Panorama of peoples against the backdrop of Europe. Peoples of North-Eastern Europe (Series I). The peoples of the northeast of Russia in the distant past Housing of small nations
Back forward
Attention! Slide previews are for informational purposes only and may not represent all the features of the presentation. If you are interested in this work, please download the full version.
The lesson is held in primary school (4th grade) after studying the topics: “Our region in the distant past”, “Main activities of the indigenous population of the region”, “Life of indigenous peoples”
Lesson type: repeating and generalizing.
Form of conduct: team game"History Experts"
Target: repeat, summarize, systematize the material covered, basic terms, concepts, ability to work with a map. Continue developing group interaction skills.
Equipment: PC, multimedia projector, screen, multimedia presentation, cards with letters printed on them, lotto barrels, illustrations of animals and household items of the peoples of the region, local history literature, cards with tasks, map of the settlement of the peoples of the region.
During the classes
1. The teacher names the topic and purpose of the lesson, informs that the game involves 2-3 teams who have come up with names for themselves.
2. Warm-up, during which you need to remember the names of the indigenous peoples of the North. Answer: Evenks, Evens, Yukagirs, Koryaks, Kereks, Chukchi, Yakuts, Eskimos. We check the answers with the map presented on Slide 3.
3. First stage of the game. Teams are given cards with letters printed on them. From the proposed set of letters (see Appendix 1), it is necessary to create words corresponding to one of three topics: “Animals of the north in the past and present,” “Main occupations of the peoples of the region,” “Tools of indigenous peoples.” Five minutes are allotted to complete the task. For each correctly composed word, the team receives 1 point. On Slide 4 There are pictures illustrating each of the three topics. Each image has a hyperlink to the corresponding Slide (8, 9, 10) with a list of letters. This is done so that other teams can earn extra points while checking answers by making up words on the opponent's topic - one for the correct answer. The BACK button leads again to Slide 4.
“Animals of the North in the past and present”
Set of letters: m, a, n, t, o, l, s, c, g, p, r, e, d, i.
Answer: mammoth, rhinoceros, arctic fox, fox.
“The main occupations of the peoples of the region”
Set of letters: o, p, x, e, s, t, l, b, s, a, b, c, i, c.
Answer: hunting, fishing, gathering.
“Indigenous Tools”
A set of letters: b, a, g, l, p, u, r, n, k, o, e, m, b, i.
Answer: decoy, bola, spear, harpoon, lasso, bow.
4. Second stage of the game. Each team receives the text (see Appendix 2), finds and corrects errors. The team that finishes the task first reads out loud the completion of the task. The rest are awarded points based on the number of tasks completed by the time of verification. Ten minutes are allotted to complete the task. You can get a total of 6 points for this task.
“Suddenly, the morning silence of the yaranga was broken by the ringing of an alarm clock. “It’s time to get up,” thought the owner of the yaranga, “because a big hunt awaits me.” That is why today the owner of the yaranga prepared him a hearty breakfast: semolina porridge, coffee and sandwiches with cheese and sausage. During breakfast, the radio announced the opening of a mammoth hunt. The owner of the yaranga was delighted, because what his family would eat depended on how the hunt went today. “We need to check the bow, arrows, swords, guns and cartridges - is everything in order?” - thought the hunter. “Where is my sheepskin coat?” - he asked after breakfast. But now all the training has come to an end. The family wished the owner of the yaranga a successful hunt.”
[Gornostaeva I.V. Morning in the hunter's yaranga // History of the native land: games in elementary school. – Magadan: SMU Publishing House, 2003. – P. 50.]
Errors: 1. The first inhabitants of our region did not use an alarm clock. 2. Semolina porridge, coffee and sandwiches with cheese and sausage were not the food products of the first inhabitants of our region. 3. Radio was not a household item for the first inhabitants of our region. 4. The owner of the yaranga could not hear the message on the radio, because it did not exist in those distant times. 5. Ancient hunters did not use guns or cartridges. 6. Ancient hunters did not wear sheepskin coats.
5. Third stage of the game. Historical lotto. The teams are one by one asked to answer the questions that fall on the numbers of the lotto barrel. For a correct answer, the team receives 2 points, for an addition - 1 point. Teams answer questions one by one. On Slide 6 The order of numbers is presented, each number corresponds to a specific question of our lotto. The teacher's assistant, who controls the presentation depending on what number appears on the barrel, shows the question itself and then the answer to it. (Slides 11 to 40). Icon Sun on the slide with the question there is a hyperlink to the Slide with the corresponding answer. Icon Flower on the Answer Slide leads back to Slide 6 and so on.
