Ethnographic Summary: The Kamchatka Region

Olga A. Mourashko, Alexander I. Pika and Dmitry D. Bogoyavlenski

August, 1993

National Economic Forecasting Institute Russian Academy of Sciences Demography & Human Ecology Center Ethnic Demography Laboratory

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DPP-9213137. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations exprcsscd in this material are those of the author(s) and do not nensrorily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Table of Contents

Page:

I . Social and Demographic Transformations in Kamchatka ...... 1 I.A. Geographical Background ...... 1 I.B. Ethnic History of Kamchatka Indigenous Populations ...... 5 I.C. The Military and Administrative Colonization of Kamchatka ...... 6 I1. Kamchatka's Economic Recovery and the Revival of Indigenous Cultures ...... 12 1I.A. Economic Colonization of Kamchatka (1912-1917) ...... 14 1I.B. Soviet Administrative Reforms ...... 15 1I.C. Settlement Pattern and Traditional Means of Communication ...... 17 I11 . Ethnic Composition and Population Dynamics in Kamchatka ...... 23 1II.A. Koryaks ...... 24 1II.B. Itelmens ...... 28 1II.C. Kamchadals ...... 31 1II.D.Evens ...... 33 1II.E. Population Density in Central Kamchatka ...... 34 1II.F. Subsistence Patterns Now and Before ...... 38 III.F.l. The Subsistence Economies of Itelmens and Settled Koryaks . . 39 IV . The Historic Economies of Nomadic Koryak. Chukchi and Even in Kamchatka . 48 1V.A. The Specific Traits of the Historic Social Structure and Culture ...... 51 1V.B. Historic Forms of Demographic Behavior ...... 55 1V.C. Historical Reconstruction of Family Structure ...... 57 1V.D. The History of Villages in the Central and Northern Kamchatka ..... 61 IV.D.1. Kovran and Tigil ...... 61

V . The Population History of the Tigil and Kovran Communities ...... 66 V.A. Indexes of Birthrate. Mortality Rates and Population Growth ...... 68 V.B. Social Security ...... 77 V.C. The Demography of the Indigenous Population of Karaga ...... 77 V.D. Family Planning and Contraception ...... 80

Appendix A: Inhabited Localities of the Karaginsky amd Tigdsky Districts ...... 81 Appendix B: Demographic. Mortality. and Morbidity Details ...... 88

References ...... 105 Maps

1. Russian Study Regions ...... 7 2. Kamchatka Study Sites ...... 8

Tables

1. Population Dynamics. 1740 Through 1989 ...... 36 la. Population Dynamics Over the Last 50 Years ...... 37 2a . Statistics of Economic Activities of Settled Population of Kamchatka ...... 46 2b . Statistical Data for the Years 1895/1896 ...... 47 2c . Game Harvested in 1895/1896 ...... 47 26 . Fish and Vegetables Harvested in 1895/1896 ...... 48 3. Number of Reindeer Livestock in the Karaginsky and Tigilsky Districts ...... 49 4 . Distribution of Reindeer Livestock ...... 50 5 . The Farnily/Household Size for Different Ethnic Groups ...... 59 6. The Fraction of Ethnically Mixed Marriages ...... 67 6a . Demographic Statistics for the Three Ethnic Groups ...... 69 7 . Demographic Indices for the Koryak and Itlemen Population ...... 70 8. Distribution of Causes of Deaths ...... 71 9. The Average Number of Children for the Three Reconstructed Tigil Populations . 72 10. The Age Structure of the Tigil Population ...... 73 11. Demographic Statistics for Kamchatka Even ...... 77 12. Opinions on the Number of Children in the Family ...... 80

B1. Population Changes in the Three Surveyed Kamchatka Districts ...... 89 B2 . Natural Trends in the Population ...... 93 B3 . The Child/Woman Ratio ...... 97 B4 . Mono-Ethnic Families Among the Indigenous Population of Kamchatka ...... 99 B5 . The Average Life Expectancy ...... 101 I. SOCIAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC TRANSFORMATIONS IN KAMCHATKA

LA. Geographical Background

The Kamchatka Administrative Region is made up of the Tigilsky, Karaginsky and

Bystrinsky Districts. These districts share common boundaries, which extend from latitude S045'to 60°45' north to longitude 153'45' to 165Oeast. Together, they cover

108,300 square km, with the Tigilsky District spreading out over 68,200 square km, the

Karaginsky District spanning 29,500 square km and the Bystrinsky District occupying

20,600 square km. From south to north, the boundaries between the districts are divided by the Sredinny Mountain Ridge. This ridge descends towards the isthmus of the Kam- chatka Peninsula and becomes a watershed (made up by rivers flowing into the Okhotsky and Bering Sea). Between the Tagilsky and Bystritsky Districts, there is the Ichinsky volcano (3,621 m) which is extinct.

To the west of the Sredinny Ridge lies the West Kamchatka Lowland. This lowland makes up a major part of the Tigilsky District; but because it is so badly bogged it keeps the development of land traffic and communications in the Tigilsky Districts greatly hindered. It is only in the coastal area that there are still old pathways linking separate villages, and trails which lead up to the passes over the Sredinny Ridge.

The northern part of the Tigilsky District and the entire Karaginsky District are located in the southern edge of the Eternal Congelation Zone. Located in this zone are the villages of Tigil, Sedanka, Elovka and Uka. Further north, in the narrowest part of the neck where the valleys of the Anapka and Pustaya rivers meet, is Parapolsky Dol.

The climate of the Tigilsky District is largely determined by the cold and stormy

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 1 Okhotsky Sea. During the winter the west and northwest winds from the Okhotsky Sea bring cold and dry weather. The east winds, from the Seredinny Ridge, also bring dry, chilly and crisp air currents. The snow cover usually lasts between mid-October to mid-

May. On the average, there are 242 days where the mean temperature (Celsius) reaches below zero. Annually there is an average of 30 days of snowfall (between January and

March). The average minimum temperature is -39.8sC, with the average maximum being

+ 27.5T. and the average annual temperature is -2.1sC.

The climate of the Karaginsky District is somewhat more severe, due to the freezing of the Strait of Litke, where the ice remains until the middle of June. In the mountains, the first snow falls in the beginning of September; and on the coast, the first snowfall has usually occurred by the end of September. The snow depth can be as high as 100 cm. The prevailing winds in winter are northwest; in summer, they are southeast and often bring rain. In the Karaginsky District there is annually about 46 days with snow. The average minimum temperature in this district is -42.3T, the average maximum reaches + 3l.X and the average annual temperature is -2.29C.

The Bystrinsky District has a variety of micro-climatic zones due to the rugged and varied landscape, which is made up of high mountain peaks that are separated by deep and narrow ravines. These valleys are the first affected by the cold air masses coming from the seas. During the summer these winds are quite feeble and contribute to the abundance of mosquitoes, thus creating a problem with reindeer pasturing. In winter, snow tends to come down from the higher elevations and into the valleys where avalanches are dangerous to both humans and reindeer. In general, however, the climate

Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 2 here is milder than that of the Tigilsky and Karaginsky Districts. This area has the highest number of sunny days. The average temperature minimum is -16.2T, the average maximum is + 15.4"C, and the average annual temperature -0.8T.

Because this area is so heavily divided by mountains the rivers are fairly short.

The longest river found here is the Tigil River (500 krn long), which originates in the eastern slopes of the Seredinny Ridge and flows into the Okhotsky Sea. One of the other big rivers of the Okhotsky Sea Basin is the Pustaya River (in the Karaginsky Dis- trict). In the Tigilsky District, there are (from north to south) the Yamanka, Lesnaya,

Palana Voyampolka, Khajruzova, Belogorlovaya, Moroshechnaya, and Sopochnaya

Rivers. In the Bolsheretsky District there are the Ichi and Oblukoviny Rivers. The rivers in the Karaginsky District that flow into the Bering Sea are much shorter. These rivers are as follows: Kichiga, Tymlat, Karaga, Drunka, Pankara, Rusakova, Nachihi and

Uka.

The western coast has only a few accessible coastal bays (Kvachina, Seledochnaya,

Chemurnaut and Rekinikskaya). Because of the frequent high seas, sailing along the

Tigilsky District coast is difficult and risky. Ships often have to wait for weeks to unload their cargo in the open seas (Gurvich and Kuzakov 1960:16). The Bering-Sea coast, on the other hand, has many more convenient bays, lagoons and inlets. To name a few, there are the Karaga and Ossora Coves, the Anapka, Uala, Kichiginsky, Tymlat and

Ukinskskaya Bays; and finally the Ukinsky, Khailulinsky and Ivashinsky Lagoons which are favorable for off-coast fishing and hunting marine mammals.

The territory of the Bystrinsky District embraces the upper reaches of Tigilsky

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 3 ribbon seals, bearded seals and sea lions. Less common are whales (sei whales, fin whales, humpback whales, killer whales, beluga whales, sperm whales) and dolphins.

Waterfowl is abundant and represented by several swan, goose and duck species. Sea fowl is dominated by the (Russ.) kaira; but also quite common are representatives from the American ornitofauna fauna, such as the Canadian brant (Russ. singa) and crane.

Freshwater and seafish resources are vast and diverse. The natural resource and landscape features of this area have shaped the traditional settling and subsistence activities of the population of the Tigilsky, Karaginsky and Bystrinsky Districts. Maps 1 and 2 depict the Russian study areas for this project, and the Kamchatka study sites respectively.

I.B. Ethnic History of Kamchatka Indigenous Populations from the 18th to 20th

Centuries.

The long period in Kamchatka's population history preceding the advent of written language is elucidated only by interpretations of rare relics found by archaeologists. It is evident that these archeological cultures have experienced a succession of "influence" waves. These so-called "waves" are reflected in the relics of ancient material culture going back to the neolithic cultures of Yakutia, Chukotka and the Pacific Islands. The subsistence activity of the ancient people included fishing, hun- ting marine animals and caribou, as well as gathering.

The first written evidence pertaining to Kamchatka's ethnic history dates back to the end of the 17th century. The 300 years of documented history can be conveniently divided into several periods, which are reviewed below.

Social Transition in the North Kamchath Ethnography, Page 5 Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 8 Another ideological objective was to promote the Russian language among

Kamchatka indigenous populations as the official State language. As a result, in 1747 seven church schools were opened for native children at the Russian Orthodox missions and in the settlements. In 1749 there were 10 church schools in Karnchatka, with a total of 189 pupils (Braslavets 1968:6). By 1760, there were 300 native children studying in 15 schools (Slunin 1900:26).

The first phase of Russian colonial expansion in Kamchatka was not peaceful.

The abuse of power by the local administration instigated the aborigines to riot. The last major riot (1756-1757) was by the Nizhne-Kamchatsk Kamchadals, and supported by the Tigil Kamchadals and the Palansko-Karaga Koryaks. According a few historians' estimates, the most brutal riot occurred 1731, during which more than 2,000 Kamchadals were exterminated. The armed aboriginal resistance occurred during the initial period of the Russian expansion in Kamchatka, and by some estimates cost the native people no less than 4,000 lives (Ogrizko 1973; Gurvich 1962).

During this period there were some changes in the distribution of Kamchatka's settled population (both native and non-native). Russian colonies were started in places with the most favorable environmental conditions. Naturally these areas also supported the highest density of aboriginal population, which was displaced, and in cases of resistance exterminated. By 1769, there were a total of 7 Russian colonies in

Kamchatka: 5 ostrogs and 2 peasant villages comprising 1,200 people.

As of yet there are no detailed historical or ethnographic data on the changes made in the aboriginal population between the 17th and 19th centuries. Estimates of the

Social Transition in the North Karnchatka Ethnography, Page 9 pre-colonial population of the Kamchatka Peninsula range between 15,000 to 20,000 people. Until about 1770, the fiscal books mentioned only the number of the jasak taxable population that was made up of men between the ages of 15 and 50. According to Dolgikh, jasak-taxable males in Siberia amounted to a quarter of the net population.

From the records of "Baptized Natives of Kamchatka", which relates to the entire population, the jasak-taxable population was found to make up more than a third of the total aboriginal population (Dolgikh ?:?)

Krasheninnikov reported that there were 2,716 jasak-taxable men among settled

Kamchadals and Koryaks (Krasheninnikov 1949513). There are no available estimates on the number of number of jasak-taxable men amongst the nomadic Koryaks.

According to Gurvich there were 2,573 jasak-taxable men in 1767 (Gurvich 1962:lOl).

Phase 1.2. From 1769 to 1770. The Easing of Russia's Military and Administrative Rule.

The migratory population in Kamchatka was responsible for bringing about epidemics to the region. Between 1769 and 1770 there was an outbreak of smallpox which, according to different estimates, claimed between 3,500 to 5,500 lives. The epidemic was accompanied by starvation. In 1770, the jasak-taxable population was reduced to as little as 900 men (Gurvich 1962:lOl). This could be due to-the fact that many people simply evaded the census out of the fear of being infected.

Twenty-five years later, in 1795, there were as many as 2,171 jasak-taxable men in

Kamchatka. However, between 1799 and 1800 there was a new epidemic of typhoid fever. The census of 1804 in Kamchatka showed that the number of jasak-taxable men

declined to 1,685 (Slunin 1900:34).

-

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 10 During the next 20 years, there continued to be new outbreaks of diseases, and starvation became prevalent. In 1818, out of the total aboriginal population of 1,741 males and 1,616 females, there were only 945 jasak-payers. At the same time, the

Russians numbered 701 males and 645 females (Slunin 1900:35). This meant that by the end of the military and administrative colonization of Kamchatka, the natives numbered only 3,357, while the rest of the population (mostly Russian) was 1,346.

The economic objectives of the Kamchatka colonization were not accomplished.

This was because the jasak revenue was insignificant, due to the numbers of debtors in the jasak-taxable villages year after year, while the cost of maintaining the gamson and supporting the remaining native population continued to rapidly increase. According to

Slunin, ". . . in Kamchatka alone the Treasury has suffered a loss of more than 20 thousand rubles" (Slunin 1900:35). The agricultural policy was hardly more successful, because the peasants were also dying of epidemics, and those who survived were unable to support even themselves by farming.

Apart from the internal strife there were also some external factors responsible for the decay of Kamchatka's economy. One such factor was that the local populations, both native and non-native, became unable to successfully compete with the Russian

American Company in harvesting marine resources. As a result of these economic and demographic factors, the cultural and ideological policies of the Russian government virtually collapsed. The four schools that were still open in Kamchatka in 1779 had disappeared by 1783. Even in 1834, the schooling system had not been revived. At this time there was only one church school with 13 pupils and one "primary" school with 8

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 11 pupils (Braslavets 1968:63-65).

This was the state of the indigenous population, not only in Kamchatka but in all of Siberia. This finally brought about changes in the government's policy towards the

Siberian colonies. The revised policy was outlined in 'The Charter of Governing Non-

Russian Minorities," which was submitted in 1822 to the Government by

M.M. Speransky, the governor of East Siberia. In summary, the charter stood out consistently for the non-interference of the State into aboriginal affairs and demanded that local Russian authorities officially recognize indigenous forms of self-management and safeguard the lands and property of the native population against seizure and plundering by non-natives.

The most significant outcome of the period of military and administrative colonization in Kamchatka was the ending of the thousand year old aboriginal economy's decline in living conditions and population growth, by moving a substantial part of the nomadic population to northern regions. This resulted in the displacement of previously settled indigenous communities, and out of the displacement emerged new ethnic groups of metis origin. At the same time new forms of indigenous economy and subsistence took root, and reciprocal bilingualism became widespread.

11. KAMCHATKA'S ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND THE REVIVAL OF INDIGENOUS

CULTURES (1828-1897)

The period between 1828 and 1897 was marked by a notable 1.5% mean annual growth of Kamchatka's settled population. In order to increase the size of the local population, the administration of the Petropavlovsky okrug applied to the Gizhiginsky

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnopphy, Page 12 ohgfor nomadic reindeer Koryaks, who had previously moved out of Kamchatka, to be sent back. Until the 1840s, the resettlement pace was very slow; but once the first nomadic groups returned they felt fully at home in their former land, and the the nomadic population increased four times (1,758 people) between the years 1840 to 1897.

The deserted grazing lands of central Kamchatka and the Kamchatka isthmus were beginning to be used for reindeer herding, not only by the Koryaks who came back, but also by Evens and Evenks, the two ethnic groups who were entirely new to the

Kamchatka region. By 1897 Kamchatka had a total population of 8,365 people.

It was an ongoing process to establish deeper economic and cultural ties between the settled native peoples and the ethnic Russian settlers. Although it was originally strictly forbidden by the "Charter of Governing Non-Russian Minorities" for Russians to live in aboriginal villages, and vice versa, by the end of the 19th century this restriction had been canceled and about a quarter of Kamchatka villages had an ethnically mixed population.

The sharing, across the Kamchatka villages, of the indigenous subsistence economies (fishing and hunting), and new activities adopted from Russian settlers, such as growing vegetables and cattle-breeding, is illustrated in the following tables.

