Photo: Jewish Magazine

Our sociolinguistic research, spanning a century of the Judeo-Tat (Juhuri) language's presence in the former USSR and modern Russia, indicates an unfavorable trajectory in the linguistic situation. Currently, only the older generation of native speakers is fluent in Juhuri, while the middle and younger generations possess virtually no command of the language. The sole exception is the population originating from Krasnaya Sloboda (Quba, Republic of Azerbaijan) residing in Russia, who maintain a strong command of the language regardless of age or current place of residence.

As is established, the primary, fundamental functions of any living language are communicative and cognitive-epistemological. The communicative function includes the preservation and transmission of national consciousness, cultural traditions, and the history of the native-speaking population. In this sense, the native language of the Mountain Jews, Juhuri, serves as a universal medium of ethnic self-expression and a form of ethnic culture—specifically, an ethnocultural phenomenon. The language was "constructed" by many generations of Mountain Jews over a significant historical span and meticulously passed down from one generation to the next. Thus, modern Juhuri reflects the memory and history of the Mountain Jews, the collective historical memory of the people, their culture, worldview, psychology, and their body of knowledge concerning nature and the cosmos. Consequently, the language of the Mountain Jews represents a form of ethnic culture that embodies a historically established national way of daily life. For Mountain Jews, Juhuri constitutes the strongest bond uniting the members of this sub-ethnic Jewish group into a cohesive whole, a single people—undeniably symbolizing group unity and defining the boundaries of the ethnos. The converse is also true: command of the Juhuri language is one of the principal markers of belonging to this people.

Simultaneously, for both the older generation and the youth, Jewish cultural traditions and Judaism remain paramount components of their ethnic, national, and religious identity, as reflected in the ethnonym and glottonym (see below). As citizens of Russia, Mountain Jews are also fully conscious of their broader Russian civic identity. Thus, the identity of Mountain Jews in Russia is multi-component and multi-tiered: 1. Mountain Jews as speakers of the Juhuri language; 2. Jews as adherents of Judaism and carriers of Jewish culture; 3. Russians as citizens of the Russian Federation.

When speaking their native tongue, Mountain Jews refer to their language as Quba[1] çuhuri / Derbent-Kaitag[2] жугьури[3], which translates to "Jewish." The name of the language is derived from the ethnonym—the self-designation of the people: Quba çuhur / Derbent-Kaitag жугьур "Jew" (singular) and Quba. çuhurho / Derbent-Kaitag жугьургьо"Jews" (plural).

In recent years, Russified variants of these names have become widespread in the Russian language: the Judeo-Tat language Juhuri, and the Mountain Jews (people) Juhurho.

By referring to their native language as çuhuri / жугьури, Mountain Jews identify themselves as Jews, and their language as Jewish. These two concepts are inextricably linked both to each other and to their sense of self, their distinctiveness, and the placement of their people on the ethnic map of the world. This constitutes the ethnocultural identification of the Mountain Jews, a manifestation of national consciousness whereby each speaker of the language associates themselves with other members of the same ethnic group who speak it. Furthermore, Juhuri speakers maintain a positive, value-oriented attitude toward the language, history, culture, folklore, national traditions, and customs of their people, as well as their ideals, sentiments, and interests. In other words, language is a fundamental component of the ethnic and group identity of Mountain Jews.

Evidently, neither the endo-ethnonym of the Mountain Jews nor the glottonym in the Juhuri language contains any reference to "mountain" or "Caucasus" origins, nor any other description of the landscape of their historical habitat. These terms contain only one indication—the Jewishness of the language's speakers. Therefore, based on linguistic data, it can be argued that Juhuri speakers identify as Jews and possess a Jewish ethnocultural identity based on a collective historical memory of the Juhuri language. This supports the observation made by I.G. Semenov that the Juhuri language lacks the construction juhuroi doghi "Mountain Jews" (the linguistically correct form would be juhurghoi doghi, — I.S.)[4].

I argue that this form of self-designation, used in several publications during the period when the false ethnonym "Tat" and the false glottonym "Tati" were imposed—for example, in the phrase zuhun tati en juhurun doghi "the Tat language of the Mountain Jews"—is an artificial construction, a calque of the Russian exonym Mountain Jews. In the Juhuri language, Mountain Jews have never referred to themselves in this manner, nor do they do so today.

Throughout the history of the Mountain Jews, the scope and range of functions performed by the language have shifted, narrowing over the years, which has impacted the level of language proficiency among its speakers. As previously noted, the middle and younger generations of Mountain Jews today possess almost no command of the language, with the exception of those from Krasnaya Sloboda—the last remaining area of compact settlement of Mountain Jews in the world. All of them are completely fluent in Juhuri, having received what we figuratively term a "native language inoculation" from their parents in childhood. Their practice of linguistic communication remains uninterrupted, and Juhuri is constantly utilized in daily domestic and intra-community life.

To describe the gradual changes in the language's capacity to serve its speakers, we employ a comprehensive research method, examining the linguistic situations of National-Russian bilingualism among Mountain Jews across different chronological periods in the former USSR and modern Russia. This method allows us to trace how, over decades of living in a Russian-speaking society, Mountain Jews transitioned from fluency in their native language to a situation where Juhuri was recognized as an endangered language. According to the International Association of Linguists and UNESCO, the language of the Mountain Jews was included in the "Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger" in 2010[5].

A significant factor in the linguistic situation of the Diaspora Jews has always been polyglossia: bilingualism or trilingualism. As V.A. Dymshits notes in his well-known work on the history of the Mountain Jews, "the function of the sacred language, the language of liturgy and literature (among Mountain Jews) was performed by Hebrew"[6].

It is established that prior to the establishment of Soviet power in the Caucasus, Mountain Jews, like other Jewish sub-ethnic groups, received a religious Jewish education from childhood. Boys studied Hebrew, prayers, the Torah, Talmud, the Books of the Prophets, the Writings, and other parts of the Tanakh, which were partially translated by rabbis into the Judeo-Tat language. However, the general level of education among the poorest strata of Mountain Jews at the beginning of the 20th century was extremely low, as noted by many authors. At the same time, representatives of the propertied class, the privileged segment of Mountain-Jewish society, were highly educated[7].

M.S. Kupovetsky, examining the regional characteristics of traditional Jewish scholarship among the Jews of the Eastern Caucasus (the ancestors of the Mountain Jews) in one of his works on the socio-cultural analysis of the formation of collective memory and mythology regarding the origin of Eastern Caucasian Jews prior to the 1880s, describes the linguistic situation of an earlier chronological period as follows: "Beginning in the early Middle Ages, a Persian-based written tradition utilizing Hebrew script existed among the Persian-speaking Jews of the linguistically and culturally distinct region of the Jewish diaspora Paras u-Madai (which encompassed Jewish communities in the territories of modern Iran, Afghanistan, Central Asia, and the Eastern Caucasus). In modern Iranian studies, this linguistic idiom is known as the literary Judeo-Persian language. The only surviving text in this idiom from the territory of the Eastern Caucasus is a glossary to the Bible compiled in 1459 by Moshe ben Aharon Shirvani (i.e., from Shirvan). From this, we can assume the existence of a literary tradition in the Judeo-Persian language in the Eastern Caucasus at that time. However, it appears to have been lost, as all subsequent texts of the Jews of the Eastern Caucasus were written exclusively in medieval Hebrew"[8]. For my part, I can attest to the presence of the lexeme Madae-Peres in the modern Juhuri language, which signifies the area of the Jewish diaspora within Media-Persia.

