R.G. KUZEEV – S.M. ABRAMZON: SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION IN PERSONAL CORRESPONDENCE

The purpose of the study is to analyze the history of development of the Soviet ethnographic science, formation of its categorical perception. In the 1960–1970s, new historical sources concerning the issues of ethnogenesis and ethnic history entered the historical science. The genealogical chronicles of the Bashkir “shezhere” clan using the example of the Bashkir ethnos were included into a scientific circulation. Scientific discussions of two outstanding scientists R.G. Kuzeev and S.M. Abramzon concerning the early stages of the Bashkir ethnogenesis were never published. The epistolary heritage of scientists allows presenting earlier unstudied problems of the Soviet ethnographic science. The correspondence of R.G. Kuzeev and S.M. Abramzon represents real-life communication, illustrates the scientific knowledge, the choice of research approaches applied in the creation of a scientific concept of the origin of the Bashkir people. In the mid-sixties R.G. Kuzeev developed a program and methodological base for the scientific study of the ethnogenesis of the Bashkir people, which was introduced in the work of the Bashkir Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences within the next forty years. The second problem was the chronological approach to Bashkir shezhere and the definition of the early “Bulgar” layer correlated to the period of the XV–XVI centuries. The correspondence between R.G. Kuzeev and S.M. Abramzon shows that S.M. Abramzon took an active part in all these scientific structures of R.G. Kuzeev at the level of choosing specific research techniques and in the creation of wide scientific generalizations.


Introduction
The context of scientific research that creates the intellectual history in a certain temporal space is reflected not only in the discoveries and publications of scientists, but also in their interpersonal communication. The correspondence between the leaders of anthropological and ethnographic research in the 1960-1970s of the 20 th century reveals a new perspective of the history of emergence and development of these historical trends in the pre-computer era, without the possibility of a quick response via e-mails or scientific social networks. This is evidenced by the correspondence of N.Z. Davis and E. Thompson published in the Past and Present historical journal (as cited in Walsham, 2017). Written communication and discussions by American and British researchers not only demonstrated their common interests in finding new ways on a similar topic of folk culture, but also the possibility of creating new ways of interpreting scientific texts.
It is phenomenal that in the Soviet Russia it was during the same period of time that the intellectual basis of common interests in the field of historical and ethnographic problems of studying the past of the peoples of the USSR was formed. The voices of scientists were preserved in extensive correspondence, which reflected the basic principles of their discussion base.
Half a century separates us from the generation represented by two famous domestic researchers R.G. Kuzeev and S.M. Abramzon. To date, the correspondence between scientists has not been published and is kept in the personal funds of scientific archives (Ufa Federal Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Scientific Archive). The correspondence demonstrates not only the evidence of personal communication. Both their formal discussions at conferences and private letters capture reflections and debates on the formation of their scientific search and discoveries as the basis for the basic principles of future research approaches. Modern intellectual history needs unofficial evidence of the socalled "eyewitness science", which makes it possible to identify the bifurcation points in the formation of concepts and directions of scientific research in the complex path of scientific knowledge. In this regard, the correspondence of scientists ceases to be perceived only in the format of personal documents, but it acts as a real path to the discovery and study of a new historical source, the choice of research techniques in building a scientific concept that was developed during the exchange of views, including through epistolary discussions.

Problem Statement
The basis of the study is the discussion of R.G. Kuzeev  Abramzon, which has become the subject of the present study for a number of reasons, is the most https: //doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2021.11.333 Corresponding Author: Iya A. Shuteleva Selection and peer-review under Antonov, 2012). Historiographic essays dedicated to Kuzeev emphasize the importance of the experience of field ethnographic science acquired by him in the Central Asian Expedition (as cited in Yakupov, 2010). Second, the great experience of the scientist Abramzon, who had a fairly high rating in Soviet historical science, played a huge role (as cited in Reshetov, 2001). All taken together predetermined their close scientific ties and searches on similar topics of research into the ethnic formation of the USSR peoples. That is why our attention was drawn to the opportunity to penetrate the process of the emergence or even birth of the intellectual thought of two scientists divided by a huge distance and limited in their substantive discussion by the speed of information transfer.

Research Questions
The We defined the following research problems corresponding to the mutual interest of the subject discussed for nearly ten years starting with the first remained letters of 1961.
1. First, the discussion of the problem of formation of logically verified structure and content of the monographic composition by R.G Kuzeev to study the problems of origin of the Bashkir people.
2. Second, discussion of a chronological framework of formation of the Bashkir ethnos.
3. Third, search for a uniform technique of historical and ethnographic study of the USSR people.