Historical lotto questions:
1. The material from which the tools of ancient people were made. Answer: stone.
2. Single boat. Answer: kayak.
3. A concentration of walruses on the seashore. Answer: rookery.
4. Rock carvings carved with stone. Answer: petroglyphs.
5. Multi-person boat for group hunting. Answer: canoe.
6. Large animal of the Ice Age. Answer: mammoth.
7. Marine mammal of the order Pinnipeds. Answer: walrus.
8. The largest sea animal. Answer: whale.
9. A place to sleep and rest in a yaranga. Answer: canopy.
10. A long stick with a bone tip for catching fish. Answer: prison.
11. Portable dwelling of the nomadic peoples of the North. Answer: yaranga.
12. Light sleighs harnessed to dogs or reindeer. Answer: sledges.
13. A lamp in which fat or oil burns. Answer: fatty.
14. Dwelling of the settled population of our region. Answer: half-dugout.
15. Outer fur shirt among the peoples of the North. Answer: kukhlyanka.
6. Teacher's final words. The teacher awards a certificate to the winning team and its captain, names the scores and comments on them.
Literature
- Gornostaeva I.V. Morning in the hunter’s yaranga // History of the native land: games in elementary school. – Magadan: SMU Publishing House, 2003. – P. 50.
- History of the native land: handouts for primary school. – Magadan, 2002. – 26 p.
- History of Chukotka from ancient times to the present day / Ed. N. N. Dikova. – M.: Mysl, 1989. – 492 p.
In the history of polar research, several moments can be distinguished, such as: the search for the northern eastern and northern western passages and then the exploration of the polar countries, carried out directly for scientific purposes. For the latter, see Polar countries.… … Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron
Peoples of Siberia religious beliefs- More than 30 aboriginal peoples live in Siberia, belonging to 9 language groups: 1) Samoyed (Nenets, Enets, Nganasans, Selkups); 2) Ugric (Khanty, Mansi), Ugrians and Samodians are often included in one, Uralic, family of languages; 3) standing... ... Religions of the peoples of modern Russia
LITERATURES OF THE PEOPLES OF THE FAR NORTH AND FAR EAST OF THE USSR- LITERATURES OF THE PEOPLES OF THE FAR NORTH AND FAR EAST OF THE USSR, literature of the peoples of the Asian and partly European territories of the USSR. These include the following nationalities: Mansi (formerly called Voguls) and Khanty (Ostyaks), Nanais (Golds), Nenets... ... Literary encyclopedic dictionary
Commemorative coins Bank of Russia, dedicated to the development and exploration of Siberia in the 16th and 17th centuries. Main article: Commemorative coins of Russia “Geographical Series” Contents 1 Development and exploration of Siberia, XVI-XVII centuries. 1.1 Development of Siberia ... Wikipedia
Paleo-Asians, ancient Asian peoples, a term proposed by the Russian scientist L. I. Shrenk in the mid-19th century. to designate a number of small peoples of the North and North Eastern Siberia with archaic cultural features characteristic of... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia
This article lacks links to sources of information. Information must be verifiable, otherwise it may be questioned and deleted. You can... Wikipedia
See also: Chinese threat and Chinese in Russia Map of Manchuria [source not specified 308 days] ... Wikipedia
See also: Chinese threat and Chinese in Russia Map of Manchuria Chinese provinces of Heilongjiang, Jilin and Liaoning ... Wikipedia
Self-name Shoromo, Shoromba Died out in the first half ... Wikipedia
This page needs significant revision. It may need to be Wikified, expanded, or rewritten. Explanation of reasons and discussion on the Wikipedia page: For improvement / March 5, 2012. Date of setting for improvement March 5, 2012. Alai ... ... Wikipedia
The Anauls are a now extinct tribal group of Yukaghirs who lived along the upper reaches of the Anadyr. They spoke the taiga version of the Yukaghir language. The Anauls in Anadyr represented the “coastal”, “river” Yukaghirs who settled on the banks of the rivers... Wikipedia
Constitutional norms and international legal provisions relating to indigenous minorities are implemented through federal legislation. The Federal Law of April 30, 1999 “On Guaranteeing the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of the Russian Federation” is of basic importance. It includes norms that connect the traditional way of life of small peoples with environmental management, recognize the presence of their ancestral habitat as a historically established area within the boundaries of which people carry out their livelihoods (clauses 2 and 3 of Article 1) and oblige public authorities to ensure the rights of small peoples peoples for distinctive socio-economic and cultural development, protection of their original habitat, traditional way of life and management (Article 4). Federal Law of July 29, 2000 “On the general principles of organizing communities of indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Federation” grants members of indigenous communities the right to use objects of flora and fauna, minerals and other natural resources for economic needs and traditional crafts resources (Part 2, Article 12).
Relations related to the right of indigenous minorities to lands and other resources are most fully regulated by the Federal Law of May 7, 2001 “On the territories of traditional environmental management of indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Federation.” Within the meaning of this law, the allocation of territories for traditional natural resource management is an organizational and legal form of realization by small peoples of the right to land and related rights.
