Establishment of the state policy towards indigenous peoples of the North and its historical and legal dimensions (case of "Arkhangelsk Nenets")

Relevance of the issue

Particular attention of the Russian state and society to the problem of building a relationship with the indigenous peoples of the North (Indigenous Peoples) is caused by a number of factors. First, territory of the Russian Arctic, including the Nenets Autonomous Area, is an important strategic resource for the state and keeping them within Russia remains a major task. In this sparsely populated and poor infrastructureed the northern territories people were interested in discussing the recognition of their “no man” — terra nullius (the UN has already proposed to set the limit of population density of 5 persons / km²). Naturally, Russia’s priority is the leveling of any processes that infringe on its territorial integrity. Second, forced internationalization of indigenous peoples' rights at the present stage has a damge of violation the ethnic stability in the region. The historical experience of the early 20th century raises some questions over the underestimation of the comprehensive work with indigenous peoples. For example, the Finns, in first decades of the 19th century, were active in cultural work with the Karelian population; Norwegians - with Sami, who lived in the neighboring territories of Russia. In the revolutionary period, Finland reached an agreement with Soviet Russia to hold a referendum among the population of the western part of the Kola Peninsula and to deal with the national self-determination issue. Only the Civil War had not allowed to implement this project. Western reorientation of the economic interests of the Sami, resident of Murman that was so attractive to Norway, under certain conditions, could also lead to the loss of the Russian land. Given this situation, the need for updated historical and legal interpretation of ethnic policy of the Russian state emerges.

The main ethno-political model for indigenous peoples

Extensive regulatory material and scientific research of pre-revolutionary, Soviet and modern scholars suggest the existence of at least three historical models of government policy in relation to indigenous peoples. Each of the models was sufficiently advanced legal and conceptual framework, but at the same time controversial practice of implementation.

The main ideas were relied on by government legislation in different historical periods and they were as follows: 1) The period of the first quarter of 19th — early 20th century (or “liberal model”) included the idea of modernization and related “soft” paternalism in relation to the peoples who are considered as less developed in the economic, social and political and cultural contects. The legal regulation traced differentiated approach and led to accounting the characteristics of the groups with focus on a comprehensive coverage of the most important foundations of life of these people [1, p. 43] and the interests of the state. 2) The Soviet period: “overcoming age-old backwardness” and help “the transition from primitive society to socialism”, bypassing the other socio-economic formations. That time it was usual to think of building a full-fledged policy of paternalism, “paternalistic” model. 3) The post-Soviet period is characterized by the inclusion of Russia into the global practices in relation to indigenous peoples specifically, the policy of promoting their sustainable development, security and guarantee of their rights, as well as building a “partnership”.

It should be noted that Russia has a long and positive experience with the respect for the indigenous peoples who have had all the chances to remain in the demographic, cultural and economic terms. Western countries has the historical experience which is mostly associated with a complete assimilation and even physical disappearance of peoples and they are now the “locomotive” to promote legislation aimed at preserving the remaining ethnic groups. Such policies are often too expansive and could contribute to internal tensions in the country or to preserve its multi-ethnicity.

Despite different ideological content of the models, it is possible to identify common areas of ethnic policy of Russian state in relation to the Nenets (until 1930 the official name — “Samoyed”). The first , it is to ensure conflict-free relations with the indigenous peoples, that in the vast, underpopulated areas with lack of government officials and police forces, reduces the risks for the government and for the Russian population that lived in the neighborhood. Second — to minimize the costs of natural resources in the territories occupied by indigenous peoples. Originally it was furs, mammoth ivory, valuable species of fish; then — minerals, primarily oil and gas. Policies aimed at commodification exploitation of natural resources has created and still creates additional tension between the government and indigenous communities and has required and requires approaches built on the benefits for the local population. Third — gradual inclusion of indigenous peoples in the overall social and cultural life of the state.

Search for a compromise between the state and the Nenets ethnos

The legal status of lands and territories inhabited by the Nenets, has always been the key issue. The document, signed by Ivan the Terrible and repeatedly confirmed subsequently, guaranteed them a monopoly on the tundra in exchange for the payment of tribute. According to the “Statute for the governing the Samoyeds and Pomors of Mezensky County of the Arkhangelsk province” April 18, 1835, Nenets enjoyed the possession of land in Mezensky County - Timan, Kanin tundra and Bolshezemelskaya2. “Samoyeds have been owning tundra from time immemorial ... payed and paying a tribute for it and therefore they must be true masters of the tundra”, — stated in 1870 by A.Y. Efimenko [2, p. 160]. Such an approach (quite unexpected, since he was not put in relation to other peoples of the empire) was associated with the economic development of those areas by Komi and Russians. Newcomers were gradually appearing in the tundra to practice animal husbandry and fisheries; the local administration was not always been able to control this process. For example, during the 1897 census, it was revealed that there had been “unaccounted” settlements in Pechora. When these issues had been raised, the aliens could have claims to the status of “old-settleres” on formal grounds. In 1803 there had been a “friendly delimitation” of tundra tween Nenets and Komi reindeer herders, that later led to permanent problems.