This period was marked by the further spread of bilingualism among the natives as well as the Russian residents. Also, new local ethnic groups were gradually emerging.

On the basis of church birth records, by the end of the 19th century in Kamchatka there were as many as 9 endogamous areas (groups of communities with a large number of cross-village marital unions), with the endogamy index ranging between 70% to 90%.

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 13 Seven out of 9 areas were represented by villages with a combined native and Russian population. The organic development of the indigenous culture was unaffected by external influences. According to the data from the 1897 census, a mere 5% of the

Kamchatka population was literate.

1I.A. Economic Colonization of Kamchatka (1912-1917),and Participation of Native

Residents in Commercial Resource Harvesting.

During this period a fresh attempt was made by the Russian government to colonize Kamchatka. The purpose of this colonization was to develop access to

Kamchatka's vast resources. In 1912 Karnchatka was declared open for free settling

(prior to 1912 it was a closed frontier zone). Apart from Russian settlers, the Koreans and Japanese also began to come to Kamchatka. Numerous fishing and fish-processing companies were started. There were zones to lease for fishing, crab-fishing and hunting sea mammals. Native residents who were used to working for themselves, or for a limited Karnchatka market (involving predominantly direct product exchange), were now entering the formal work force. By 1919 to 1922, foreign (especially Japanese) fisheries operations were especially active in Karnchatka, as well as in the Far East region and central Russia. Even in 1934, only 9 out of the 27 fish canning industries -in Kamchatka belonged to the Soviet Union, and among the 14 crab canning plants only 4 were Soviet owned, while the rest were run by the Japanese (Bolshakov 1934).

The 1926 census registered a record number of 131 villages that were inhabited by a settled population. The educational level of local residents was also rising; by 1908 there were 18 schools in Kamchatka, by 1913 there were 38 schools, and in 1927 there

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethaography, Page 14 were 47 schools (Braslavets 1968:72). However, the economic potential of this period was not fully realized.

1I.B. Soviet Administrative Reforms

By the year 1928 the "Sovietization of Kamchatka" had begun (Bolshakov ?:??).

The initial stage of this process, however, was quite controversial. On the one hand, in

1925 the Committee of the North (the All-Union Central Executive Committee), located in Moscow, directed its activity in terms of the revival and development of the indigenous values of native peoples. In particular, between 1928 and 1932 a special legislation was drawn up and adopted by the Committee of the North, legalizing and developing the forms of local self-administration for the native peoples of the north to established rural, regional and district Indigenous Councils (Soviets). A considerable amount of research was done to develop an orthography for the indigenous languages, and educational programs were designed particularly for native schools (taking into account the nomadic population as well).

However, the ideological guidelines created by the Committee of the North were at odds with the general line of the Party of Communists and the State policy that was approved by the 10th Party Congress. Although the 10th Party Congress had supported the industrial development of Siberia and had promoted policies of vast migration

(including the resettlement of Siberia by administrative and judicial measures) and the collectivization of peasants, they held firm on their stand against any programs that they perceived to promote the "cultural backwardness" of the aboriginal peoples.

In 1934, The Committee of the North was abolished (many of its members were

Social Transition in the North bmchatka Ethnography, Page 15 'eventually repressed) and its functions were transferred to the Administration of

Glavsevmorput (Northern Sea Cargo Lines). Later this administration played a significant role in setting up the GULAG system in the North.

One outcome of the agricultural collectivization between the years 1931 and 1933 was an increase in the numbers of nomadic people (some 700 Koryaks, Evens, Evenks and Chukchas) who moved to Chukotka from the north (Sergeev 1934:34), resulting in a

40% drop in the reindeer livestock in Kamchatka, according to the 1926 statistics.

As a result of several dog shooting operations (the dogs were blamed for

"exterminating valuable fish species") undertaken by the new authorities in the 1930s and

1950s, the settled native residents found themselves almost totally devoid of dog teams.

Naturally, the communication between neighboring villages was impaired. Rural populations were divided into adversarial classes.

Beginning in the 1930s, a policy of settling the nomadic population was pursued.

This action undermined the traditional system of family education and development, links between generations, as well as family structure.

In 1957 the fatal blow to the traditional subsistence patterns of the indigenous population was dealt by a new "course" set for "enlarging" rural villages. As a consequence, many villages initially suitable for life and the use of natural resources were abandoned. The last to go was the indigenous schooling system. Teaching in the native languages at the schools (which had started in 1932) had become abolished by

1957.

During the Soviet period, the administrative policy made no allowance for local

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 16 environmental conditions, or historic or ethnic background. The major objective was the complete integration of indigenous peoples into the "new historic union of the Soviet people."

The indigenous villages in Kamchatka almost completely disappeared. By 1970, there were only 6 villages with at least 50% of aboriginal residents (1 village with

Itelmen population, 4 with Koryaks and 1 with Evens).

While in 1926 the indigenous population of Karnchatka amounted to 64% of the total, in 1989, according to the census data, it constituted of no more than 2% of the total population of the Kamchatka administrative region (oblast). In the Tigilsky District between the years 1926 and 1989, the percentage of the indigenous population dropped from 87% to 27%; in the Karaginsky District from 94% to 19%; and in the Bystrinsky

District from 99% to 25%.

1I.C. Settlement Pattern and Traditional Means of Communication

At the end of the 17th century, pioneer Russian colonists observed two types of settlement patterns in the area under consideration:

(1) Permanent villages of fishermen, hunters and gatherers that were

situated close to the mouths of rivers with significant salmon runs -

complemented by nearby permanent summer-type shelters;

(2) Temporary reindeer-breeder camps that consisted of transportable

dwellings in the forest tundra zone, at sites of reindeer pasturing.

Naturally, over the last 300 years sigmficant changes have occurred in the overall population, including the native/non-native ratio, as well as in the number of villages.

- -- -

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 17 However, the overall pattern of harvesting natural resources in the coastal area, in rivers, and on watersheds remained essentially the same. Most of the villages that exist today are located just where the old villages used to be.

An analysis of maps from the 18th century through the first half of the 20th century has revealed two peaks in the documented number of villages in this region

(Murashko unpublished material). From 1770 to about 1850 there was a decline in the population and in the number of villages. At the time of the population peak, there were 26 villages and 46 camps of nomadic reindeer-breeders in the area which today is the Tigilsky District. In the Karaginsky District there were 12 villages and 19 camps, and

19 camps in the Bystrinsky District. The spatial structure of settlement is illustrated by the schematic map enclosed at the end of this document.

Today this area is recognized as one of the least passable for contemporary land vehicles. As a result there are few rnodern-type roads (with the exception of a few short roads, less than 30 km. long) that provide a link to the neighboring villages (Ust,

Khairuzovo, Kovran, Karaga, Ossora, Esso and Anavgay).

Between the 18th century and the first third of the 20th century, a dense communication network had been established across the entire area of the three districts.

This was accomplished by using traditional means of transportation, such as dog teams,

"batn-boats and horses.

A detailed description of such communication lines can be found in several sources. The most interesting are 'The Description of the Land of Karnchatka" by S.P.

Krasheninnikov and the reports of K. Dithmar, V.N. Tjushov, N.V. Slunin and others

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Uhnography, Page 18 while visiting Kamchatka. In 'The Central State Archive of Ancient Acts" there is a document entitled "An Account of the High Roads Built on Kamchatka" that was compiled in 1776 by the commander of Kamchatka, T.I. Shmalev. This document gives a detailed description of all the communication routes that led from one village to another, along with the distances and references to the types of surrounding landscape.

The most northern road in the region was the one leading from the Anapka River to the Rekkiniki River; it is still available for traditional means of transportation. In the south of the territory, there was a road from Kirganik to Icha, to Oblukovina, and to

Bolshaja.

Judging from the comments in old texts, the roads at that time were hardly more tiring than today's modem means of transportation (if it is kept in mind that one has to somehow get to the airport and must wait for the plane).

According to Krasheninnikov, 'The Lesnaya River has its upper reaches close to

Karaga River, and so it is used to travel to the East Sea. Their mouths are separated by some one hundred and fifty krn., according to my reasoning, because travelling not too fast I was able to cover that distance in three days" (Krasheninnikov 1949:150).

One of the key roads in Kamchatka that connects the four contemporary administrative districts (Tigilsky, Karaginsky, Bystrinsky and Ust-Kamchatsky) was described by S.P. Krasheninnikov as follows: 'The Elovka River flows on the left side

(i.e., is the left tributary of river Kamchatka) and its upper reaches are close to those of

River Tigil, and for this very fact people go upstream to Tigil. One can also go up

Elovka to the Ozemaya River, which falls into the Eastern (i.e. Bering Sea)"

------

Social Transition in the North Kamcbatka Ethnography, Page 19 (Krasheninnikov 1949: 106).

Today the number and location of the villages gives one the strong impression that the region is almost uninhabited, since the villages are often separated by hundreds of kilometers and connected only by air transportation; but surprisingly, the overall population here has increased 4 times since the 1926 census.

In terms of the history of the contemporary administrative areas, today the northern bounds of the Tigilsky and Karaginsky Districts almost completely coincide with the northern boundary of the Petropavlovsky okrug, which existed in the pre-Soviet years.

The most northern settlement in the Petropavlovsky okrug on the west Kamchatka coast was Pustoretsk, which is located on the Pustaya River. On the east coast, the northernmost community was Kichiga, a village that was settled along the Kichiga River.

Prior to the 1740s, the Russian Orthodox missionaries reached these villages and baptized the Koryak residents, whose family names are still common in these regions.

The land to the north of the indicated line was part of the Gizhinsky okrug and was inhabited mostly by reindeer Koryaks, Chukchas, Tunguses and Larnuts. The chris- tianization of reindeer herders and the introduction of the jasak tax had not started until somewhat later and was a much slower process.

The Orthodox Church was, in general, quite attentive to keeping the records of the indigenous population according to their territorial, kinship and ethnic culture back- ground. In the second half of the 19th century, there were a total of 5 churches within the bounds of the Tigilsky and Karaginsky Districts. In the villages of Tigil, Palan,

Lesnoy, Ivashko, and also Tymlatsky, "field churches" were set up specially for the

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnogrsphy, Page 20 nomadic Koryaks. Priests were, as a result, in much closer contact with indigenous population than was the local administration. Therefore, church documents relating to population characteristics are no less significant as a source of information than administrative statistics.

With the main objectives being to give Kamchatka's indigenous peoples their own

autonomous administrative units, native administrative units were established in

Kamchatka. The establishment of the Koryak Ethnic okrug in 1932 incorporated the

territory of the former Gizhinsky okrug and the northern part of the Petropavlovsky

okrug, and constituted what is now the Tigilsky and Karaginsky Districts. The Bystrinsky

(Evensky) Ethnic District (a part of the Ust-Kamchatsky District) was also established in the area where the Evens were living at the time. During the first two decades of the existence of the native administrative units, they indeed played a positive role in the es- tablishment of native schools and in the training of native specialists (in the development of indigenous culture as well as in the preservation of the traditional pattern of natural resource use).

One drawback to this administrative action was that Itelmens and Kamchadals, recognized and recorded by the census of 1926 to 1927, found themselves divided by

administrative boundaries and were not granted a native administrative unit of their own.

At the same time, indigenous and "old-settler" residents that happened to live outside the

Koryak Ethnic Orkug and the Even Ethnic District lost, in a way, their native status. For

example, in subsequent censuses they were never again identified as separate ethnic

groups.

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 21 The issue of establishing an Itelmen Native District was raised over and over again in the 1930s and 1940s, but to no avail. In today's Kamchatka, there is still a problem of defining the status of the Kamchadals, the descendants of the aborigines and the Russian "old-settlers",when they lay claims to priority use of traditional subsistence resources.

The northern boundary of the Karaginsky District was adjusted in 1970 by incorporating the southern part of Parapolsky dol, the traditional area across which the

Karaginsky reindeer Koryaks roam from the villages of Tyrnlat to Rekinniki.

Most of the currently existing villages are situated near the settlements on the

18th century maps. A contemporary village can vary up to a few kilometers from its 19th century precursor where in most cases one would find remnants of dwellings dating back to the 18th century and prior. The banks of Kamchatka's rivers suitable for fish harvesting have been constantly inhabited since ancient times. However, the very nature of hunting and fishing economies has compelled the indigenous residents to permanently seek new places for their villages. This fact was noted by Shteller when he took strolls along the banks of Bolshaya River. Over a distance of 10 to 12 kilometers, he was able to identify more than 40 remnants of semisubterranean winter dwellings dating from various historical periods. He found that a typical community would have from 1 to 3 occupied lodgings of this type (Shteller 1938).

We have at our disposal the lists of the settled villages and data on the changes in their geography starting from the 1740s. Similar data about locations of the nomads' camps in Kamchatka are available, beginning from 1897. A comparison of historic and

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 22 contemporary village locations reveals a significant difference between the modern pattern of settlements to the village formations that existed in 1926 to 1927 and even in

1957. The old, traditional network of villages emerged as a result of the sustained influence of a wide variety of economic, ecological and resource availability factors, whereas the new pattern was shaped by decisions taken by the central administration.

Beginning in the 1930s, the pace of migration to Kamchatka and the settlement structure were, at least in part, determined by the State's policy concerning minorities.

During this same time, the settling of nomads was formulated as a long-term priority.

Also at this time and later, especially in the 1950s, stationary houses were built in permanent villages for the families of the reindeer herders. At places where there were no villages of settled residents, new villages were raised (like Esso and Anav~aj).

As mentioned above, starting from the late 1950s a policy of enlarging rural vil- lages and small settlements was pursued. Many old villages were liquidated on the grounds of "having no potential." The change in the settlement pattern from 1926 to

1989 in the Tigilsky, Karaginsky, and Bystrinsky districts is illustrated in Table 1.

111. ETHNIC COMPOSITION AND POPULATION DYNAMICS IN KAMCHATKA

This area has been inhabited since ancient times. Archaeologists (Dikov, Dikova and Ponomarev) have found numerous traces of the neolithic camps of fishers, hunters and gatherers.

Russian colonists who were moving to Kamchatka from the Anadyr fortress travelled across this area during the early years of Kamchatka's exploration and found that it was inhabited by two groups of people, the Koryaks and Itelmens.

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Pap 23 Subsequent research has added detail to the original ethnic and linguistic picture.

1II.A. Koryaks

The name "Koryak" derives from the Koryak word "gorak" meaning "attached to reindeer" (Bogoraz 1934:8). The Koryaks did not have a single word to define their ethnicity. Reindeer herders called themselves "chav chu" and reindeer-breeders (settled

Koryaks) referred to themselves as "nymylg yn," which means a resident (Stebnitsky

1934:49).

S. Krasheninnikov and G. Shteller divided the Koryaks into "seated" (settled) and

"wandering" (nomadic reindeer herders) based on dialectical distinctions. They also recognized the linguistic uniformity of the reindeer Koryaks and the occurrence of mul- tiple dialects in the settled Koryaks' language. Krasheninnikov had this to say: "I regard as the indigenous Koryak language the one spoken by reindeer Koryaks, for the reason that it is not much different in different places," whereas in the language of the settled

Koryaks, he found "its own dialect for almost any Koryak settlement" (Krasheninnikov

1949:460).

P. Skorik, an expert in the Koryak language, views the language spoken by rein- deer herders as the proper Koryak language, and classifies the Alutor language into four dialects, Alutor proper, Karaga, Palana and Uka (Skorik 1968:235).

In Krasheninnikov's book there is mention of the fact that Tigil-Palana and Uka-

Karaga Koryaks were actually of mixed origin: 'The Tigil seated Koryaks as well as Uka ones have more likeness in their language with Kamchadals of the North than with reindeer Koryaks. . . To put it shortly, the nearer the seated Koryaks live to

Social Transition in the North Kamchtka Ethnography, Page 24 Kamchadals, the greater their resemblance is."

V. Bogoraz wrote, "Vojampoka is the farthest settlement of seated Koryaks. That is why I started taking notes of the language, but it was almost no different from that as far as Kichiga. It appears that the two coasts of the Kamchatka Koryaks had always been in communication with each other to make up one people" (Vdovin 1973:137).

S. Stebnitsky, on the basis of a linguistic analysis of the Karaga dialect of the Kor- yak language, came to the conclusion that it could have stemmed from confusion of the

Alutor and Itelmen languages (Stebnitsky 1939:169).

In the lists of the names of settled Kamchatka residents we have on hand for the years 1740 to 1747 and 1893, it possible to follow the northward movement of the

Kamchadal (Itelmen), by tracing family names to the area occupied by Palana and

Karaga Koryaks (unpublished data of 0. Murashko).

In the second half of the 19th century, the process of moving reindeer Koryaks from the Gizhinsky okrug to the territory of the Tigilsky and Karaginsky Districts was under way. All these people were baptized (Koryaks and Russians) with Russian names and family names. Fairly soon, in the course of 2 to 3 generations, they assimilated with the local nomadic and settled population. By the beginning of the 20th century, their former Chavchu dialect was no longer used, as it was displaced by the Alutor dialect

(Vdovin 1973:60-61).

