SUMMARY:

The review article by Vladimir Bobrovnikov is devoted to the discussion of two books: The Captive and the Gift by Bruce Grant and A Look at the Mountaineers, the View from the Mountains by Yuri Karpov. Bobrovnikov situates these two books in the larger historiographical context of studies of the Caucasus, which is dominated by the reductionist perspective of looking at the Caucasus through the prism of empire and conquest and by narrow-minded ethnographic studies. The two books differ from this context by their attempt to understand the region by looking at the interaction between the local population and empire and by their criticism of simplistic orientalist paradigms. Bobrovnikov praises Grant for the breadth of material covered, innovative interpretation of empire as a sovereignty of gift, and the potential of the latter concept to go beyond the conventional view on the history of the Caucasus from the viewpoint of postcolonial studies. He acknowledges the viability of looking at empire in terms of cultural memory, which lies at the center of Grant’s approach. Bobrovnikov criticizes Grant for failure to take into account the historicity of imperial power and local societies associated with the historical dynamics of expansion, conquest, accommodation, and incorporation of the region in the Russian Empire. Karpov’s book is devoted to the analysis of micro-history of mountainous societies based on Jamaat/Jamia in the period of the eighteenth through the nineteenth centuries. Bobrovnikov praises Karpov for “thick description” of social and cultural realities of mountainous societies in Dagestan and for taking into account the factors of social change in the borderland that led to the disintegration of Jamaat/Jamia. Finally, Bobrovnikov contends that historical parallels with present-day realities in Karpov’s book appear unconvincing. Bobrovnikov criticizes Karpov for elements of an essentialist approach in his treatment of Jamaat/Jamia and for underestimating the role of Islam in resistance and accommodation in the North Caucasus. Bobrovnikov’s conclusion is that the two books may be looked at as complementary to each other, although the authors differ in their approach.