With regard to the new inhabitants of the tundra, opinions of curious observers and experts (scientists, travelers and officials) were divided. Some of them, for example, an official of the Ministry of Agriculture and State Property, V.A. Islavin [3] and Arkhangelsk Governor N.D. Golitsyn [4] were of the opinion that the aliens had been deceiving naives and made them drink alckohol, so Nenets people were getting poor and poor. The way out was seen in a kind of “reservations” and paternalistic protection of Nenets from any external influence and impact. Others — Arkhangelsk governor A.P. Engelhardt [5] and the provincial veterinarian S.V. Kertselli [6] proceeded from the fact that it was unreasonable “for the saving of a handful of Samoyeds <...> ... to delay the economic development of the vast rich region and undermine the welfare of the other more numerous ... hardworking, enterprising, capable of further development and cultural life of the population” [7, p.19 -23]. According to A.P. Engelhardt, “the tundra, as the state ownership must be presented to the overall enjoyment of the entire local population, without distinction of their origin” [7, p. 22].

In the 1860s, the Nenets together with other “inorodtsi” were considerd as state peasants. The decision of a “peasant question” was not only concerned to the rights of the owners of Russian and Komi peasants who lived in the tundra, and enjoyed the right of a “tenant” (at Nenets areas). The governors were in a difficult situation: on the one hand, it was necessary to support the Nenets as it was demanded by the city authorities. On the other — Komi people and Russians were residents of the province too. As herders and industrialists, they were more “civilized” and received high profit and were less in need of state support than Nenets.

In 1890, the Arkhangelsk province government sent a proposal to deprive the Nenets’ right to dispose of the tundra and give this right to use the tundra the way they want to and free of charge. All land “deals” (which were primarily consisted as a “friendly”) should occur only under the supervision of officials. At the same time the others, except for the Nenets people, had to pay “obrok” — money and other payments that were a part of so called “Samoedsky capital” used for paying salaries for Nenets officials and social support (such as: the issuance in case of death of reindeers and other disasters) as well as to create the necessary reserves for fishing activities.

In Soviet times, it was made a “socialization” of land, that was completely under the state ownership. In the 1930s, the mass collectivization of farms and Nenets reindeer herders took place. According to the “Charter of the Collective Farm” (1935), all agricultural lands were assigned to collective farms, free of charge for unlimited use. Substantial government assistance was provid- ed to the collective farms (zootechnical, veterinary and so on.) It really was appreciated by most of the Nenets people.

The reforms of the 1990s led to the dissolution of many collective farms, which, however, are recognized as a form of economic associations by the existing Russian laws. A number of former Nenets collective farms are converted to agricultural cooperatives; they have not even changed their old names (“Rassvet Severa”, “Put Lenina”, “Krasny Oktjabr”, “Druzhba narodov”) and are still called in everyday speech “collective”.

At the present time tundra is not the property of the Nenets, but it can be given them for free use. In the NAD, most of the land (95%) is agricultural; 74% of lands are used for reindeer pastures. Land is still in the use of the four “agricultural production cooperatives” (the former reindeer collective farms) mentioned above; these areas are the lands of traditional used of the district importance and have the status of protected areas 3. It means a ban on the alienation of these lands and their transfer to the property, including the property of tribal communities and others. The rest of the land can be owned by Nenets or communities on the same basis as other citizens of the Russian Federation own the land.

Even in the XIX century, experts noted that large herding of Komi-Zyrian (so-called Izhemtsy) was properly organized in terms of migration and had rapid economic effect, but led to the destruc- tion of reindeer moss. Intensive hunting of fur-bearing and marine animals, fishing in small tundra lakes led to a reduction of the Arctic fauna. The Nenets’ reindeer herding was ineffective and fishing activity was actually subordinated and justified by tough environmental habits [8].

In the early twentieth century there were proposals to “legitimize” the usual right of Nenets people for use of nature: to put a ban on reindeer passage over moss areas and to increase “herd tax” that should be paid by the “entree” herders. So, the government managed to make Russians and Komi reindeer herders to reduce their herds. Also governors thought about introduction of a high penalty for the killing of wild deer, while encouraging their domestication. In order to restore the fauna of tundra, a temporary ban on hunting certain species of birds and animals was introduced. For violation of the rules of nature protection, according to the authors of these proposals, the governors should introduce a fine, which would be able to “make this fishing unprofitable”. Existing fines, based on the provisions of the Charter 1835, were not deterred Russian and Komi herders and hunters. They did not appear in Courts usually and fines were not comparable to the benefits of breaking the law. 40 ruble fine “izhemets pays, does not make him to give up thinking of further violations of the law” [9, p. 39].