By the 1930s, there was already a high level of assimilation between the Koryak groups and the Russians, and by that time many of them no longer knew their indigenous language (Antropova 1971:17). The mixing of the settled Koryaks and

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 25 Russians in Kamchatka was stimulated by the fact that the former had been baptized in

1740 to 1747. The residents from the following villages can be assumed to be baptized: on the west bank of Vojampolka River, Kakhtana, Piatibratny, Nizhny, Sredny, and

Verkhny Palana, Kinkil, Lesnaya, Podkagirnaya, and Pustoretsk; and on the east bank,

Uka, Nachiki, Kangalakty, Rusanova, Hajlula, Pankara (Ivashka), Yumgin (Dranka),

Karaga. Also on the islands of Karaga, Kichiga and Tyrnlaty the residents were assumed to be baptized. The reindeer Koryaks evaded christening.

The settled and reindeer Koryaks differed not only in their language, ethnic history and economy, but also in their ethnic and social consciousness. This is evident in

18th century written sources. Krasheninnikov writes, 'They all (settled Koryaks) are called serfs by reindeer Koryaks, and this especially applies to Alutors, since that is what their name means. In the Koryak language a serf means alutaklaul (alutor)"

(Krasheninnikov 1949:736). He goes on to state, 'The seated Koryaks consider themselves as almost serfs to reindeer Koryaks, holding them in such high regard that would never be granted to any Russian" (Krasheninnikov 1949:727).

Although subsequent linguistic studies failed to support Krasheninnikov's etymology of the stem "alut," the Russian administration continued to view the settled

Koryaks as an ethnic group more similar to the Kamchadals and Itelmens than to the reindeer Koryaks. For example, in the "List of Indigenous Residents Baptized the population of the villages between 1740-1747, to the south of Karaga and Polana, were already referred to as the "Kamchadals." In fiscal documents from the 18th and 19th centuries, the settled Koryaks from some villages were often called "Kamchadals."

Social Transition in the North Karnchatka Ethnography, Page 26 By the end of the 19th century, the settled Koryaks even stopped calling themselves Koryaks. Vdovin cites an observation made by V. Bogoraz in his field diary after visiting the villages of Alutor, Karaga and Palana Koryaks in 1900. "Settled Kory- aks don't look like Koryaks any more; but they are not true Russians either. They would even call themselves as they are called by Kamchatka officials, i.e. the

"Kamchadals", and when they say "Koryaks" they mean only reindeer ones" (Vdovin

1973: 138).

In 1932, the first ABC book was published in the Koryak language. The Koryak literary language was based on the language of the reindeer Koryaks. In 1953 teaching the Koryak language at schools ceased. This was partially explained by the absence of teachers, since only 4 out 157 teachers working in Koryak native schools knew the

Koryak language. Moreover, the children of the settled Koryaks had a problem understanding the Chavchu dialect, which the textbooks were based upon.

Today only 10% of the settled Koryak residents and about 20% of the nomads have a fluent command of the Koryak language. In the middle of the 20th century, the

Palana Koryaks inhabited 6 villages: Vojampolka, Palana, Kachtana, Kinkil, Lesnaja and

Podkagernaja. Currently only Vojampolka, Palana and Lesnaja are inhabited.

Karaga and/or Uka Koryaks resided at that time in the villages of Uka, Khajlula,

Rusakova, Ivashka, Dranka, and Karaga (of which only Ivashka and Karaga are currently populated). The Alutor Koryaks used to live in the villages Tymlat, Kichiga,

Uvajavajam, Lunovajm and Ilpyr, as well as on the west coast in Rekinniki. At present only Tymlat, Ilpyr and Rekinniki are populated.

------

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 27 the indigenous Kamchadals resided on the-west coast, south of the Sopochnaya River, in villages in the basin of the Kamchatka and Avacha Rivers. At that time, the Kamchatka dialect of Russian was listed in the 1926 Census as either "Kamchadals" or "Russians."

These groups also included the descendants from the first Russian settlers who lived side by side with Kamchadals.

According to the 1989 census, there are at present 1,479 Itelmens, of which 1,115 reside in the Tigilsky District of the Koryak Autonomous okrug (region). Itelmens regard themselves as a separate people with their own ethnic history different from that of the other local groups of Kamchadals (they stress their relative isolation, preservation of their native language, and ethnonym). Today their priorities, as an ethnicity, include the preservation of their ethnic identity and the revival of the Itelmen culture.

Itelmens belong the Arctic race (constituting a part of a large Mongol race) which was divided by the explorer of Kamchatka, G. Debets, into 5 local anthropological types, including the Itelmen and Kamchatkan. The latter is characterized primarily by "an exceptionally wide lower jaw with a relatively narrow face and not very prominent cheekbones" (Debets 1951:77). Their height is less than average, they have dark eyes, dark straight and stiff hair, dark skin and moderately to quite flat faces wjth nose lines that can be straight to concave; there is little hair on their bodies.

The Itelmen language has been traditionally assigned to the Chukotka-Kamchatka language group; but its place in the genealogical and morphological taxonomy is still an open question. It has been recently argued that "the assignment of the Itelmen language to the Chukotka-Kamchatka group can be substantiated on the areal rather than genetic

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 29 basis" (Volodin 1991:145). Volodin mentions some intrinsic characteristics of the

Itelmen language, similar to those of some American Indian languages.

Of all the Kamchadal languages spoken in the 18th century, only the west-Itelmen language continues to persist in the 20th century (Volodin 1976:17). Its dialectal composition has not been not well studied. The number of dialects mentioned in literature ranges from two (Khajryuzov and Stebnitsky 1934:86; Volodin 1976:188) to four: Sedan, Napan, Khajryuzov, and Sopochnov (Gurvich 1990: 188).

It was as early as the 18th century that the first investigators of the Kamchadal language mentioned that each community on Kamchatka's west coast had its own dialect.

Lexically, the contemporary west-Itelmen language has been influenced by the Koryak and Russian languages (Volodin 1968:334). Also, records indicate that reciprocal bilingualism has been practiced by the Kamchadals and the descendants of the first Rus- sian settlers since the end of the 18th century (Braslovets 1968:77). At present, the

Itelmens are bilingual. Russian is used for both intra- and inter-ethnic communication.

It is now also the language of education. In 1991, the Itelmen language was named as the mother tongue by 18.8% of the Itelmen population. The Itelmen language is mostly used by older people for household communication, having to do with traditional activities and indigenous culture.

In 1932 an attempt was made to develop an Itelmen orthography based on Latin characters. "Because of the small population, this attempt turned out to be useless"

(Volodin 1968:334). Recently, work has been done with the purpose of developing a

Itelmen orthography to teach the Itelmen language in the schools.

Social Transition in the Nonh Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 30 1II.C. Kamchadals

During the three hundred years of interaction between the indigenous settled population and the colonists, who mostly had Russian roots, a metis group derived from

Russian, Itelmen, and Koryak populations developed in Kamchatka. It was first officially recognized as a particular ethnic group, named "Kamchadals," in the Circumpolar Census of 192611927.

The formation of this metis group in Kamchatka commenced in the middle of the

18th century. This process was fostered by the baptism of the Itelmens and the settled

Koryaks, since marriages between Russian colonists and local residents could now be registered in church.

Russian colonists had sought native marital partners because, until 1912,

Kamchatka was a closed area for free settling. And by the turn of the 19th century small and geographically isolated groups of Russians in Kamchatka were affected by degeneration so much that they were no longer able to marry within their own ethnicity

(Golovin 1809).

By the middle of the 19th century, about every second marriage in the

Bolsheretsky District and Kamchatka River drainage was between different ethnic groups

(Murashko 1985 and 1986). Up through the end of the 19th century, the visitors to

Kamchatka made observations concerning the similarities in the economies and lifestyles of the indigenous (settled) and Russian populations (Lesseps 1800; Ditmar 1901).

During Krasheninnikov's time, Russian settlers took the indigenous subsistence economies of Kamchadals as an adaptation model to be followed. 'The life of Kazaks in

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 31 Kamchatka is hardly different from that of Kamchadals, since both are supported by roots and fish and have to engage in similar work: in summer they are fishing and conserve their catch for winter, in autumn they are digging for roots" (Krasheninnikov

1949505).

To be able to survive under Kamchatka's conditions, Russian colonists had no

choice but to take over the life pattern of the indigenous population. The economy of

the Russian settlers, as well as that of the indigenous population, was based on fish harvesting. It was fish harvesting that shaped the entire annual round of the economies.

However, there were restraints on winter activities, as was the case when the Russian colonists attempted to develop cattle-breeding and grain production. Despite their effort, as well as the efforts of Kamchatka's administration, the latter economies never developed.

The two other most important activities after fishing were gathering and vegetable growing, with both complementing one another. Hunting for fur and harvesting sea mammals was of only secondary importance for Russian settlers.

By the turn of the 20th century, Kamchatka's settled residents, both the indigenous and descendants of Russian settlers, followed the same pattern- of natural resource harvesting. Descriptions of their harvests are reported by a number of authors

(Tushov 1906; Margaritov 1899; Slunin 1900; and Komarov 1912).

According to the 1926/1927 census data on the Kamchadals, the distribution of households, with respect to the main economy, was the same for the Itelmens as for the

descendants of Russian settlers who identified themselves as "Russians" in the census

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 32 (Bolshakov 1934:60).

In the study area for our comparative project, the Kamchadals (the Russian-native metis group) lived primarily in Tigil, a fortress erected in 1751, and also in the two villages of Palan and Dranka, both of which had Russian Orthodox churches.

1II.D. Evens

The Evens came to Karnchatka later than Russian colonists. This happened as a result of a period of riots (lasting until 1757) and epidemics (from 1769 to the middle of the 19th century), when the size of the settled population in the region declined by more than half (while nomadic reindeer breeders moved north). During the middle of the

19th century, gradually the nomadic reindeer breeders returned to Kamchatka's internal region. Along with Koryaks, the Okhotsk Lamuts also appeared in Kamchatka (initially just a few families). After 1852 Governor Zavoiko granted the Evens permission to occupy the then unoccupied lands of the Nizhnekamsb ujezd (an equivalent of a district in pre-revolutionary Russia). By the turn of the 20th century, the Evens were roaming and camping all over the contemporary Bystrinsky District (declared in 1932 The Even

Ethnic District).

For a long time, the settled population of the adjacent territories competed with the Evens for hunting and fishing ranges. Legally, the settled population regarded the entire drainage of the river, where their village was located, as their own territory. With the appearance of competitors from upstream, there were many cases of people struggling for fish harvests and fishing rights. The Itelmens and Kamchadals who followed suit considered all the fish harvested in their "own" rivers to be their property,

------pp - -

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 33 and so they would raid Evens' camps and take away, by force, all fish found. In such cases, Kamchatka's officials would usually take the side of Evens and offer them their protection. The reasons for such benevolence towards the people of a new ethnic culture coming to Kamchatka were expounded by K. Ditmar, who observed the first

Lamuts arriving to Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky on March, 2, 1852: ". . . one wonders if this strong, healthy, and energetic nomad will eventually replace Kamchadals that are gradually dying out and come to inhabit this vastly depopulated area" (Ditmar 1901:184).

On the other hand, during the famine among settled populations (due to reductions in fish stocks), the administration ordered the nomads to provide reindeer meat to the famine-stricken population. During the Russian-Japanese War, the admi- nistration required that Lamuts feed part of the army (Bolshakov 1934:42).

The antagonism felt by the local settled population and the substantial demands imposed by the administration of Kamchatka resulted in the reindeer herders moving once again, this time back to the north, towards the tundra reindeer breeding areas.

1II.E. Population Density in Central Kamchatka

In the past two and a half centuries there have been notable oscillations in the number of people populating the territories of the Tigilsky, Karaginsky and Bystrinsky

Districts. There are written sources available that report the population for each village from 1740 through 1926 for ten chronological cross sections (1738, 1740-1747, 1763, 1770,

1790, 1822, 1829, 1848, 1897 and 1926). In Table 1, these data are presented in four historical cross sections. Table la provides similar information for the last fifty years based on census data.

Social Transition in thc North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 34 The category "others" includes a few to several dozen people, who do not represent indigenous populations of the North.

During the period between 1740 and 1747, when all settled populations of

Kamchatka were baptized, a list of residents was developed by officials that listed village and name for residents. No data are available relating to the nomadic population. In the 18th century Kamchatka experienced several major epidemics and famines. These include the smallpox epidemic of 1769, followed by the famine of 1769/1770, which reduced Karnchatka's indigenous population by about two thirds. There was some population growth by 1790, but in 1799/1800 a new epidemic of "rotten fever" (typhoid) stormed through Kamchatka and killed over one half of the original population.

The epidemics and famines during the first quarter of the 19th century were less severe. Owing to its remoteness from the centers of Russian colonization, the areas under study in the central and northern regions of Kamchatka were not affected as badly as the others. A sharp drop in the population of settled Koryaks in the Karaginsky

District was apparently caused not only by the epidemics and hunger, but also by the local settled Koryaks switching to reindeer breeding.

The best source on population structure in the beginning of the 19th century is the "Book of Jasak-taxable Settled and Nomadic Population of Kamchatka of 1829." The

slow population growth in the 19th century was limited by external factors such as recurrent epidemics and famines, and probably had little to do with the prevailing reproduction pattern.

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 35 Table 1.

Population Dynamics, 1740 Through 1989

Population group 1747 1829 1926 1989

Tigilsky district

Koryaks, total 842 2348 2460

settled Koryaks 8% 634 1176

nomadic Koryaks 208 1172

Russians (old settlers) 185 468 750

newcomers 8200 11 Karaginsky district Koryaks, total 6%

settled Koryaks 685 466

nomadic Koryaks 230

Russians (old settlers)

newcomers

Bystrinsky district

nomadic Koryaks 103

Evens 372 469 672

newcomers 2173

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 36 Table la.

Population Dynamics Over the Last 50 Years (Based on Census Data)

Population Group

Tigilsky district

Itelmens

Koryaks

Others

Karaginsky district

Koryaks

Others

Bystrinsky district

Koryaks

Evens

Others

By 1926/1927 the census of the indigenous and the old Russian settlers population of Kamchatka had reached a peak in its economic and demographic development. The lands inhabited by aborigines in the 17th century, prior to Russian colonization, were once again populated and used in local economies. The total aboriginal population in central and northern Kamchatka equalled and even exceeded the census of the pre- colonial period.

A sharp increase in the number of Koryak residents (see Table 1) cannot be explained by the natural growth of population. It is due, rather, to the Koryaks returning

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 37 to the territories of the Tigilsky and Karaginsky Districts from the Northern regions in the second half of the 19th century.

From 1926 to 1989 there was a relatively slow growth in the number of Itelmens and Koryaks. Judging from household census books and other sources, population growth in the 1950s grew only slightly. Over the past 63 years there has been a mere

40% growth in the Itelmens population, a 5% growth with the Evens and an 11% increase in the numbers of Koryaks (as can be seen from the table above). During the same period the population of the Soviet Union almost doubled despite the severe famines in the early 30s and late 40s and loss of lives during wartime (1939 through

1945). A likely cause of slow growth in the indigenous population in the North could be the rejection of the genetic ethnic identity, which became more common over this period.

The number of mixed marriages increased, and the children from these families identified (ethnically) more with the dominant ethnic group (rather than with their indigenous heritage). But this is only a hypothesis, which could be proved only by statistical analysis of the indicated social phenomena. Such a study could be based on data drawn from old household register books and from data found in the ZAGS

(Register Office responsible for recording births, deaths, marriages, etc.) archives.

1II.E. Subsistence Patterns Now and Before

The traditional use of natural resources by the indigenous population of

Kamchatka has always been integral; and the economies of the settled and nomadic populations have been closely linked by trade as well as by shared economic territories.

The specific features of the local economies have been largely determined by the envi-

Social Transition in the Nonh Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 38 ronmental conditions and subsistence activities.

S.P. Krasheninnikov has more than once stressed the similarity between the economies and material culture of Kamchadals (Itelmens) and the settled Koryaks.

"Their language is not much different from the Kamchatka language, and includes a large number of Kamchatka words. Koryaks live in yourtas just like those of Kam- chadals. Their moral and behaviors are as those of Kamchadals and they worship the same God - the creator of the Earth and all people. . . They follow Kamchatka rites to celebrate their marriages, births and to mourn their dead. . . Their winter and summer garbs do not much differ from those of Kamchadals since the latter get their reindeer- skin clothing from Koryaks. . . It is hardly needed to dwell at length upon Koryak and

Kuril peoples since their lifestyle is essentially similar to that of Kamchadals. . . "

(Krasheninnikov 1949:724-725,728,448). For this reason we shall consider the traditional subsistence economies of the Itelmens and the settled Koryaks in terms of one subsec- tion indicating, where necessary, the distinctions between these two groups.