K. Shalem notes that "Mountain Jews composed commentaries on Jewish texts not only in Hebrew but also in their own language. Thus, for example, 40 pages of manuscript text have been preserved, containing translations and brief explanations of two weekly Torah portions from the book of Genesis, compiled by Haim Magaseev (1885-1968; Azerbaijan, Vartashen — Georgia")[9]. He continues: "the aforementioned corpus of works by the Mountain Jewish community demonstrates a sufficiently high and multifaceted level of theological education among local rabbis... This situation fully reflects the spiritual world of the community in the Caucasus: its isolation not only failed to hinder the broad education of its individual representatives but actually helped it preserve its distinct Jewish identity over many centuries"[10]. 

In the early years of Soviet power, Mountain Jews spoke their native Juhuri in family life and intra-ethnic communication. However, they were also fluent in the languages of the surrounding populations. The choice of the language of interethnic communication depended on the specific place of residence: we know of nine regional languages acting as a lingua franca used by Mountain Jews during this period.

In Dagestan, Mountain Jews utilized four regional languages for interethnic communication. Thus, in the settlements of Mountain Jews in the lowland part of Dagestan, in the area of Andrei-aul (Endirey) and others, the Kumyk language served this purpose; in the highland settlements, Dargin and Bolmats (a supra-dialectal oral common koine based on Khunzakh and other Avar dialects in Highland Dagestan during the medieval era) were used. In Derbent and to its south, as well as in the settlements of the Samur zone (along the Samur River), Azerbaijani and Lezgin were employed.

In Azerbaijan, in the Jewish (Krasnaya — since 1927) Sloboda, the Azerbaijani language performed this regional function; in Vartashen, Armenian; in Chechnya, Chechen; and in Kabarda, Kabardian-Circassian[11]. With the annexation to Russia, the Russian language became another medium of interethnic communication for Mountain Jews, gaining wider distribution over the years.

Let us examine how the Juhuri language functioned in the historical settlements of Mountain Jews, starting from the 1920s until 1991, when the USSR collapsed, and subsequently in their new areas of settlement in Russia up to 2021.

We have identified three chronological periods in the hundred-year history of the functioning of the language of the Mountain Jews. To this end, we will examine the linguistic situations[12] in these periods in greater detail:

1. The period from the 1920s to the first half of the 1950s.

2. The period from the second half of the 1950s to the late 2000s.

3. The period from the 2010s to 2021.

The Period from the 1920s to the First Half of the 1950s

During this time, Mountain Jews resided in the USSR across several republics in the Northern and Eastern Caucasus, as well as Transcaucasia: in the Azerbaijani SSR, Dagestan, Kabardino-Balkarian, Chechen-Ingush, and North Ossetian ASSRs, in the towns of the Stavropol Krai, and in major cities of Central Russia, specifically Moscow and Leningrad.

In the first two decades, beginning in December 1919, the Soviet authorities pursued a policy of "liquidating illiteracy" among the poorest segments of the population across all national republics of the USSR. During these years, the creation of national education systems and written scripts in the native languages of minority peoples was systematically supported by the state.

Sociolinguist D. N. Ivanova outlines more pragmatic reasons for this course than those officially declared by the Soviet government: "The victory of the October Revolution raised the urgent question of a radical shift in all policies, including linguistic ones. ...The development of national cultures was viewed not as an end in itself, but primarily as a means to disseminate the new communist ideology"[13]. This explanation appears highly convincing from the perspective of modern historiography of the USSR.

On September 22, 1927, the First All-Union Conference on Cultural Construction among the Tats (Mountain Jews) opened in Moscow. In Baku, on April 25, 1929, an All-Union Conference on the New Tat Alphabet was held[14]. The decisions of these "congresses," as they were called by Mountain Jews at the time, were of great practical importance, as their resolutions formed the basis for specific action programs for Soviet executive bodies.

From the memoirs of Ya.M. Agarunov, a delegate to both the 1927 and 1929 conferences, we know that "on behalf of his Komsomol organization, he brought forward for discussion the implementation of the new Mountain-Jewish alphabet based on the Latin script, which they [activists from Azerbaijan, where Mountain Jews lived most compactly in the Jewish (Krasnaya) Sloboda of Quba] had developed, as an important tool for the rapid eradication of illiteracy and cultural development among Mountain Jews..."[15]. However, "some delegates, and primarily the representative of the 'Zakhmetkesh' ('Toiler') society, Professor Naftoli Anisimov, disagreed with the proposal to replace the old Hebrew-based alphabet with a new Latin-based one. ...And here, Naftoli Anisimov's address was the most decisive factor in reaching a decision"[16].

Following the 1927 conference, efforts to develop national education were organized across all regions populated by Mountain Jews: teacher training commenced, national primary schools with instruction in the native Tat language were opened, and textbooks, methodological guides, books, and newspapers for Mountain Jews were published in their language. Remarkably, until 1929, all new publications (textbooks, curricula, books, newspapers) were produced using the Hebrew script, thereby continuing the historical writing tradition of the Mountain Jews. This was indisputably a major triumph for those advocating the preservation of the community's cultural heritage[17].

At the 1929 conference in Baku, following a lively and complex debate, a decision was made to adopt a new Latinized alphabet. From 1928 in the Dagestan ASSR and from 1929 in the Azerbaijani SSR, a unified linguistic reform was implemented for all regional groups of Mountain Jews, including those residing in other Soviet republics. The new alphabet of the Mountain-Jewish language was developed on a Latin graphic basis by specialized scientific organizations and leading orientalist scholars from Leningrad, Moscow, and Baku, with the participation of individual Mountain Jewish activists[18].

Initially in Moscow (from the late 1930s until 1934), subsequently in Baku (from 1934 to 1938), and later in Makhachkala (from 1938), textbooks in the Mountain-Jewish language, methodological manuals, as well as fiction, political, popular literature, and newspapers were published in the Latin script. Primary schools and literacy centers using Juhuri as the language of instruction were established in all regions inhabited by Mountain Jews[19].

However, ten years later, in 1938 in Dagestan, and in 1940 in Azerbaijan, another writing reform was implemented, transitioning the written language of the Mountain Jews from the Latin script to Cyrillic. These alphabet reforms, along with the achievements and losses of those years for the language and its speakers, are described in detail in numerous studies and comprehensive works on the history and culture of the Mountain Jews.

Thus, in Azerbaijan, Dagestan, and Kabardino-Balkaria, national newspapers in the Mountain-Jewish language began publication in the 1920s and the first half of the 1950s.

In an earlier period, prior to the writing reforms, the newspaper "Səs dogho" ("Echo of the Mountains"), edited by A. Ben-Gerariy (pseudonym of Mikhail Ravvinovich) and printed in Hebrew script, was published in Baku starting in 1915–1916. In 1919, the first (and apparently final) issue of the newspaper "Tovush Səbəhi" ("Morning Star") of the Caucasian District Zionist Trade Union (edited by I. Anisimov) was published in Baku, and in 1922, the newspaper "Korsokh" ("The Worker") appeared—the organ of the regional Caucasian committee of the Zionist organization "Poale Zion" and the Jewish Communist Youth League (edited by A. Ben-Gerariy). All of these publications utilized the Hebrew alphabet. However, by 1934, the weekly newspaper "Kommunist" ("Communist") was established, printed in the Latin script in the Mountain-Jewish language.

In Derbent, the first newspaper in the Mountain-Jewish language, "Zakhmetkesh" ("Toiler"), was published starting in 1928 in the Hebrew script. In 1938, it transitioned to the Cyrillic script, changing its name to "Girmizine Astara" ("Red Star"), and subsequently to "Girmizine G'elem" ("Red Banner").

In Nalchik, the newspaper "Krasnaya Kabarda" was published in the Mountain-Jewish language from March 1924 to April 1934. It began as a wall newspaper in Russian immediately after the establishment of Soviet power in the North Caucasus. Its first print edition was issued on June 1, 1921, but due to widespread illiteracy, the print run did not exceed 80–100 copies. Consequently, from March 1924, "Krasnaya Kabarda" was published in four languages—Russian, Kabardian, Balkar, and Tat—gradually becoming a mass-circulation peasant newspaper.