In the early Soviet period, many activities, including the ones related to the environmental legislation, relied on criticism of the previous government. In 1918 the People's Commissariat of Education had a special Committee for Nature Protection that had been designed to monitor the protection and proper use of natural resources of the country. Some efforts had been taken during the first years of Soviet power as a part of the policy of expelling “alien elements” from the tundra. It had a class-motivated origin. In particular, only “kulaks” were subjected to expulsion; “poor” and “average” population saved their ancestors right to be engaged in trade and reindeer breeding in the Nenets tundra. During the NEP, with its economic priorities, the policy was explained in almost the same way as in the pre-revolutionary times: the “kulaks” and their huge herds were accused of violating the ecological balance in the tundra. As for the hunters, then those who had been buying fur from other hunters, they were suspected in illegal trade with Norwegian businessmen who took the advantage of weak border management and started to appear off the coast of Bolshezemelskaya tundra. Therefore, the “class approach” to the fishers relied on the protection of state interests.

In the beginning of the 1930s a forced industrialization violated environment and caused damage to nature and to the vulnerable tundra areas as well. This problem had even more aggravated with the beginning of the gas and oil fields development. Due to the use of tracked vehicles, which was widely used in off-road conditions by the local geologists, tundra soil wes damaged. The permafrost could not stop oil and gas developers from making pipelines that crossed traditional migration routes of reindeer herds.

In the 1990s, the newly sharpened attention to the environmental legislation was observed. Territories began to enjoy the right to issue local laws, based on traditional land use and historical experience of the population. On the territory of the NAD, for example, it was prohibited to use the vehicle in close proximity (less than 200 meters) of the reindeer herd without a special permission of the reindeer herding camp leader4. The fine is assumed in the case of exceeding the total number of deer grazing capacity of the areas designated for reindeer husbandry. Departmental normative and legal acts of the NAD established a limit for hunting and other restrictive measures are introduced. Article 25 of the NAD law “On reindeer husbandry in the Nenets Autonomous District” provides a ban on the use of all-terrain vehicles tracked and wheeled, and, with few exceptions, and for freight transport in the territories of reindeer pastures (in case of the absence of stable snow cover) 5.

Relationships between the state and Nenets in the sphere of administration

The main aspect of Russia's ethnic policy after determining the legal status of the land occupied by the Nenets, is to build a specific management system. Nenets tribal government could not take place as they are entering the jurisdiction of the Russian state. Ivan the Terrible in his literacy pointed out the inadmissibility of government officials to interfere in the judicial affairs of Nenets than confirmed the existence of such interventions in the past. In terms of paying the tribute Nenets have always been subordinated to territorial authorities — Mezen and Pustozersk (later — Pechora). In the pre-reform era Nenets were subordinated to the Ministry of State Property (at the level of the province — provincial Chamber of State Property). In the post-reform period, being formally numbered among the peasantry, Nenets were under the various institutions and officials on peasant affairs. However, implementation of this management system failed because of the difficulties of supervision due to the small number of population and their constantly migratory way of life around the vast territory.

All projects of “Nenets organization” — there were few of them in the 19th century — could be clearly divided into two groups: first one was supposed to be a protection of the population of tundra. The other — it was planned to create a kind of reservation, giving the Nenets a live ruled by their own ideas, and the state had to ensure that the tundra would not be under any foreign influence.

In 1833, the governor of the Arkhangelsk I.I. Ogarev (as it was the custom in the enlightened era, he was primarily concerned with “little ones”), refered to the “miserable position of Samoyeds, enslaved by Russians who settled in the tundra, arriving there to trade and then got large herds of deer that they acquired from the Samoyed mainly by alckohol” [10] and asked to spread the law on the management of “inorodtsi” in Siberian province in 1822. “Statute of the Samoyeds”, adopted for the Nenets population, small sized group and they more regular than the Siberian “aliens” have relations with the Russian and Zyryane population, was introduced experimentally for three years in 1835 6. According to this document, Nenets were included in the category of “inorodtsi”, “catchers”. Traditional management in Nenets communities was kept. It was ruled be the elders elected “by custom” every three years. These people received broad powers and a responsibility to collect the tribute and the right to trial Nenets. They had orders to broadcast the provincial authorities, had the opportunity, on behalf of their relatives, to enter into relations with the local police to write a complaints. Nevertheless, the provisions of the Statute clearly defined superiority of “old age” system and Nenets themselves in general. Rural police had the duty to monitor the application of the rules and keep the number of the population of tundra and take care that there was nobody “escaped” from taxation. The right of officials to influence the Nenets life was reduced but officials had to patrol the tundra in order to verify the management.

