During the annexation of Siberia, one of the most important tools for subjugating the aborigines to the Russian authorities was the practice of hostage-amanatstvo. It was actively used both to prevent and stop the resistance of the recalcitrant and was considered by the Russian authorities as a guarantee of proper payment of yasak. Therefore, the Russians sought to take the "best people" - heads of families and clans - or their closest relatives as hostages. The system of amanacy as a whole justified itself, facilitating the establishment of a yasach regime in Siberia. But in the Extreme North-East - in Chukotka - it failed.

In the middle of the seventeenth century, when the Russians came into contact with the Chukchi and Eskimos, they intended to use the previously tested method of forcing them to pay yasak by seizing the Amanats. However, the Chukchi did not "stick" to the amanats and refused to pay yasak. Already in 1648, the Apa "orphan chukhachy detina", who was sitting in the amanats in the Nizhnekolymsky prison, complained to the Russians: "... at the mouth of the Kolyma River, the son of the boyar Vasily Vlasyev caught me, Any, Yakutskovo prison. And since that time, my lord, and my father, and my magicians, and the clan, the tribe have retreated and yours, the sovereign yasak is not paid for me" [Otkritie russkikh zemleprokhodtsev..., 1951, p. 254-255]. Later, in 1675, the Yakut voivode A. A. Barneshlev reported to the Siberian order: "... from then on, the chukoch and Koryak send their fathers and brothers and children to the amanats, and those Koryaks and Chukhchi leave those amanats, and yasak is not paid for them " [Additions..., 1857, p. 407]. Despite this, in the second half of the XVII - first half of the XVIII century, the authorities ordered the stewards of north-eastern forts and fortresses to take amanats from the Chukchi, as well as from the Koryaks. But if the last ones are by the middle of the XVIII century. if they began to hand over hostages (sometimes even voluntarily), then the Chukchi stubbornly did not do this and refused to make yasak for relatives captured by the Russians.

The desire to subdue and capture the Chukchi people forced the Russian side to actively use force, which led to a long-term Russian-Chukchi armed confrontation (see: [Zuev, 2002, 2005]), but this did not change the situation. In 1676, the Cossack foreman I. Rubets reported to the Yakut voivode: "On the Anadyr River live non-native foreigners Chukhchi, and near the sea, and those chukhoch many service people have already captured and amanats were taken from them children and brothers and they de Chukchi those amanats retreat and the amanats do not keep them" (cit. by: [Vdovin, 1965, p. 110]). In 1711, the Chukchi declared to the yasach collectors: "... and before this, the Russian people with them, the Chukoch, were kochami by sea, and at the same time they, the Chukchi, they, the Russian people, did not pay yasak in any way, and now we will not pay, and de-

* Russian sources of the XVII-XVIII centuries. they did not distinguish the Asian Eskimos as a special people at all and referred them to the Chukchi. Therefore, it is almost impossible for researchers to understand when the documents refer to the Chukchi people and when to the Eskimos. With this in mind, we use the ethnonym "Chukchi" in relation to the entire population of the Chukchi Peninsula, which covers not only the Chukchi proper, but also the Asian Eskimos.