Another domain of the Mountain-Jewish language's functioning during this period was the theater. The authors of the first productions were creative youths—Komsomol members, activists, as well as teachers, Mountain Jewish writers, and translators of plays from Russian and Azerbaijani. Thus, in 1935, the Tat Theater was opened in Derbent (led by Manashir and Khanum Shalumov), staging plays in the Mountain-Jewish language. The company was formed by merging several drama circles that had originated from amateur art groups in Mountain-Jewish schools and colleges, which had begun forming as early as 1903 and 1908 (under teacher Asaf Agarunov), in 1918 (under teacher Yashaghio Ravvinovich), and in 1920 (under writer Yuno Semenov)[20].

In the early 1930s, a drama troupe emerged in the Jewish/Krasnaya Sloboda from amateur art groups established in 1920, performing in clubs in the Mountain-Jewish language. During the same years, an agitation brigade began performing in Nalchik, staging plays in the Mountain-Jewish language, composed of amateur actors, singers, dancers, and musicians.

Thus, within the framework of the language policy pursued from the 1920s to the first half of the 1950s, government authorities in the national republics provided significant support to the language of the Mountain Jews. Consequently, until the mid-1950s, this language (under the name "Tat") performed the key functions of a literary written language, the primary one being a medium of daily communication.

In summary, during the period under review, the language of the Mountain Jews:

• served as a medium of daily communication within families, communities, and the ethnic group;

• was transmitted within families from generation to generation;

• was the language of instruction in national primary schools, literacy centers, and select secondary school classes;

• was the language of educational, fictional, and political literature, as well as theatrical productions and media outlets.

All of this ensured the natural functioning of the Juhuri language, its development, and its viability. During these years, Mountain Jews of various generations spoke their native language fluently, particularly in areas of compact settlement such as Krasnaya Sloboda, Derbent, the Jewish Quarter in Nalchik, Mozdok, and certain districts of Makhachkala.

However, the linguistic and national policies of the Soviet authorities were not entirely positive. First, the two alphabet reforms of the Mountain-Jewish language, carried out between 1928 and 1938 in Dagestan and between 1929 and 1940 in Azerbaijan, present a contradictory legacy. Within a decade, the written script of an entire people was shifted from Hebrew graphics to Latin, and subsequently to Cyrillic. While this contributed to higher literacy rates among Mountain Jews and the growth of a national intelligentsia, the cost of these reforms was disproportionately high. The process ultimately led to the banning of the Hebrew script and the erosion of the connection between language speakers and Jewish tradition and culture. This policy was driven by the regime's anti-religious stance, which complicated Jewish religious practice, intrinsically tied to the Hebrew language. Furthermore, the dual alphabet reforms alienated the older generation of speakers from the written tradition, disrupting intergenerational continuity. The culture and future of the people were sacrificed to the goals of global revolution and systematic Russification.

A severe and tragic legacy of the Soviet era was the state policy of "Tatization," under which the false ethnonym "Tats" was imposed on Mountain Jews from the late 1930s, and with particular intensity during the 1970s and 1980s, as part of an ideological myth of a "unified Tat people" and a "unified Tat language." Under this construct, three distinct peoples were declared to be Tats: Mountain Jews, ethnic Iranian Tats (Muslim Tats), and Tat-speaking Armenians. Such a "triune" Tat people never existed in reality.

This represents an unprecedentedly deceitful practice by the Soviet authorities, where the centuries-old ethnicity of an entire people was compromised for ideological convenience. The Juhuri language was utilized merely as an instrument to construct this myth[21]. As M.S. Kupovetsky notes: "...as part of the efforts to counter the mass emigration of Mountain Jews to Israel from the late 1970s, as had occurred in the mid-1930s, a targeted propaganda campaign and direct administrative pressure were applied, particularly toward young Mountain Jews receiving passports for the first time. In essence, the 'Tat national project' was resurrected"[22].

Over the years, this caused an identity crisis among a segment of Mountain Jews, and the "Tat myth" had a profound impact on the lives of several generations.

Nevertheless, even during the most severe Soviet years, when Mountain Jews were coerced into changing their ethnonym in passports, they did not abandon their faith and religious traditions[23]. Many families observed all Jewish holidays and performed life-cycle rituals.

In the Juhuri language, all concepts associated with Jewish tradition and religious dates have their own names. Here is a select list of these terms:

Rosh Hashanah: Quba Roş-hǝ-Şana, Derbent-Kaitag Рош-гьо-Шонэ

Yom Kippur: Quba Ruz Kypyr, Derbent-Kaitag Руз Купур

Sukkot: Quba. Syko, Aravo, Derbent-Kaitag Суко, Араво

Pesach: Quba. Nisony, Derbent-Kaitag. Нисону

Purim: Quba Homunu, Derbent-Kaitag. ГIомуну

Tu BiShvat: Quba Shev Idor, Derbent-Kaitag Шев Идор

Shavuot: Quba Ңǝsǝltǝ, Derbent-Kaitag. ГIэсэлтэ and other holidays

Chuppah: Quba Ħupa, Derbent-Kaitag. Хупо

Brit Milah: Quba Milo, Derbent-Kaitag Мило

Ketubah: Quba Kǝtubo, Derbent-Kaitag Кэтубо

Tisha B'Av: Quba Tǝңǝnit Sürüni, Derbent-Kaitag ТэгIэнит Суруни

Kaddish: Quba Kadish, Derbent-Kaitag Кадиш

Seventh day of mourning: Quba Ħofti, Derbent-Kaitag Хьофди

Fortieth day of mourning: Quba Cylǝ, Derbent-Kaitag Чуьлэ

The Period from the Second Half of the 1950s to the Late 2000s

From the second half of the 1950s, cultural activities in the Mountain-Jewish language began to contract, eventually ceasing until the mid-1960s. This was due to a series of Soviet ideological campaigns.

From the summer of 1946 until 1949, the USSR experienced the Zhdanovshchina[24], and from 1947, the campaign against "rootless cosmopolitanism"[25] was launched, culminating in the execution of the leaders of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee and the "Doctors' Plot."

In 1948, under a fabricated pretext (unprofitability), the popular Tat Theater in Derbent was closed. Earlier, in 1941, the final issue of the Mountain-Jewish newspaper "Zakhmetkesh" ("Toiler") was published in Derbent, and the publication of "Kommunist" ("Communist") in Baku had been terminated in 1938.

One after another, all Tat schools were closed (in 1938 in Azerbaijan, and in 1947–1948 in Dagestan). In Dagestan, the activities of the Tat section of the Writers' Union were suspended (though later resumed), and the publication of books in the Mountain-Jewish language was reduced to a minimum[26]. However, starting in 1953, following the death of Stalin, selected works by Mountain Jewish writers began to appear, and from 1955, the annual literary almanac in the Tat language, "Vatan Sovetimu" ("Our Soviet Homeland"), was published in Makhachkala. In 1994, the publication of the republic's bilingual newspaper "Vatan" ("Homeland") was resumed in Dagestan, with content printed in both Russian and Juhuri, reflecting the fact that by this time, the majority of Mountain Jews, except for the older generation, had poor command of Juhuri, particularly its written form.