By analogy with the Statute of 1822, there was created the a “Special temporary Committee for information about the customs, according to which Samoyeds had to be controlled”. The Committy had to deal with the identification and recording the legal practices that existed at the Nenets lands and to form the foundations for developing the most efficient system of management. Data was supplied primarily by the priests who worked in the tundra — missionaries and then who works at the regular churches. They knew Nenets language and could communicate with Nenets people, so they could provide such information. Chaired by the civil governor, these practices have been considered in terms of “softening all wild and cruel” in them, and then publish and be in use in “public places for Samoyed”. In 1837, all of the collected information was summarized in a single document — “special rules regarding the trial and punishment based on customs of Samoyeds and constitute a collection of legal traditions”7 — “the draft law on Samoyed founded on the customs of Samoyeds who were living in Mezen County”[7]. Conflicts arose among the

Nenets, who had to decide on the proposed rules of “the common law”, and between them and representatives of other groups (such as Russian) — on existing laws8. These “laws on Samoyeds” were submitted to the Ministry of Internal Affairs in 1837. It was recommended to print then and to translate into the Nenets language but it was not possible, due to the lack of appropriate “Samoyed ABC”. It was decided that the “Statute on the Samoyeds” and “Regulations on the analysis of actions” would be tranlated to the Nenets language, but would not be published (as among Nenet there were no people who could read) and would be just explained to them by the priests. This, incidentally, would increase the authority of the church, the emergence of trust between the priest and people and led to the gradual modernization of the Nenets, their incorporation into allRussian social system. Over the next 50 years, the Statut, which had not been implemented because of various reasons (the majority of the Nenets did not even know their rights and obligations), had repeatedly been adjusted in accordance with the changing conditions.

The introduction of selfgoverning elements facilitated the management of tundra population, so that the state policy could be considered a policy of a “soft” paternalism. One of its instruments was the implementation of justice by a “customary law”. After the legal reform of 1864 on the territory of the Arkhangelsk region the department of the newly established legal institutions were not able to control some categories of criminal and civil cases where the Samoyeds were involden in. So in such cases they should have their own courts (“verbal court”) on the basis of established customs 9. At the same time the Ministry of Justice requested the local authorities — the Arkhangelsk Provincial Prosecutor and the President of the Chamber of criminal and civil court to discuss the issue of Samoyeds and their courts10.

Based on the considerations of the Arkhangelsk Governor A.P. Engelhardt, the officials had made their “reasons” given the fact that these “special rules” “made sense at a time when the Samoyeds needed” them, and then Samoyeds supposed to be under the rule of the state in respect of the court actions and general laws as the rest peasants11. According to A.P. Engelhardt, legal proceedings among the Nenets made by the officials were much better than the ones performed by their semi-literate elders.

In the Soviet period, in only 6—7 years the new powers passed all the stages of the decision of a “Samoyed issue”, which could not be managed by the tsarist administration. In the northern provinces, where there were indigenous peoples, the Facilitation Committees of the peoples of the northern (Committees of the North) were established. Self-governing issues were decided trought “tundra executive committees”. New government assisted the involvement of young people in learning new ideological values and the development and modernization of traditional life of the Nenets. As before the revolution, present desire to “protect” the “natives”, most often through the appointment of an “enemy” was widely observed. A search for simple solutions of the “Samoyed issue” was found in the release of the tundra from the aliens, even more “civilized” ones. They richest and most enterprising Zyrians reindeer herders were expelled and economic restrictions for Russian industrialists began.

In 1926, the Decree was adopted by the Central Executive Committee and SNK of the RSFSR “On Approving the Provisional Regulations on the Administration of indigenous peoples and tribes of the northern distanced areasof the RSFSR”. The document consisted of the main principles of self-government. It was assumed that for every ethnic group there would be assigned a special area, necessary for its economic development. The idea was legally supported by the “Code of labor land use” for the northern areas, which would not contradict to any Soviet law or customary law of “natives”. “Native executive committees” were supposed to provide legitimate opportunities to protect indigenous people from an alien invasion [11, p. 44, 45]. These social experiments were stopped by an “iron hand” that included the inhabitants of the tundra in all forms of forced construction of socialism: industrialization, collectivization, the cultural revolution. The negative consequences of this policy, in contrast to previous decades, was no longer an issue. But this “modernization” in general, we can say, had failed, its energy fairly quickly weakened and its success appeared increasingly ostentatious12.

At the present stage, the state has accumulated experience of the previous epochs. Extensive legislation on indigenous peoples exists andis implemented. The underlying federal law was adoped on the 30th of April 1999, № 82- FZ “On guarantees of the rights of indigenous peoples of the Russian Federation”. It establishes the legal framework guaranteeing indigenous socio-economic and cultural development, protection of lands, traditional way of life, liveli- hoods and crafts13. The search for optimal models of the state and social system continues [1, p. 106]. We see a clear effort to join the global trend to address the problems of small indigenous peoples, while maintaining the maximum state control over the territory rich in natural of national importance.