Purpose of the Study
Based on the study of personal correspondence of two scientists, we set the purpose not so much to recreate the personal history of large Soviet historians and ethnographers R.G. Kuzeev and S.M. Abramzon but to reveal the most deeply discussed problems of ethnic origin and formation of the national identity of the Bashkirs in accordance with the epistolary heritage of scientists which content is still beyond the broad scientific community domain. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2021.11.333 Corresponding Author: Iya A. Shuteleva Selection and peer-review under

Research Methods
The study utilized the methods based on historical and genetic approach that make it possible to reveal and track the development of the main intellectual component of a discussion as the basis for the interpretation of available historical and ethnographic materials. The study of the correspondence between the USSR scientists in the 60-70s of the 20 th century is also based on the use of the contextual approach disclosing the content and essence of intellectual culture through the analysis of the letters of scientists of that period. Let us particularly identify the debatable component of the correspondence. At present, a discussion in scientific knowledge is highly enough appreciated by the modern community of humanists suggesting not only to keep this experience of communication, but also to expand its boundaries as a method of study and discussion of the subject domain of humanitaristics (Llano, 2021).

Findings
The archaeologists, who themselves still allow many arbitrariness and subjective assessments in dating the material and even more in its interpretation" (Scientific Archive).
In fact, the problem of chronology was caused by vague methodological methods used in Soviet ethnography. With regard to the methodology and methods of the study itself, they were considered by the authors of the correspondence in combination as the study expanded and the views exchanged.
Thus, in the letter of June 11, 1970 S.M. Abramzon adjusts a methodological component of R.G. Kuzeev's research: "Recently I finished the review of the book by L.P. Potapov, which is similar to your work "Ethnic List and Origin of the Altaian" (Potapov, 1969). It is quite interesting in terms of methodology if you didn't have a chance to read it, I strongly recommend" (Scientific Archive). The problem of the methodology of ethnographic researches of the people of the USSR was one of the most https: //doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2021.11.333 Corresponding Author: Iya A. Shuteleva Selection and peer-review under (Kuzeev, 1972). However, R.G. Kuzeev's phrase, which was summing up the result of the review, caused ambiguous reaction of S.M. Abramzon. Kuzeev (1972)  Petrov... This phrase will be just a find for those who took up arms against me and took an active part in this, as you correctly write, shocking history...".

Conclusion
The studied private correspondence and discussion with S.M. Abramzon largely preceded the Kuzeev's (1973Kuzeev's ( , 1978 publications of the 1970s of the XX century (that later became famous) about the formation of the Turkic ethnic group in Eastern Europe and the Cis-Urals region.
It is known that in the same years other approaches to the problem of ethnicity based on the constructivist ideas of Friedrich Barth were formed. According to his approach, ethnicity was manifested through interaction with other ethnic groups and through social processes, reflected in its cultural features (Mácsai, 2016). A similar idea was obviously present in the structures of S.M. Abramzon, as indicated by his letters to R.G. Kuzeev. However, the reaction to the wishes to pay attention to the multifactorial ways of forming the Bashkir ethnic group was ignored by R.G. Kuzeev. It is possible that both scientists were https: //doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2021.11.333 Corresponding Author: Iya A. Shuteleva Selection and peer-review under  Kuzeev joined the world historiography as a bright representative of the academic ethnography of the Soviet state (as cited in Kuzev & Mukhamediarov, 1995). Modern studies still reflect the interest in the works of R. G. Kuzeev on the ethnogenesis of the Bashkirs based on the genealogical records of the Bashkir clans or shezhere (as cited in Mácsai, 2016). However, as we showed, R.G. Kuzeev already at an early stage of discussion correspondence (in a letter dated June 8, 1964) believed that "a historian, an ethnographer developing the medieval history of such people as the Bashkirs has no other material and, even from the point of view of the accepted standards, some of the dating will seem conditional, and we will have to deal with it until we collect new material". A new accumulation of material on the history of medieval Bashkiria, as he believed, "will obviously be associated with the successes of archeology, which will take at least ten years" (Scientific Archive). The expectations and hopes of the scientist for obtaining archaeological evidence of his concept of the origin of the Bashkir ethnic group have not yet been realized. The theory and practice of archeology of the Southern Urals proved the failure of such a project (Shuteleva et al., 2017). The theoretical component of ethnography and the factology of the archaeological material have not yet been built into a single concept of the ethnic and national identity in the Cis-Urals region.