‘The Russian North’: Cultural Borders and Cultural Meanings

Abstract

Yury Shabaev — Head of the Sector for Ethnography, Komi Institute of Language, History and Literature. Address: 28, Kommunisticheskaya St., Syktyvkar, Komi Republic, 167982, Russian Federation. E-mail: yupshabaev@mail.ru

Igor Zherebtsov — Director, Komi Institute of Language, History and Literature. Address: 28, Kommunisticheskaya St., Syktyvkar, Komi Republic, 167982, Russian Federation. E-mail: zherebtsov.hist@mail.komisc.ru

Pavel Zhuravlev — Head of the Department of Sciences and Higher School of the Ministry for Education, Science and Culture, Archangelsk Region. E-mail: zhuravlev@dvinaland.ru

In the literature on culture and history, the European North of Russia is usually referred to as ‘the Russian North’. It is implied that this region represents a kind of historically and culturally homogenous territory inhabited by an ethnically similar population. Researchers often interpret this toponym as quite natural, having deep genetic ties with previous ages and inhabitants. Meanwhile, historical facts show that the cultural structure of its population has never been homogeneous and the region itself has neither shown cultural, administrative-territorial, nor economic integrity. The names of the region and its population have changed as well as its role in the economic and cultural life of the country.

In early history, the territory of the European North of Russia (the given geographical concept is in many ways synonymous with the concept of ‘the Russian North’) was not an exclusively Russian region. In Scandinavian annalistic tradition it was called ‘Biarmija’ (Bjarmaland) — the land of the Biarms, and there never was a consensus about its borders or ethnic affiliation. On the other hand, in Russian annalistic tradition the above-mentioned territories have been rather definitely characterized as the territories paying tribute to Novgorod the Great. The citizens of Novgorod called the northern territories, ‘Zavolchje’, and its population, ‘Chud zavolochskaya’. This points to the fact that they were Finns.

The Slavic colonization of ‘the Russian North’ has lead to a major change in perceptions of the territory and the character of its cultural marking. Colonization started in the 11th century and was rather ambitious. The processes of cultural integration of the mentioned territory were quite intensive, shown by the use of the general name of the territory in the ‘Novgorod era’.

The first notion of the common geographical term ‘Pomorje’ was found in the charter of a Novgorod merchant dating back to 1495 (the name of ‘Pomors’ was found in the Novgorod quarter Chronicles of 1526). It took several centuries for the northern territories of Zavolchje to come into the possession of Novgorod, and subsequently of the Moscow state. This caused not only the change of its name and the character of vassalage. The culture of the territory and its ethnic affiliation also fundamentally changed. The names of Chud, Ves, Dvinjane, and other ethnic and territorial determinants, were replaced by ‘Pomors’ and ‘Pomorjane’, i.e. a new community with a general name and an ethnic implication.

The generalized name, ‘Pomors’, which is commonly found in the Novgorod documents, was rather a collective name of the population of a larger region. The cultural integration of the ‘European North’ started later, and in this respect, two historical events are of great importance. The first one is that English merchants discovered for themselves Northern Moscovia, which led to a trade agreement between the Russians and the English. The agreement was signed under the rule of Ivan IV, which meant that the European North was not anymore a distant part of the territories belonging to a Moscow tsar. They began to be perceived as the northern border of the Russian state and also the ‘window’ to Moscovia.

The second event is related to the foundation of the city of Arkhangelsk in the mouth of the Northern Dvina in 1551, making it an important commercial port of the state. The city was important not only for foreign trade, but also for the creation of a regional market and the strengthening of internal affairs. It was to Arkhangelsk that the Dvinjane, Mezents, Pinezhane, the inhabitants of Karelia and other shores of the White Sea brought their fishing and hunting products. All of its merchants were also called Pomors and this is how the Pomor identity emerged, because this regional center became a very important to integration. As a result, the Pinezhane, Mezents and others formed a single cultural community by the 18th century and the term ‘Pomors’ became an ethnonym.

The beginning of the 18th century was marked by the imperial period in the development of the territories. The importance of ‘the Russian North’ in economic life and foreign affairs declined sharply and the region became a cultural periphery.

The perception of the European North of Russia as an integral and exclusively Russian region was typical among Russian intellectuals only in the second half of the 19th century. The term, ‘Russian North’, appeared later, somewhere between the 19th and 20th centuries. At first, the ‘Russian North’ was not so much a toponym as a cultural and political project, created by the efforts of the authorities and intellectual elite of imperial Russia.

Attempts to create the Russian nationalist myth and form a nationalist ideology played an important role in perceiving the European North of Russia as an exclusively Russian region and a ‘cultural depository’ of the Velikoross. These attempts were enhanced in the second half of the 20th century and were largely accomplished by the early 20th century.

The Bolsheviks who came after the Tsarist regime used the ideology of ethnic nationalism and interpreted cultural minorities as natural allies of the new regime. This is why the Bolsheviks neither agreed with the idea of homogeneity of the region nor with its cultural marking. During the first years of the Soviet regime in the European North, a number of ethnic autonomies were created, and the term ‘Russian North’ was put almost completely out of use. Later, because of the new political situation, it was used again, however, mostly in its cultural-ethnographic meaning. The ideology of regionalism in post-Soviet Russia has led to the restoration of these ideas, but ‘the Russian North’ as an ethno-political project has also failed. Currently, the ‘Pomor’ movement and its ideas have become an important cultural and political event in the European North of the Russian Federation.