III.E.l. The Subsistence Economies of Itelmens and Settled Koryaks

Harvesting of fish in rivers and the hunting sea-mammals have been practiced in

Kamchatka for several thousand years (Dikov 1979). For the Itelmens, the major subsistence activity was river fishing. The annual round of activities has always been shaped by the calendar of harvested species (see below).

Fish runs begin in mid June and continue until the end of September. The historic methods of fish harvesting are fish traps, nets, sweep-nets, landing-nets and fish- spears. The traditional methods of fish preservation included drying, fermentation and

------

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 39 salting, the latter adopted from Russians. The amounts of fish harvested in 1926/1927 are reported in the appendix.

Calendar of Fish Harvests

April - May loach (Russ.: golets); June smelt (Russ.: korjushka); June - July king salmon (Russ.: chavytcha); July humpbacked salmon (Russ.: gorbusha); August - September silver salmon (Russ.: kizhuch); October - early November loach (Russ. golets).

The second most important subsistence activity of the Itelmens was harvesting sea-mammals. The harvesting methods practiced included coastal hunting; in winter, hunting on ice at leads; and hunting from skin-boats (Russ. bajdmy). The most important species harvested were seals (the ringed seal and bearded seal). The hunting seasons were in early spring and autumn. The most ancient hunting method was to batter an animal sleeping on the shore with sticks. In the 19th century rifles were used along with flat-bottom river boats (Russ. bat).

The products of sea mammal harvesting were fully utilized. The meat and fat of the harvested animals were considered the most valuable food items. Their skins were used for making clothes, utensils and belts, and they were traded to the reindeer breeders. The amounts of harvested sea mammals are reported in the appendix.

Land hunting was practiced to harvest meat and fur, with the latter mostly used to

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 40 be exchanged or sold. The species harvested were bear, sable, fox, polar fox, ermine, glutton and bighorn sheep. Regarding the quality of the furs from Kamchatka, S.P.

Krasheninnikov had this to say: "In terms of size and luxuriance, Kamchatka sables are by far superior to all Siberian sables. . . the foxes are so red, tawny, and luxuriant, that they are second to no other Siberian fox" (Krasheninnikov 1949). Also harvested for meat were migratory birds.

Gathering, most commonly practiced by women and children, was a traditional means of supporting the diet with vitamins and fiber. The plants harvested were liliaceous and umbelliferous plants and a variety of sweet grasses. Berries were preserved for later use by drying.

Vegetable agriculture, especially cultivation of potatoes, turnips and carrots, was adopted by the indigenous population from the Russians. But since the timing of vegetable gardening overlapped with the fish harvesting calendar, the former activity failed to become an important factor in the subsistence routine. The share of vegetables in the overall annual diet was fairly low. For the same reason, raising livestock was never prominent in Kamchatka.

The subsistence economy of the settled Koryaks is very similar to that of the

Itelmens. There are, however, a few distinctions originating from the different ethnic relations and the different climatic conditions. The differences, especially in the archaic methods and tools used, are also found between the individual and local groups of the settled Koryaks.

The list of primary subsistence activities among settled Koryaks is essentially the

------

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 41 same including: fishing, harvesting sea-mammals, hunting for meat and fur, gathering and vegetable gardening. The latter is less widely practiced because of more severe climatic conditions.

The salmon fishing period is somewhat shorter (from the end of June through

August). The amount of salmon harvested in the territory of the contemporary Koryak

Autonomous District during the 1920s and 1930s is reported in the appendix.

Hunting sea-mammals on the east Karnchatka coast was much more widespread than on the west coast. From the reports of the 1935 North-Kamchatka Expedition, we see that in the Karaginsky District alone there were 140 areas of sea-mammal harvesting.

The volume of harvest produced by Itelrnens and settled Koryaks in the three districts in

1926/1927 is given in the appendix.

Seasonal hunting conducted by the settled Koryaks and Itelmens was dependent on breeding dogs for a means of transportation. Plant gathering and horticulture were not important activities among settled Koryaks because of the severe environmental conditions.

The economies of the Karaga and Alutor Koryaks also had a few unique traits.

During the 18th and 19th centuries, these groups of Koryaks included both settled and nomadic people. The nomads would roam with their small herds near the permanent

Koryak villages. The reindeers owned by the settled Karaga and Alutor residents were a sort of "insurance against a poor fish and game harvest" (Vdovin 1973:27). According to

S. Stebnintsky, reindeer breeding among Alutor Koryaks came about on the basis of a fairly well developed fishing and coastal hunting complex. For example, the names of

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 42 the months in the Alutor Koryak's folk calendar are associated with fishing, rather than with reindeer herding (as is the case with the Chavchuven Koryak reindeer breeders)

(Stebnitsky 1938:133).

To comprehend the genesis of the contemporary culture of the Itelmens and settled Koryaks one must analyze the 18th and 20th century sources describing the local variants of the Kamchadal culture in terms of how they relate to the settled Koryaks, as well as the old Russian settlers.

During the summer, the Kamchadals and settled Koryaks travel by boats, while in the winter they use dogsleds (Russ. narty) (Krasheninnikov 1949: 95, 247-250, 269, 369,

383-386). From the 19th century on, horses started to be used in fur hunting.

"All utensils of Kamchadals and tools they use are limited to bowls, troughs, birch-bark baskets . . . as well as sledges and boats" (Krasheninnikov 1949:378). Axes were made of reindeer, whale bone, or jasper; knives and heads of arrows and spears were made from mountain crystal; and needles were made of bone. Fire was kindled by friction (Krasheninnikov 1949:380).

Krasheninnikov also noted the mutual influences between the Kamchadal and

Russian cultures. The Kamchadals and the settled Koryaks were first able to obtain rifles and metal items from the Russians. These metal objects were transformed into knives, arrows and spearheads by cold forging (Krasheninnikov 1949:381). With time, the Kamchadals took up a few new practices from Russian settlers which the latter had already adapted to Kamchatka conditions, such as vegetable gardening, growing potatoes and cattle breeding. By the end of the 18th century, vegetables were grown in every

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 43 Kamchadal village (Sbignev 1865:13); and by the 1850s, there were at least a few cattle in every Kamchadal village (Vedomosty 1848:109-111). As a result, the traditional culture of fishing, plant gathering and hunting was extended to include some forms of productive economies, though feeble due to local natural conditions. This economic supplement provided some support in the case of hunger (due to poor fish harvest).

A typical winter Kamchadal dwelling (a winter 'Yourta") was described by

Krasheninnikov as a rectangular dugout (or in the case of settled Koryaks an oval-shaped dugout) with a wooden ceiling supported by poles with a layer of earth on the top. It had an open fireplace and there was a hole on one of its sides to let out smoke. To get inside a yourta, one had to go through an opening in the ceiling and climb down a pole with crossbars. Such a yourta could accommodate, in winter, between 5 to 12 families

(Antropova 1949:414). During the summer every family would move to a %alaganW(a conical hut on piles) and while at the fishing camps, people would usually build grass huts close to balagans as places were fish could be scaled and boiled (Krasheninnikov

1949:376-377).

By the end of the 18th century the winter yourtas gave way to traditional Russian wooden houses (Russ. izba). The Kamchadals also adopted wooden frame barns and primitive cattle-sheds from Russians (Starkova 1991: 125-126). The Russians, in turn, started building balagans and grass huts to be used during fish harvesting periods.

The staple of the diet of the Kamchadals and settled Koryaks was fish. The two major methods of fish preservation for people and dogs was drying and fermentation.

Baking and smoking were not so common. Salmon caviar was dried or fermented. The

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 44 winter catch was frozen. The meat and fat of sea animals was boiled in pits, and the intestines and entrails were used as vessels to keep them in. The meat of land animals and birds was not a dependable food source. People also gathered seagull eggs.

Fish and meat were eaten together with herbs, roots, tubers of wild lily (Russ. sarana) and dried berries. It was customary to drink water while eating. Food was cooked and served in wooden and birch-bark bowls and pots.

Kamchadals and settled Koryaks adopted the practice of smoking and salting fish, eating potatoes and farinaceous food, cooking soups and drinking tea with milk from the

Russians. It should be noted, however, that salting fish and eating bread were not very common, due to the lack of salt and flour in Kamchatka. The Russians adopted from the Kamchadals some methods of preserving fish and knowledge of wild plants and their uses.

The winter coats of the Kamchadals and settled Koryaks, for both men and women, were called "kuchlianka" (mid calf-length) and "kamleja" (ankle-length). Both of these anorak-type, double reindeer fur coats were lined with fur, both on the inside and outside, and had a hood with a cutout for the face. In the winter, both the men and women used to wear fur-pants that were also lined with fur from the inside and outside; and in summer they wore leather pants. In the home the women wore overalls, while the men wore loin-cloths. Winter foot-wear was sewn from reindeer and bear skin, taken from the legs of these animals, and worn with fur stockings. Summer boots were sewn from the skins of pinnipeds.

Worn-out winter clothes often served as summer clothes. Cloaks and boots made

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 45 from fish skins were used during fish harvesting. Winter fur-caps were hood-shaped and resembled the Yakut style, while summer caps were made of birch bark or feathers and sticks (similar to Aleut headgear). "But nowadays this is no longer so, for both women and girls will attire themselves in the Russian style. They will wear shirts with cuffs, kokoshniks, caps and golden bands" (Krasheninnikov 1949:387-392).

The Kamchadals adopted from the Russians the practice of wearing underclothes, decorations and summer clothes, while Russians wore traditional Kamchadal winter and work clothes.

The transformation in the economic activities and the structure of the households of the Itelmens, settled Koryaks and old Russian settlers in the Tigilsky and Karaginsky

Districts is illustrated by statistical data for the years 1836 and 1896 in Tables 2.a. through 2.d.

Table 2.a.

The Statistics of Economic Activities of Settled Population of Kamchatka

(The Tigilslg and Karaginslg Areas - 1836 to 1896). 1836

Khajruzovo 72 12 2 23 100 30 17 Tigil 187 27 12 150 ? ?

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 46 Table 2.b.

Statistical Data for the Years 1895/1896

Villages people houses yourtas horses cows reindeers dogs

Karaga 114 13 3 2 205 103

Amanino 81 12 8 26 119

Sedanka 99 16 10 38 194

Napana 64 10 12 28 100

Tigil 312 53 81 128 714

Utkholok 92 11 14 17 148

Kovran 109 12 23 24 235

Khajruzovo 166 30 23 59 591

Table 2.c.

Game Harvested in 1895/1896

1) Village 1 sable bear fox I otter 1 wild reindeer ( seal 11 Karaga Amanino Sedanka Napana 3 Tigil 13 Utkholok 2 Kovran 5 Khajruzovo 33

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 47 Table 2.d.

Fish and Vegetables Harvested in 1895/1896

Village Fishes (x 1,000) Vegetables (kg) fresh salted dry fermented potato turnip swede cabbage Karaga 31.4 19.5 14.8 240

Amanino 4.8 1.05 11.05 11.3 880 880

Sedanka 0.9 32.0 50.0 1392 256

Napana 24.0 25.0

Tigil 14.09 48.15 54.1 5088 2160 400 80

Utkholok 40.0 0.5 60.0 640 320 160

Kovr an 55.0 0.6 58.0 900 1760

Khajruzovo 87.7 89.0 400 1920

IV. THE HISTORIC ECONOMIES OF NOMADIC KORYAK, CHUKCHI AND EVEN

IN KAMCHATKA

Reindeer herding was the basic economic activity for the Chavchuva Koryaks and between 60 to 70% of the Alutor Koryaks. The herders have always constituted more than half of the Koryak population.

Koryak reindeer herding, like that in Chukotka, represents a special type of tundra reindeer pastoralism. To begin with, Koryak herders did not know about the use of shepherd dogs. Moreover, Koryaks and Chukchis alike were not aware that reindeer could be used for riding or for pack animals.

Annually, the Chavchuvens would make four major relocations. In spring, prior to fawning, the herd was divided into two parts and the pregnant reindeer cows were taken

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 48 to the best pastures. The calving time was during the end of April through the beginning of May.

In summer the herd was driven into the mountains or close to the sea coast, where there were not so many mosquitoes. At the end of July, the herd would start moving in the opposite direction, arriving in October at the main camp on a river bank.

Here the livestock was slaughtered on a mass scale, and the meat and skins were processed and preserved for winter use.

By the beginning of winter, the herd was driven to the winter camp and pastured in river valleys, sheltered from winds, where the snow was not too deep. During the course of winter, the herd would travel a number of times over short distances.

A typical herd of good pasturing size would number between 400 and 2,000 head.

The size of the herd was limited by the abundance of available moss pastures.

In the census of 192611927, total reindeer livestock in the Tigilsky, Karaginsky and Penzhinsky Districts amounted to 264,564 head.

Table 3.

The Number of Reindeer Livestock in the Karaginsky and Tigilsky Districts

Before and After Collectivization.

District Reindeer livestock 1926/192.7 I 1932 total collect. owned private Tigilsky 41258 27667 17621 10046 Karaginsky 3650 3650 Alutorsky 86284 30300 4533 25767

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 49 Table 4.

Distribution of Reindeer Livestock by the Herd Size in 1926/1927.

number of % of total net number of % of total number of units number heads heads heads/unit economic units with 815 895 78,814 29.7 96 herds under 500 heads economic units with 134 . 14.1 185,750 70.3 1,386 herds above 500 heads

~eindeerbreeding as practiced by Evens in Kamchatka has some unique features.

The Evens did not appear in Central Kamchatka until the 1840s and official permission

was not given to the them until 1952 to occupy the uninhabited territories of the

Sredinny Ridge. Until their relocation to Karnchatka, from the Gyzhinsky and Okhotsky

"okrugs," the Evens were taiga hunters and reindeer herders. In Karnchatka, they

adopted dogsled transport from the Kamchadals and settled Koryaks and horse transport

, from the Yakuts. 1 i From Koryaks, the Evens adopted breeding reindeer as a source of meat and iI 3 skins. A typical winter reindeer herd managed by the Evens numbered between 200 and

500 head. During the summer, several families would join their herds together,

numbering around 1,500 head, so that some of the herders could be available to fish. 1: The various economic activities that the Evens participated in during 192611927 are proportionally distributed as follows: reindeer breeding 62.6%; fishing 11%; and

hunting 25.4%.

According to the 1926 census, the Kamchatka Evens owned as many as 19,300

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Whnopphy, Page 50 reindeer. During the collectivization and "expropriation of kulaks," their livestock decreased to 8,200 heads. The relative importance of the economic activities also changed and reindeer breeding only constituted 32% of total output value, with the share of fishing and hunting rising to 34% and 25% respectively; the rest was accounted for by farming and domestic industries.

In 1971 the total number of reindeer in the Bystrinsky District was more than

21,000 head. By the end of the 1970s, the livestock numbers had started to decline, and by the end of the 1980s, there was only a few more than 16,000 head. The reduction in the numbers of reindeer in the Bystrinsky District by more than a quarter was apparently due to the deteriorated ecological and economic conditions. This degeneration was caused specifically by the loss of grassland areas (resulting from timber logging projects), an increase in the inflow of migrants (over the last 30 years there was a three-fold increase in the number of new residents arriving in the Bystrinsky district) and geological surveying and construction work that was conducted in nomad areas.

1V.A. The Specific Traits of the Historic Social Structure and Culture of Itelmens and

Settled Koryaks.

Early evidence relating to the historic social structure of the Kamchadals

(Itelmens) and settled Koryaks is scant. "Each tiny "ostrog" regards the river it stands on as its own and will never resettle to another one. . . When hunting for animals, the Kamchadals travel along their own rivers. . . There have never been any divisional groups among Karnchadals." According to Krasheninnoikov's observations concerning the social structure amongst the Karnchadals, 'The elder and the daring had in their

Social Transition in the North Kamcbatka Ethnography, Page 51 village the only advantage that people would rather ask for their advice; in all other respects everybody was equal, no man could rule the other, and nobody had the right to punish anyone else at just his will. . . There were often hostilities between two ostrogs or people of two rivers with the only purpose of beating the rivals and abducting their girls.

. . . Until now they continue to regard as rich, those having a good wife and dogs, filled up and comfortably dressed. . . The banned marriage partners are only the mother and the daughter, while stepsons may marry their stepmothers, stepfathers may many their stepdaughters and brothers are allowed to marry their cousins" (Krasheninnikov

1949:378, 698, 366, 692, 436).

From these data, it can be concluded that at the beginning of the 18th century, the communities of the Kamchadals and settled Koryaks were egalitarian with no social ranking. The communities were on common territory and were kinship owned. They also managed and defended their own hunting grounds and natural resources. The lack of an elaborate tribal structure and communal ownership of harvesting areas provided favorable conditions for the integration with newly arrived population.

The notion of communal ownership of harvesting areas continued to live among the descendants of the Kamchadal, settled Koryaks and the old Russian settlers up through the 20th century. In 1934/1935 this type of ownership became the only active basis for Kamchatka's land claims that were submitted to the Land Organization

Expedition of Narkozem (Peoples Commissariat of Land).