It should also be noted that income (with the exception of wages for hired workers) received by members of duly registered clan and family communities of small peoples of the North engaged in traditional economic sectors from the sale of products received by them as a result of traditional types of fishing is not taxed on the basis of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation of July 24, 2002, part 2 of article 217.
A number of federal natural resource laws contain additional rules affecting the interests of indigenous minorities in the use of land and other natural resources. Among them, we can highlight the Federal Law of June 19, 1996 “On the fundamentals of state regulation of the socio-economic development of the North of the Russian Federation”, “On specially protected natural areas” of July 12, 1996, “On fauna” of April 24, 1995 g., “On the subsoil” dated March 3, 1995, etc.
Federal regulation of the use of land and other natural resources carried out by indigenous minorities is supplemented by regional legislation. The Koryak Autonomous Okrug has adopted a regulatory act on the territories of traditional natural resource management. In the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug, on February 3, 1999, the District Duma adopted the law “On state regulation of marine hunting in Chukotka Autonomous Okrug". The legislative framework of the Kamchatka region regarding fishing and marine mammal hunting is represented by the laws of the Kamchatka region “On the fauna of the Kamchatka region”, “On fishing and aquatic biological resources in the Kamchatka region”.
The legislation of the Koryak Autonomous Okrug regarding the rights of national enterprises is more developed than in the Kamchatka region. In 1998, a resolution of the Duma of the Koryak Autonomous Okrug approved the regulation “On the national enterprise and the main directions of traditional types of folk crafts.” In the same year, the law of the Koryak Autonomous Okrug “On Fisheries in the Koryak Autonomous Okrug” was adopted, in which the main principle indicates “the priority of the indigenous peoples of the North in the use of fish resources along with other natural resources, which together form the basis of their livelihoods in their places of residence.” .
At the regional level, the problem of Russian old-timers in Siberia is also noted in areas where the indigenous and newcomer populations have been living next door since the 17th - 18th centuries and whose dependence on the natural resources of the territories is almost equal. The problem of Russian old-timers is solved in the context of nationality: for example, the Kamchadals of the Kamchatka and Magadan regions, whom many scientists and residents themselves considered as an ethnographic group of Russians, were recently recognized as a separate people of the North, thanks to many years of appeals from residents to the legislative institutions of these regions. They were able to prove their “rootedness” on this land and gain legislative access to resources and benefits for their use.
The guarantors of the rights of indigenous minorities in the Russian Federation are the Human Rights Commission under the President of the Russian Federation, the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation, and the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation. They guarantee not only the equality of peoples and equality of human rights and freedoms, but also special rights in the socio-economic, cultural and other spheres.
Face to face
You can't see the face.
Big things can be seen from a distance.
Sergey Yesenin
We examined the reflection of the face of the European gene pool in three mirrors - the Y chromosome, mitochondrial DNA and the autosomal genome. However, even such a three-dimensional mapping will still be incomplete if we, from Europe as a whole, do not also turn to the faces of individual peoples - to the genetic connections of this or that people of Europe with the rest of the European world. Such consideration allows us not only to see the place of a particular ethnic gene pool among its near and distant neighbors. It gives more - to see exactly how the overall picture of the European gene pool is formed from individual puzzles. Perhaps this will make it possible to discern the paths of history in adding up this overall picture. For this purpose, the Y-chromosome mirror is most useful: its information content is comparable to that of genome-wide autosomal panels, and the palette of studied populations is incomparably richer.
The genetic portrait of individual peoples against the backdrop of the entire European gene pool can best be outlined genetic distance maps. They show how the gene pool of a given people fits into the general panorama of the peoples of Europe. Based on the entire set of haplogroups, genetic distance maps show for a given people how unique it is, with whom it is similar, with whom it differs, and how far its genetic connections extend with other peoples of Europe and nearby regions.
Genetic distance maps are created like this. First, a series of maps is constructed - each haplogroup has its own map. Each map is a numerical matrix - a very dense grid that evenly covers the entire mapped space. In each of the many grid points (on the maps provided, almost 200 thousand grid points cover the mapped territory) the frequency of a given haplogroup in a given geographic point is recorded. Then the group of populations that interests us is selected (it is called the reference group) - say, the Poles - from which genetic distances to each grid node will be calculated (including the range of the Poles themselves). The average frequencies of haplogroups among Poles are also taken - and for each point in Europe the genetic distance from these frequencies among Poles to the frequencies at a given point on the map is calculated. This data is sufficient to calculate the genetic distance from the haplogroup frequencies of the Poles to the haplogroup frequencies in each point of Europe. These genetic distances are plotted on the map. Then we take, for example, Serbs as a reference population - and repeat all the same actions with cards. And we get a map of the genetic landscape showing the degree of similarity of the Y-chromosomal gene pool of the Serbs with the Y-chromosomal gene pool of each population in Europe. And so for any population we choose—ethnic group or subethnic group.