An important area of the state ethnic policy in the sphere of management was the attempt to create a system of benefits that was to provide special conditions for the indigenous population. Nevertheless, such benefits did not present as such. Pragmatism was everywhere. The most important benefit for the nomadic population was that they did not have to do mandatory military service. At the same time, settled “inorodtsi” got this benefits in exchange for the adoption of Christianity ¹⁴ but Nenets did not have such a condition.

Exemption from military service was understandable and pragmatic measure as 5—6 thousand people (a half of which, lets say, were the “men souls”) could give a dozen recruits for the state army. The cost of the searching the recruits, transportation for medical examination, and training of the Russian language and some of the skills necessary for a soldier were unfounded in this case 15. According to the Statute on the management of Samoyeds 1835, the Nenets had been completely exempted “from conscription of any kind and a tax”. After the introduction of universal military service, according to the relevant decrees, indigenous people of a number of provinces and regions were exempted, “ as well as the Samoyeds living in Mezen and Pechora districts of the Arkhangelsk region”. This privilege was for particular ethnic groups due to the fact that they are allegedly on their “lack of culture” absolutely not suited for being a part of the army. Especially among the Nenets with their short stature, it was difficult to find potential recruits that fitted to the norm — 2 arshin and 2 ½ vershok (153.5 cm). In 1880, “the inorodtsi — Samoyeds of the Mezensky County” could be involved in the serving of conscription on the basis of specific provisions, which, however, had not been done even during the First World War. From the records of a trip to Kanin tundra of professor N.Y. Zograf (zoologist and specialist in ethnic anthropology), we can assume that the attitude of the Nenets towards the exemption from military service was different [13, p. 7, 8]. In Soviet times, the Nenets exemption from military service was confirmed. Since 1939, the Nenets began to go to the army, as they were demonstrating their refusal to recognize the exclusivity of the abject.

The second benefit was the exemption from the capitation tax, which had been replaced by the individual “onion” tax. This kind of tax was paid by males 17—60 years old. In the case of inability to be engaged in crafts man were freed from this duty. Elders of the community had the responsibility to make lists of people who had to pay the tax. Other forms of control (parish registers, censuses) in the tundra did not exist, or receiving such information was difficult. Other duties for the Nenets were not too hard. Even in the 18^th century, according to ethnographer I.G. Georgi, besides paying tributes, Nenets had no other “proof of citizenship” [14, p. 6]. Perhaps their only duty was to provide transport for officials, rarely making the rounds of the tundra. In 1925, indigenous population (including the Nenets) had been exempted from all direct taxes. It was also forbidden to charge them for overdue payments and all their debts had been written off. Nenets also received free and long-term loans, primarily food (bread) ones ¹⁶. In 1930, as in the case of military service, these benefits were canceled.

Legislation in respect of criminal offenses against property and household crimes before the revolution was based on the tradition of common law. It was assumed that by the “softening of manners” Nenets would be increasingly subjected to state and rule of law. Since the end of the 18th century, when the state had began to be developed special rules for the administration of territories populated by “inorodtsi”, legal traditions of Nenets had been studied. Every governor, who governed the territory with “intorodtsi”, were obliged to create a special commission to describe their traditional legal practices, in order to save them by removing all “wild and cruel” 19. “Softening of manners” was the target for the policy of “domestication” of the Nenets. According to the testimony of travelers, “Samoyeds are more brave and wild than the other people, [but] are accus- tomed to live with the Russians, ... are not proned to stealing, murder or revenge” [14, p. 5] and “quarrels with violent fights and killing are rare among them in the tundra” [15, p. 44].

The study sketches of travelers and ethnographers indicates that some of the crimes, as they werein the eyes of a “civilized man”, were in fact linked with the traditions of a “moral economy”, which recognized the right of society and its members to receive welfare. The apparent prevalence of the reindeer theft among Nenets (it had been fixed before the beginning of the 20^th century, but was gradually disappearing under the influence of the state and legislation) could be a reflection of the widespread custom of giving to the poor tribesmen reindeers “to the rescue”. They herded the deers, fed them, taking some of the newborn derrs and giving back the other to the owner. The rich Nenets recognize the custom as their herds trampled the tundra and it was a community property. Property differentiation and appearance of new ideas broke these obligations: the rich Nenets thought that he had the right to refuse a poor person in such assistance. And then, according to the tradition, the poor man had to steal reindeers from a rich man. Public opinion justified such actions as a rich man should not let the poor suffer from hunger. For certain offenses against the person (insult) and moral offenses (for example, seduction of wife) the guilty person had to pay a fine: one or two reindeers could be taken away from him. The main thing was not to leave a man without any deer in the tundra, that was the same as the murder.

