EfhoQTJ7s8

оленей – композиция от куваксы. Много свободных оленей (двадцать из двадцати трех). Одни нарты свободны (символизируют оставшихся дома членов семьи (?). Позади – погонщик с шестом-хореем. Запряжено три оленя. Дом в этом сюжете второстепенен. Смысловой центр – множество оленей, рога которых изображены очень индивидуально. Другой рисунок (МОМ ОФ 13898.140), вероятно, изображает заключительную стадию выпаса (морды животных повернуты к веже). Два человека изображены сидящими на нартах, с запряженными оленями (в одной упряжке – два оленя, в другой – четыре; погонщик вновь «вооружен» хореем. Группу сопровождают два низкорослых животных, вероятно, собаки. «Треугольник» куваксы изображен с котлом и очагом (возможно, люлькой). Из куваксы идет дым, рядом с ней изображен сидящий человек.

Тем самым одомашненная, а значит знакомая территория, в которой саами великолепно ориентируются1, расширяется через повседневные практики до масштабов, больших, чем ближайшие природные объекты.

Переходный характер культуры саамов рубежа веков подчеркивается постоянным использованием в рисунках образа нарт самоедского типа, которые были переняты у коми (вновь глаз ребенка запечатлевает этнографические подробности – косокопыльные нарты, количество запряженных оленей, набалдажник на хорее, выделенная красным праздничная упряжь

(МОМ ОФ 13898.126. Л. 3)2.

Довольно примечательным является следующий факт. На рисунках не встречается наименования «пырт» и «тупа». Тупа (пырт) – это рубленая постройка, довольно распространенная на зимних погостах с конца XIX в. Хотя, как указывает Т.В. Лукьянченко, «первое упоминание о срубных постройках у саамов, живущих в районе озера Имандры, принадлежит Н. Озерецковскому и относится к концу XVIII в» 3.

В.В. Чарнолуский отмечает в конце 1920-х гг., что в последние десятилетия вместе с тупой стали делать избушки. Одновременно, дом в смысле большого просторного жилища выступает в сказках синонимом дворца. Тупа могла рассматриваться как жилище более низкого статуса, чем изба (дом). Кроме прочего, о летнем Иокангском погосте В. Чарнолуский пишет, что в большинстве своем застроенный избушками, он имел три вежи и семь домов4. Очевидно, данные факты и заставили вытеснить в рисунках название и образ тупы другими типами жилищ. Тем самым отражая взаимодействие с поморами и влияние их культуры.

1 Д.А. Золотарев отмечает, что саамы «чрезвычайно хорошо разбираются в географической карте» (Золотарев Д.А. Лопарская экспедиция. Л., 1927. С. 44).

2 О нартах самоедского типа: Лукьянченко Т.В. Материальная культура саамов.

С. 76–77.

3Там же. С. 96.

4Чарнолуский В.В. Материалы по быту лопарей: Опыт определения кочевого состояния лопарей восточной части Кольского полуострова. Л., 1930. С. 44–45.

121

Рисунки фиксируют различные стороны восприятия и изменения образа дома типа северорусских изб с печами. На них изображен, например, процесс постройки новых домов с соответствующими названиями-ком- ментариями «избу строют» (сохранена авторская орфография. – К.К.). Вновь цепкий взгляд юных художников улавливает специфические детали: например, в нарисованном срубе строящегося дома фиксируется способ соединения бревен «в лапу» (без выпуска их концов за наружную плоскость стены)1. Слева и справа от него изображены построенные одноэтажные дома с двускатными крышами с чердаками и большими окнами. Однако из труб этих домов еще не идет дым, подчеркивая наличие лишь оформленной оболочки дома, которому предстоит быть обжитым (МОМ ОФ 13898.124. Л. 1). На рисунках дома северорусского типа изображены группами в отличие от туп и кувакс, которые одиночны. Новый образ сельского дома сопровождается изображением большого количества связанных с ним бытовых предметов: посуда, средства гигиены, часы, спички (МОМ ОФ 13898.126. Л. 3об). Символизирует закрепление оседлости большой самовар, почти равный по размерам самому дому на рисунке Лазаря Яковлева (МОМ ОФ 13898.122. Л. 3).

Очень часты изображения домов с сопутствующими им амбарами, чердаками, а также имеющими окна пристройками, возможно, выполнявшими роль летней кухни или сарая (МОМ ОФ 13898.137). Таким образом, территория одомашненного становится шире, чем собственно территория постройки. Но эта территория ограничена двором, хозяйственными помещениями, в отличие от культуры оленей и нарт, в которую вписаны более масштабные ландшафты.