However, what to do with the fact that different populations are studied using different sets of haplogroups? Of course, when constructing genogeographic maps, interpolated values are calculated for each point on the map, even if there are few reference points (directly studied populations). But if, when constructing maps of genetic distances, we want to most accurately describe the gene pool of all populations using a single panel of haplogroups, then the panel of haplogroups begins to shrink like shagreen leather. Our team uses an extensive panel of SNP markers (44 main and 32 additional haplogroups, as well as another 32 “newest” haplogroups, as described in section 1.3), and we have studied most populations of Eastern Europe using this broad panel. But in order to evenly represent all corners of Europe on maps of genetic distances, at this stage of study of the European gene pool, unfortunately, we had to reduce this panel to eight main European haplogroups - E1b-M35, G-M201, I1-M253, I2a-P37, J-M304, N1c-M178, R1a-M198, R1b-M269.
Further research and mass screening of European populations according to the subbranches of these haplogroups, discovered through complete sequencing of the Y chromosome, will gradually refine these maps. When reading any map, we must remember that this model was created for the amount of information available on a given time slice: both the array of populations and the panel of haplogroups are limited. Therefore, it is important to pay attention not to the details of the relief, but to the most general and stable structures of the genetic landscape.
Maps of genetic distances can be constructed for all peoples of Europe. In this monograph we will present not all, but many - 36 maps of genetic distances from 36 ethnic groups and subethnic groups of Europe, the most important for the remaining chapters of the book. These 36 genetic landscapes are organized into six series:
Episode 1: Peoples of North-Eastern Europe(Karelians and Vepsians, Estonians, Izhorian Komi, Priluzian Komi, Lithuanians, Latvians, Northern Russians, Finns);
Episode 2: Eastern and Western Slavs(central and southern Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Polesie Belarusians, Poles, Kashubians, Slovaks, Czechs, Sorbs) ;
Episode 3: Non-Slavic Peoples of Eastern Europe(Bashkirs, Kazan Tatars, Mishars, Chuvashs, Moksha and Erzya);
Episode 4: in the northern Balkans(Moldavians, Romanians, Gagauz, Hungarians, Slovenes);
Episode 5: South Slavs(Macedonians, Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Herzegovina);
Episode 6: Framing Europe(Albanians, Swedes, Nogais).
5.1. PEOPLES OF NORTHEASTERN EUROPE (SERIESI)
This series includes eight maps of genetic distances - not only from the gene pools of ethnic groups (Karelians and Vepsians, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians and Finns), but also from individual subethnic groups (Komi Izhemsky, Komi Priluzsky, Russian North). Almost all of these maps are united not only by geographic region, but also by similar genetic landscapes. At the same time, the linguistic affiliation of these peoples is striking in its diversity. There are also Western Finnish-speaking peoples (the Baltic-Finnish branch of the Finno-Ugric languages) - Karelians, Estonians, Finns; and eastern Finnish-speaking Komi (Perm branch of Finno-Ugric languages); and Slavs - northern Russians; and Balts - Latvians and Lithuanians. And yet, their gene pools are similar in many ways. To see this, consider the entire series of maps - eight maps of genetic distances from each of the eight reference gene pools (Fig. 5.2-5.9). And in order to see the differences between each of the eight maps from the generalized genetic landscape of North-Eastern Europe, we present an average map of genetic distances (Fig. 5.1). Such a generalized landscape is obtained as a result of simple arithmetic operations with map matrices: summing all eight maps (for each map point, the values of eight haplogroup maps at this point were summed) and dividing the resulting total map by eight.