The spread of the public law (first to decide the issues between the Nenets and not-Nenets — Russians or Komi and then intercommunity conflicts) made some rich people, who were very often left out under the rule of such legal norms, to appeal to the court and not to recognize customary law. This cultural modernization pushed the process that contributed to the inclusion of Nenets in the national legal space. In general this process has been completed by present time. In spite of the different ideologies of the state ethnic policy: consumer attitude to the indigenous population before empire and in early empire period, a “soft” paternalism of the late 18^th — early 20^th century, the desire to bridge the gap that separates the indigenous peoples from “civilization” in Soviet times have common approaches to solving the problem of a common legal space — legislative provision of the relationship between indigenous peoples and state, between them and neighbors of other ethnic backgrounds.

The experience of social and cultural modernization of the Nenets population

The easiest way to “civilize” the Nenets, to transfer them into the category of farmers and appropriately adjust their economic and social life, seemed to be a sedentary lifestyle. One of the first initiators of the environmental measures in the tundra A.V. Zhuravsky made a draft law aimed at preserving the traditional way of life of the Nenets. Among other things, it recommended to provide all possible assistance to the smooth the transition of nomadic peoples to settled way of life. In order to do so, it seemd to establish (with the use of the experience of Denmark in respect of Greenland Eskimos) the central state-owned shop that also collected fisheries products at fixed prices; identify the centers recognized by Nenets (Samoyed’s volost) and arrange there a state bank, pharmacy, post and telegraph offices, schools with an experienced field to prepare students for a settled life. The attractiveness of such centers was based not on the church but on commercial enterprises: “Centralization of polar inorodtsi near shops would cause sedentary” [8, p. 25]. It was also proposed to define the list of goods needed for Nenets (coarse cloth for soviks, food, supplies for hunting and fishing), rather than “trinkets” so popular among the Nenets and, according to the testimony of travelers, they could spend all the money to buy them [8, p. 26].

Constantly officials were talking about banning vodka trade in the tundra. The Statute of 1835 strictly forbade it for everyone, except for Nenets. However, the sale of alcohol was too profitable to give it up. It started from 1748, when the collection of tribute became relegated to interest of rural people, they were allowed to sell state-owned wine among the Nenets. Addiction to alcohol, Nenets refused even to talk about the exchange until they would be treated with “a glass of vodka”. Becoming a kind and accommodating after drinking wine, they were ready to make big concessions to the sellers. So Komi traders got their Nenets herds and Russian industrialists — a right on the fishing grounds in the tundra.

Rather illustrative is a law adopted in 1867 initiated by Nenets to remove Mezen burghers and peasants from the tundra. Since the Russian did not have the supporting documents for the right to live there and trade in the tundra, the court supported Nenets. However, the Nenets society suddenly changed its mind: “we and our families in our tundra ... take a wish and allow them to use the hay ... on an equal basis with other residents, as well as producing various crafts in the river Pesce and lakes” 20. We can assume that such a sentence was passed after a generous “treats”.

Attempts to implement a program to transfer the Nenets to settled life had some positive examples, related primarily to the Christianization. The result of the missionaries and some degree of their activity in the Nenets tundra since 1820s, was the emergence of a number of settlements in which the baptized Nenets learned to live a settled life. One of these villages — Kozhva in the Pechora River — was “well-maintained” in 1890s and had a church and a school, 38 houses and 230 inhabitants, who were engaged in animal husbandry and fisheries, and sowed bar- ley. Residents of the rest of the Nenets settlements were engaged in fisheries or agriculture and “lived significantly wealthier” [5, p. 228—239, A.P. Engelhardt]. The same impression of the Nenets settled Colva had N.E. Ermilova: “people are sociable, talkative and cheerful, the interior spaces are relatively clean and tidy, and they are well-off-on 30 yards 30 horses and 100 cows. A Samoyed, Nikolai Hanirin, has even a herd of two thousand [deer]. The people there are engaged in fisheries, as well as all the residents of Pechora” [16, p. 70—72].

The second experiment to change the way of life of the Nenets began in the 1870s and it was the relocation of several families to the Novaja Zemlja island. In the following decades Nenets colony there had been growing. This project had two objectives: to provide supervision for newly built lifeboat station in the small encampment Karmakuly and to start the economic development of the archipelago, before the Norwegians. The settlers were engaged in fisheries, were living in Russian homes (they got used to it after a while). Thy built a school and a church (unbaptized Nenets converted to Christianity in Arkhangelsk and them were sent to the Novaj Zemlja). Steamers coming here were forbidden to sell alcohol to Nenets and buy their products. All trade was made centrally by provincial officials. Revenues were under orders for the purchase of Novaja Zemlja and used for various goods. Nenets delayed some money in their accounts at the bank. Deductions from income formed reserve capital, which was directed to the resettlement and the new colonists to provide them with necessary assistance. A.P. Engelhardt found the experience a success: “The old exploatation of Samoyed was completely stopped” [5, p. 162]. Engelhardt, being the enemy of every kind of paternalism, considered it necessary for Novaja Zemlja due to its remoteness and the lack of new livelihoods in local conditions.