В рисунках показан не только частный крестьянский дом, но также общественные учреждения, торговые помещения, школы (МОМ ОФ 13898.125. Л. 1). Тем самым выявляется влияние новой индустриальной культуры и ее институтов (образование, экономика, политика).

Основные символы традиционного общества сменяются символами индустриальной цивилизации и жизни в новой стране. Взаимодействие элементов разных культур (саами, коми, поморы; традиционная и индустриальная) приводит к мягкому забвению – замещению одних другими, что затем (в 1930–1960-е гг.) сменится жестким забвением культуры через репрессии, ликвидацию населенных пунктов, переселение отдельных групп саами и травмирующим воспоминанием об этих фактах.

Список литературы

1.Барашков, Ю. Ностальгия по деревянному городу [Текст] / Ю. Барашков. – М.: РИФ «КРИПТО-ЛОГОС», 1992. – 208 с.

1 Барашков Ю. Указ. соч. С. 200.

122

2.Золотарев, Д.А. Лопарская экспедиция [Текст] / Д.А. Золотарев – Л.: Издание Государственного Русского Географического Общества, 1927. – 50 с.

3.Золотарев, Д.А. На западно-мурманском побережьи летом 1926 г. [Текст] / Д.А. Золотарев // Кольский сборник: Труды антрополого-этнографического отряда Кольской экспедиции. – Л.: Издательство Академии наук, 1930. – С. 1–21.

4.Керт, Г.М. Образцы саамской речи (материалы по языку и фольклору саамов Кольского полуострова (кильдинский и иоканьгский диалекты) [Текст] / Г.М. Керт. – Москва; Ленинград, 1961. – 216 с.

5.Лукьянченко, Т.В. В.В. Чарнолуский: певец земли саамской [Текст] // Репрессированные этнографы / сост. и отв. ред. Д.Д. Тумаркин. – М.: Восточная литература, 2003. – Вып. 2 – С. 128–146.

6.Лукьянченко, Т.В. Материальная культура саамов (лопарей) Кольского полуострова в конце XIX–XX вв. [Текст] / Т.В. Лукьянченко. – М.: Наука, 1971. – 168 с.

7.Лукьянченко, Т.В. Саамы. Глава 6. Материальная культура [Текст] // Прибал- тийско-финские народы России / отв. ред. Е.И. Клементьев, Н.В. Шлыгина. –

М.: Наука, 2003. – С. 78–100.

8.Чарнолуский, В.В. Материалы по быту лопарей: Опыт определения кочевого

состояния лопарей восточной части Кольского полуострова [Текст] / В.В. Чарнолуский. – Л.: Издание Государственного Русского Географического Общества, 1930. – 176 с.

123

УДК 39

ББК 63.5

P. Mankova

University of Tromso – The Arctic University of Norway

Tromsø, Norway

HOMELAND: TERRITORIAL REWORKINGS

AND POSTCOLONIAL EXPERIENCE

Abstract. In the article is analyzed reworking on concept of homeland in the connection processes territorialization and deterritorialization, attitudes among centers and peripheries on the on the example of interaction with ethnic groups on the Kola Peninsula.

Key words. Homeland, ethnicity, nationality, Kola Peninsula, Sami, Komi.

П. Манкова

Университет г. Тромсе – Арктический университет Норвегии г. Тромсе, Норвегия

РОДИНА: ПЕРЕДЕЛКА ТЕРРИТОРИИ И ПОСТКОЛОНИАЛЬНЫЙ ОПЫТ

Аннотация. В статье анализируется переосмысление понятия «родина» в связи с процессами территориализации и детерриториализации, отношениями центра и периферии на примере взаимодействия между этническими группами на Кольском полуострове.

Ключевые слова. Родина, этничность, национальность, Кольский полуостров.

The British cultural theorist Stewart Hall defines the historical moment we live in as the time of diasporas, constructed through migration, movements, borders and border crossings1. The village where I have been working for years, the remote village of Krasnoshchelye in the Lovozero District, is an outcome of such movements and migrations. Founded by several Komi families in 1921, the village has become the home of indigenous Sami, Ukrainians, Byelorussians, descendants of Russian Pomors and many other nationalities. It is the product of broader historical processes: private economic decisions and ethnic networks, Soviet territorial planning and Post-soviet marked reforms. The village serves as a headquarter for the reindeer herding cooperative “Olenevod”, and is served by the governmental social welfare system. In other words, the village has been a matter of territorial government policy and of targeted development from outside, but it is also a result of the interactions among its inhabitants, their ecological adaptations and traditional subsistence activities.

