The image of the fortress in architecture emerged in the Early Modern period when the constructive elements and volumetric-spatial schemes typical of defensive structures were incorporated into civil architecture. These structures lost their original functional meaning but retained distinctive features of their prototypes. In Russian historiography, there is a perception of the identity between architectural representations of the fortress image and the Neo-Gothic style of the last third of the 18th century. This view developed gradually, stemming from metaphorical comparisons made by pre-revolutionary essayists and Soviet art historians. Although these comparisons were periodically repeated, they did not become the focus of research reflection, as the attention was primarily directed towards stylistic issues. Alongside the enduring association of “castle” and “Gothicism”, another topos emerged, the interpretation of the fortress image in the 18th-century Russian Neo-Gothic as a memorial to the Russo-Turkish wars. This topos introduced a stereotype about the Orientalist background of certain buildings. Upon closer examination, these accepted concepts prove inapplicable to several monuments: the fortress image appeared in Russian architecture before the Turkish campaigns and Catherine the Great’s fascination with Neo-Gothic, and classical-style buildings featuring castle-like elements were constructed alongside exemplary Russian Neo-Gothic monuments. The recognition of the limitations of studying style led researchers to the issue of architectural imagery. The interpretation of the image opened new avenues and perspectives, allowing the identification of connections between individual monuments and the European architectural context, explaining the genesis of their forms, and reconstructing the underlying ideological programs. Analyzing historiography and the current state of the issue not only confirms the existence of the fortress image as a phenomenon in architecture, existing outside of styles and inherent to various national schools, but also allows it to be used as a construct to conceptualize a whole range of chronologically and morphologically related buildings in Russian architecture of the last third of the 18th century

The 14th and 15th centuries are considered the “darkest” period in the archaeology of medieval Rus’. The watershed of the Desna and Oka river basins, located at the borders of the modern Bryansk and Oryol regions, is one of the least studied areas in terms of political history. During these centuries, it was situated at the frontier of the principalities of Bryansk, Karachev and Novosil’ (the southernmost on the Upper Oka), which were “squeezed” between the Grand Duchies of Moscow, Lithuania, Ryazan’, and the Golden Horde. New archaeological and numismatic findings made by the expedition of Bryansk State University provide material evidence of the military-political events of the last third of the 14th century. Additionally, the correlation of these findings with specific events allows for more precise dating of various types of religious artifacts, military equipment, and monetary and weight items. Key dating finds (apart from ceramics) at the Navlya settlement include a rowel spur of type VIII (according to O. Dvurechenskiy, 2014) and a copper alloy encolpion depicting the Archangel Sachiel and Saint Sisinnius. This encolpion is a double recast from the original. The spur belongs to a type characteristic of the transition period from chain mail to plate armor, a time when combined armor prevailed in Europe. Based on analogs from Poland, Czechia and Galicia, the Navlya specimen can be dated from the second half of the 14th century to the early 15th century. The encolpion can be dated to approximately the same time. In this border region, many military events occurred in the late 14th and early 15th centuries, which could have resulted in the deposition of valuable and intact items in the cultural layer. These events are also associated with other finds of rowel spurs, but more frequently of later types, as well as similar encolpia and icons throughout the Southeast of Rus’, including the Seim and Psel regions. However, for the Navlya finds, the chronology can be narrowed to the end of the 14th century, thanks to the discovery of a hoard of Jochid dirhams (dang coins), as well as hoards and individual coins of Severskaya minting at the Navlya.