MAPPING SIMILARITY WITH THE GENE POOL OF KARELIANS AND VEPSIANS (Fig. 5.2)
The main area of gene pools similar to the Karelians and Vepsians (when calculating the “reference” frequencies of Y-haplogroups, along with data on the Karelians and Vepsians, a small sample of Izhorians was also taken into account) is clearly outlined geographically (Fig. 5.2). The most genetically similar populations (that is, the genetic distances to them from the Karelians and Vepsians are the smallest) are colored with intense green tones. These are genetic distances in the interval 0 We find an important difference between the map of the genetic landscape of the Karelians and Vepsians from other maps in this series not in the east, but in the north-west. Here, the area of genetic similarity with the Karelians and Vepsians does not know administrative boundaries and is penetrated by a “yellow” corridor of populations that are still genetically similar to the Karelians and Vepsians (0.05 It is also worth noting that the group of “orange” intervals (genetic distances from the Karelians and Vepsians d≈0.2), showing populations that are genetically distant, but still not completely alien to the gene pool of the Karelians and Vepsians, covers a significant part of Fennoscandia, Eastern and Central Europe . At the same time, Western and Southern Europe, the Ciscaucasia, the Caspian region and even the Trans-Urals are genetically as far as possible from the gene pools of the Karelians and Vepsians (intensely red tones). MAPPING SIMILARITIES WITH THE ESTONIAN GENE POOL (Fig. 5.3) Moving on to the map of genetic distances from Estonians (Fig. 5.3), we see the same general patterns as on the map of distances from Karelians and Vepsians (Fig. 5.2). However, the area of the genetically closest populations, colored with intense green tones (the smallest genetic distances from Estonians in the interval 0 MAPPING SIMILARITY WITH THE GENE POOL OF KOMI-ZYRYAN (Fig. 5.4 and 5.5) Komi populations are traditionally divided into two ethnic communities - Komi-Zyryans and Komi-Permyaks, although they have a common ethnonym, and the border between their dialects does not coincide with the administrative one. A more southern community consists of the Komi-Permyaks, who now live in the Perm region. A more northern community is the Komi-Zyryans living in the Komi Republic (they are often called simply Komi). The origins of the Komi formation date back to the 2nd millennium BC. in the area where the Oka and Kama flow into the Volga. Over the course of the following centuries, the general range of the Komi steadily expanded to the north, and under the pressure of Novgorod colonization it shifted to the east. The Komi settled along the valleys of large rivers, assimilating various groups of the more ancient population - both the Baltic Finns and other Ural-speaking groups, as indicated by these place names. Among the Komi-Zyrians there are nine ethnographic groups. One of them is the Izhem Komi (Fig. 5.4), who live compactly in the Izhemsky district in the north of the Komi Republic (in the basin of the middle reaches of the Pechora and its tributaries) and are engaged - unlike other Komi groups - in nomadic reindeer herding, which they adopted from the Nenets . The formation of the ethnographic group of Komi-Izhemtsy dates back to the end of the 16th century - not only different groups of Komi (Vymsky, Udorsky) and northern Russians, but also Nenets took part in its formation. The bulk of the Komi-Izhma people belong to the White Sea anthropological type. Another ethnographic group - the Priluz Komi (Fig. 5.5) - lives at the other - southern - end of the range of the Komi-Zyryans: in the very south of the Komi Republic in the Luza basin and in the upper reaches of Letka, where it already borders the Perm Territory and the Kirov Region. However, despite geography, the economic-cultural type, and the adaptive type (the Izhem Komi are classified as the Arctic adaptive type), the maps of genetic distances from both ethnographic groups of the Komi-Zyryans are surprisingly similar. A dark green area of minimal distances (greatest similarity) between both Komi groups stands out. They are separated by the Russian population of the Krasnoborsky district of the Arkhangelsk region, which differs sharply (orange tones) from them, as well as from the main body of northern Russian populations (Fig. 5.8). With all other northern Russian populations, the Komi show the greatest similarity (the brightest green tones on the map). This is especially clearly visible on the map of genetic distances from the Priluz Komi (Fig. 5.5), which differ from the gene pool of their southern geographic neighbors and genetically clearly gravitate towards the northern, albeit geographically more distant, gene pools. However, let us not forget that such genetic proximity of the southernmost and northern groups of the Komi may indicate the preservation of the unity of only the Y-chromosomal gene pool of the Komi: perhaps, mainly wives were taken from foreign ethnic groups, and the influx of male Y-chromosomes from them was small. The possibility of “gender asymmetry in marriages” must always be taken into account when we analyze only one of the uniparental genetic systems - either the Y chromosome or mtDNA. With this exception - the shift of the smallest genetic distances (bright green) to the east and north - the area of gene pools genetically close to the Komi, colored in light green and yellow tones, is very similar to the landscape found above among the Karelians, Vepsians and Estonians. This involuntarily brings to mind the work of paleoanthropologists [Khartanovich, 1991], who pointed out that, according to craniological data, the Komi-Zyrians gravitate towards the Karelians, and not towards the Komi-Permyaks. However, only a future detailed study of the gene pools of the entire diversity of populations of the Komi-Zyrians and Komi-Permyaks (as well as the uniquely linguistic Komi-Yazvinians) will make it possible to accurately determine the degree of their genetic similarity both with each other and with other peoples of North-Eastern Europe and the Urals. MAPPING SIMILARITIES WITH THE GENE POOL OF LATVIANS AND LITHUANIANS (Fig. 5.6 