The ancestors of the Kamchadals and settled Koryaks had a tremendously rich folklore which included fairy-tales, dances, and songs. Its main features are described in

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 52 the two chapters of Krasheninnikov's work entitled, "On God, the Creation of Earth and the Dogmata of the Kamchadal Faith" and "On Holidays and Accompanying

Ceremonies." Unfortunately, the studies of the Itelmen and Kamchadal folklore did not start until the 20th century, but the cosmological beliefs and the social attitudes that were shared by Kamchadals can still be found in recently recorded texts.

The main hero in the narratives of the Kamchadals and settled Koryaks is the raven (Kutha). The raven is the creator of all entities, who has extracted the land from the chaos of water; he is a trickster hero as well as an imposter. Kutha and his descendants learned to fish, net, build boats and eventually came to live all over the world. The series of Kutha texts is elaborate and stable.

The world of Kamchadals and settled Koryaks was also inhabited by supernatural beings who were the masters of all creation, including the hunting grounds and animals, and were the protectors of the home and hearth. Like Kutha, these beings were depicted as anthropomorphous creatures. They were offered sacrifices made up predominantly of food. Volcanos were regarded as homes of the dead.

Shamanism was made up of magic rituals, fortune telling, incantations and other forms of communication with supernatural beings (Krasheninnikov 1949). Krasheninnikov also notes that ". . . unlike other native peoples, the Kamchadals did not have dedicated shamans. Most women, and especially elderly ones, were viewed as fortune tellers and dream interpreters" (Krasheninnikov 1949:412). He went on to say that, "The seated Koryaks are no different from Kamchadals except that their shamans do use tambourines, that women embroider their faces, and dogs are sacrificed

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 53 (Krasheninnikov 1949:734).

The main celebration of the year was Thanksgiving Feast, which was celebrated during the autumn. Vdovin, in the 1920s, witnessed this holiday while it was celebrated by the settled Karaga Koryaks. He found this feast similar to Krasheninnikov's description of the Kamchadal's autumn celebration (Vdovin 1973:37-49).

Between 1740 and 1747 the Kamchadals and settled Koryaks were baptized, but as previously mentioned, the reindeer Koryaks refused to be christened. All the ancestors of the contemporary Itelmens and settled Koryaks can be found in the lists of the parishioners of the Kamchatka churches. After the baptism of a Kamchadal child, a tradition was established where the child was then given a first name (as was required by the Russian Orthodox Calendar). The ancestors of the Itelmens and settled Koryaks were given the family names of the Russian ecclesiastic and the military families who had arrived at Kamchatka with the mission of Iosaf Khotuntsevsky.

In the 19th century, the economic calendar of the Kamchadals and settled

Koryaks was incorporated into the Orthodox Church Calendar. Several Orthodox holidays were celebrated including Christmas, Easter and The Assumption. Major

Orthodox rituals were also observed, including baptisms, weddings and funeral services.

The dead were buried in accordance with the Orthodox tradition. Going back to the first part of the 19th century there are traveller's reports who identify Orthodox cemeteries in Karnchadal villages.

Despite this, the folklore of the Itelmens and settled Koryaks, including the creation cycle devoted to Kutha, not only persisted among the native population, but also

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 54 became widespread among the Russian old settlers. It is of interest that among the 14 people who could narrate fairy tales in the Itelmen language that were recorded between

1920 and 1960 (their names can be found in the collection of the "Fairy Tales and Myths

of the Peoples of Chukotka and Kamchatka" (ca. 1971)), seven were descendants of the

Russian old settlers (along at least one genealogical line).

By the end of the 18th century the ancestors of the Itelmens were not only bilingual, but also came to profess a peculiar "bi-faith" - a syncretic blend of native beliefs combined with the colonial adaptation of Russian Orthodoxy. This innovation in the spiritual culture of Russian Orthodoxy has continued into contemporary times.

1V.B. Historic Forms of Demographic Behavior

The social dimensions of population reproduction result in the institutions of

family and marriage. Childbearing is determined by complex living and working conditions. The means of satisfymg these requirements are constrained and determined by social and cultural norms. The actual demographic behavior (matrimonial and

reproductive) in different social and ethnic groups is governed by a specific set of social

norms and expectations.

In the historic ethnographic literature of Kamchatka's indigenous people, the

descriptions of demographic behavior are fairly scant, and on the face of it there seems

to be no significant distinctions in this regard between the different ethnic groups

inhabiting northern and central Karnchatka.

As noted by Krasheninnikov, the Kamchadals (Itelmens) and settled Koryaks,

unlike the reindeer Koryaks, were not split into family clans (Krasheninnikov

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 55 1949:698,727). According to Krasheninnikov, in all three groups some of the families were polygynous, although he did not indicate how frequent such families were

(Krasheninnikov 1949:436,695,732). It is known from later sources that at the beginning of the 20th century polygamy was not typical. Yet the percentage of polygynous families was as high as 13.6% for the Penzhinsky Koryaks (Iochelson op.cit.:752) and 6% among

Koryaks of the Tigilsky District (Orlova 1929:92).

Marriages between close relatives (i.e. cousins) were not unusual for the settled population and were regarded as preferable by the reindeer Koryaks (Orlova 1929:92).

This preference is explained by Krasheninnikov: ". . . they tend to marry their cousins, aunts, and sisters-in-law not to let reindeer herds belonging to the bride go to other people" (Krasheninnikov 1949:735).

Regarding the age at which people get married, Krasheninnikov simply notes that among Itelmens and Koryaks "children are not to be married" (Krasheninnikov

1949:436,695).

In Krasheninnikov's book, he describes the wife swapping practice among settled

Koryaks. "The reindeer Koryaks are infinitely jealous and one can kill his wife simply on a suspicion; and, if caught in the act, both fornicators are to be put to death. . . By contrast, with the seated Koryaks, and especially among Chukchi, it is a sign of true friendship when, during their visits to each other, the guests would sleep with wives and daughters of their host, who on such occasions would deliberately absent himself or travel to his guests' wife" (Krasheninnikov 1949:449-450).

Krasheninnikov's account of the Kamchadals' (Itelmens) fertility rate is fairly

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 56 stored in a winter semisubterranean dwelling (accommodating several families). Each family had to build its own summer dwelling. Divorces were a simple matter. The woman would keep the children and the personal property (her own and her childrens).

In the case of the father's death, his personal things would be inherited by the eldest son

(Krasheninnikov 1949:377, 383-386, 440).

The division of labor between the men and women for the settled population was generally separated into household and non-household tasks. Men were responsible for the non-household chores such as harvesting fish and sea-mammals, and women were accountable for the household-related tasks.

The entire family of reindeer Koryaks would roam together, although the men had to spend a great deal of time outside their of their dwellings, whereas the responsibilities of women were largely associated with their home. The dependent status of women was noted by Krasheninnikov. In his view this dependence was manifested by the fact that the women among the Kamchadals and settled Koryaks were eager to attract the attention of other men, and for this reason they had a habit of dressing up and decorating themselves. In contrast, the women of the nomad Koryaks, aware of the jealousy of their husbands, tended to dress badly so as to not to attract attention of other men (Krasheninnikov 1949:449-450).

Summarizing the 18th to 20th century data about Koryaks, V.V. Antropova had this to say: "The head of the family was the father. In the case of his death, it was the eldest son, then the next brother, and so on. The eldest woman in the family had a predominant role in running the house" (Antropova 1971:103). Iochelson (pt. 2, p. 771)

Social Transition in the North Kamchath Ethnogrephy, Page 58 indicates that according to Koryaks, they once had larger families that were multigenerational.

It is worth bearing in mind that in the 19th century, as compared to the 18th century, there occurred a change in the structure of households of settled populations

(Itelmens and Koryaks). Semisubterranean winter dwellings, which could accommodate as many as 50 to 150 people, were replaced in the 19th century by Russian-type peasant houses (Russ. izba).

In the 19th century, fiscal documents were made documenting the numbers of residents/households in each ethnic group in Kamchatka. The variation in the average number of people inhabiting one household between 1836 and 1926 is seen in Table 5.

Table 5

The Family/Household Size for Different Ethnic Groups

of the Kamchatka Population. 11 Population group I average number of people per household

11 Tigilsky district I Itelmens 6.06 7.9 5.4 settled Koryaks 10.05 9.6 6.0 Russian old settlers 6.9" 6.02 4.6 11 Karaginsky district I settled Koryaks 6.0 7.0 5.4 reindeer Koryaks 10.2 10.7 11.3 Bystrinsky Evens 10.14 12.6 I1 I I I x - data for 1851 by Dithmar.

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka ~thno~ra~h~,Page 59 The reason for the suppressed demographic conditions in the indigenous population of Kamchatka (note that the figures for 1836 are lower than for 1896) may be because the female population is consistently underestimated in fiscal documents. This is because the jasak and poll tax were paid by men. In the fiscal documents dating to the

18th and the first half of the 19th century there was a persistent disproportion in the figures for the male and female populations. According to these sources, the number of men usually exceeded that of women by 15 to 20 percent.

The figures listed in Table 5 indicate a decline between the years 1896 and 1926 in the average number of people per household among the sedentary population groups.

According to this index, between the same years there was growth in the nomad population. Another point worth noting is that the settled Koryaks of the Karaginsky

District are closer in this respect to the Itelmens than to the settled and reindeer

Koryaks of the Tigilsky and Karaginsky Districts, respectively. This brings us back to the hypothesis of the Itelmen origins of the Karaginsky ~oryaks.'

In terms of the data from the household books for the 1980s the average family size in the village of Tigil is 3.2 people per household. Tigil is populated by the descendants of the old Russian settlers, Itelmens (from the three abandoned nearby villages) and by more than 2,000 immigrants. In Kovran, where Itelmens account for

68% of the population, this figure is 3.27 people per household. The small family size is due to the presence of a large fraction of households consisting of just one person (about

There are written sources available that enable a wider and deeper analysis of the problem of family composition and the number of household inhabitants in the areas of interest. These are a "Family List" of "non-Russians baptized in Kamchatka in 1740 to 1747,' "Family Lists" of jasak-taxable population of Kamchatka in 1829, "Family List' of parishes of Kamchatka churches in 1893, census lists of 1896, and "Family Lists' from books of households registered with "selsoviets9(local administrative councils in the Soviet period).

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 60 13%) in both villages.

1V.D. The History of the Villages in the Central and Northern Kamchatka.

IV.D.1. Kovran and Tigil

The populations of Tigil and Kovran, which are both relatively recent villages, consist of people resettled from a number of the presently extinct ancient villages (e.g.

Amanino, Sedanka, Napana, Ulkholok, Kavran (Kaural), Khajruzovo, Belogolovoe,

Moroshechnoe, and Sopochnoe). The historic demography of these villages is illustrated in Tables 2.a. and 2.b.

Tigil is located at the site of the ancient Tigil fortress. This fortress was rebuilt in

1757 after it had burnt down during the upheaval of 1756/1757.

By the time the Russian colony was set up on the Tigil River, there were 8 indigenous villages established (of which only two survived the epidemic of smallpox).

Before the epidemic, the upper sections of the Tigil River had been the roaming area for the Koryaks, who were avoiding paying the jasak tax. At the time of the epidemic, they moved away and did not return until the 1820s

In 1851, some interesting observations were made concerning the structure of local economic activities by K. Dithmar when he visited Tigil and the neighboring villages. July through early September is the most important period for economic activities on the northwest coast of Kamchatka. In the villages visited, Dithmar failed to meet many of the local residents since everybody was at their summer camps, harvesting and processing fish as well as gathering berries and edible roots. He was also unable to see many of the residents of Napana when he visited them on September 5, 1851 (they

Social Transition in the North Karnchatka Ethnography, Pap 61 had left for reindeer hunting).

In Tigil, Dithmar counted 27 houses with 187 people, who were mostly the descendants of the "Russian Cossacks with a strong touch of Kamchadal and Koryak blood," living in the village (Dithmar 1901:474). While in Tigil, Dithmar met Dr.

Levitsky, a local doctor, who strived to abolish the "old Kamchadal economy of its dog teams and the associated harvesting of fish by %reeding good cattle and horses and introducing to the culture of growing good and healthy vegetables" (Dithmar 1901:473-

474). There were 150 cows and 12 horses in the village. Each household had a vegetable garden. Dr. Levitsky's concern was the annual procurement of seeds (in

Kamchatka the seeds of vegetables did not have enough time to ripen) and the pedigree of the cattle; the local breed was growing smaller and more degenerated.

Summing up his observations of the daily life of the Karnchadals living in Tigil and surrounding villages, Dithmar had this to say; "Looking at the natives and, to be true, also at the Russians who had spent here quite a time, it becomes clear that they enjoy vagrancy, fishing and hunting more than the thrifty and quiet sedentary life. They would rather build a yourta out in the forest for gathering roots and berries in its vicinity than attend to their vegetable garden at home, which can bring good profit. Fishing in some stream and living in a reeking balagan fits their taste more than making their own home a nicer place to live and taking up a more profitable business of breeding cattle and horses" (Dithmar 1901525).

Changes in the economies of the old Russian settlers living in Tigil took place during the period of sluggish integration between the years 1836 to 1896. See Tables 2.a.

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 62 through 2.d.

The arrival of the market economy also had an impact on this territory. It was presumably in 1919 or 1920 that a crab tinning plant was built by a Japanese company in the mouth of Utkholok River. By 1926, a Soviet crab canning factory was constructed at the mouth of Khajruzova River (Bolshakov 1934).

In Tigil and Khajruzovo, the consumer cooperatives "Kamchadal" and "Soglasiye"

("Consent") were started by the local population, with the participation of nomadic

Koryaks. The cooperatives acted as contracting parties for the privately owned trading firms such as, "The Hudson Bay" and "0.Swenson."

In 1924, consumer goods and food trade were monopolized by the Soviet trade system. Sales of food accounted for as much as 57.8% in the turnover of the cooperatives (Turaev 1990:113). In 1927, The Kamchatka Joint-stock Company started regular purchases of fish.

The Soviet period has witnessed a fast growth of cooperatives. In 1924 21.54% of the Tigilsky District were members of such cooperatives (in 1931 the percentage reached

76%). Cooperatives opened the way for fishing and hunting artels by letting people establish credit for equipment renovation, that in turn helped stimulate the market.

However, it did not take long to ruin the structure of the 1930/1931 collectivization. In Tigil, social differentiation with regard to owned property was already notable, and it ultimately led to the breakdown of the artels and to the large scale slaughtering of household cattle.

In Kavran, as in other Itelmen villages, there was a long tradition of neighborly

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 63 assistance and redistribution. As a result, the collectivization of the means of production, did not meet with much resistance.

The "kolkhozes" (collective farms or production units) were initially organized on the basis of ethnicity in the villages. The kolkhoze "Leninsky put" (Lenin's Route) united the Kamchadals from the village of Tigil. All of the members (100) in the "Krasny

Oktjabr" (Red October) kolkhoze, in Kavran, were Itelmens.

As a result of the adopted policy promoting migration, by the early 1950s many people were arriving from Russia to resettle in the Tigilsky District. By 1953 the

Itelmens in Kavran accounted for 82% of its population. The other contribution to the migration factor was that starting in the 1940s a process was underway of merging the kolkhozes. For example, a well-off "Leninsky put" was merged with the kolkhoz

"Bednjak" ("Poor person") from the village of Arnanino. As a result the descendants of the old Russian settlers made up 62% of the new kolkhoze members, whereas the percentage of Itelmens had dropped to 48%.

By the end of the 1950s, a plan was adopted and began to be carried out to consolidate the rural villages and kolkhozes and sovkhozes into larger units. In 1965, the gigantic kolkhoz "Krasny Oktjabr" was established and united its branches in the villages of Tigil, Sedanka, Khajruzovo, Kavran and Belogolovaya. Its main office was located in

Ust-Khajruzovo.

In 1968, a kind of "enlargement" took place when the new sovkhoz 'Tigilsky" was established to bring together the reindeer herding teams of the Tigil, Sedanka and

Belogolovaya branches of the "Krasny Oktjabr."

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 64 The economy of the gigantic "Krasny Oktjabr" was primarily based on sea fishing.

Most of the jobs were held by non-natives and seasonal workers. All other activities, including subsistence activities, were pushed into the background. The administration regarded them as an extra burden. Attempts were made to entirely get rid of Kavran

and Khajruzovo. In 1987, Khajruzovo was transferred to the sovkhoz 'Tigilsky." Today

Kavran is considered a subsidiary unit, and now runs pig, poultry and dairy farms.

A mere 6% of the total Itelmen labor force have jobs relating to traditional activities in the "Krasny Oktjabr." These jobs include fishing, fish processing and hunting.

Traditional river fishing in Kavran is treated as a matter of personal concern. It was only in 1991 that a cooperative ("artel") named Itelmen" was organized in Kavran by 6 people.