Except for these few examples, Nenets transfer to sedentary life did not work out. According Dr. Bielawski who visited tundra in 1831, “the Nenets wanted to see the benefits of the life of the Russian people, but were attached to their ordinary and way of life” [17, p. 164— 165]. And growing in the last decades of the 19th century the transitions of the Nenets residence was not caused by the possibility of more secure and civilized life, but on the contrary — the impoverishment; Nenets were settled to “feed” near the Russian settlements, being the employees or begging.

In Soviet times, rebounding from the failure of the tsarist government in solving the “Samoyed question” strongly emphasized for propaganda purposes, a program designed just before the revolution was implemented. In each of the three Nenets tundra areas “tundra Volost Executive Committee” were created to solve the various issues that were included in the first management act based on tundra elders’ ideas. “State trade” made the exchange operations in the tundra dur- ing the NEP possible. It was in the hands of the old “experts”, mainly those who were engaged in the pre-revolution sales of alcohol in the tundra. Despite the ban, the practice had been continued to develop 21. A special campaign aimed at eliminating the “mercantile slopes of state bodies” and purifying “all sales from the the old kulak elements” changed the situation [GAAO. F. 760. Op.1. S.5. L. 821]. Arkhangelsk Provincial Committee of the North 22 was able to ban “state trading” in the tundra and transfer it to the hands of cooperatives, which were to provide the Nenets with everything they need to sell the products of their craft, distribute province allocated loans “on the class principle”. Former “obrok articles” (the right to produce, to do crafts and etc) had become an economic weapon in the hands of the Soviet authorities: they were provided only to members of the so-called “Tundra committees of rural mutual aid” (TKKV), who have paid a high enough contributions made on financial assistance to the poorest Nenets. The revenues of the TKKV and cooperatives in the villages were used to organize schools and cultural institutions, “Houses of Samoyeds” (hostels for visitors to the Nents villages with food, education and etc.). Medical assistance for Nenets was funded by the state. Special medical and veterinary teams that were supposed to provide free services to the nomadic population were also estalished. Local Komsomol and Communists controlled doctors and veterinarians, so they did not “sit" in Russian villages. Gradually sedentary and semi-settled for the Nenets population had been achieved to some extent through schooling.

The main tool of the cultural, social and economic modernization of Nenets was youth. The use of social mobility for the extraction of the youth from the traditional Nenets society, grafting them through the formation of new cultural values, and then use them as moderators for the wider dissemination of these values was carried out for a long time [18, p. 2]. Later, when the Church appeared in the tundra, some of the priests managed to attract Nenets youth to assist in church services. Travelers affectionately described the church choir, consisting of “singing in the jumper”. However, despite some efforts, schooling among Nenets failed. “The one-day school census” made in 1911 identified a total of five pupil with Nenets background.

In Soviet times, it was passed about the same way. Priority was given to cultural change. In order to solve the main task — the preparation of national cadres of Soviet workers — in 1925, “The Northern Department” at the University of Leningrad (later the Institute of Peoples of the North) was established. The 1920 the government demanded the Nenets to be sent for training in a variety of secondary and higher educational institutions. Such orders were performed with great difficulty. So first there was a need to provide compulsory school education and this required Nenets teachers and literacy (in 1929 it was organized by the Preparatory Department at the Arkhangelsk Pedagogical College). Especially actively the state was trying to involve women in new social relations. It was believed that through a “hostess of the chum” it would be be easier to implement measures for sanitation and health education of the Nenets and to disseminate these new forms of everyday life.

Even before the revolution, it was noted that to achieve positive results in school education for Nenets, it is necessary to use boarding type of accomodation [19, p. 45].In Soviet times, this idea had been fully implemented. Boarding schools where children were placed by often forced separation from family appeared; the school system meant six years of basic education in native language. This was the only positive effect. The rest led to a violation of the intergenerational transfer of experience. As in any case of exclusion, it has led to a large number of deviations. Analyzing the consequences of the “Soviet experiment” in the field of education, the ethnologist A. Golovnev spoke of the “stolen generations” that had lost much of the life, traditions and skills (orienteering, selection and development of fishing grounds, keeping pets, etc.). School education led to the later achievements of actual capacity among the Nenets — not 14—15 years as before, but 18—20 [20, p. 94—95].

Experienced variety of measures for the inclusion of the Nenets into national life and recognized civilization makes it very likely to say that the main tool was ideology. In the pre-revolutionary period it was the Christianization and paternalistic approaches to the solution of absolutely all questions that agitated the Nenets. In the Soviet period — criticism of late imperial policy regarding indigenous people; class approach and actually enforced social and property differentiation of Nenets; the formation of “enemy image” (initially not so much of “kulaks” and “rich” Nenets but mainly of the Russian and Komi, and in 1930 — identifying internal enemies); measures to break intergenerational relationships and traditional gender and age roles.