and 5.7) On the four maps discussed above (Fig. 5.2 - 5.5), the “reference” gene pools from which genetic distances were calculated were the populations of Finno-Ugric peoples. Now we have maps of genetic distances from two Baltic-speaking peoples - Latvians (Fig. 5.6) and Lithuanians (Fig. 5.7). Linguistically, they no longer belong to the Ural family, but to the Indo-European one. However, despite such huge linguistic differences, we again see the same genetic landscape, which does not even require additional description. It is closest to the genetic landscape of neighboring Estonians (Fig. 5.3). The only difference between these two landscapes is that the area of populations genetically close to the Baltic peoples in the northwest and northeast narrows as much as possible, remaining wide in the south and thereby approaching the shape of a triangle. It is assumed that speakers of the Baltic languages were previously distributed over a much wider area - from the northeast of modern Poland to the upper reaches of the Volga, the Oka basin, the middle Dnieper and Pripyat. Therefore, the coincidence of the genetic landscapes of Karelians, Vepsians, Komi, Estonians and Latvians allows us to raise the question of the reasons for such a coincidence. There is a change in linguistic affiliation (or Balts, or Finno-Ugric peoples, or both) while maintaining a certain common ancient gene pool. Perhaps there was some more ancient gene pool, the linguistic affiliation of which we do not even have hypotheses about, and it was this that became the genetic substrate that still defines the landscape of the most diverse gene pools of North-Eastern Europe? MAPPING SIMILARITIES WITH THE GENE POOL OF NORTHERN RUSSIANS (Fig. 5.8) These doubts and thoughts are further strengthened by the map of genetic distances from the northern Russians (Fig. 5.8): the gene pool of the heirs of Novgorod Rus' completely repeats all the patterns described above. The genetic uniqueness of northern Russian populations is firmly established. But it has become a common cliché to associate this uniqueness only with the Finno-Ugric substrate. Therefore, let us note that the map of genetic distances from northern Russians is still more similar to the genetic landscapes of the Balts - Latvians and Lithuanians, rather than Finnish-speaking peoples. This indicates that future paleoDNA studies of Mesolithic and Neolithic populations may correct the now common interpretation of the genetic uniqueness of the Russian North simply as a legacy of the gene pool of the Finnish-speaking population. Perhaps we will have the opportunity to see the connection between the gene pool of the Russian North and the Balts, who in turn inherited the gene pool of the ancient population of the periglacial zone of Eastern Europe. MAPPING SIMILARITIES WITH THE FINNISH GENE POOL (Fig. 5.9) The most peculiar map of this series - genetic distances from the “most Finnish-speaking” people - that is, from the Finns themselves (Fig. 5.9) is consistent with this call for caution in interpretations. Their genetic landscape is not similar to any of those considered: we do not see any similarity at all with the considered gene pools of North-Eastern Europe. The area of similar values fits into Fennoscandia, and even then it occupies only half of it: both the easternmost outskirts of Fennoscandia and the huge southwestern part of Norway and Sweden turned out to be genetically far from the Finnish gene pool. And only the outlines of the orange area of genetically distant populations (but still not the most distant gene pools) repeat the outlines of the zone of similarity on the other maps of this series. Such a pronounced originality of the genetic landscape of the Finns is in conflict with their close linguistic relationship with other peoples of the Baltic-Finnish group (formed historically recently - in the 1st millennium BC) and geographical location - the Finns naturally belong specifically to the region of North-Eastern Europe . It is traditionally believed that the uniqueness of the Finnish gene pool (expressed, among other things, in the presence of a special “Finnish” spectrum of hereditary diseases) is due to the fact that the population went through a demographic bottleneck, which led to powerful effects of genetic drift. The Finns seemed to find themselves on the periphery of both the Finno-Ugric and Scandinavian worlds. Let me remind you that in Andersen’s search for the palace of the Snow Queen, the Laplander sends Gerda to the very ends of the world - to the Finnish woman. There is nowhere else to go. So, a persistent genetic landscape characteristic of most peoples of North-Eastern Europe has been identified. But these peoples are united neither by belonging to a common language group, nor by belonging to a common region (the Finns undoubtedly belong to the same region, but their map is different). Then what unites them? Preservation (“conservation”) of the gene pool of the ancient population of the periglacial zone of Eastern Europe? The temptation to put forward such a hypothesis is great. After all, even if we exclude the genetically sharply different (drifted?) Finns from the generalized map of the genetic landscape, and build the map anew using a series of seven maps (Fig. 5.10), we will still get the same stable genetic landscape of North-Eastern Europe (as in Fig. 5.1), only painted in even brighter tones of small genetic differences. It is this that can be considered the typical, standard, “reference” genetic landscape of the indigenous population of North-Eastern Europe. Anyone even superficially familiar with gene geography will immediately say: these maps are united by a haplogroup N1c-M178. Yes, it is precisely its high frequencies that are characteristic of all the gene pools considered, and the area of these high frequencies forms an arc curved to the north from the Baltic to the Urals. But its frequency is especially high among Finns (more than half of the gene pool), and the uniqueness of the genetic landscape of Finns is largely explained by the increase in the frequency of this haplogroup. Other peoples of northern Eastern Europe have frequencies N1c-M178 more moderate. But let's not forget that the maps