1 Hall S. Cultural identity and diaspora // Identity: community, culture, difference / Ed. by Jonathan Rutherford. London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1990.

124

In the mass media, the village is represented in different ways. The German director Rene Harder in his documentary “The Tundra Tale” represents the village as a Sami village (Harder 2013). In the documentary “Komi Laplandiya”, produced by the Komi TV, Krasnoshchelye is a Komi village (Pivkin

2010), and the regional Murmansk TV channel TV 21 states that it is the homeland of Sami, Izhma Komi and Russian Pomors. For some time I have been asking myself how do the people who live there define it as a “homeland”. Is it determined by the nationality of the villagers? Does the place itself embody an ethnonational spirit? Moreover, when migration and movement are the norm, what happens to our conceptions of “homeland”?

In the popular media representations Krasnoshchelye is often depicted as traditional, ethnic-national and remote. On the spot such definitions are almost never heard, and the remoteness is not perceived as negative. In what follows I will reflect on the genealogy of the media images, and why they persist, and I will argue that from the point of view of the village their home is dynamic, the ethnic-national component is rather irrelevant, and the remoteness does not mean that the village is experienced as peripheral to a real or imagined centre. In one of the local traditional songs (chastushka) sung in the film “The Tundra Tale”, the villagers sing: “(Politicians), you are far away!” [Dalekiye vy, ot naroda]. The emphasis on “you” implies that the remoteness is also a question of perspective.

Although at first sight the village appears homogenous and isolated, I propose to look at it as a space of “overlapping diasporas”. The notion of “overlapping diasporas” was developed by Earl Lewis in his article “To turn as on a pivot: writing African Americans into a History of Overlapping Diasporas”.

Concerned with issues about race and identity, he argued that, in order to understand the relational nature of identity, we have to approach it interactively and multipositionally: how identities are created through everyday interaction but also “how spatial and temporal factors lead historical actors to foreground or background constitutive aspects of themselves”1. In this train of thought it is important to remember that diasporas also come into existence when borders are settled, and the populations are affected by territorial government policies. Therefore, we must expand our concept of diaspora accordingly. Inspired by the work of Avtar Brah, I will use it not in its strict definition as a community beyond a national border, but as a set of multiple relations of newcomers and indigenous populations.

“The concept of diaspora then emerges as an ensemble of investigative technologies that historicise trajectories of different diasporas, map their relationality, and interrogate, for example, what the search for origins signifies in the history of a particular diaspora, how and why originary absolutes

1Lewis E. To Turn as on a Pivot: Writing African Americans into a History of Overlapping

Diasporas // The American Historical Review. 1995. № 100 (3). P. 783.

125

are imagined, how the materiality of economic, political and signifying practices is experienced, what new subject positions are created and assumed, how particular fields of power articulate in the construction of hierarchies of domination and subordination in a given context, why certain conceptions of identity come into play in a given situation, and whether or not these conceptions are reinforced or challenged and contested by the play of identities.”1

A brief historical overview shows that the village is a result of a number collective displacements and emplacements. The village lies in the Lovozero district, which is recognized as traditional Sami territory, but was founded by Komi and Nenets families as a “partial resettlement” [vyselok] from Lovozero2. Following the agglomeration policy and the closing down of the villages of Ivanovka (Chalmnye Varre) and Ponoy during the 1960ies and 1970ies, Sami people and Russian Pomors also settled in the village. However, the village history is not only a question of collective resettlements. Both individual inand outmigration has taken place and continues to take place. In the empirical here- and-now of the village there are no significant political containers of difference. In the everyday life ethnicity and nationality are not important identity markers for the people who live there, and the different ethnic groups cannot be easily distinguished. There are no significant differences in physical appearance or occupation, in language use – as the Russian language has been standard for many years, or religious practices.