Ideological intervention changed family relations. The area of private life had been closed for the state, but not completely. The adoption of Christianity implied mandatory ordinances — wedding and baptism. However, an exception was made: both of these ordinances could often occur long time after the fact. Crowning the marriage and baptize infants were allowed when the family was in the vicinity of the church. The same applies to the funerals. Nenets buried their dead according to the old traditions, but tried to bring some soil from their grave to the church.

Christianization was also aimed at “softening the manners” of Nenets, especially the ones considered as “wild” among Europeans. In particular, almost all observers noted extremely difficult situation of the Nenets women. Perhaps, it was only F. Bielawski who saw positive things in the existing family relations. According to him, “the women are so respected, that ofter husband’s death his brother have to take his wife ... Women are completely secured for all their life. They are protected from birth to death” [17, p. 160—161]. Thus, in the custom of levirate he saw the security for Nenets woman. Other observers pointed out that hunting grounds inherited by a widow were not wanted to be lost from the family.

According to the 1897 census, more than 20% of families in the Timan and Kanin tundra constituted an unlawful cohabitation. Perhaps, this was due to far distance from churches and Nenets did not crowned their marriages or did it after a few years of living together. From the outside it could be perceived as a moral turpitude. The same applies to many observers who admitted that Nenets’ “marriages had been destroyed very easily” [14, p. 10]; “... When a wife will become nasty for them, they return her to her parents, from whom they bought her, losing only what they had paid for her and the parents are obliged to take her back by themselves” [21, p. 34]. Such assessments have become, most likely a result of the conviction that without Christianity wild customs would exist. A more well-disposed to the Nenets culture, noted that the freedom of manners existed but marriges were strong. Divorce was allowed in cases of infertility of a spouse or inability to perfume the economic activity. According to the ethnologist A. Golovneva so easy family transformations were linked to “social maneuvering of nomads, accustomed to protect the valuable potential of the family (to inherit the widow) and resolutely get rid of the interference (to dissolve unsuccessful partnership)” [22, p. 43].

The economic value of any marriage explains the prevalence of unequal marriages, when the “young adult children marry elder girls, and young girls marry adult men” [23, p. 223, 249]. Y.I. Kushelevskiy also noted the Nenets custom “to marry their young sons of 8 and 9 years old with adult women” [24 p.100-101] because of the need to get the extra female hands in a family. Marriages between the children were made among baptized Nenets. Such spouses, living together in a marriage could only enter it after adulthood. According to customary law, premarital sex was not considered a crime. If the wife of a younger husband was sedused, the right for revenge had his father. In the case of breach of faith of an adult person, the husband could take one or two deer from the culprit.

The church and then the Soviet authorities contributed to the marriage between peers. Polygamy was not allowed. Modern people understand the “women's equality” in nomadic families impossible. In the Soviet practice, however, a woman, a wife of a reindeer breeder received a semi-official status of a “camp worker”; so homework was equated with ordinary work.

Conclusion

The purpose of the state was to include the Nenets in a common legal space, the Russian state, whatever historical form it had. It was supposed to be done by non-violent means, by “softening of manners” in accordance with the requirements of European civilization. At the same time, as if a positive result — a kind of “double culture” was established and it was a relatively comfortable stay in two civilizations — the traditional (Nents) and modernized (Russian). A number of negative consequences existed as well, especially marginalization of Nenets. The problem is global in its nature and is not the subject of this article.

A study of the historical experience of different models of ethnic policy in respect of a particular ethnic group (the Nenets) raises the issue of cultural sustainability, which is always combined with the ability and willingness to change [20, p. 576]. For a long time purely ethnographic study was based on the Nenets modernization paradigm, according to which all aspects of life were demonstrating their intermediate position in the path “from barbarism to civilization”. At the same time, sustainable environmental and social development in the Nenets areas shows some positive results, especially compared to other small nations (non-nomadic), and also taking into account the environmental challenges of the modern world.

The study of the customs of the Nenets, undertaken for the purpose of “soft” inclusion of Nenets in the public space, in the first decades of the 19th century had an impact on the government's attitude to environmental activities. Considering the conflicts with the Komi reindeer herders and with Russian fishers, the officials drew attention to the Arctic nature; understood the validity of Nenets demands for keeping the traditional land use developed over the centuries and the laws of nature that helped Nenets to live in extreme climatic conditions. Under the influence of ecological culture of the Nenets, a system of strict prohibitions was established and an understanding that seemingly innumerable natural wealth of the North are not infinite revealed. Such historical facts confirm the validity of parity (subject-subject) relations and mutual concessions in the development of national and regional ethno-social policy.