are not built one by one. N1c-M178, but according to data on the entire set of major European haplogroups, the frequencies of which vary significantly within North-Eastern Europe. Therefore, the identified zones of similarity and their features are determined not only by haplogroup N1c, but the entire Y-chromosomal gene pool. But still, the role of this North Eurasian haplogroup is especially great. Therefore, its in-depth study will allow us to continue the story told in this section. We won’t have long to wait for the continuation: genome-wide studies of the Y chromosome have already made it possible to identify haplogroups in the Eurasian area N1c, at least eight geographically confined branches, along which a number of Eurasian populations have already been screened. As soon as the number and range of European populations for which the frequencies of new branches of the haplogroup are determined N1c, will reach a reliable level for creating full-fledged maps of genetic distances, we will update this series of maps by including maps of new branches in the spectrum of analyzed haplogroups N1c and then, I hope, we will be able to identify different migration flows in the genetic landscape of North-Eastern Europe. REVIEWS EO, 2012, No. 1. © S.A. Arutyunov Rec. on: Peoples of North-East Siberia. Ainu. Aleuts. Itelmens. Kamchadal. Kereki. Koryaks. Nivkhi. Chuvans. Chukchi. Eskimos. Yukaghirs / Rep. editors E.P. Batyanova, V.A. Turaev. M.: Nauka, 2010. 774 p. The book in question occupies a special place in the “Peoples and Cultures” series. In a certain sense, it is built on a residual principle: it includes those peoples of Eastern (by no means only North-Eastern) Siberia who do not belong in language to the peoples of the Altai family (Turkic, Mongolian, Tungus-Manchu groups) and until relatively recently were listed in ethnic nomenclature under the collective name "Paleo-Asians". Moreover, between many of them (for example, between the Ainu, Nivkhs, Aleuts) there is not the slightest linguistic relationship. And in terms of economic orientation, the typical specialized fishermen Ainu and Nivkh, sea hunters Eskimos and Aleuts and continental tundra hunters Yukagirs do not form any unity among themselves. However, by simply arranging the chapters on peoples alphabetically, like an encyclopedia, this volume follows the path of least resistance. A scientific publication requires a certain logic in the order of presentation, and this logic can be determined by both economic-cultural and landscape-geographical parameters. From my point of view, it would be most logical to start the presentation with the Yukaghirs, move from them to the Chuvans, then to the Itelmens and Kamchadals. Next, it would be logical to consider the Koryaks, Kereks and Chukchi, then the Eskimos and Aleuts. And finish the presentation with the Nivkhs and Ainu. Moreover, it would be advisable to make some references to the previous ones in subsequent chapters. This would make it possible to present some semblance of a comprehensive description of the constituent segments of the general ethnographic field, and not just a mechanical collection of individual chapters on peoples, not interconnected by semantic transitions. The book contains several general chapters. The last chapter, “Bone Carving Art of the Peoples of Coastal Chukotka” (author M.M. Bronstein) looks more like an appendix; This is an independent and valuable scientific work, but essentially concerns only two peoples, the Chukchi and the Eskimos, and then only one, admittedly, very important aspect of their artistic creativity. In order for this chapter to fit harmoniously into the volume, it should be made twice as long and cover different aspects of folk applied art, and if not all, then at least several of the peoples included in the volume - embroidery, appliqué, experimental carving on other materials. It would be possible to find enough museum material for these purposes. And so the article, although it is of great educational value, still hangs at the end of the volume, like a somewhat alien appendix. Three other articles, located at the beginning of the volume, also give the impression of being chosen relatively randomly and arbitrarily. Article by N.B. Vakhtin “Languages of the Peoples of North-East Siberia: the Current Situation” was written by a major expert on the subject, but the author’s concentration on the sociolinguistic aspects of the situation is annoying. It is clear that discussions about the genetic relatedness or non-relatedness of these languages would be purely speculative, but a few words about the structural specificity of these languages, about their polysynthetic or incorporating features, and general phonetic features would not only be useful, but downright necessary. It would be worth mentioning the mutual influence and the enrichment, sometimes with very unique vocabulary from the languages of the newcomer population, in particular Russian. There is not a word about the unique character of the Mednov-Aleut language, this kind of anti-pidgin. But it would be possible to do without any mention of the meaningless attempt to connect the Paleo-Asian languages with Burushaski, especially since the connection between Burushaski and the Sino-Caucasian phylum has long been much more deeply substantiated. Sergey Aleksandrovich Arutyunov - Doctor of Science and Technology Sc., corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, head of the sector of ethnography of the peoples of the Caucasus at the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences; e-mail: [email protected]. Ethnographic review No. 1, 2012 The chapter “Anthropological Characteristics” (author T.S. Balueva) shows the variability of the physical appearance of different populations of the Northeast, indicates the large role in their formation of the processes of both isolation and migration, but does not pose fundamental racial and ethnogenetic questions. Finally, the chapter “Ancient Cultures of North-East Russia and the Ethnogenesis of North-Eastern Paleo-Asians” (author A.I. Lebedintsev) contains a fairly detailed description of the archaeological cultures represented in the region, but all discussions about correlating with