page 155

we will not give our children to the amanats" [Monuments..., 1882, pp. 456-459; 1885, p. 526; Colonial policy..., 1935, pp. 156-158]. The commander of the Anadyr party, D. I. Pavlutsky, based on the results of the 1731 campaign against the Chukchi, stated, referring to the failure of attempts to force them to pay yasak for hostages: "... not only these Chukchi are inclined to pay pritti and yasak and give amanats, but these Chukchi are a fickle people, not like other foreigners in the yasash payment find a person, the fathers of their children, the children of their fathers, depart from the father." according to: [Zuev, 2003, p. 135, 137]). Pavlutsky made this conclusion based on his personal experience with the Chukchi: during the campaign, when the Russian detachment was not far from Serdtsa-Kamen (the town of Priskalnaya on the northern coast of the Anadyr Bay), Toyon Chimkaigin and "the best man" Kopenkin came to him and offered themselves to amanats, saying that their relatives would contribute "under them"yasak. Pavlutsky agreed. However, instead of paying yasak, the relatives "scattered over the rocks and hills," endangering the lives of the amanats. A few days later, Kopenkin stabbed himself with a knife, and Chimkaigin asked to kill him, "because both the children and the springs of evo did not follow him." The request was fulfilled (RGADA, f. 199, op. 1, N 528, part 1, d. 17, l. 5-5 vol.). In fact, both Chukchi leaders, surrendering in captivity, knew in advance that they were doomed to death. G. F. Miller in one of his works about the persistent reluctance of the aborigines of Chukotka to become Russian citizenship noted that even the demonstrative executions of captured hostages carried out by the Cossacks in front of their recalcitrant relatives could not force the Chukchi to pay yasak [Elert, 1998, p. 125]. In 1756, during negotiations with the Russians, the Chukchi, already inclined to peace and agreeing to make Yasak, expressed their disagreement to hand over the amanats (RGADA, f. 199, op. 2, N 528, part 1, d. 3, l. 27; d. 17, l. 21; d. 18, l. 10-10 about.; part 2, d. 3, l. 25-25 vol., 27 vol.; N 539, part 2, d. 6, l. 34 vol., 36).

What is the reason for such persistent unwillingness of the Chukchi to give amanats, and especially the categorical refusal to make yasak for them, given that the latter could lead and led to the death of their relatives? In the ethnographic literature, this phenomenon - the specific behavior of the Chukchi (and partly Koryaks) - is stated as a fact, but it is not explained in any way. In this article, without claiming to be indisputable conclusions (since the problem requires consideration in the context of the entire system of the Chukchi worldview), we will express some considerations that should help to find an answer to the question formulated above. First of all, it should be noted that before the appearance of the Russians, the Chukchi, unlike many other Siberian peoples, did not in principle know the institution of tribute and hostage-taking. Therefore, the demand for payment of yasak and the issuance of amanats caused them confusion: "they do not know what yasak and how to give it to the sovereign" (1642) [Discoveries of Russian explorers..., 1951, p. 143], "we do not know de yasak and do not pay and do not trade... what de with us ask for yasak... "(1732) [Efimov, 1948, p. 239]. since the Cossacks, in accordance with the "instructions", were obliged to take amanats at the first meeting, this alone caused a conflict situation and made the aborigines see strangers as enemies who capture (it is not clear for what purposes) their relatives. But this is the first impression. A. after all, the Chukchi and later, when they already got acquainted with the Russians and their orders, categorically did not accept amanatstvo and, again, we emphasize, did not pay yasak for the sake of preserving the lives of relatives captured by the Russians.

This perception of amanacy, in our opinion, can be explained by the fact that members of their Chukchi communities who found themselves in Russian captivity were already considered dead. G. F. Miller, based on the testimony of service people, argued that they considered a relative of the Chukchi taken to amanats lost for themselves [Ehlert, 1999, p.95]. Confirmation of this is found in the testimony of the "foreigners" themselves. Thus, Tygagin, who was taken to the amanats of Chukchi, told the clerk of the Anadyr prison A. Pushchin the following:"...how evo was taken to the amanats last year in 198 [1690], and he de on korga from kocha with them, the chyukhchi, called to each other and called them under him to the Anadyr prison of the great sovereigns with yasachny payment, and they de, the chyukhochy peasants, the springs of evo, said: "they will not be under him in Anadyr the prison of the great sovereigns with a yasachny payment, as if the land took evo and not so much from them, chukhoch, they eat by sea (here and further our italics. - A. Z.)" " (cit. by: [Polevoy, 1997, p. 43-44]). In 1756, during negotiations with Major I. S. Shmalev, the Chukchi declared:: "And about the giving of amanats all unanimously declared lutchia, Harpuga, Amulat, Petunia, Tatymkin: to give according to their faith is a sin, and even if de from them these were given, and their evil intention will be, then de and amanats can leave and burn according to their custom will not, believing those amanats supposedly sea took and butto would have sunk" (RGADA, f. 199, op. 2, N 539, part 2, d. 6, l. 36). Almost the same Chukchi repeated in 1767 to Captain Ya. Peresypin:"...neither their grandfathers nor their fathers have ever given amanats to the Russian people, which they are accustomed to give for a considerable sin, and although they were given them, and when their evil intention comes, they can also leave amanats, about which they can not even be considered sorry they will be, assuming that the sea took them according to their gentile habit, which they imitate" (Ibid., d. 3, l. 30 vol.). In 1778, the centurion T. Perevalov, a participant in Pavlutsky's campaigns in Chukotka in the 1740s.,