Differentiation in the village is brought about from outside, usually by the state policy. Since 1992, when the Lovozero district was recognised as a territory of traditional inhabitation [territoriya tradicionnogo prozhivaniya] (TTP) and the Sami people and given their status as small-numbered indigenous population they got rights to resources, villagers who do not define themselves as Sami have experienced a sense of deprivation, conveyed also in the TV documentary of Alexander Pivkin “Komi Laplandiya”. In this way, the local population was subjected to new forms of political territorialization, based on the theoretical presumptions that territorially bounded wholes and collectivities occupy a territory, which is their homeland. Such presumptions also prevail in the media and cast shadow over the above-mentioned media representations of Krasnoshchelye. This understanding has been challenged in the scholarly discourse, especially by Rogers Brubaker, according to whom the right attitude would be: “thinking of ethnicity, race, and nation not in terms of substantial groups or entities but in terms of practical categories, situated actions, cultural idioms, cognitive schemas, discursive frames, organizational routines, institu-

1 Brah A. Cartographies of diaspora: contesting identities. London; New York: Routledge, 1996. P. 194.

2 The Komi and the Nenets came to the Kola Peninsula in the late 1880ies and their community grew from 80 people in the late 1880ies to several hundred before the revolution of 1917. At present their number on the Kola Peninsula is approximately 3 000.

126

tional forms, political projects, and contingent events”1. But if we empty the notion of homeland from its traditional attachments to “blood and soil”, what is then left of it?

The perception of homeland involves both place attachments and community attachments, issues of neighbourhood and transregional and transnational networks. It consists of shared experiences, but also of conflicts and conflicting worldviews. In this way, homeland is an assemblage of multiple locations. Location is here understood not as the geographical location, but in the way Akhil Gupta has elaborated on it: as political, social, cultural, and emotional constructs2. These constructs are not static. They are constantly reworked.

In the following, I will show how, on the one hand, the idea of homeland is transformed through constant processes of political territorialization and deterritorialization. On the other hand, the two documentaries mentioned above, actually, show two ways of individual re-territorialization and convey a sense of homeland as experienced by the people who live in the village. This reterritorialization is affective, expressive and emotional. The dynamic between territorialization, deterritorialization and reterritorialization is central to the work of the French philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari3. I suggest here that we could apply it in order to understand the vernacular reworking and elaborate on our concept of homeland.

Ethnonational territorialization and deterritorialization

Much of the literature on diaspora is based on materials about the Black African and the Black Atlantic diasporas4. Most these writings discuss the new identities that emerged as a result of processes of displacement and emplacement, to a great extent, imposed from outside. A similar process occurred in the Soviet Union. The American anthropologist Rogers Brubaker asserts that the Soviet Union was a gigantic project of building a state with internal ethnonational boundaries. According to him the Soviet regime rather than “recognising or ratifying a preexisting state of affairs it was newly constituting both persons and places as national”5. The state created spaces for the different ethnocultural entities as if it was an apartment with different rooms. The idea of the communal apartment was first expressed in a book by I. Vareikis and I. Zelenskii, who in 1924 wrote that the USSR was a large communal

1Brubaker R. Ethnicity without groups. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004. P. 11.

2Gupta A., Ferguson J. Anthropological Locations: Boundaries and Grounds of a Field Science. University of California Press, 1997.

3Deleuze G. and Guattari F. A thousand plateaus: capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987.

4Gilroy P. The black Atlantic: modernity and double consciousness. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993.

5Brubaker R. Op. cit. P. 53.

127

apartment in which “national state units, various republics and autonomous provinces” represented “separate rooms”1. At that time Murmansk county was a room only partially completed. The state filled it with people from many other parts of the Soviet Union and created two distinct rooms – one for industrial development, and the other – for the rural population, composed of Sami, Komi and Pomors. The Soviet authorities did not specifically create a room for any of the nationalities on the Kola Peninsula, although several Sami students suggested the establishment of two Sami districts2. Later on, several Komi applied for separating the Lovozero district. The district was separated, but an ethnonational factor was not identified until 1990ies when the territory was recognised as a territory of traditional inhabitation (TTP) of the Sami people.

The above-described processes of territorialization are part of the state policy. According to Deleuze and Guattari: the state space is always striated. It is abstracted and overtly simplified. It transforms the reality to fit the grid and to make it governable3. In contrast to the striated space of the state, the nomadic space is inhabited by people, open and vectorial4. I suggest that in order to understand how “homeland” is experienced, it is necessary to see how people inhabit the striated space defined by state borders and territorial units, occupy it and get attached to it.

By making some territories “traditional” and defining the form of using them – by clan communities (obshchinas) for traditional subsistence activities, the state tried to striate the space anew (through the Federal Law “Guaranteeing the Rights of the Indigenous People” from 30 April 1999). This categorization did not mirror the reality and the actual experiences of people. On the one hand, people belonging to the category of “small-numbered indigenous people of the North and the Far East” had to apply actively for being included in the category and many did not bother to do so. On the other hand, the practices of “traditional subsistence” covered much larger group, than the people included in the category “small-numbered indigenous people of the North and the Far East” to which it was intended to apply. On the ground the new categorization was counterworked by smoothing the strict categories.

