Landscape, Culture, Identity: Repatriation of Crimean Tatars and the Processes of Constructing the Placenion by Olena Sobolieva Abstract The article analyzes the issue of constructing the place during the process of repatriation and adaptation of Crimean Tatars in their ethnic homeland. The actions of the Soviet totalitarian regime resulting in mass deportations of national groups and ethnic repressions caused latent ethno-social ĚȱȱȱȱǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȬ¢ȱ ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǯȱȱ¢ȱěȱȱȱ ȱ ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱǯȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ¢ȱȱ¢ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ¡ǰȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱ ¢ȱ ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱǯ Key words: Constructing the place, repatriation, Crimean Tatars, cultural landscape, national identity ȱ ¢ȱȱ ę£ȱ ȱ ȱ next to landmarks or even next to common ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ houses. These are heritage trips of the de- ¢ȱȱȱȱŗşśşǯȱȱȱęȱȱ- ported Crimean Tatars to their native places ȱ ¢ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱǰȱ where their families used to live before. The ¢ȱȱȱȱȱǰȱȱȱȱ journeys broke the ice for remembering and ȱȱȱȱȱ£ǰȱ reconstructing, and later for returning to the ǯȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ cultural landscape of Crimea lost during the ȱȱȱĴȱȱȱ- years of deportation. ǯȱ¢ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱ- Twentieth century Crimea was a testing ȱȱȱǯȱȱȱ ¢ȱ ground for demographic experiments of the ȱȱȱ¢ǰȱ¢ȱ ȱȱȱȱ¢ Soviet authorities and an arena of mass vio- ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ǯȱę£ lence. In the middle of the 20th century during ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ě ȱȱ¢ȱȱ¢ȱ ȱ¢ȱ¢ Crimean Tatars as well as Greek, Armenian, ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱǯȱȱ German, Bulgarian, and Roma people. As ȱǰȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ a result, hundreds of villages and towns of ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ Ĵȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Crimea were emptied, while the ethnic com- ȱȱ¢ǯŗȱ ȱȱǰȱ ȱȱȱ position of the population and living pat- ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ terns were entirely transformed. A complete ȱ¢ȱȱȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱ remodeling of the space took place. During ǻȱ ǯȱ ŗȬřǼǯȱ ¢ȱ¢ȱ ȱ the course of several years, Soviet authorities ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ- ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ Ĵȱȱ ¢ȱȱȱȱȱŗşŜŖȬŗşşŖǯȱǰȱ the deserted regions with the people coming ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ from other areas. Such acts by the authori- ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ties led both to the physical displacement of ŗ ȱ ȱę£ǰȱǯȱŗşŘřǰȱǰ groups of population, and subsequently fully ŘŖŗŖǰȱȱ¢ȱǯȱ¢ Euxeinos, Vol. 9, No. 27 / 2019 114 Olena Sobolieva deconstructed the ethno-national and cultur- Lieux de Memoires).2 The analytical category al boundaries of Crimea. The article analyzes of places of memory could also be used in the the problem of recreating the memory of the study of the processes of return migration of historical territory of the Crimean Tatars. The Crimean Tatars. However, if we consider the ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱęȱȱ experience of this community, the remember- memory and collective experiences in the (re) ing and commemorative practices are only construction of space and the cultural land- part of a more comprehensive and multifac- scape upon the repatriation of Crimean Tatars eted process of return to the space and re-ter- that coincided with the collapse of the Soviet ritorization. Union. We suggest considering the issues of Regarding the problems related to approaches the return of Crimean Tatars to their histor- to space, I believe the most fruitful to be the ical homeland and the reclamation of their ȱȱȱȱęȱȱȱ- symbolic rights for their ethnic lands not only pology and cultural geography. Cultural ge- ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ĝȱ ȱ ȱ ographers, in particular, actively use the term representatives of the Crimean Tatar self-gov- ‘cultural landscape’ to imply a combination of ernment (such as the Mejlis of the Crimean natural environment and the results of human Tatar People), but also in terms of personal ex- activities and culture.3 In this respect, cultural periences of common people who have their activities of humans are considered not only own stories of deportation and return, which with regard to their material manifestations are intertwined into collective experience in ǻǰȱ Ĵǰȱ ȱ - ěȱ ¢ǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ties), but also as expressed by perceptions, ęȱȱȱȱȱ ȱŘŖŖŜȱȱ folklore, artistic literature, public speeches, ŘŖŗŗȱȱǰȱȱȱŘŖŗśȱȱ ¢ǰȱȱ ȱ etc. The concept presented in a book “Map- as the narrative analysis of national print and ping the Invisible Landscape” by Kent Ryden online media (Avdet, Holos Krymu (The Voice ȱ ȱ ȱ ęǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ of Crimea), Crimean Tatars, blogs on Facebook cultural landscape exists and is modelled not social media). only in its physical manifestation, but also through viva voce traditions, folklore, and The theoretical and methodological basis for mythology, and under certain conditions this the study of places invisible landscape shall be materialized.4 The link between a