The modern village of Kovran is situated 9 krn to the north of the old village. Its construction was started in 1954, and eventually it became the living place for the people who were resettled from other villages (Utkholok, Sopochny, Moroshechny, and

Belogolovaya). Today it has a population of 524 (including 356 Itelmens). The number of households listed in the Household Register Book of 1991 is 160.

The village has a regular geometry. There are houses built in the 1950s with just

one small room measuring 16 to 18 square meters, as well as typical 2 and 4 flat houses.

Near the houses there are small vegetable gardens.

On the main street there is a selsoviet (the local administrative body), a club, a kindergarten, a boarding school, a hospital and a closed shop. On the outskirts of the village there are several industrial buildings, including a sawmill and a few farms. The

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 65 best site near the river is given to buildings from the ancient residential area, where

Alkhalalalay (an indigenous holiday) is celebrated.

Today the population of Tigil is 3,149, of which 266 are Itelmens, about 500 are

Kamchadals (descendants of the old Russian settlers identified as such in genealogical interviews), 87 are Koryaks, 8 are Evens and 2 are Chukchi. The rest are newcomers belonging to the 26 ethnic groups from the former Soviet Union.

The present-day Tigil is split in two parts. The first part is located on a high place near the river where there is a street lined with relatively old houses. Behind it there is a newer street with more single-family houses that are in good condition. On this street, apart from dwelling houses, there is also a boarding school, a kindergarten, a bakery, an old shop and a drug store. Next to this street is a street with 2 and 4 flat houses built in the 1950s and early 1960s. Behind these streets is a block of new houses built in the 1970s. It includes a stone two-storied administrative center, a hotel and a big new shop, behind which there are several two-storied 8-flat houses. The second part of

the town is behind a creek, in a low and somewhat damp place. It consists of tiny dwelling houses built in the 1950s, two flat barracks from the 1960s and agricultural buildings belonging to the sovkhoz 'Tigilsky."

V. THE POPULATION HISTORY OF THE TIGIL AND KOVRAN COMMUNITIES

In terms of the data gathered from the birth, death and marriage registers, the

people living in the seven 19th century villages between the years 1801 and 1917 form an

endogamous area.

The fraction of the isolocal marriages between people living in the specified seven

Social Transition in the North Karnchatka Ethnography, Page 66 villages was in the middle of the 19th century as high as 92.2% of the overall number of marriages in these villages. By 1885-1910 there was a 83.8% decrease. Even so, such a single population, in fact, consisted of several sub-populations characterized by an endogamous barrier varying between 70 and 80%. These sub-populations were the descendants of the original Russian population of Tigil. The Kamchadals (Itelmens) were from Amanino, Napana and Sedanka (the three villages nearest to Tigil), as well as from Utkholok, Kovran and Khajruzovo (the three villages located at a greater distance from Tigil).

Table 6 depicts the occurrence of inter-ethnic marriages between the descendants of the old Russian settlers and Itelmens and, starting from the 1930s, between newcomers and the local population. The entire time span between 1801 and 1981 is

Table 6

The Fraction of Ethnically Mixed Mamages (%)

Sub-populations Period old Russian settlers of Tigil I Itelmens of Amanino, I Itelmens of Utkholok, Sedanka and Napana Kovran and Khajruzovo 1801-1820 33.33 23.23 7.14 1821-1840 31.68 23.26 5.56

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 67 divided into 20 year intervals, and for each interval the figure is given to indicate the ratio of ethnically mixed marriages as they relate to the overall number of marriages.

It can be seen from the above table that there were notable variations during the first half of the 19th century in the occurrence of mixed marriages between the native population and the Russians.

During the last decade of the 19th century, when the size and the sex/age structures of the all three sub-populations stabilized, there was a short-lived closing of the matrimonial circles of the three sub-populations, with the endogamous barrier between them exceeding 75%. In the 1950s, the influx of newcomers had virtually crushed the barrier of ethnic endogamy of the Itelmens in the Tigilsky District. At the same time the Russian old settlers reduced their number of marriages with the indigenous population and increased their numbers of marriages with the Russian newcomers.

Under the pressure of the migrants, the old structure of the population collapsed.

In the recent decade in Kovran there has been a notable trend toward the mono-ethnic family pattern. Among the generations born in the 50s, the rate of intra-aboriginal marriages is higher than that of the marriages with the migrant population. Interestingly, there has also been an increase in the number of marriages between the Itelmens and

Koryaks. By 1991, within the young population of Kovran there have been 8 such marriages, while in the last century not a single marriage of this type was registered.

V.A. Indexes of Birthrate, Mortality Rates and Population Growth

The following statistics were calculated from three chronological periods. Data

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 68 for 1843-1852 and 1888-1897 were determined on the basis of church registers relating to births, marriages and deaths; and for the period of 1969-1979 family genealogies provided the demographic data.

Table 6.

Demographic Statistics for the Three Ethnic Groups

of the Tigil Population in the 19th Century

11 I Birth rate (%.) 37.06 34.29 40.56 49.83 36.04 Infantile mortality (%.) 150.7 133.3 227.6 90.0 124.1 Death rate (%.) 21.32 27.3 1 33.84 32.39 21.63 Natural population growth (%.) 15.74 12.57 15.72 17.44 14.42 Mean death age (years) men 27.11 28.87 22.57 27.31 27.35

women 37.0 22.72 28.5 36.23 . 27.12 1. descendants of old Russian settlers living in Tigil; 2. Kamchadds living in Sedanka, Amanino and Napana; 3. Kamchadds from Utkholok, Kovran and Khujruzovo. The 19th century records from the church register relating to the three villages farther away were incomplete, and for this reason they were disregarded in the

calculations.

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 69 These birthrate, population and mortality figures are more or less close to the average figures for the rural population in Russia during the 19th century (Rashin 1956).

The mean death age is low, due to high infant mortality.

We have no contemporary data on the demographic processes in the district of interest from the individual villages (such data will be collected under this project); but, for illustration, one might refer to similar data for the Koryak and Itelmen populations in the entire Kamchatka Region (see Table 7).

Table 7.

Demographic Indices for the Koryak and Itelmen Population

in the Kamchatka region (oblast).

- Birthrate (%.) Koryak Itelmen Infantile mortality (%.) Koryak Itelmen Death rate (%.) Koryak Itelmen Natural population growth (%.)

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 70 A very low natural growth in the population during the 1970s was due to a high mortality rate, especially among men from the ages of 20 to 40, and a relatively small birthrate. From 1961 to 1980 there were 237 deaths registered by the local departments of ZAGS in the seven villages of interest (111 in 1961-1970 and 126 in 1971-1980).

Table 8.

Distribution of Causes of Deaths (Percent of the Net Number of Cases) II Causes of death 1 1961 - 70 1 1971 - 80 11 Cardiovascular deseases I 31.5 I 3 1.7 1injuries, poisonings, violence 37.8 32.5 11 of these drowned I 3.6 I 9.5 other deadly accidents 10.8 4.0 poisoning by alcohol 17.1 11.1 suicide 5.4 1.6 murders Cancer 9.9 3.2 Helminthiases I 1.8 I 3.2 Tuberculosis 8.1 4.0 IL I Pneumonia 6.3 . 4.0 Other 4.6 7.9

During the same period the fertility and the reproductive size of the population

(the share of people of reproductive age having children) was declining. The following table lists the mean number of children per couple for the three generations covered in

- -

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 71 Tigil genealogies. The parents are classified into the three following groups: the descendants of the native population; the descendants of old Russian settlers; the immigrants; and the total mean population.

Table 9.

The average Number of Children for the Three Reconstructed Tigil Populations

of the 20th century

11 mean year of biith of parent I mean number of children per one couple II generation 1 2 3 4 1902 3.36 4.59 4.00 4.13 1927 4.14 3.76 3.13 3.67 1951 1.92 3.37 2.10

In Tigil during 1979, the share of Itelmens having children of the reproductive age

(20-49) was as low as 33.8%, while for the descendants of old Russian settlers this figure was 89.5%. In Kovran, according to the 1991 data, the share of Itelmens within the reproductive age having children was 81.1% (31.8% out of them being single mothers with children). Among the Itelmens having children, the fraction of women and men was

65.5% and 34.5%, respectively. For the Itelmen women, the average age of first birth was 22.9 years and for men it was 27.8 years.

Over this period there were changes in the sex and age structure of the population illustrated in Table 10.

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 72 Table 10.

The Age Structure of the Tigil Population in 1896 and 1978.

Age groups Subpopulations (%)

Natives old Russ. settlers all population 1 - 19 45.4 55.4 52.6 20 - 49 46.3 36.2 39.0 over 50 8.3 8.4 8.4 1978 1 - 19 38.1 41.1 40.4

I1. 20 - 49 49.7 46.3 47.3 over 50 12.2 12.7 12.3

* the age distribution for 1978 includes newcomers incorporated into indigenous families and families of the descendants of old Russian settlers.

r ~ I. According to the data from the Kamchatka Regional ZAGS Department (see 1.. above), the absolute number of Itelmens in the Kamchatka region grew by 3 people in 1970, by 0 in 1980, by 27 in 1989, and by 15 people in 1990.

1 Karara. e The village of Karaga is found in Krasheninnikov's list of Kamchatka's east coast

villages. Prior to the smallpox epidemic, the banks of Karaga River were inhabited by

Alutor Koryaks. The Vedomosty (list) of "baptized non-Russians" from the year 1741

gives names of 51 Alutor Koryaks, both men and women, living along the Karaga River.

After the smallpox epidemic the river was deserted. According to the order of

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 73 Mr. Bem, The Head of Kamchatka, the people from Karaga Island were resettled to the

Karaga River. At the time, the population of the island was mixed Koryak-Itelmen.

According to Shafranovskaya, "The Karaga people of the Nizhnekamchatsky ostrog on the Karaga Island once had been Kamchadals but then moved away to the sea island"

(Shafranovskaya 1968:66). Baptizms of the people living on Karaga River proceeded in three waves, in 1741, 1760, and 1790.

In 1822, the population of Karaga was some 60 people (only men are referred to in available sources). In 1848 the population consisted of 56 men and 58 women, and in

1897 there were 56 men and 47 women. During the second half of the 19th century, the number of reindeer Koryak families who had come from the Gizhinsky okrug were assigned to live in the village of Karaga. The Koryak families brought with them to

Karaga their small reindeer herds. A combination of activities such as river fishing,

harvesting sea mammals, hunting for fur, and reindeer breeding (small scale) was typical

for the residents of Karaga and the neighboring areas. The size and composition of the

Karaga population in 1926-1927 are given in the appendix.

Until 1956, Karaga was the administrative center of the Karaginsky District. The

center was then moved to the newly constructed village of Ossoro (in 0s;oro Bay). The

population of the old Karaga village was relocated to a new village some 3 to 4 km from

the mouth of Karaga River.

At Karaga, there was the central office for the fishery kolkhoze "Udarnik," a

boarding school, a hospital, a kindergarten, a nursery, a post-office, a drugstore, a

canteen, and a shop that sold food and consumer goods.

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 74 At the time of the 1983 survey (Pika and Bogoyavlensky 1983), Karaga had a population of 794 (of which 494 belonged to indigenous groups). In 1989, the population was 748 and 346 respectively. The decline in the numbers of the indigenous residents was apparently due to their migration to the village of Tymlat.

Out of the total of 165 able-bodied indigenous residents, 110 worked in the

Karaga fishery kolkhoze, but only 21 people had jobs that were directly related to fishing and fish processing. Another three were hunters, which means that in 1983 a mere 14% of the able-bodied indigenous population were engaged in traditional activities.

Most of indigenous residents lived in 1 or 2 flat houses built between 1956 and

1958. The mean living space (excluding kitchens, corridors, etc.) per person in Karaga was 7.4 square meters, and among the indigenous population only 5.7 square meters.

Anavgay. The village of Anavgay is situated in the center of the the Even's winter camps. In 1928, the Bystrinsky Lamut Aboriginal District was established, and was transformed in 1932 into the Bystrinsky Even National okrug. Initially its administrative center was in Kozirevsk. Somewhat later, the district's administrative center was moved to Anavgay; and finally, in 1932, the new village of Esso started to be constructed.

By the end of the 1950s, when the Bystrinsky District was visited by the social anthropologist I.S. Gurvich, it had incorporated three kolkhozes and had three selsoviets.

Gurvich made the observation that the Bystrinsky District was made up of "Anavgaysky"

(which consisted of 81 households in the villages of Anavgay, Krapivnaya and Esso),

"Lauchansky" (with 24 households) and "Tvayansky" (39 households). Today there are

two sovkhozes in the Bystrinsky District, "Avangaysky" with the administrative center in

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 75 Anavgay and "Bystrinsky" with Esso functioning as both a district and administrative center. Also located in the territory of the Bystrinsky District is the Aginskoe village, which serves as the supply base for the Kamchatka Geological Survey.

Sovkhoz "Anavgaysky" is engaged in reindeer breeding, hunting, fishing, cattle breeding and vegetable growing. This pattern of economic activities arose during

collectivization when the reindeer herds belonging to Evens shrank from 19,000 to 8,000

head. Today the herd is again declining. While in 1989 it seemed close to its optimal

size of 20,000 head, in 1991 the herd numbered only 16,000 head.

In Anavgay, there is presently a boarding school, a day nursery and kindergarten,

a club, a library, a hospital, a canteen and a bath house on hot springs.

The reindeer herds are usually pastured more than 100 km away from the village,

where the families of the herders live. As a result the herders have to spend most of

their time away from their families. This lifestyle has had a disruptive influence on the

succession of generations and is one of the causes of low birthrates among the Evens.

As of yet, no demographic survey has been conducted on the Even population of

havgay. Table 9 reports official statistics on the dynamics of the entire Even

population in Kamchatka during the last 30 years.

Anavgay is the only village in the district with a predominantly Even population,

and for this reason it is of considerable interest for social and demographic studies

including the Even population in Kamchatka.

5.7 square rn.

Social Transdon in the North Kamchath Ethnogrdphy, Pagc 76 Table 9.

Demographic Statistics for Kamchatka Even.

Birthrate (%.) JII 36.8 32.8 23.2 22.0 26.3 32.1 29.6 Infantile mortality (%.) 62.2 91.3 105.3 46.1 69.0 41.2 20.5 Deathrate (%.)

Natural growth (%.) II

V.B. Social Security

In 1983, the average pension among the indigenous population amounted to 92 rubles. The costs of attendance at nursery, kindergarten and boarding schools are free for the indigenous children. At the period of the survey, there were 36 students from indigenous families studying in high schools and secondary schools with professional training (26 of were fully supported by the state). The hospital in 1983 hiid on its staff 2 doctors, 6 nurses and attendants, with the ability to accommodate 26 patients.

V.C. The Demography of the Indigenous Population of Karaga

Given a low migration level, the population structure in terms of age and sex has been largely determined by natural growth. Children make up 34.3% of the indigenous population of Karaga. For the immigrant population (newcomers) this figure is

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 77 somewhat lower, 30%. Among the immigrants, in every age group there were more men than women; whereas for the indigenous population over age 30, women were more numerous than men.

In terms of the household register data, there were 102 households with indigenous and ethnically mixed families, of which the latter accounted for 25.5%.

Among these 102 households, two parent families having children made up 4796, couples without children 3%, one parent families (most often it is a single mother) with children

35% and families with members not bound by immediate kinship 4%. The mean family size, including ethnically mixed couples, was 4.2 persons. The average number of children in a family was 2.4. The typical number of children in indigenous families exceeds that of families of immigrants, as follows:

all indigenous population - 2.9,

all ethnically mixed couples - 2.2,

all non-indigenous families - 1.7,

indigenous single mother families - 2.4,

non-indigenous single mother families - 1.4.

The average mating age among the indigenous population was 23.5 years for women and 28.8 years for men. Married men and women constituted, respectively, 30% and 46% of the total reproductive population. This difference can be partially explained by the fact that many young men aged between 20 and 25 are away from the village, doing their military service or studying.

In the opinion of the Karaga residents, a kind of "trend" has emerged in the

- ~

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 78 indigenous population to marry immigrants or at least to have babies by them. Even though the degree of assimilation is small (judging by internal passport data), many of those who have "Koryak entered in their passports as an ethnic affiliation would rather

regard themselves as "metises." As a result, in 1983 there was a creole trend in the

development of indigenous self-consciousness. It would be interesting to learn what

trends are important in 1993. In 1991, Kovran entered a period of increased indigenous

self-awareness.

The birthrate for the indigenous Karaga population was on the decline in the

1970s. Thus, with the total number of indigenous residents almost constant, there were

60 people born over a five-year period from 1970 to 1974, 48 people between 1975 and

1979, and 37 people during a three and a half year period from 1980 to 1983.

The mortality rate among indigenous populations in Karaga is higher than for the

"newcomers" and does not seem to deviate from the level of the early 1970s (36 people

died in 1970 to 1974, 36 between 1975 and 1979, and 24 from 1980 to 1983).

