“Natsional’nye istorii” is a collection of essays focusing on the deconstruction of the Soviet “friendship-of-people”-myth and its replacement by ethnocentric national histories in the post-Soviet (and pre-Putin) period. Geographically, it covers former Soviet Union republics from the Western borderlands to Central Asia, the contributions include the following former republics: Armenia (A. Iskenderyan / B. Arutyunyan), Georgia (Yu. Anchabadze), Kazakhstan (M. Sembinov), Moldova (M. Blagodatskikh), Ukraine (V. Vasilev), and Tadzhikistan (R. Shukurov). There is no special study of the Baltic republics, they are, however, mentioned in one of the comparative articles. Russia is the main subject of two articles on historiographical nation-building in the Northern Caucasus (L. Gatagova) and the Volga-Urals (S. Iskhakov); one other publication is dedicated to the renaissance of the “Russian idea” (Ye. Zubkova / A. Kupriyanov). In addition, the volume contains two comparative studies - one on the perception of Russia in the newly independent states and vice versa (S. Konstantinov / A. Ushakov), and the other, on the nationalisation of textbooks in Ukraine, Belarus and in some republics of the Russian Federation (T. Guzenkova). The Soviet framework of national historiography is analysed by G. Bordyugov and V. Bucharaev – surprisingly, the area studies publications mention the slow process of nationalisation of historiography in Soviet periphery only in passing, if at all. Finally, M. Mamedov interprets the Russian stereotype,“litsa kavkazkoi natsionalnosti”, against the background of classical Western treatments of prejudice. Methodologically and contextually, this contribution stands somewhat apart from rest of the volume. An appendix of some 80 pages features key documents, extracts from historical textbooks and a nice sample of illustrations of newly created or recycled national symbols: not only on flags or coats of arms, but also on vodka labels and cigarette boxes.

Unfortunately, the editors (K. Eimermacher, Bochum and G. Bordyugov, Moscow, jointly with the German Friedrich-Naumann-Foundation) did not encourage the contributors to provide an explicit theoretical or methodical framework. Their short introduction to the volume neither discusses the functional aspects of historiography in the process of nation-building, nor does it introduce the reader to “constructive” approaches to nationalism. There are just two brief paragraphs, which mention conflicting views on national historiography (p. 16). In general, the (re-)invention of national histories is treated as the (re-)invention of historical myths that, if not deconstructed by professional historians, will impede post-Soviet societies’ development into civil societies (p.9, 14). It is thus not surprising that the usage of such notions as “true” and “real” history does not exclusively pertain to the depicted national histories. Some of the authors use them as analytical categories themselves.

Besides, there is no common understanding whether historiography should above all be used as a vehicle for new national elites in their search for legitimacy and political support. In this view post-Soviet historians merely implement conventional historical consciousness among societies on demand, like their Soviet predecessors supposedly have done (cf. Konstantinov / Ushakov, Anchabadze). Others treat historiography and historical consciousness as less dependent variables, and historians are perceived as self interested actors in their own rights (cf. Bordyugov / Bucharaev, Guzenkova). What mars the picture is that hardly any author refers to the theoretical framework provided by contemporary scholarship on nationalism or takes Western research of the post-Soviet national renaissance into consideration (except for Bordyugov / Bucharaev and the final comments).

Certainly, the disintegration of scientific discourse among historians, formerly restricted and unified from above, justifies a descriptive stock-taking of the role that history plays for ethnic consolidation within the newly independent states (p. 15). Therefore most contributions restrict themselves to recording the shape of collective ethnic consciousness, the respective interests of political actors, the roles of publicists and professional historians in the diffusion of historical consciousness and, finally, the media and structures they use for the purpose. While some authors rely on secondary sources only, others investigate academic and journalistic works on history, some of which include even data obtained from conducted opinion polls. A consecutive reading of the area studies publications, however, quickly reveals a rather uniform pattern in the production and distribution of stereotype national narratives, at least as far as the former “national periphery” is concerned (neatly summarised by D. Oleinikov and T. Filipova in their final comments, p. 332-333). Exhausted by abundant absurdities of post-Soviet historical literature, the reader is rather thankful when some of the contributors take a closer look at the techniques with the help of which historical symbols and myths are constructed or at their plausibility and public success. Indeed, in their investigation of the “Russian idea” such authors as Zubkova and Kupriyanov reject the simple top-down approach and present a view of a more complex relationships between the nationalisation of post-Soviet politics and historical mass consciousness.

All in all, the volume supplies the reader with a descriptive overview of national historiographies from the mid-80’s to the mid-90’s. Individual historians can be “located” with the help of an index. “Natsional’nye istorii” features useful documents and suggestions on further readings. Western readers might find it particularly interesting to see how their colleagues from Russia and the NIS assess “the historian’s craft” in post-Soviet academia. Finally, the book provides an excellent opportunity to familiarise the readership of such works with the terminology of recent post-Soviet reflections on historiography. The fact that such coinages as the Shafarevich’s notorious “russophobia” have seemingly made their way into the scientific lexicon within a decade is only one revealing moment.