territory and identity is an The range of issues on the bonds of historical important topic of research of cultural anthro- memory and the territory, as well as territorial pologists as well. Sociocultural anthropology identity, is represented in the research of many ę¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ social disciplines such as cultural anthropolo- 2ȱ ȱ ȱ ŘŖŖśȱ “Vsemirnoe torzhestvo gy, history, cultural geography, and sociology. pamyati“, Neprikosnovennyiy zapas, 2-3(40-41), In the contemporary research of commemora- DZȦȦ£ǯǯȦ£ȦŘŖŖśȦŘȦŘŘǯ 3 Hrymych, Maryna 2016 “Kulturnyi ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ¢ȱ ě¢ȱ landshaft: terminolohichnyi ekskurs“ Antropolohiia ¢ȱ ěȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ - prostoru: zbirnyk naukovykh prats u 4 t. red. Maryna Hrymych. Kyiv: Duliby, T. 1: Kulturnyi landshaft cept of the French researcher Pierre Nora, who Kyieva ta okolyts, 316. introduced the idea of ‘places of memory’ (Les 4 Ryden, Kent C. 1993 ȱȱ ȱ DZȱ ǰȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ . Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa Press, 304. Euxeinos, Vol. 9, No. 27 / 2019 ŗŗś Olena Sobolieva anthropology of space and place. For this re- lective memory of homeland and the crimes of search, it is important to consider the assump- deportation through generations that helped tion that space is directly constructed through ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱęȱȱ the meanings that individuals or groups of communist rule and in the pursuit of their people assign to it. This standpoint allows us right to return.10 The issues of relevance of col- to consider space both as a physical category lective memory and trauma in the processes and also as a combination of human practices, of political consolidation and re-territoriza- ideas, emotional bonds, customs and bodily tion of Crimean Tatars in the successive years experiences.ś The works of anthropologists remained a focus of historians and anthropol- actively employ the term of “producing the ogists.11 For instance, the problem is studied space.” It emphasizes the fact that a human be- in a monograph by US anthropologist Greta ing or a group of people shape their own actu- Uehling.12 The article by sociologists Theodore al space through their daily activities, through P. Gerber and Marina Zaloznaya13 also elabo- verbalization practices, and through move- rates on how constructs of collective memory ment and their everyday itineraries. The con- have become the basis for the mobilization cept of movement is of particular importance and shaping of group motivation for return in the study of communities moving within migration (repatriation). The authors of the the space, such as migrants. The relationship article approach voluntary group migration as between the two concepts of space and move- a social ideology-based movement manifested ment is highly instrumental to understand- in the mobilization of the community in order ing the construction of current Crimean Tatar to reach the supra-individual goal. The scope identity. ȱȱ¢ȱȱĚȱȱȱ- The link between the concepts of identity, search on land disputes in Crimea in the pe- memory and territory is a focus of researchers riod of adaptation of Crimean Tatars in their th of history of Crimean Tatars in the 20 centu- 10 Williams, B. Glyn 2002. “The hidden eth- ry. Most researchers studying the issues of de- nic cleansing of Muslims in the Soviet Union: The exile and repatriation of the Crimean Tatars“. Jour- portation and repatriation of Crimean Tatars nal of Contemporary History, 37(3): 34ś. considered the importance of the concept of 11 Sasse, Gwendolyn 2007 The Crimea ques- DZȱ ¢ǰȱ ǰȱ ȱ Ě. Harvard Uni- historical lands and ethnic landscape. They versity Press. 400; AydÍngün, Ayóegül, and Er- include, in particular, A. Fisher,6 P.-R. Mago- doÂan YÍldÍrÍm 2010 “Perception of homeland among Crimean Tatars: cases from Kazakhstan, Uz- chy,7 E. Allworth,8 B. Williams9. In his research bekistan and Crimea.” Türk DünyasÍ Sosyal Bilimler on the issues of deportation and repatriation, Yaz, IssueȱśŚDZȱŘŗȮŚŜDzȱǰȱȱŘŖŗŗȱ “Formuvannia obrazu etnichnoi batkivshchyny Williams states that it is the transference of col- krymskykh tatar v umovakh repatriatsii ta oblashtuvannia v AR Krym“ Materialy do ukrainskoi ś Low, Setha M. 2009 “Towards an anthro- etnolohiiȱ ŗŖǻŗřǼDZȱ ŚŚȮśŗDzȱ ¢¢ǰȱ Ȭȱ pological theory of space and place.” Semioticaǯŗŝśȱ ŘŖŗśȱȃ¢¢ȱ¢ȱ¢¢ȱȱ (2009): 21-37. ȱ £¢ȱ ȱ ŗşśŖȬȱ ȱ ǻ£ȱ ¢ȱ 6 Fisher, A. W. 1978. Crimean Tatars. Hoover spohadiv).“ Naukovi zapysky NaUKMA. Istorychni Press. 264 naukyǯȱŗŜşDZȱśŘȬśŞǯǯ 7 Magochii P.-R. 2014 Krym nasha 12 Uehling, Greta 2004 Beyond memory: the ȱ£ǯȱ£ǯȱŗśşǯ Crimean tatars’ deportation and return. New York, 8 Allworth, E. (Ed.). 1998. The Tatars of 294. Crimea: return to the homeland: studies and documents. 13 Zaloznaya, Marina, and Theodore P. Ger- Duke University Press. ber. 2012 “Migration as Social Movement: Volun- 9 Williams, B. G. 2001. The Crimean Tatars: tary Group Migration and the Crimean Tatar Re- ȱȱ¡ȱȱȱȱȱȱ (Vol. patriation.” Population and Development Review 38.2: 2). Brill. 488. ŘśşȬŘŞŚǯ Euxeinos, Vol. 9, No. 27 / 2019 116 Olena Sobolieva homeland.14 The important argument pursued pire, mostly to Anatolia, but also to Bulgaria by the authors is that the feeling of belonging and Romania. Trying to make up for demo- to a place has a direct impact on the develop- graphic losses, the Tsarist government started ment of demands to allocate individual land Ĵȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ- plots to the ownership of Crimean Tatars.