The first most frequent cause of death is accidents (poisoning with alcohol,

drowning, freezing to death, etc.), with cardio-vascular diseases taking second place.

The causes of 38 deaths that occurred in 1978 to 1982 were as follows:

cardiovascular diseases - 9 pneumonia - 1

helminthiask - 1 other - 10

poisoning with alcohol - 9

drowning - 4

other accidents - 4

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 79 APPENDIX A

Inhabited Localities of the Karaginsky and Tigilsky Districts According

to the Subarctic Census of 1926/1927 and the National Census of 1989.

1927 1989

Ethnic group Population Households Ethnic group Population

Karaginsky district

Re kinniki Koryak 105 11

Rekinniki-Ingynvaym Koryak 78 9

camp Galle 3

camp Chechulina 1

camp Zgelagyna 1

camp Kvara 4

Pustoretsk Koryak 21 2

Pustaya Koryak 240 18

camp Kaluvita 3

camp Kechgenayev 1

camp Koyavie 3

camp Kaveva 3

camp Akame 3

camp Timo 1

camp Zli 2 L

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 81 1926/ 1927 1989

Ethnic group Population Households Ethnic group Population

I( camp Eppicha 1

11 Podkagernaya

Ir camp Evtekret

I Lunovayam Koryak 13 1 Lunovayam Koryak 230 20 I

11 camp Aluntvayam 11 camp Malgeruvayam 17camp Ellymgykoen camp Elkalyvayam I7camp Kangaznkytgyn I7 camp Vanerang IF-camp Eluntvayam

11 camp Inilakut

Koryak I

, I I , Koryak 39 5

I , Koryak 98 20 I U

-- - --

Social Transit~onin the North Kamchatlca Ethnography, Page 82 Ethnic group Population Households Ethnic group Population

(ichiga-Tymlat-Kayum Koryak 153 9

camp Ottam 1

camp Umyave 1

1 camp Euchigan

camp Mulitkan 1

camp Ottaviy 3

camp Uvako 2

Kayum Koryak 12 2

Karaga Koryak 140 23

Karaginsky island Koryak 59 9

Ossora (administrative cen- ter)

Kostroma

Dranka Russian 54 14 (Kamchadal)

Ivashka Koryak 98 23

------Rusakova Russian 2 1 (Kamchadal)

Khaylula Russian 10 3 (Kamchadal)

Uka Russian 85 14 (Kamchadal)

Social Transition in the North Karnchatka Ethnography, Page 83 Ethnic group Population Households Ethnic group Populatia

Tigilsky district

Lesnaya Koryak 244 32

Lesnaya-Shamanka Koryak 116 8

camp Jaganova 1

camp Jaganova 2

camp Nesterova 1

camp Jaganova 1

camp Jaganova 1

camp Nesterova 1

Kinkil Koryak 127 26

Kinkil-Lesnaya Koryak 106 11

camp Muchana 3

camp Tata 3

camp Kavava 3

camp Totol-Etyk'ev 1

c. Akik-Vachagygen 1

Palana Koryak,Itelmen, 276 57 Kamchadal

Pjatibratskaya Koryak, Lamut 35 6

camp Solodukova 3

camp Nutynkavav 3

Kohtana Koryak 26a 41

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 84 1926 / 1927 1989

Ethnic group Population Households Ethnic group Population

Voyampolka Koryak 145 26

Voyampolka-Urga Koryak 196 24

camp Achetata Koryak 3

camp Galana Koryak 3

camp Yattingyna Koryak 1

camp Ukavy Koryak 3

camp Lektele Koryak 1

camp Iyana Koryak 1

camp Lelata Koryak 3

camp Alvach Koryak 3

camp Alota Koryak 2

camp Kechgepkoy Koryak 1

camp Koerkova Lamut 1

camp Solodyakova Larnut 2

Amanino Itelmen 65 7

Amanino Koryak 59 5

camp Kachgetakya 4

camp Intayata 1

Tigil Russian 419 91

wRl*da') 11 2

Gavanka Russian 12 2

A

Social Transition in the North Kamchath Ethnography, Page t?5 Ethnic group Population Households Ethnic group Population

I I I I Russian 15 4 I IplayaSopka Koryak

It camp Teyken i Notayme Koryak 1 47 Koryak 1 1 I I 11 camp "Pa

Itelmen

Koryak 118 11 nikova I------camp Vani Ajaich 2 11 camp Tetke 2 It camp Kechgelokota 2 11 Nykkav IFpKanylo 1) camp Akli Tupicheva

Napana Itelmen 79 16 t-- Koryak 127 15 1 camp Nmylly Yakuta camp Yakova 17camp Kavava

-- -

Social Transition in the North Kamehatka Ethnography, Page 86 Ethnic group Population group I Population 11 camp ~otoi hvy

Napanskaya Rassoshina rmetises Itelmen

Itelmen

Koryak 11 camp Yattygina 1- 1- camp Khoola /IUst-Khajruzova Russian, Itelmen Itelmen, Russian Koryak I7Belogolovoye 11 Ust-Belogolovoye Itelmen IIMoroshechnoye Itelmen I7Sopochnoye Itelmen Ust-Sopochnoe Russian

)I~Geket i Elejgetegen Koryak IFpJok-Jok I7camp Oyachek Ksuk-tundra (camp Koryak II Kechvengo i Akin)

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 87 Appendix B

Demographic, Mortality, and Morbidity Details

For the past three decades (end of the 1950s to 1992) we have studied the demographic situation in the three districts of the Kamchatka oblast (region). The overall population trends have been evaluated for each district, primarily in terms of birth and death rates. A detailed analysis of the numeric indexes were calculated, which included the total and indigenous population of the entire oblast, as well as the data for the individual indigenous groups. There is more census-based population data available at the oblast level.

The most notable, quantitative and sometimes qualitative, distinctions in the demographic processes of the Russian north are between the indigenous and non- indigenous groups, within each district. Non-indigenous residents of one district may

have greater demographic similarity with their counterparts in another district than with the indigenous population of their own district, and vice versa.

For the indigenous peoples of the North, population trends are essentially

determined (with a few exception to be discussed below) by natural population growth; while the dynamics of the non-native population are directly or implicitly linked to

migration.

The table below indicates that the migration of the non-natives to these districts

did not proceed in a uniform pattern. Even though the first Russian settlements had

originally been established in the territory of the Tigilsky District, the mass of migrants

-

Soc~alTransition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 88 Table B1.

Population Changes in the Three Surveyed Kamchatka Districts (thousands of persons)

1897 1926 1939 1959 1970 1979 1989 Tigilsky

total 3.1 3.5 5.8 6.9 8.5 10.6 12.6

Native % 98 81 47 3 8 3 6 29 29

Non-Native % 2 19 53 62 64 71 71

total 0.7 0.8 5.6 9.6 8.4 8.3 9.0

Native % 99 ' 86 20 13 13 17 17

Non-Native % 1 14 80 87 87 83 83 (1 Bystrinsky total 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.6 1.9 2.3 3.0 100 100 70 38 42 32 28 Native %

Non-Native % 0 0 30 62 5 8 68 72

did not start in the Karaginsky District until the 1920s. This migration was induced by the development of the fish processing industry. The non-indigenous population of the district increased from 0.1, in 1926, to 4.5 thousand people. The influx of migrants continued to last into the 1950s; and by 1959, the non-indigenous population amounted to 8.4 thousand people. From the beginning of the 1960s there was a backflow of non- native residents from the Karaginsky District that was partially caused by the decline in

Social Transition in the Nonh Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 89 off-shore fishing, ocean fishing, and the cut backs in the northern wage benefits in 1969.

The population of the Karagkky District stabilized in the 1970s and displayed a small growth in the 1980s. By 1991 a population decrease began, due to outmigration. In general, the Karaginsky District has experienced economic stagnation. In 1973, the village of Rekkiniki (some 400 people, mostly Koryak) was administratively handed over from the neighboring Penzhinsky District to the Karaginsky District. This change in administrations explains the certain rise in the percentage of the indigenous population in 1979 (over the 1970 figure). In 1983, this village was "abolished" and its population was moved to Tymlat and Ossora. Today, in 5 out of 7 of the district's inhabited localities, mainland newcomers and Kamchatka born non-indigenous residents constitute the numerically predominant group within the local population. It is only in the village of Tymlat that the Koryak are in the majority (about 70%); and in Karaga they make up approximately one half of the population (45%).

The Tigilsky District also experienced a large migration during the 1920s and

1930s. However, the numbers of migrating newcomers were not as great in the Tigilsky

District as they were in the Karaginsky District (with the non-indigenous population growing from 700 in 1926 to 3,000 in 1939). Later on, there was a relatively fast

migration-related increase in the non-native population (4.4 thousand in 1959, 5.4 thousand in 1970 and 7.6 thousand in 1979). But towards the end of the 1970s the inflow

of newcomers declined. The settlement pattern in the Tigilsky District has been

influenced by the presence of two population centers. Tigil is the district's administrative

center and Palana is the center for the Ethnic okrug (such divisions are quite uncommon

Social Transition in the North Karnchatlra Ethnography, Page 90 for Russia). Competition between these two small towns developed. In the early 1970s

Tigil, being more conveniently located, showed a faster growth; but by 1979 it was outstripped by Palana (3.6 thousand vs. 3.1 thousand), because it had a higher place in the administrative hierarchy. Since then Palana continued to grow at a relatively fast rate (4.4 thousand in 1989), while Tigil's population remained at the same level (3.2 in

1989). These two centers, together with the village of Ust-Khajruzovo (2.5 thousand residents), account for 80% of the total and 93% of the non-indigenous populations for the district, while the majority of the indigenous population live in the other 5 villages

(population ranging from 350 to 850). It is notable that Palana, as the okrug's center, attracts the indigenous population from all parts of the okrug. Palana has an indigenous population of 1.2 thousand (including several dozen Chukchi and Evens), which amounts to 27% of its total inhabitants.

The Bystrinsky District's first wave of migration in the late 1930s was somewhat later than the other two districts. The people arriving were absorbed in forestry employment. The high rate of migration, persisting until the 1980s, showed some decline in the 1960s (when benefits for northern residents were canceled, see above); and the non-indigenous population increased from 200 people in 1939, to 1,000 in 1959, and then to 2,100 in 1989. Recently (1990 to 1992) people from all over the North, including the

Tigilsky and Karaginsky Districts, began moving away. However, this has not yet happened in the Bystrinsky District. Apart from the non-indigenous newcomers (in the

1960s) about a hundred Koryaks from southern Kamchatka regions (mostly from the

Sobolevsky District) resettled here. Until this point, the Even were the only indigenous

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 91 group in the district. From the mid 1970s on there were only two villages that were inhabited, Esso and Anavgay, in the district. The population (40% in 1959 and 78% in

1989 of the total population of the district) tends to concentrate in Esso.

The structure of the non-indigenous population is largely governed by migration; and so the age and sex pyramid is misshaped (see Table B2). Other factors affecting the population structure are as follows: there are more men than women, the middle work-

age groups (25 to 55 years) are idlated, the fraction of children is relatively low and

there are very few adolescents and youths (15 to 25 years) and old people (who tend to

move to the mainland as the retirement age approaches).

Unlike in the case of newcomers and non-native residents, the indigenous

population is formed by intrinsic processes and the corresponding age-sex pyramid has a

familiar triangular shape. Its large base indicates a fairly high birth rate and a small

apex (ages over 50), which is a direct consequence of high mortality. The discernible

deviations from the triangular shape reflect the demographic history of the population.

This includes the horrifying mortality (also infant mortality) rate in the 1940s and early

1950s and a sharp drop in the number of children born in the 1970s.

The crude birth rate (CBR) among the non-indigenous population is in reasonable

agreement with the changes on the national level. In the Tigil District during 1964 the

non-indigenous CBR dropped sharply to 18; and then it became more or less stable, and

decreased slowly to a minimum of 15 in 1977. This was followed by rapid growth

brought about by changes in the population structure (increased number of women

within lower childbearing age groups), and by the adoption of pronatalistic demographic

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 92 policies. The maximum CBR was 21 in 1981-83 and fell off to 12 in 1991.

Table B2.

Natural Trends in the Population of the Three Districts from 1958 to 1988

(per 1,000 people)

Native I Tigilsky district born 43.1 39.1 28.6 25.9 315 30.3 24.6

died 16.1 17.2 16.6 16.6 16.8 12.2 10.6

born 20.1 18.9 18.4 18.2 17.9 18.3 13.4

died 5.5 5.7 7.1 7.9 8.7 6.7 6.8 Native Bystrinsky district born 503 40.9 26.0 25.7 313 35.1 34.4

died 16.5 14.8 21.0 21.8 19.3 13.8 11.0

non-Native

born 28.3 18.8 23.2 20.1 223 21.3 13.5

died 5.0 3.8 5.4 6.2 7.0 4.4 5.8 Native Karaginsky district I I born 33.5 36.2 26.6 24.7 33.4 34.7 26.5

died 18.0 16.8 20.3 18.2 18.6 14.0 13.8

non-Native

born 28.8 19.7 19.7 16.9 16.3 163 l3.9

died 6.4 4.7 6.0 5.3 7.0 6 .O 6.3

The CBR for the non-indigenous Karaginsky population also showed a sharp

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Pa5 93 decline in the early 1960s (from 24 to 18 in 1964), and then afterwards a small growth

(22 in 1970) again steadily dropped. The CBR lacked the clear-cut rise in the early

1980s that was typical for the other Northern regions, and it eventually dropped to 12 by

1991.

In the Bystrinsky District, the CBR for the non-indigenous population, after a decline in the 1960s to 16, grew until the mid 1970s (a maximum of 24), and then dropped until 1979. A rise in the beginning of the 1980s was more pronounced and lasted longer than in the other two regions. A sharp decline in the CBR after 1986 resulted in the same number (12) in 1991.

The growth of the CBR in the Kamchatka areas was (late 1960s to early 1970s) more conspicuous than observed on the national (Russia) level. This was due to the increase in the migration of the younger generation. This had a particularly significant effect on the CBR in the Bystrinsky District, which was experiencing the largest recorded influx of newcomers. The relatively high CBR values are the result of the specific age structure of the population. Since the 1960s a more exact indicator, such as fertility trends, the total fertility ratio or TFR, has never exceeded 2.0 in Kamchatka. Starting from this point in time, the pattern of having fewer children among the non-indigenous population (according to the CBR fluctuations) reflected structural and external influences.

The CBR for the indigenous residents showed similar variations in the three districts. These distinctions were even less pronounced than those among non-native populations. The high crude birth rates in the early 1960s, ranging from 35 to 50,

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 94 suffered a rapid decline (this does not apply to the Karaginsky District where by 1965 the CBR actually increased somewhat), and reached an all time low between 1972 and

1976 of 22 and 25 respectively. The CBR started to grow towards the end of the 1970s

and continued to do so until it finally stabilized throughout most the 1980s. The

maximum levels reached were 32 in the Tigilsky District; and between 1980 and 1983

the number was 36 in the Karaginsky District; and in 1986 and 1990 it was 38 in the

Bystrinsky District. The CBR decline, which has continued up to now, began in the

Tigilsky and Karaginsky Districts in 1987, and in the Bystrinsky District in 1991.

The fluctuations in the birth rates are also strongly influenced by the variations in

the number of women of childbearing age. But on the whole there is a noticeable trend

to a lower fertility and an increasingly widespread practice of deliberately limiting the

number of children in families. This trend becomes more distinct if we look at the CBR

variation calculated for each indigenous group in the Kamchatka oblast. At the end of

the 1950s, the CBR for the Koryak and Even populations of Kamchatka was 4.5 (this

number might be too low due to undercounting the actual number of births), and 3.5

among the Itelmens. Some thirty years later it dropped down to 3.6 for the Koryaks and

Evens and to 2.8 for the Itelmens.

These figures allow certain ethnic distinctions to be clearly revealed, but remain

obscure when the district related data is considered, due to the complex ethnic

composition of the indigenous population. The non-indigenous population of the three

districts is fairly homogeneous and the districts' variation in demographic changes in this

case may be explained by the variety of economic situations (i.e. the Karaginsky District

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 95 is more affected by depression than the Bystrinsky District). As for the different indigenous groups they do have certain ethnocultural and economic distinctions that are deeply rooted in history.

The most ethnically homogeneous group is the indigenous population of the

Karaginsky District, which consists of the Koryak. But within this population is included two distinct groups which make up the traditional settled fishermen and the reindeer herders (who were nomads until the 1950s, while some continue to be nomadic). In the past, the settled Koryak population was in the majority (while the total indigenous population was on a decline); but, with the resettlement in the Karaginsky District, the reindeer herders from the village of Rekkiniki apparently became numerically predominant (and this might have contributed to the population growth in the 1980s).