Rogers Brubaker has pointed out that we have to distinguish between groups and categories: a category does not imply that there is a solidarity among the members of the group. My impression is that the group solidarity in the Lovozero district is much more pronounced among those who make a living in the

1Slezkine Y. The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism // Slavic Review. 1994. № 53 (2). P. 414–452.

2Gerasimov N. Natsionalnoe ustroystvo loparey v Murmanskom okruge // Tayga i Tundra.

1932. № 4 (1). P. 17.

3Scott J. State simplifications: nature, space and people // Journal of Political Philosophy.

1995. № 3 (3). P. 191–233.

4Deleuze G. and Guattari F. Op. cit.

128

tundra – the tundra-connected population as Yulian Konstantinov calls them1. However, through the everyday practice categories, principles and territories become challenged. The everyday practices transform the striated space into a smooth space and contest the striating categorizations. The following practice illustrates this point. In Lovozero district there are registered over 20 clan communities of small-numbered indigenous people of the North and the Far East (obshchinas). The majority are not clan-and-family based, but based on the neighbourhood principle. In this way, they allow also people, who do not belong to the category of indigenous populations, to take part in activities that have been common practice for them and their forefathers, but has become defined by the recent law as traditional subsistence and made exclusive for a category of people. The dominance of the territorial-neighbourhood principle denounces the

“blood” as the main form of solidarity and the nation-blood-soil unity. This is an example of deterritorialization.

In Krasnoshchelye there are no registered obshchinas. However, it does not mean that the villagers are not concerned with the management of the local resources. Local fishing, firewood and timber production are regulated through common understanding and concern for the sustainability of the village. A Komi man from Krasnoshchelye explained to me that people never take firewood from the nearby vicinities, but rather “go beyond the first 15 kilometers or so”. He implied that it was a wisdom learned from the Sami who, because of using up the trees around their pogosts, had to move every now and then the location of their small settlements in order to access firewood. He did not mention in his explanation that fishing and forestry practices are also regulated by the state. His statement is also an example of thinking of the territories around the village as smooth space; the village space expands to what is visible from the village, what is accessible by the river in the summer time or by snow scooter in the winter period. In contrast to the state assignments of striated spaces to categories of people, for the people space is open, shared, living and enlivened.

Territorializing Centers and Peripheries

The solidarity among the tundra-connected population might be seen as the long-duree consequence of earlier state resettlement (read – territorializing) policy. In his book “Conversations with Power: Soviet and post-Soviet developments in the reindeer husbandry part of the Kola Peninsula” Yulian Konstantinov well describes how traumatic the state resettlement policy during the 1960ies and 1970ies has been for the greatest part of the indigenous population2. The modernisation and the industrialization projects of the Soviet policy recon-

1 Konstantinov Y. Conversations with Power: Soviet and post-Soviet developments in the reindeer husbandry part of the Kola Peninsula. Uppsala Studies in Cultural Anthropology № 56. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 2015.

2 Konstantinov Y. Op. cit.

129

figured the territories and affected to the greatest degree the rural part of the Peninsula. Displacements and emplacements were characteristic for both indigenous people and the migrants. New urban centres were built, and centres and peripheries were reconfigured. These new reconfigurations did not take into account the traditional attachments and the existing bonds between people and the territories they inhabited. The French philosopher Henri Lefebvre has argued that the state-created spaces of centre and peripheries have a much stronger effect than the connection between nation-territory1. The rural, tundra-connected population has always been in the periphery and hence, in a non-privileged position. This is beautifully poeticized in the Sami poet Oktyabrina Voronova’s poem “Birch Tree” (1987). The poet herself was affected by the resettlement policies and the closing down of the village of Chalmnye Varre.

Береза

На пожне, На краю покоса, Седая,

древняя, как миф, Растет двустволая береза,

Вершины к небу устремив. Чтоб песни петь под небесами Народ обычно занятой, Приходят коми и саами По праздникам к березе той.

Она ветвями чуть поникнет,- В подарки ветви облекут. Кто бисера наденет нитку, Кто шелка принесет лоскут.

Сливаясь цепью хоровода, Как будто воды в ручейке. Поют два тундровых народа На всем понятном языке.

У них, в печали непокорных,

На все века и времена, Как у березы этой корни, Земля-кормилица одна!

1Lefebvre H., Brenner N., Elden S. State, space, world: selected essays. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2009.

130