In 1974, a radio broadcasting department in the Mountain-Jewish language was established at VGTRK[27] "Dagestan." The launch of broadcasting for "Tats" rather than Mountain Jews, at the height of an anti-Semitic campaign, was designed to demonstrate support for the "Tat" project. It is difficult to ascertain whether the Tat radio broadcast possessed any real Mountain Jewish audience at the time, or if it does today. VGTRK "Dagestan" continues regular broadcasting for Tats, despite the fact that most speakers of the Mountain-Jewish language have left the republic. Nevertheless, the "Tat" (sic!) population nominally retains its constitutional right to the functioning of its native language in the media. Under the Constitution of Dagestan, Tat—which is, in practice, the language of the Mountain Jews—is one of the 14 official literary languages of the republic. Thus, from an official standpoint, the "Tat project" continues to function in Dagestan, despite the population of Tat-Mountain Jews in the republic numbering approximately 2,200 according to the 2010 census[28], and even fewer today.

A notable decline in "Tatization" and a generally negative assessment of this policy by Mountain Jews in Dagestan, Azerbaijan, and the North Caucasus are evidenced by other statistical studies conducted in 2008 and 2013 (based on the 1989 and 2002 census data) in Azerbaijan and Dagestan by M. Tolts[29] and in 2018 by M.M. Shakhbanova[30].

As M. Tolts notes in his article, "... the sharp decline in the number of 'Tats' recorded in the 2002 Russian census cannot be attributed solely to migration, but was reinforced by their rejection of the 'Tat' label. ...This demonstrates the failure of the Soviet Union's attempt to separate a segment of Mountain Jews from the Jewish people by designating them as 'Tats'"[31]. M.M. Shakhbanova writes similarly: "Mountain Jews overwhelmingly reject the 'Tatization policy,' as it aimed to artificially merge Mountain Jews with Muslim Tats and Christian Tats—populations with whom Mountain Jews share no common ethnic culture or faith"[32].

The middle and younger generations of Mountain Jews, raised in the USSR after the 1950s, did not study their native language in schools, nor did they read books or newspapers in the Mountain-Jewish language (which were not published during those years). Over time, the desire of Mountain Jews to master Russian led to the younger generation virtually ceasing to speak their native language within families and communities. During this period, shifts in Juhuri language proficiency became apparent. The older generation, who acquired the language through domestic communication in childhood and subsequently studied it in schools, possessed complete fluency. It was they who, in subsequent years, maintained and preserved the language from being forgotten by younger generations of Mountain Jews who were no longer able to speak or express their thoughts and feelings in Juhuri.

Thus, during this period, Juhuri was increasingly relegated to the margins of social life, confined to domestic and intra-community spheres. Younger generations, when hearing Juhuri spoken, could comprehend only the general meaning of what was said. This reflected a weak level of language proficiency and low linguistic competence.

For many middle-aged and younger Mountain Jews, communication in Russian became more natural, particularly in cities where they lived dispersedly among other populations: in Makhachkala, Grozny, Mozdok, Pyatigorsk, Kislovodsk, Yessentuki, Nalchik, and others. In the absence of a supportive linguistic environment, the prestige and cultural value of the Juhuri language declined significantly (with the exception, as noted, of Mountain Jews in the Azerbaijani SSR, particularly those from Krasnaya Sloboda).

During these years, Russian became the sole language of instruction in schools, as well as the language of books, media, theater, cinema, and television.

In the 1960s and 1970s, writers emerged in Dagestan who wrote in Russian rather than their native Mountain-Jewish language: among them were the poet L. Amirov, the novelist and literary scholar M. Azizov, the novelist F. Bakhshiev, and the publicist D. Shaulov.

During the Perestroika era, the situation did not improve. The absence of national schools meant that entire generations of Mountain Jews grew up without speaking their native language. A notable exception occurred in Derbent, where, due to personal initiatives with officials, instruction in the Mountain-Jewish language was introduced as a distinct subject in the city's schools in 1990. D.I. Danilov, who served as deputy mayor of Derbent at the time and is now the executive director of the STMEGI International Charity Foundation, succeeded in introducing an ethnic component into the school curriculum through personal engagement with the leadership of the education department[33].

As a result, a large cohort of young people in Derbent mastered Juhuri and transmitted it to their children. This represents the functioning of the "chain of memory" of the native language.

When educational research institutes in Russia began to close in the 1990s, and the system for training teachers of indigenous minority languages ceased to function, the national creative intelligentsia brought this issue to the attention of authorities and specialized organizations. From the mid-1990s, the teaching of national languages in schools began to be restored, though not for long. Thus, according to the Ministry of Education of Dagestan, in the 1995/96 academic year, the language of the Mountain Jews was studied as a separate subject in five schools of the republic, in the 1997/98 academic year in one school in Derbent, in the 2000/01 academic year in two schools, in the 2001/02 academic year in three schools, in the 2002/03 academic year in one school, and subsequently declined[34].

As stated, this trend did not apply to the Mountain Jews of Azerbaijan, particularly those from Krasnaya Sloboda.

Summing up the period from the second half of the 1950s to the early 2000s, we note that during this time, the language of the Mountain Jews remained a medium of communication primarily for the older generation, while the youth transitioned en masse to Russian; the social status of Juhuri declined, and it ceased to be a language of instruction in national schools (except in Derbent); the publication of educational, methodological, and fictional literature in Makhachkala virtually ceased, and the Tat section of the Writers' Union was suspended; newspapers published in the Mountain-Jewish language were closed, although radio broadcasting in the Tat language was established in Dagestan.

Despite the recommendations of linguists and official declarations, a favorable environment for the development of minority languages was not established in the 1990s. In 1991, the USSR dissolved, the Soviet state collapsed, and state-managed language development projects, along with many other artificial initiatives, came to an end.

Beginning in 1991–1992, major political and economic changes took place across the post-Soviet space, leading to fundamental shifts in the lives of its peoples. Consequently, the majority of Mountain Jews left their historical region of residence, migrating from the republics of the North Caucasus and Transcaucasia (Azerbaijan, Dagestan, Kabardino-Balkaria, Chechnya, and the Stavropol Krai) to other cities in Russia, as well as to Israel, the United States, and other nations.

Today, substantial Mountain Jewish populations reside across three continents in eight countries: in Israel (the largest community), in Russia (Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Pyatigorsk, with small communities remaining in Makhachkala and Derbent), as well as in Azerbaijan, Germany, Austria, the United States, Canada, and Australia.

The sole area of compact settlement for Mountain Jews remains Krasnaya Sloboda. In all other regions, changes to the traditional way of life have negatively impacted the functioning of Juhuri and language proficiency levels. This has primarily affected the middle and younger generations, becoming a pressing issue for regional Mountain Jewish communities in their new places of settlement.

The Period from the 2010s to 2021

In the new diaspora, Mountain Jews have faced a complex situation of bilingualism and trilingualism, where Juhuri has ceased to perform many of its former socially significant functions. Consequently, it has receded into the background, giving way to languages that are more prestigious and essential for integration. Hebrew became paramount in Israel, Russian in Russia, Azerbaijani in the Republic of Azerbaijan, English in the US, Canada, and Australia, and German in Germany and Austria.

At the same time, the role of the native language in the lives of its speakers in these countries is steadily decreasing. Even in intra-community communication, Juhuri has begun to lose ground and is gradually falling out of common use: in Israel[35], Azerbaijan[36], modern Russia[37], and Western countries including the US, Canada, and German-speaking European states[38].

In these new places of residence, the historical language environment and daily practice of communicating in the native tongue were absent. By the 21st century, the middle and younger generations of Mountain Jews had virtually ceased speaking Juhuri. Some can understand Juhuri speech only in the most general terms. A positive but isolated development in this context was the opening of the Municipal Mountain-Jewish National Theater in Derbent in 2011, which, however, did not significantly alter overall language proficiency levels.

