, R. and A. Hofmeister (eds) (2013), An Empire of Others: Creating Ethno-
graphic Knowledge in Imperial Russia and the USSR (Budapest: Central European
University Press) 51–81.

130
A New Turn in Russian Ethnography

Dianina, K. (2010), ‘Museum, Heritage and National Identity in Imperial Russia’,

Journal of Eurasian Studies 1, no. 2: 111–118.
Elfimov, A. (2013), ‘Russian Ethnography as a Science: Truths Claimed, Trails Fol-
lowed’, in R. Cvetkovski and A. Hofmeister (eds), An Empire of Others (Budapest:
Central European University Press), 51–80.
Golovnev, A. V. (2018), ‘Ethnography in the Russian Academic Tradition (in Rus-
sian)’, Etnografia 1: 6–39.
Hoffenberg, P. H. (2001), An Empire on Display: English, Indian, and Australian Exhibitions
From the Crystal Palace to the Great War (Berkeley: University of California Press).
Inozemtseva, I. Ye. (2009), ‘World Exhibitions, Their Role and Significance’, Applied
Culturology 1, no. 13: 125–129.
Jezernik, B. (2011), ‘The Priest Matija Majar and the Moscow Ethnographic Exhibi-
tion of 1867’, Traditiones 40, no. 2: 45–76.
Kerimova, M. M. (1997), Yugoslavian Peoples and Russia: Ethnographic Subjects in Russian
Publications and Documents of the First Half of the 19th Century (Moscow: RAS Inst. of
Ethnology & Anthropology), 60–102.
Kerimova, M. M. (2009), ‘The First All-Russian Ethnographic Exhibition of 1867
and the Problem of Interaction of Slavic Peoples’, in European Integration and Cul-
tural Diversity (Moscow: RAS Inst. of Ethnology & Anthropology), 106–149.
Knight, N. (2001), The Empire on Display: Ethnographic Exhibition and the Conceptualiza-
tion of Human Diversity in Post-Emancipation Russia (Washington: NCEEER), Coun-
cil Contract Number 814-11g.
Kogat’ko, D. G., Tkhakakhov, V. Kh. (2010), Russian Identity: Cultural and Civilizational
Features (St. Petersburg: Aleteia): 43.
Krivosheina, G. (2014), ‘Long Way to the Anthropological Exhibition: The Insti-
tutionalization of Physical Anthropology in Russia’, Centaurus 56: 275–304.
doi:10.1111/1600-0498.12072.
Lapteva, L. P. (1994), ‘The Idea of Slavic Reciprocity and the Slavic Congresses of
the Nineteenth Century’ (Slavic Congresses of the XIX–XX centuries Moscow),
Institute of Slavic and Balkan Studies: 5–20.
Matos, P. F. de, (2013), ‘Exhibiting the Empire: Imagining the Nation’, in The Colours
of the Empire: Racialised Representations During Portuguese Colonialism (New York:
Berghahn Books): 149–236.
Minina, E. V. and M. V. Klavdieva (2021), ‘The Imperial Society of Friends of
Natural Science, Anthropology and Ethnography (“IOLEAE”) and the Cre-
ation of a General Educational Museum in Moscow’, CyberLeninka (online), doi
10.24412/2076-8176-2021-2-11-33.
Mironov, B. N. (2019), Russian Modernization and Revolution (St. Petersburg: Mironov,
B.N.).
Mogilner, M. (2013), ‘Beyond, Against and with Ethnography: Physical Anthropol-
ogy as a Science of Russian Modernity’, in R. Cvetkovski and A. Hofmeister (eds),
An Empire of Others: Creating Ethnographic Knowledge in Imperial Russia and the USSR
(Budapest: Central European University) 81–120.
Nikitin, S. A. (1960), Slavic Committees in Russia in 1858–1876 (Moscow: Moscow Uni-
versity Publishing House).
Tokarev, S. A. (1951), ‘The Main Stages of the Development of Russian Pre-Revolu-
tionary and Soviet Ethnography: The Issues of Periodization’, Soviet Ethnography,
2: 160–178.

131
Kerimova and Zolotukhina

Zaitsev, V. P. (2001), ‘First World Industrial Exhibitions in London’, New and Con-
temporary History, no. 1: 188–194.
Zhakova, N. K. (2009), ‘Slavic Guests at the Ethnographic Exhibition of 1867’, in
Russia and the Slavic World at the Ethnographic Exhibition of 1867 (St. Petersburg:
Navigator), 13–23.

132