The article is a tribute of respect to the memory of Gennady Evgenyevich Markov, a major Russian ethnologist, archaeologist and historian of primitive society, doctor in history, professor of the Department of Ethnology, Faculty of History, Lomonosov Moscow State University. The authors provide a detailed analysis of the scientific contribution and life path of the outstanding Soviet/Russian scholar and place their narrative in a broad socio-cultural and intellectual context of the country and society. G.E. Markov’s biography is closely connected with the history of the Department of Ethnography/Ethnology at the Faculty of History, Moscow State University and serves as a serious basis for reconstructing the genesis of university ethnography and its dynamics over the course of nearly 85 years. Such a long period of existence of the university department and its sustainable effectiveness in training professional staff were essentially ensured by the high qualifi cation of scientific and pedagogical staff, reliance on solid theoretical and methodological foundations and interdisciplinarity, a combination of conservatism with flexibility and adaptability to the challenges of the time, the ability to preserve disciplinary continuity and ensure the transmission of the scholarly tradition. All these components of the successful development of university ethnology are subjected to a comprehensive and balanced examination in the article. G.E. Markov’s biography in all its typical and special manifestations forms the semantic core of the analysis and presentation. The authors offer their view on complex and sharply debatable issues of professional self-determination,.

It is only possible to comprehend the logic of the formation and development of ethnography (ethnology) as a discipline at Moscow University if one is aware of its context(s). Primarily, this is a disciplinary context, as evidenced by its long-term and decisive influence on ethnography within the university environment. The development of ethnology as a discipline has been shaped by a dynamic socio-historical context, which has exerted and continues to exert a significant influence on its evolution. The establishment and institutionalization of ethnology in Russia occurred in the second half of the 19th century. During the 1880s, two distinct trends began to emerge in the organization of ethnological education. One of these trends integrated ethnological education into the context of the natural sciences, while the other placed it within the broader historical and humanitarian context. In the early decades of the 20th century Russian ethnography possessed serious potential, including the ability for independent original theorization. During the Soviet era, ethnography experienced significant development, both as a scholarly discipline and as a formally recognized academic department. Since 1939, ethnography within the university has undergone phases of institutionalization (S.P. Tolstov and N.N. Cheboksarov). The concept of ethnographic education was formed, substantial scientific research and expeditionary activities were carried out, and the profession developed an attractive image. The stability and conservative ethos of Moscow University and its academic community enabled the department to successfully navigate the period of social and political turbulence (the late 1980s — 1990s), thereby preserving the foundational aspects of the professional training system and introducing necessary innovations (V.V. Pimenov). At the beginning of the twenty first century, ethnology as a discipline underwent a significant development, marked by an anthropological turn in research and methodology. The anthropological approach was integrated into the academic framework of professional education at Moscow University, serving as a complement to, rather than a replacement for, the prevailing ethnographic and ethnological methodologies (A.A. Nikishenkov, D.A. Funk). The Department of Ethnology has recently been experiencing an increase in student enrolment, while concurrently maintaining a judicious balance between ethnographic, ethnological and anthropological components. It is noteworthy that the department has adopted an interdisciplinary stance and has instituted measures to ensure the seamless transmission of professional tradition in close collaboration with academic science.

The article examines how the programmes of population censuses conducted in Russia between 1897 and 1937 reflected the dynamics of perceptions of major ethnocultural identities. Among the various forms of cultural identity in Russia, the most significant were linguistic, religious, and ethnic. However, the relative importance of these categories shift ed across different periods, as state priorities in promoting one or several of them evolved. The censuses of 1897, 1920, 1926, and 1937 vividly reveal transformations in this hierarchy of identities. Special attention is devoted to the incorporation of the category of national (ethnic) identity into census practices. In the Russian Empire of the modern era, an elite discourse emerged that proposed diverse interpretations of the nature of the ethnic (national): defining Russianness through its attributes — Orthodoxy and loyalty to the throne; defining Russianness through culture; and defining Russianness through notions of “race”, “stock”, or “blood”. For the broader Russian population, however, a presumption operated: Russian meant Orthodox and loyal to the throne (with the tacit implication of the Russian language). The study demonstrates that, in Soviet Russia, the significance of ethnic identity increased, facilitated both by the principle of national self-determination adopted by the new regime and by the administrative divisions, which were closely tied to nationality. It is therefore no coincidence that the 1920 census included, for the first time, a question on ethnic affiliation, framed as “narodnost” (“ethnic group”), which in the 1926 census was replaced with the term “nationality”. The analysis of the censuses conducted between 1897 and 1937 shows that the fundamental factors of ethnic identity in Russia — although not officially recognized in every period — were language and religion. The connection between language and ethnicity appears almost self-evident. The link between ethnicity and religion is less straightforward, yet despite the repression of religion it persisted, albeit muted; over time, however, in the structuring of identities (primary/derivative), religion and ethnicity exchanged their positions .