Linguists note that if more than 30% of children in a given community stop learning their native language, the language—as a carrier of spiritual culture—is endangered, as it is no longer transmitted to new generations. According to international experts and the conclusions of the International Association of Linguists and UNESCO, the language of the Mountain Jews is "endangered" (red danger level), and was consequently entered into the "Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger" in 2010[39]. However, our gathered data suggests that this pessimistic conclusion may be somewhat premature.

In the late 1990s, Mountain Jewish public organizations began to emerge in Russia, focused on preserving cultural traditions and the Juhuri language, and on creating a natural language environment within community centers. During these years, the efforts of the scientific and creative intelligentsia aligned with those of the financial leadership of Mountain Jewish public organizations. These structures contributed to the consolidation of Mountain Jews, the revival of traditional life, and cultural transmission—passing the historical and cultural heritage of the people from one generation to the next. This can be characterized as a national and religious revival. Similar processes among Ashkenazi Jews, occurring at a different time, have been termed a "Jewish Renaissance" by researchers[40].

In 1997, the Russian Foundation for the Preservation and Development of Jewish Culture was established by T.G. Gurshumov, an entrepreneur from Krasnaya Sloboda. The foundation was subsequently led by his sons, the brothers Zaur[41] and Akif Gilalov. The foundation was designed to assist Mountain Jews in preserving their language, literature, and ethno-religious traditions.

The foundation, along with the World Congress of Mountain Jews (WCMJ) established by it in 2003, opened Mountain Jewish synagogues in Moscow and Israel, published substantial religious literature, and produced two academic monographs: "Mountain Jews: History, Ethnography, Culture" and "History and Culture of the Mountain Jews"[42].

In 2001, the Zakharyaev brothers, originators from Krasnaya Sloboda, founded the STMEGI International Charity Foundation for the Support of Mountain Jews in Moscow, the largest public non-profit organization of its kind in the Russian Federation. The foundation continues to conduct diverse community and educational activities, with the preservation of traditional Mountain Jewish culture and the Juhuri language as its priority directions.

The reorganization of state linguistic and ethnocultural policy in Russia proceeded slowly. New approaches toward minority languages, including Juhuri, took shape in 2013 with the approval of the federal program "Strengthening the Unity of the Russian Nation and the Ethnocultural Development of the Peoples of Russia."

In August 2018, the law "On Education in the Russian Federation" came into force, granting school students and their parents the right to choose which language the child would study as their native tongue.

It is important to note that the scale of linguistic diversity in Russia is extensive: more than 150 languages are documented in the country, of which approximately 100 have written forms, 59 are used to produce literary works, books, and journals, and stage theatrical productions. Furthermore, some languages in certain republics, while not holding state status, possess similar functions (in this regard, we note the official recognition of the Tat language in Dagestan, which, under the Republic's Constitution, is among the 14 languages of the subjects of the Russian Federation).

The federal response to the preservation of linguistic diversity was marked by President V.V. Putin's signing of a decree on October 26, 2018, establishing the Foundation for the Preservation and Study of the Native Languages of the Peoples of the Russian Federation. Founded in February 2019, the Foundation is supported by state budget allocations.

In February 2020, UNESCO declared 2022–2032 the Decade of Indigenous Languages. These developments provide encouragement regarding the future of the language of the Mountain Jews.

Nevertheless, given the dispersed settlement of Mountain Jews in Russia within other cultural and linguistic environments, the introduction of Juhuri as a subject in the state primary and secondary school system remains difficult to envision. Consequently, we consider the measures taken by Mountain Jewish organizations to preserve and revive their native language and traditional ethnocultural life in their current settlements to be both timely and effective.

Most Mountain Jewish organizations in Russia have been established and function in Moscow. In addition to the WCMJ and the STMEGI Foundation, the "Geula" religious community (led by Rabbi Avraam Isakov) warrants mention[43].

Among these public structures, the STMEGI Foundation is distinguished by the systematic and regular nature of its projects, which encompass key aspects of Jewish life.

Between 2008 and 2010, STMEGI funded the restoration of the Gilyaki Synagogue in Krasnaya Sloboda; in 2014–2015, it restored the Mountain Jewish synagogue in Ofakim (Israel); and it supported the reconstruction of the Moscow Choral Synagogue for its centenary. For many years, the foundation has assisted the Moscow yeshiva "Shaarei Kedusha," where young Mountain Jews study. In February 2013, G. Zakharyaev signed an agreement with the head of the Jerusalem yeshiva "Eitz Chaim," Rabbi Y. Hillel, allowing groups of young Mountain Jews to travel to Jerusalem for short-term study. Additionally, the foundation supports dozens of synagogues and yeshivas monthly, donates Torah scrolls to various Jewish communities worldwide, and sponsors the publication of religious literature and calendars.

In the autumn of 2019, through the initiative of the co-owners of the Kievskaya Ploshchad group of companies, Zarakh Iliev and God Nisanov, and the President of the STMEGI Foundation, German Zakharyaev, a multifunctional Community Center was opened in Sokolniki, Moscow.

Currently, the STMEGI Foundation is preparing for the opening of the Jewish Ethnographic Museum in Krasnaya Sloboda, housed in the building of an old synagogue restored by the foundation. Due to STMEGI's support, the Rambam Mountain-Jewish Music Theater in Hadera (Israel), the only one of its kind in the world, continues to function.

Since 2014, a comprehensive Program for the Preservation and Revival of the Juhuri Language has been implemented, initiated by German Zakharyaev.

This program is focused on the following areas:

• Developing an educational and methodological kit for teaching Juhuri in preschool, school, secondary, and higher education institutions: preparing and publishing methodological literature, textbooks, and primers, and opening a Juhuri language resource center (at the Sokolniki Community Center, in cooperation with the Association of Mountain Jews).

• Preparing a lexicographical base for Juhuri learners: publishing dictionaries and launching the "Juhuri Translator" electronic dictionary-translator, providing translations of words and phrases from Juhuri into Russian, Hebrew, and English.

• Preparing a preschool base for teaching Juhuri: opening a Jewish kindergarten and organizing language groups for children in regional communities.

• Providing Juhuri language instruction to all interested individuals at community centers.

• Creating distance learning technologies for Juhuri, developing and implementing educational curricula, and further enhancing the "Juhuri Translator" mobile application with translations into Russian, Hebrew, and English.

• Establishing a university base for teaching Juhuri in higher education: developing the Master's program "Language and Culture of Jewish Diasporas" within the Philology department at the Kosygin State University of Russia, focusing on the language and culture of Mountain Jews.

• Promoting the Juhuri language: maintaining the "Juhuri Language Academy" section in the monthly newspaper "STMEGI.com" and an account of the same name on Facebook and Instagram.

As part of the Program for the Preservation and Revival of the Juhuri Language, the STMEGI Foundation Library was established, which includes books in Juhuri, as well as textbooks, primers, dictionaries, literature on the history and ethnography of Mountain Jews, and complete runs of Mountain Jewish newspapers and journals.

In 2017, an open-access (free) Electronic Library was created on the website STMEGI.com. Juhuri language classes for children and adults are conducted in religious communities in Moscow (6 groups), Derbent (1 group), and Pyatigorsk (1 group). In 2018 and 2019, two Juhuri textbooks were published, and a methodological guide to Juhuri by G.N. Isakov was released in digital format[44]. In 2020, an International Online Marathon on the Juhuri language was held, with over 100 participants from Israel, Azerbaijan, the US, Canada, Austria, and Germany.

Following agreements between the STMEGI Foundation and the Kosygin State University of Russia in Moscow, the first enrollment for the Master's program "Language and Culture of Jewish Diasporas," focusing on the language and culture of Mountain Jews, took place for the 2021/2022 academic year. The Master's program was developed by Iranian studies linguist E. Nazarova in collaboration with the Department of Philology and Linguoculturology of the Maimonides Academy. It aims to train educators for preschool, primary, secondary, and higher education in the field of Philology.