The disintegration of the USSR in 1991 set off unprecedented migration processes across the post-Soviet space, remarkable for their scale and complexity. This multifaceted migration phenomenon, with its various forms and manifestations, highlights the crucial need for an interdisciplinary approach in studying the issue. The novelty and relevance of this work stem from its pioneering attempt to illustrate the dynamics of migration processes in post-Soviet Russia through the application of a broad range of methodologies from different humanities disciplines. This article presents a portion of the findings from a comprehensive study conducted by an interdisciplinary research team at Lomonosov Moscow State University. This team, which includes historians, geographers, psychologists, and lawyers, is part of the university’s development program project, “Interdisciplinary Study of Modern Migrations: New Analytical Approaches”. The authors conduct a comprehensive review of current literature on the geographical, demographic, historical, sociological, and anthropological aspects of migration. They analyze thematic documents from the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation and the Federal State Statistics Service, as well as archival materials covering the past 30 years, up to 2022. These sources hold significant academic value for research in the field. The study identifies the phases and intensity of migration dynamics in the Russian Federation and highlights key trends within the context of global and domestic factors, such as the economic crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, and shift s in Russia’s current migration legislation. The article also explores the concept of ethnic enclaves and offers a functional, operational, and interdisciplinary definition of this phenomenon. It traces and explains the causal relationships that lead to emerging points and nodes of tension, as well as the potential threats inherent in migration processes and enclave formation. Additionally, the study outlines historically driven changes in the dynamics, types, and demographic structure (gender and age) of migration flows to Russia, influenced by both external and internal developments within the country

The article examines the Russian-Mari linguistic environment, focusing on the usage of the Russian and Mari languages (Meadow Mari and Hill Mari), identifying the level of bilingualism in the context of the widespread use of the Russian language and the relationships between language practices and ethnic identity. This comprehensive interdisciplinary ethnological-linguistic study employs various methodological approaches. The research data were collected through a survey conducted using the Texas University “Bilingual Language Profi le” questionnaire, supplemented by several blocks of questions on ethno-social topics, as well as interviews with representatives of the linguistic environment. The data were collected during an ethnological expedition by the Faculty of History of Lomonosov Moscow State University in the Republic of Mari El (Zvenigovsky, Kuzhenersky, Medvedevsky, Morkinsky, Orshansky, Sernursky, Sovietsky districts, and the city of Yoshkar-Ola). The majority of the 70 respondents identify themselves as belonging to the ethnographic group of Meadow Mari, with some also speaking Hill Mari. They share a deep involvement in Mari culture, being (or having been) employees of cultural centers and museums, librarians, school teachers, researchers of Mari culture, active participants in local communities, folklore ensembles, and thematic communities on social networks. Most of them can be classifi ed as ethnic activists. The study employed both qualitative (analysis of the collected interviews) and quantitative (analysis and graphical representation of the collected survey data) methods. The research revealed a high degree of interest among the Mari people in preserving their ethnic languages alongside traditional culture and identity. Additionally, the survey data indicate a relatively balanced level of Russian-Mari bilingualism, especially among those over 30 years old. Among the younger generation, there is a noticeable “shift ” in bilingualism towards the Russian language, likely due to the Russian-speaking educational environment.

The history of the Komsomol cash and prize lotteries begins in 1957. This initiative was proposed by the Committee of Youth Organizations of the USSR under the Central Committee of the Komsomol, which was established in 1956. This marked a new direction in the Komsomol’s activities (previously, funds were obtained from membership fees, subbotniks, collection of scrap metal, waste paper, etc.). All the lotteries were timed to coincide with the World Festivals of Youth and Students and aimed at attracting additional funds to the Komsomol budget for organizing the festivals. This became especially relevant aft er 1959, when the Komsomol lost its state subsidy and was forced to independently form its budget. The youth festivals had important ideological and educational significance and were held on a grand scale. In addition, within the framework of the festivals, the Komsomol provided material assistance to delegates from Asia and Africa, and sometimes fully covered their participation in the event. The Komsomol managed all aspects of the lottery from designing the lottery tickets to distributing them. Analysis of a range of archival documents, including financial reports, budget plans, as well as decrees and materials from secretariats and bureaus, clearly shows that the funds raised from the lotteries were consistently much less than expected. To address the issue, regional lottery committees were established, and plans for ticket sales were introduced for Komsomol organizations. However, against the backdrop of increasing membership fees, the youth were in no hurry to buy lottery tickets. As a result, regional committees failed to meet the planned ticket sales targets. The Central Committee of the Komsomol found a solution by withdrawing the missing amount from other raised funds. Nevertheless, lottery tickets were more eagerly purchased by foreign participants of the youth festivals as a memorable souvenir, especially since they were sold in souvenir kiosks.