The indigenous population of the Bystrinsky District is represented mainly by the

Even, but it also includes a small Koryak group. Traditionally they have been reindeer breeders and hunters. Their initial contact with the newcomers was later than the other groups, and as a result the changes in their lifestyle were even more radical. This could be the reason for the birth rate decline in the 1970s, as well as the higher and longer birth rate growth in the eighties (and of a very large rise in mortality in the 1970s).

The indigenous population of the Tigilsky District consists of two ethnic groups.

The majority of the population is made up by the reindeer Koryaks. Previously they were nomadic, but later they become settled in the villages of the northern part of the region. More than a third of Tigilsky's population is made up by the Itelmens. The

Itelmens are the most "blended" and acculturated ethnic group in Kamchatka. The birth

------

Social Trans~tion~n the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 96 rate for the Itelmens is lower than among the Koryak and Even. This is confirmed by the child/woman ratio data in Table B3. In 1957 the Itelmens had the highest child/woman ratio (which was probably due more to a lower infant mortality rate than to a higher birth rate). From 1970 and on, this ratio for the Itelmens has been the lowest among the three indigenous groups.

Table B3.

The Child/Woman ~atio'for Indigenous Peoples of Kamchatka.

- - r 1959 1970 1979 1989 Koryak (Koryak Auton. Okrug) 706 792 597 63 1 Itelmen (Koryak Auton. Okrug) 1000 480 424 554 -- - I Even (Bystrinsky district) 1 928 1 905 1 551 1 635 1 - - the ratio between the number of children aged 0 to 4 and the number of women aged 20 to 49.

The main means of birth control practiced by both the indigenous and non- indigenous women was in the past and still is abortion. According to the past 15 years of medical statistics, for every child born to a newcomer woman there were 2.5 to 3

abortions (from the middle of the 1980, the so-called mini-abortions became widespread). Although their abortion rate is on the rise, the incidence of abortion for

the indigenous women of Kamchatka is lower than for the non-indigenous newcomers.

By the end of the 1970s, there were 0.7 to 0.8 abortions for one birth by an indigenous

women (by the beginning of the 1990 this figure had increased to 1.0 to 1.3). Abortions

are more often used by the Itelmen women in the Tigilsky District, who had 1.5

abortions per child born between 1990 and 1992. Hormone oral contraceptives and

Social Transition in the North Kamchatlca Ethnography, Page 97 IUDs have started to be used in the districts since the end of the 1970s. Initially the new contraceptives were spread among non-indigenous women, and only later among native women, who generally preferred IUDs.

The choice of contraceptives is strongly influenced by the ideology of the district's doctors. According to our observations, in the Tigilsky District the doctors have had a negative attitude to hormone pills, while in the Bystrinsky District their use is encouraged.

The low number of marriages among indigenous women is characteristic for the 3

districts, as well as for the whole of Kamchatka. This condition had been documented

by the 1959 census, and remains unchanged during the past three decades. The low

number of marriages is caused by many factors. Some of these factors include today's

relatively late marriage age, the high mortality rate of men and the instability of the

ethnically mixed marriages. In any village, there is always a large group of single

unmarried women with kids, divorced, separated or who are widows. But there is an

even larger group of single men, many of whom have never been married. The fraction

of married people among indigenous men is even lower than among indigenous women;

and as indicated by the censuses, this number is steadily declining. This is due to the

fact that the girls born between 1960 and 1970 preferred marriages with non-indigenous

men who were better educated, better trained, better paid and not connected with the

traditional economy and able to spend more time at home. Marriages between the

Koryak or Even men and non-indigenous women are extremely rare (a little more

frequent for Itelmen males). For example, in 1986 to 1989 in the Tigilsky District, 202

Social Transition in the North Kamchath Ethnography, Page 98 indigenous women were married and 44% of them married non-indigenous men. During the same period, only 139 indigenous males were married and only 18% of them chose partners from outside their own ethnic group.

Table B4.

Mono-ethnic Families Among the Indigenous Population of Kamchatka.

1959 1970 m 1989 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Koryak (Koryak Auton. Okrug) 3.5 76 4.6 77 4.2 67 3.7 58 Itelmen (Koryak Auton. Okrug) 4.1 53 4.3 49 35 38 3.3 34 Even (Bystrinsb dist.) 3.6 4.2 58 3.6 54

1 is the mean size of the mono-ethnic family, 2 is the percent of persons of the indicated ethnic affiliation living in mono-ethnic families.

It should be mentioned that the mono-ethnic indigenous family is coming through a crisis. As seen from Table B4, the average family size is steadily decreasing (the small expansion in the 1960s was due to a reduction in indigenous infantile and child mortality in Kamchatka). This decrease reflects a decline in the birth rate, a break up of the

patriarchal extended family and the increase in the numbers of one-parent families (as a

rule, consisting of a mother with children). Also diminishing is the fraction of indigenous

residents living in mono-ethnic families. Here again, the "leaders" of metisization or

"blending" are the Itelmens, with not more than a third of their number living in entirely

Itelmen families.

In contrast, the newcomer residents are characterized by an elevated number in

nuptiality, particularly women, which can be explained by the surplus of men. But the

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 99 marital unions they enter into, as elsewhere in the North, are not very durable. Over the last decade, the number of divorces was as high as 70% of marriages in the Karaginsky,

60% in the Bystrinsky, and more than 50% in the Tigilsky District. It is not only the couples that were married here that get divorced, but those in informal unions as well; the general picture of family instability is clear.

The pattern of change in the crude death rate is roughly similar for both the non- indigenous and indigenous populations of all three districts. The intervals of CDR were consistent, but the changes took place at different levels. For the non-indigenous population, variations of the CDR were in the range of 3 to 10, whereas for indigenous residents, these were between 10 and 25. The CDR for the non-indigenous population was growing from the mid 1960s to the end of the 1970s. After a maximum of 8 to 9 was attained in 1978 to 1980, there was a quick decrease in the middle of the 1980s. The

CDR reached its minimum (3 in the Bystrinsky and 5 in the Tigilsky Districts) in 1986-

87, which is the direct consequence of the crusade against the use of alcohol undertaken by the country's leaders at that time. There was no clear cut drop in the CDR in the

Karaginsky Region and during 1980 to 1987 it fluctuated at around 6. Towards the end of the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s there was new rise in the CDR (about 7 in all districts). These relatively low levels of CDR derive from the specific age structure of the population, as previously discussed. A more adequate indicator is the average life expectancy (ALE), which is calculated separately for the indigenous and the total population of the Kamchatka oblast (Table B5). As one can see, for almost two decades the mortality rate remained at a fairly stable level and declined only in the 1980s, when

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 100 the average life expectancy noticeably increased.

Table B5.

The Average Life Expectancy (years) for the Population of the Kamchatka oblast.

1958-59 1969-70 1978-79 1988-89 Total men 58.5 ... 58.0 63.1 population women 69.0 ... 68.7 72.0 Indigenous men 45.0 43.0 42.5 54.5 population women 50.7 46.0 5 1.5 64.4

The CDR for the indigenous population of the Tigilsky District was at a fairly stable level throughout the 1960s, then it showed a small decline in 1969 to 1972 (from

18 to 13) and an equal growth in 1973 to 1977. The decline, common to all districts, started in Tigil in 1978, accelerated in 1982, and finally reached its minimum of 9 in

1988. Since that time it has been growing. In the Karaginsky District, the CDR for the indigenous residents was growing from the middle to the end of the 1960s. The 1970s and the early 1980s were, with a few fluctuations, a period of high mortality (local maxima of 19 to 21 in 1972, 1978 and 1983). A sharp drop of the CDR gave rise to a minimum of 9 in 1987, and since then it has been growing. In the Bystrinsky District, the

CDR exhibited a particularly wide variation, which is apparently related to a small sample size. After a decline in the early 1960s (a minimum of 12 in 1963), the CDR rose. Its maximum of 27 fell by 1974, but it remained at a fairly high level (about 19) through the next decade. A sharp drop of the CDR (down to 8) occurred in 1986, after which this index has been fluctuating at around 9 or 10.

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 101 Even though the average life expectancy of the indigenous population of

Kamchatka did not show any radical changes between the 1960s and 1970s, in later years significant changes occurred in the mortality structure. To begin with, there has been a marked decline in infant mortality. According to official statistics, infant mortality in the

Koryak, Itelmen and Even populations from the Kamchatka oblast was 90 per 1,000 children born in the 1960s, more than 50 between 1972 to 1982 and around 30 per 1,000 children born during 1989 to 1992. These figures might be a little low, especially for the

1960s, but they do reflect the trend.

The analysis in the mortality structure with regard to the causes of death showed a considerable reduction of death associated with infectious and parasitic diseases (which used to be very high in the early 1960s). At the same time, there has been a rise in the mortality from accidents, poisonings and injuries (collectively referred to as violent mortality), which is now at the top of the list. Even though the death toll was already high in the early 1960s (20 to 35%), its growth continued until the end of the 1970s. AS a matter of fact, the rise in the death rate during the 1970s was due entirely to an increase in violent mortality. Similarly, the decline of mortality in the 1980s (and a rise in the ALE) was a direct result of a lower level of violent deaths.

The five years with the largest number of deaths in the Karaginsky and Tigilsky

Districts were from 1975 to 1980 (140 and 280 cases, respectively), and during this period the highest fraction of violent deaths occurred (47% and 41%, respectively). This lack of coincidence is due to on one hand to the maximum number of deaths (96) that occurred between 1971 and 1976, whereas the highest fraction of violent deaths (66%), as in the

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 102 other two districts, occurred between 1976 and 1980. The five year period with the smallest number of deaths was from 1985 to 1990 (82 in the Karaginsky District, 169 in the Tigilsky District and 36 in the Bystrinsky District). This coincided with the period of the lowest violent mortality (24%, 30% and 39%, respectively), although in the

Bystrinsky District this happened in 1988 to 1992, correlated with the campaign against the use of alcohol. There is no doubt that the high level of mortality from injuries is directly related to drinking problems, alcoholism and delinquent behavior. This situation is particularly bad in the Bystrinsky District where, even during the "calm" period, 2 out of 5 deaths were associated with violence. It would be right to conclude that this indigenous group is now in a particularly distressed and critical state.

In the 1980s, the mortality arising from deliberate violence (murders and suicides) continued to grow. In the 1960s, the rate of deaths (for all indigenous residents from the

3 districts) from suicides was 49 per 100,000 persons, and for murders, 17 per 100,000 (in the 1970s, the corresponding rates were 69 and 17, and in the 1980s, 80 and 30 respectively).

As previously noted, the rate of deaths caused by infectious diseases declined sharply as early as the 1960s, but its current level for the Koryak, Itelmen and Even populations is still much higher than for the non-indigenous residents. This group's cause of death is dominated by tuberculosis, and is regarded by many doctors as the typical pathology of the indigenous population of the North. In the Karaginsky and

Bystrinsky Districts, deaths caused by infectious diseases account for 2% to 5% of the total number of deaths. This fraction is, however, much higher in the Tigilsky District

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 103 (7% to 8% during the last 15 years), with 3 to 4 people dying here every year of ri tuberculosis or echinococcosis.

The fraction of people dying of malignant neoplasms is fairly stable. This group is a dominated by stomach cancer and cancer of the digestive organs and intestines. f' There has been a noticeable growth in the fraction of deaths caused by the

diseases of the blood circulation system. In the 1960s their death toll was only 11% to L: 12%, while in the beginning of the 1990s it was as high as 30%.

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 104 References

Antropova, A.V. 1949 Settlement of the Itelmen in the First Half of the 18th century. Izvestija Vsesojuznogo geographicheskogo obstchestva, Vol. 81, No. 4 (In Russian).

Antropova, V.V. 1971 The Culture and Lifestyle of the Koryaks. Len. (In Russian).

Bogojavlensky, D.D. and Pika, A.A. 1983 The Social and Demographic Survey of the Indigenous Population of Village Karaga. (In Russian).

Bogoraz, V.G. 1934 The Chukchi. Part 1, Len. (In Russian).

Braslavets, ICM. 1968 A Dialectological Descriprion of Kamchatka. Uchenije zapisky Khabarovskogo ped. inst., Vol. 14 (In Russian).

Dithrnar, K. 1901 My visit of Kamchatka in 1851-1859. Part 1 (A report based on travel notes). S-Pb.(In Russian).

Dykov, N.N. 1979 The Ancient Cultures of the North-West Asia M. "Nauka" (In Russian).

Gurvich, I.S. 1955 The Bystrinsky Even of the Kamchatka region. (Kratkie soobstcheniya instituta etnografii, XXXII. (In Russian).

Iochelson, W. ????? The Koryak.

Krasheninnikov, S.P. 1949 A Description of the Land of Kamchatka Supplemented with Reports, Dispatches and other Unpublished Material. M.-L (In Russian).

Murashko, O.A. 1985 Old Russian Settlers of Karnchatka in the Historic, Demographic, social, and Economic Perspective. In: Mezetnicheskie kontakti i pazvitie natsionalnikh kultur.

Social Transition in the North Kamchatka Ethnography, Pap 105 M. (In Russian).

1985 On the Changes in the Structure of Matrimonial Links of the Mixed Kamchatka Population. In: Experimentalnie issledovaniya strukturi i funktsii biologicheskikh system. M. (In Russian).

Orlova, E.P. 1929 The Koryak of the Kamchatka Peninsula. Sovetskaja Aziya, No. 3. (In Russian).

Patkanov, S. 1911 Statistical Data Revealing the Tribal Composition of the Population of Russia. S-Pb., Vol. 3 (In Russian).

Rashin, A.G. 1956 The Population of Russia Over a 100 Year Period (1811-1913). (In Russian).

Sbignev, A. 1869 A Historic Essay of the Most Important Events in Kamchatka History: 1680-1856. S-Pb. (In Russian).

Schafranovskaya, T.K. 1968 The Peoples of Kamchatka and of Nearby Islands. Strani i narodi Vostoka, No. 66. (In Russian).

Schteller, G.V. 1938 The Description of the Land of Kamchatka. The Institute of ethnology and anthropology. S-Pb. Archive, coll. 1, inv. 1, Part 1 (In Russian).

Skorik, P. 1968 Chukotka and Kamchatka Languages. In: Languages of the Peoples of the USSR. Vol. 5. L. (In Russian).

Slunin, N.V. 1900 The Land of Kamchatka. S-Pb., 1900, Vol. 1-2. Statistical tables. (In Russian).

Starkova, N.K. 1991 The Material Culture. In: Istorija i kultura Itelmenov. L., "Nauka." (In Russian).

Stebnitsky, S.N. 1934 The Nymylan (Koryak) Language. In: Yaziki i pismennost narodov severa.

Social Transition in the Nonh Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 106 Part 3. M.-L., (In Russian)

1934 The Itelmen (Kamchadal) language. hid. (In Russian).

1939 The Nymylan Karaga People. As described by S.P. Krasheninnikov. Sovetski Sever, No. 2. (In Russian).

1938 The Nymylan Alutor People. Sovietskaya etnographiya, No. l.(In Russian).

Tyushov, V.N. 1906 On the West Coast of Kamchatka. Zapiski Russkogo Geographiche skogo obstchestva. vol. 37, No. 2, S-Pb. (In Russian).

Volodin, A.P. 1976 The Itelmen Language. M. "Nauka" (In Russian).

1991 The Language and Folklore. In the coll.: Istorija i kultura Itelmenov. Len. "Nauka." (In Russian).

Other Sources 1948 The Account of the Number of People in the Kamchatka okrug and of the Horses and Cattle They Owned in 1848. Trudy Volnogo ekonomicheskogo obstchestva, Vol. 6. (In Russian).

1935 The Colonial Policy of the Russian Tarism in Kamchatka and Chukotka. M.-L. (In Russian).

1928 The List of Inhabited Localities of the Kamchatka okrug (based on the materials of the Subarctic census of 1926/1927). Dalnevostochnoe kraevoe statupravlenie. Khabarovsk-Blagovestchensk, (In Russian).

Archive Sources

The list of baptized non-Russians in Kamchatka: 1741-1747. The Central State Archive of the Far East, (CSAFE) coll. 101, inv. 1, files 5,18,20,26. (In Russian).

The dispatch of the Head of Kamchatka, second rank captain Golenistchev. Central State Hist. Arch. (CSHA). coll. 1264, inv. 1, file 168. (In Russian).

The jasak-tax book of 1828. CSHA, coll. 468, inv. 9, file 1054. (In Russian).

The list of inhabited localities of Kamchatka in 1836. CSAFE, coll. 1007, inv. 1, file 84.

- - ppppp-

Social Transition in the Nonh Kamchatka Ethnography, Page 107 (In Russian).

The list of people who went to confession in Kamchatka churches in 1893. CSAFE, coll. 101, inv. 1, file 2018. (In Russian). f ' k.5 The register books of the Kamchatka churches. CSAFE, coll. 1011, inv. 1, files 44-258; The Central State Archive of the Kamchatka region. coll. 220, inv. 1, files 8-40. (In Russian).

Social Transition in the Nonh Kamchatlca Ethnography, Page 108