In 2018 and 2020, the Foundation was awarded grants from the President of the Russian Federation, securing state funding for two projects: "Electronic Library and Audiobooks of the Mountain Jews of the Caucasus" and "Programs for the Preservation and Study of the Juhuri Language."

The three successive linguistic situations of Juhuri's functioning in the USSR and modern Russia described in this article demonstrate not only changes in the vitality of the language and proficiency levels among Mountain Jews, but also present an accurate picture of Mountain Jewish verbal culture over more than a century.

During the promotion of the "Tat myth," Mountain Jews faced cultural discrimination from administrative authorities. The identity crisis described in the first and second sections of this article created confusion in self-awareness and led some Mountain Jews to lose their ethnic bearings, as the forcibly introduced ethnonym "Tats" possessed no real national or cultural content.

The parallel existence of two names for the same language did not add clarity: on one hand, Juhuri language—the ethnic name of the language, linked to the ethnonym Juhurho (Jews); on the other, Tat language—the official name used in scientific literature and state documents, included in the "Nomenclature of Languages of the Peoples of the Russian Federation." This complicated the study of the ethnogenesis of Mountain Jews and the statistical tracking of language speakers, dividing a single people into three ethnic groups: Mountain Jews, Tats, and Jews. To resolve this terminological issue, we proposed introducing the ethnic name of the language of the Mountain Jews, Juhuri, into the nomenclature of languages of the peoples of the Russian Federation, thereby granting it official status. We also proposed removing the term "Tat language" from use in relation to the language of the Mountain Jews, as it provokes an erroneous parallelism in the pair "Tat language" // "Tats," since the name of the language was deliberately used as an element of the ideological myth imposed on the Mountain Jewish people during the Soviet years[45].

Thanks to more than twenty years of support for the Juhuri language by the STMEGI Foundation, the WCMJ, the "Geula" community, and other Jewish organizations, the role of the native language in the ethnocultural self-identification of Mountain Jews has grown significantly, which in turn has influenced the strengthening of Mountain Jewish self-awareness.

Today, Mountain Jewish identity is characterized by four primary components: 1) the native Juhuri language, common to all Mountain Jews, 2) a shared religion (the Rabbinic version of Judaism), 3) the common self-designation Juhur, and 4) the historical homeland of Eretz Yisrael (Israel). The Juhuri language remains the central, key component of Mountain Jewish identity, helping individuals identify as Mountain Jews and uniting them with other members of the ethnic group into a single people.

Analyzing the identity of Mountain Jews as a linguist, I am fully aware of the limitations of my conclusions from a strictly scientific socio-anthropological perspective, as I have not utilized the tools of sociology, anthropology, or ethnology—such as surveys and field interviews with native speakers—nor have I calculated percentages to obtain mathematically verified results. However, acting as both participant and observer in this sociolinguistic study, I have utilized observation, analysis, and synthesis within the context of linguoculturology.

The identity of Mountain Jews and the role of the Juhuri language in its formation have increasingly attracted the interest of researchers in recent years. In 2018, several articles by Dagestani sociologists and political scientists were published on this topic. The findings of these studies help provide objective information on the role of the Juhuri language in Mountain Jewish identity, obtained through sociological surveys and questionnaires, and serve to verify our data.

M.M. Shakhbanova, Head of the Department of Sociology at the Institute of History, Archaeology, and Ethnography of the Dagestan Federal Research Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, led the grant project "Ethnic and Religious Identity of the Mountain Jews of the North Caucasus: State and Trends" under the RFBR fundamental scientific research project competition in 2018[46]. As part of this study, a team of Dagestani sociologists, political scientists, philosophers, and legal scholars conducted a sociological survey using the snowball sampling method (N = 726) in the cities of Derbent, Makhachkala, Mineralnye Vody, Yessentuki, Pyatigorsk, and Nalchik. The results were published in several articles by various authors between 2018 and 2019[47].

In one of these publications, M.M. Shakhbanova, noting contradictory trends in the self-awareness of Mountain Jews, states: "It has been established that the national (native) language, ethnic traditions, religion, daily life in a specific territory, common character and behavior, national literature, historical homeland, and historical memory are key markers for reproducing the ethnic identity of Mountain Jews. The national language holds a leading position in this hierarchy, despite the fact that the level of proficiency in it among the surveyed Mountain Jews is not high"[48].

This supports our conclusions and observations that the national language occupies a leading position primarily as an ethnic identifier. Furthermore, in response to the question "What does being a Mountain Jew mean to you personally," 72.8% of Shakhbanova's respondents indicated that self-identification with Mountain Jews means "knowing the Mountain-Jewish language well." Second, for 70.4% of respondents, self-identification consists in knowing and observing the national traditions and customs of Mountain Jews. The value of knowing and observing the religious traditions and customs of Mountain Jews ranked third (57.5%) in the hierarchy of ethnic markers. Belonging to one's people is expressed in practicing a common religion (48.4%), while the connection to the historical homeland is reflected in the view "perceiving Israel as a country that unites Jews" (21.6%)[49].

In another article[50], M.M. Shakhbanova described the complex linguistic processes occurring among Mountain Jews: "In choosing the national (native) language as an indicator of the reproduction of ethnic identity, the surveyed Mountain Jews demonstrate contrasting positions: one-third speak their native language fluently, while another third chose the answer 'I speak with some difficulty,' which in turn indicates a linguistic transformation among Mountain Jews. However, despite the strengthening of assimilation processes, Mountain Jews do not perceive a threat to their ethnic culture; moreover, they are oriented toward adopting only the best achievements from other cultures. At the same time, the 'Tatization policy' had a significant negative impact on the ethno-linguistic consciousness of Mountain Jews, contributing to the artificial imposition of the culture of a people with whom they share no cultural, psychological, or linguistic similarity."

In the same year, 2018, a team of Dagestani researchers—E.M. Zagirova, G.N. Seidova, and R.M. Mamaraev—analyzing the field results of the aforementioned study on the ethnic and religious identities of the Mountain Jews of the North Caucasus, also noted that "...the historical homeland acts as a highly important ethno-integrating parameter for Mountain Jews (33.3%), along with markers such as the national language (Mountain-Jewish/Judeo-Tat) (81.2%), national traditions, customs, and rituals (73.2%), religious affiliation (54.7%), living together in a specific territory (41.3%), commonality of character and behavior (39.0%), national literature, folklore, fairy tales, folk songs, and legends (36.2%), and historical memory (30.0%)"[51].

In 2020, the journal Religions published an article by Italian researchers Giancarlo Anello and Antonio Carluccio, "Religions as Innovative Traditions: The Case of the Juhuro of Moscow"[52], which addressed questions of Mountain Jewish identity among other aspects. One of the researchers, Antonio Carluccio, attended several events organized by the STMEGI Foundation at the Sokolniki Community Center in Moscow in the winter of 2020. Referencing the works of M.M. Shakhbanova and their own observations, the authors arrive at a similar hierarchy of identity markers for Mountain Jews: national language (Juhuri); traditions and customs; religion; and historical homeland.

Thus, sociological research confirms our conclusion regarding the key role of the Juhuri language in the ethnocultural identity of Mountain Jews.

Based on our observations and the data from specialized literature, it is evident that the growing role of the Juhuri language in ethnocultural identity reinforces unifying trends within the community, grounded in a collective historical memory of shared culture and native language. Both trends currently consolidate Mountain Jews around public organizations and religious communities, recreating in Moscow a form of traditional spiritual and ethnocultural "space" that supported and united Mountain Jews in their historical Caucasus settlements for centuries.