them the origins of modern populations remain, and cannot but remain, given the current state of our knowledge, only very hypothetical. In general, all these introductory chapters, without raising any objections on the merits, give the impression of being addressed more to specialist ethnographers than to the general reading public, written in a rather dry professional language, and at the same time contain mainly a retelling of data of an informational and reference nature. As for the head of M.M. Bronstein, it is truly excellent, but is devoted to a relatively narrow topic that is not common to the entire region. Let's move on to consider the main content of the book - sections devoted to individual specific ethnic groups. These chapters are heterogeneous and heterogeneous. In general, they all, one way or another, fulfill their task. That is, they provide a comprehensive, more or less complete description of each people, their culture, their observable history and current state. These data are quite reliable, although their completeness varies in different sections. There are, of course, minor errors made due to oversight, for example, in the “Introduction” on page 13 we read: “The Eskimos living in Chukotka, as well as on St. Lawrence Island and the Diomede Islands (USA), are classified as Siberian or Asian Eskimos group." In reality, firstly, the United States only owns Little Diomede (Kruzenshtern Island), and Big Diomede (Ratmanov Island) has always belonged to Russia. Secondly, the population of Little Diomede, and in the recent past of Greater Diomede, does not belong to the Asian Eskimos. They do not belong to the Yupik group, but to the Inuit group. But these are small details, and such errors are relatively few. In general, the book, even if we take only these 11 sections about individual specific peoples, is undoubtedly useful and necessary, and the reader will greet it with gratitude. After all, until now it was possible to get a comprehensive picture of these peoples, and not all of them, only from the volume “Peoples of Siberia” in the series “Peoples of the World”, and this volume is already quite outdated. Nevertheless, one cannot help but note the great heterogeneity of the chapters on different peoples. In my opinion, the greatest dissatisfaction is caused by the sections authored by V.A. Turaev, the sections written by E.P. are much better read. Batyanova (without co-authors), and, without a doubt, the texts of O.A. deserve the highest praise. Murashko. The Ainu of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands (now counted in units), 1800 Asian Eskimos, 500 Commander Aleuts are only small local divisions of much larger superethnic groups, mostly living and living outside historical Russia, in other countries (or external possessions) - in Canada, Alaska, Japan, but units that have their own special historical destiny, their own linguistic and cultural specifics. Therefore, it would be necessary to give separately a brief description of these super-ethnic groups as a whole, and more detailed information in the specifics of their own Russian sub-ethnic groups. This division is not given consistently enough in these chapters. The actual Russian ethnic communities of the Ainu of Sakhalin, the Yupik Eskimos, the Aleuts of Bering and Mednov could be described more fully and widely, using newly introduced and completely new materials by B. Pilsudsky, E. Golovko, M. Chlenov and others. Much new could be said about the Itelmens by making wider use of D. Kester’s materials (at least about the emergence of modern lyric poetry in the Itelmen language), etc. There are chapters whose high quality I would especially like to note. These are the chapters about the Kamchadals, Kereks, and Chuvans. The identification of these groups as special ethnic groups in general is largely a matter of recent years, and the appearance of such detailed information about them is a great scientific progress. The October Revolution and seventy years of undivided domination of Soviet power on the territory of the former Russian Empire, like any major historical phenomenon, had their positive and negative sides for the course of the world ethnohistorical process. But comparing the current situation of indigenous northern ethnic groups in Russia, Scandinavia, Alaska and Canada, their languages and cultures, it should be recognized that negative, entropic, Reviews the destructive aspects of these events in Russia, at least as far as the peoples of the North are concerned, decisively prevailed. Quite a lot has been written about this. It is enough to read the works of B. Shishlo and Yu. Slezkin. But these works are not in the bibliography at all; obviously the authors do not know about them. It is not surprising that an unjustifiably apologetic tone often creeps in regarding the events of the Soviet period. At times it seems that some parts of the text were written during the Brezhnev stagnation and were transferred without changes to the modern edition. To be fair, this comment does not apply to all chapters. In some chapters, the exposure of the atrocities of the communist regime towards the indigenous peoples of Siberia is given quite harshly and truthfully, but, unfortunately, not in all of them. But everywhere it would be necessary to provide more specifically documented data about the lawlessness that often takes place in relation to the small indigenous population on the part of the “savage capitalism” of predatory private entrepreneurs and corrupt officials who condone them, about unlawful oppression, especially in terms of unreasonably low standards fishing by the indigenous population, which has always been the main source of their livelihood, about environmental disasters caused by the actions of oil and timber industries To continue reading this article, you must purchase the full text. Articles are sent in the format PDF to the email address specified during payment. Delivery time is less than 10 minutes. Cost of one article - 150 rubles. SOKOLOVA Z.P. - 2012 BABENKO V.N., VOEVODA M.I., GUBINA M.A., GYRGOLKAU L.A., DAMBA L.D., MASIMOV V.N. - 2013 BATYANOVA ELENA PETROVNA - 2013
Similar scientific works on the topic “History. Historical Sciences"