Consequently, the activities of Mountain Jewish public organizations in Moscow, and their reach to regional communities in Israel, Azerbaijan, Germany, Austria, the United States, and Canada, position the Russian metropolis as a major center of the intellectual and spiritual life of the people, second only to Israel.

1 |  Qub. — the Quba dialect of the Judeo-Tat (Juhuri) language.

2 |  Derb.-kaitag. — the Derbent-Kaitag dialect group of the Judeo-Tat (Juhuri) language.

3 |  The sound ç/ж in the language of the Mountain Jews is an affricate, sounding like a consonant that combines a stop with a fricative—similar to "dzh." Therefore, when rendering the word çuhuri / жугьури "Jewish (language)" in Russian, transliteration occurs, and the word is written and spoken as Juhuri (this is the Russified version of the language's name).

4 |  Semenov I., Introduction. History and Culture of the Mountain Jews. Scientific editors: Nazarova E., Semenov I. — Moscow, WCMJ, 2018, p. 17

5 |  Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger. 3rd edition. Paris, UNESCO Publishing. 2010. The print edition is supplemented by the interactive online edition of the Atlas, see: http://www.unesco.org/culture/en/endangeredlanguages/atlas

6 |  Mountain Jews: History, Ethnography, Culture. Under the general editorship of I. Begun. Compiled and scientifically edited by V. Dymshits. Jerusalem — Moscow, "DAAT / Knowledge", 1999, p. 362

7 |  Chorny I., "Mountain Jews," Collection of Information on Caucasian Highlanders. Tiflis, 1870. Issue 3. Section 1, pp. 13-15; Anisimov I., "Caucasian Mountain Jews." Collection of Materials Published under the Dashkov Ethnographic Museum. Issue III. Section 1. Moscow, 1888, pp. 229-237; Shapiro F., "Mountain Jews." Collection of Articles and Materials. Jerusalem, 1983, pp. 104-106; Altshuler M., The Jews of the Eastern Caucasus: History of the Mountain Jews from the Beginning of the 19th Century (יהודי מזרח קווקז: תולדות היהודים ההרריים מראשית המאה התשע-עשרה). Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1990, pp. 389-390 (in Hebrew); among others.

8 | Kupovetsky M., "Socio-cultural Analysis of the Formation of Collective Memory and Myths regarding the Origin of the Jews of the Eastern Caucasus prior to the 1880s." Etnograficheskoe Obozrenie. 2009, No. 6, p. 59

9 | Shalem K., "Jewish Written Culture of Mountain Jews in the 18th — Middle of the 20th Centuries." History and Culture of the Mountain Jews, p. 385

10 |  Ibid. p. 385

11 |  More detailed and comprehensive information on the settlement of Mountain Jews with quantitative characteristics and dynamics (as well as geographical maps) can be found in several works by M.S. Kupovetsky. We point to some of them, covering the period from the 17th century (in one work from the 14th century) to the beginning of the 21st century: Kupovetsky M., "On the Historical Demography of Ethnoterritorial Groups of Mountain Jews of Azerbaijan in the 17th–19th Centuries," Studia Anthropologica: Collection of Articles in Honor of Prof. M.A. Chlenov. Compiled and edited by A.M. Fedorchuk and S.F. Chlenova; scientific editor A.V. Belova. Moscow; Jerusalem: Mosty Kultury / Gesharim, 2010, pp. 145-175; Kupovetsky M., "Jews of Kakheti in the 14th-17th Centuries," Pages of History and Culture of the Jews of Georgia (Following the 2013 Expedition). Responsible editor M. Chlenov. Moscow, 2014, pp. 32-46; Kupovetsky M., "Dynamics of the Population and Settlement of Mountain Jews in the 19th — Beginning of the 21st Centuries," History and Culture of the Mountain Jews, pp. 288-316

12 |  By linguistic situation, we mean the actual evidence of the status and functioning of the Juhuri language within specific territorial and temporal boundaries.

13 |  Ivanova D., "Linguistic Situation in the North Caucasus: History and Prospects of Development," Scientific Thought of the Caucasus. 2010. No. 2, p. 49

14 |  See: Agarunov M., "Culture and Literacy of Mountain Jews in the First Two Post-Revolutionary Decades," History and Culture of the Mountain Jews, pp. 208-227

15 |  Agarunov M., Culture and Literacy of Mountain Jews, p. 213

16 |  Ibid. p. 214

17 |  See: Shalem K., "Jewish Written Culture of Mountain Jews in the 18th – Middle of the 20th Centuries," History and Culture of the Mountain Jews. Moscow, 2018, pp. 378-385; Agarunov Ya., The Great Destiny of a Small People. (Memoirs). — Moscow, "Choro", 1995, 156 pp.; Agarunov M., "Culture and Literacy of Mountain Jews in the First Two Post-Revolutionary Decades," History and Culture of the Mountain Jews. Moscow, 2018, pp. 208-227; Nazarova E., "The Language of the Mountain Jews in a Comparative Historical Perspective," History and Culture of the Mountain Jews. Moscow, 2018, pp. 228-248

18 |  Agarunov Ya., "The Great Destiny of a Small People...", Mountain Jews: History, Ethnography, Culture. — Jerusalem — Moscow, 1999; Agarunov M., "Culture and Literacy of Mountain Jews in the First Two Post-Revolutionary Decades," History and Culture of the Mountain Jews. Moscow, 2018; Nazarova E., "The Language of the Mountain Jews in a Comparative Historical Perspective," History and Culture of the Mountain Jews. Moscow, 2018.

19 |  Dymshits V., "The Mountain-Jewish Secular School in the Eastern Caucasus," History and Culture of the Mountain Jews, pp. 518-531

20 |  Izgiyaeva E., "Tat (Mountain-Jewish) Theater," Vatan, 2011, No. 13 (1167)

21 |  Chlenov M., "Who are these 'Mountain Jews'? Foreword to the book 'Mountain Jews'," Mountain Jews: History, Ethnography, Culture. Jerusalem — Moscow, 1999, pp. 5-13; Chernin V., "Do Hypotheses Need Scientific Argumentation?", Sovietish Heymland. 1982, No. 9, pp. 131-138 (in Yiddish); Kupovetsky M., "Causes and Consequences of the Formation of the Tat Ethnic Myth among Mountain Jews," Ikhilov Mikhail Matatovich: Scientist, Soldier, Citizen. Makhachkala: Publishing House "Peoples of Dagestan", 2004, pp. 93-94; Nazarova E., "Linguistic Aspects of the Tat Ethnic Myth: On the Terminological Situation with the Name of the Language of the Mountain Jews," Ikhilov Mikhail Matatovich: Scientist, Soldier, Citizen. pp. 101-103; Bram H., "Group Identity, Colonialism, and Zionism: Bukharian and Caucasian Jews in the Mirror of Ethnonyms" (זהות קבוצתית, קולוניאליזם וציונות : יהודי בוכארה ויהודי ההר בראי שמותיהם הקבוצתיים). Pe'amim (פעמים): Studies in Oriental Jewry, Vol. 136, 2012, pp. 109-144 (in Hebrew); Nazarova E., "Terminological Situation with the Name of the Language of the Mountain Jews," Judaic-Slavic Journal. No. 2 (4), 2020, pp. 60-85 (ISSN: 2658-3364, DOI: 10.31168/2658-3364).

22 |  Kupovetsky M., "Dynamics of the Population and Settlement of Mountain Jews in the 19th — Beginning of the 21st Centuries,"  History and Culture of the Mountain Jews. p. 293

23 |  See: Marat Grebennikov, “The Mountain Jews in Post-Soviet Caucasus: Reconstructing Ethnic Identification and Political Orientation”, Journal of Political Sciences and Public Affairs. 2015. Vol. 3. Issue 2, pp. 1-7 (ISSN: 2332-0761. Doi:10.4172/2332-0761.1000154)

24 |  Despite the name, the initiator of the campaign was Stalin. Directed against the creative intelligentsia, its goal was to intimidate them and ensure complete submission. Criticisms were leveled against poet Anna Akhmatova, writer Mikhail Zoshchenko, the editorial boards of the journals "Zvezda" and "Leningrad," director S. Eisenstein, and composer D. Shostakovich.

25 |  Under the term "cosmopolitan" in this campaign, as is well known, Jews were implied.

26 |  In 1934, the publication of books in the Mountain-Jewish language was transferred from Moscow to Baku, and after 1938 — to Dagestan.

27 |  VGTRK — All-Union State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company.

28 |  According to information from M.S. Kupovetsky: Kupovetsky M., "Dynamics of the Population and Settlement of Mountain Jews in the 19th — Beginning of the 21st Centuries," History and Culture of the Mountain Jews. pp. 314-316

29 |  Mark Tolts, “Demography of North Caucasian Jewry. A note of population dynamics and shifting identity”, in M. Gammer, ed. Ethno-Nationalism, Islam and the State in the Caucasus: Post-Soviet disorder (London and New York: Routledge, 2008), pp. 212-223. Tolts M., "Demographic Portrait of the Jews of Azerbaijan, 1959 — 1989," Diasporas. Independent Scientific Journal. 2013. No. 1, pp. 131-157

30 | Shakhbanova M., "The Tatization Policy and Its Reflection on the Ethnic Well-being of Mountain Jews," Historical and Social-Educational Thought. 2018. Vol. 10. No. 4/1, pp. 108-117 (DOI: 10.17748/2075-9908-2018-10-4/1-108-117). The sociological survey for studying the ethnic identity of Mountain Jews was conducted by M.M. Shakhbanova in Derbent, Makhachkala, Mineralnye Vody, Nalchik, Pyatigorsk, and Yessentuki using the snowball method; the study sample consisted of 726 people.

31 |  Tolts M., "Demographic Portrait of the Jews of Azerbaijan, 1909 — 1989," Diasporas. Independent Scientific Journal. p. 221

32 |  Shakhbanova M., "The Tatization Policy and Its Reflection on the Ethnic Well-being of Mountain Jews," p. 108

33 |  Information obtained during personal communication with D.I. Danilov in Moscow, 13.10.2020.

34 |  Unfortunately, we do not possess similar data for other republics. They were not published in open press. I assume that representatives of the national intelligentsia everywhere made efforts to ensure that Juhuri was taught in schools in areas inhabited by Mountain Jews.

35 |  Bram H., "The Language of the Mountain Jews: The Problem of Language Preservation Before and After Immigration to Israel," History and Culture of the Mountain Jews, pp. 501-513 (translated from English).

36 |  Bram H., "Mountain Jews of Azerbaijan in the Post-Soviet Period." History and Culture of the Mountain Jews, pp. 608-637 (translated from Hebrew)

37 |  Charny S., "Mountain Jews in Modern Russia," History and Culture of the Mountain Jews. — 2018, pp. 588-607

38 |  Charny S., "Mountain Jews in Western Countries: USA, Canada, German-speaking European States (Germany, Austria)," History and Culture of the Mountain Jews. — Moscow, 2018, pp. 638-645

39 | See footnote 5 to this article

40 |  Lukin V., "On the Centenary of the Formation of the St. Petersburg Scientific School of Jewish History," History of Jews in Russia: Works on Judaica. Series 'History and Ethnography'. Issue 1. Edited by D. Elyashevich. St. Petersburg, 1993; Lvov A., "The Shtetl in the 21st Century and the Ethnography of Post-Soviet Jewry," Shtetl. 21st Century. Field Studies. Edited by V.A. Dymshits, A.L. Lvov, A.V. Sokolova. St. Petersburg: European University in St. Petersburg, 2008, pp. 9-26; Nosenko E., "Will Anthropology Find Its Place in Russian Judaica (Reflections on the Role of Selected Social and Humanitarian Sciences)," Diasporas / Diasporas. 2006. No. 4, pp. 218-233; Nosenko-Stein E., "On the Collective Memory of Russian Jews at the Turn of the Century (Preliminary Observations)," Etnograficheskoe Obozrenie. 2009. No. 6, pp. 20-29

41 |  Zaur Tairovich Gilalov tragically died in March 2004.

42 |  Mountain Jews: History, Ethnography, Culture. Under the general editorship of I. Begun. Compiled and scientifically edited by V. Dymshits. Jerusalem — Moscow: "DAAT / Knowledge", 1999. 464 pp.; History and Culture of the Mountain Jews. Scientific editors: Nazarova E.M., Semenov I.G. — Moscow: WCMJ. Moscow, 2018. More detailed information on the activities of the Foundation and the WCMJ can be found in the second book published by the Foundation in 2018.

43 |  Charny S., "World Congress of Mountain Jews and Other Community Structures," History and Culture of the Mountain Jews, pp. 693-705

44 |  Bogdanov G., Textbook of the Mountain-Jewish Juhuri Language (Kaitag Dialect). Edited by H.R. Solomonova. Israel. "Sholumi" Center, 2018, 208 pp.; Bogdanov G., Textbook of the Language of the Mountain Jews Juhuri in Two Parts. Part 1. Edited by I.H. Mikhailova, D.S. Masandilova. Israel. "Sholumi" Center. — Moscow. Publishing House "Amaldanik", 2019, 244 pp.; Isakov G., Juhuri Lessons. Methodological Guide for Teachers of the Juhuri Language. — Moscow, STMEGI Publishing House. 2019 (digital format)

45 |  Nazarova E., "Terminological Situation with the Name of the Language of the Mountain Jews," Judaic–Slavic Journal. No. 2 (4), 2020, pp. 60-85 (ISSN: 2658-3364. DOI: 10.31168/2658-3364)

46 |  Russian Foundation for Basic Research, project No. 18-011-00367

47 |  Madina Shakhbanova, “Ethnic Identity of the Mountain Jews and Indicators of Its Reproduction”, Journal of History Culture and Art Research. Vol. 7, No 3. 2018, pp. 781-789 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.7596/taksad.v7i3.1701; Shakhbanova M., "Ethno-linguistic Consciousness and Language Competence of Mountain Jews," State and Municipal Management. Scientific Notes. 2018. No. 3, pp. 229- 234 (DOI: 10.22394/2079-1690-2018-1-3-229-234); Shakhbanova M., "The Tatization Policy and Its Reflection on the Ethnic Well-being of Mountain Jews," Historical and Social-Educational Thought. Vol. 10, No. 4/1, 2018, pp. 108-117 (DOI: 10.17748/2075-9908-2018-10-4/1-108-117); Shakhbanova M., Zagirova E., Seidova G., "Religious Activity of Mountain Jews: Status and Trends," Bulletin of the Maikop State Technological University. 2019. 3/42, pp. 179-189 (DOI: 10.24411/2078-1024-2019-13017).

48 |  Shakhbanova, “Ethnic Identity of the Mountain Jews”, p. 781

49 |  Ibid, p. 788

50 |  Shakhbanova M., "Ethno-linguistic Consciousness and Language Competence of Mountain Jews," p. 231

51 |  Zagirova E., Seidova G. and Mamaraev R., "Values of Ethnic Identity and Ethnic Well-being of Mountain Jews," State and Municipal Management. Scientific Notes. 2018. No. 4, pp. 229-234 (DOI: 10.22394/2079-1690-2018-1-4-229-234)

52 |  Giancarlo Anello and Antonio Carluccio, “Religions as Innovative Traditions: The Case of the Juhuro of Moscow”, Religions, 2020, No 11 (9), 427, pp. 1-16 (Doi:10.3390/rel11090427)