page 156

in his testimony to the Kamchatka commander M. Boehm. in particular, he noted: "... during the campaigns, brans were also found in the amanats of the is Toens, and how their children and their kind will go away, leaving their father, and say: moreover, the sea takes away from them "(Ibid., f. 7, op. 1, d. 2451, l. 17). The above suggests that the Chukchi were accustomed to death and treated it quite calmly; since people often died in hunting ("the sea took") or war, as well as as a result of suicide ("voluntary death"), it was not of fundamental importance for them to save the lives of several hostages. Moreover, the latter still sought to commit suicide. In this regard, it is necessary to pay attention to the widespread practice of "voluntary death" among the Chukchi people, when the elderly, terminally ill, or maimed, either committed suicide themselves, or asked their next of kin to kill them. The Cossack B. A. Kuznetsky, who was held captive by the Chukchi in 1754-1755, later reported in his testimony to the Anadyr commander: "...when I was a boy, I could see that one son of his father's family, and then the brother of his brother's family, was stabbed to death with knives, and they respect each other for nothing. I. when a son's father or mother comes to an old age, they are no longer kept in their homes, and in former frosts they take them away from their homes to the distance and leave them, where they freeze" (Ibid., f. 199, op. 2, N 528, ch. 1, d. 6, l. 88 vol.; see also: [Colonial Policy..., 1935, p. 182]). Mass suicides occurred during military operations, when the Chukchi were defeated. As noted by D. I. Pavlutsky, the Chukchi "during the war, being in a dangerous position, kill themselves "[Sgibnev, 1869, pp. 30-31]. First of all, the soldiers killed the elderly, women and children, and themselves-if they could not escape. Researchers point out that the Chukchi (as well as Koryaks and Itelmen) considered suicide to be a way out of a critical life situation (Zelenin, 1937). The value of one's own life or that of one's relatives was determined by the extent to which its conditions and condition corresponded to their ideas of what it should be. Old age, incurable illness, serious injury, critical financial situation, as well as captivity did not correspond to the concepts of" right "and" good " life. Therefore, it was better to "move" to the other world, where, according to the ideas of the aborigines, life continued. Studying the customs of the Koryaks and Itelmen, S. P. Krasheninnikov made an observation that can be attributed to the Chukchi people...In their opinion, "he noted," it is better to die than not to live as they please. Why, before this, was self-murder their last mode of enjoyment, which continued until their conquest, and after their conquest... it has multiplied... " [1949, p. 368]. At the same time, it was necessary to leave by a violent death, which provided a "transition" to good spirits, while the person who died a natural death not only fell into the hands of an evil spirit, but also became one himself, bringing misfortune to his relatives [Zelenin, 1937; Bogoraz, 1939, pp. 32, 43-44; Vdovin, 1976, p. 246; Shnirelman, 1994, p. 111]. At the end of the XIX century. Describing the Chukchi people, an Anadyr resident of the city of Dyachkov noted: "The Chukchi people are convinced that if a person dies his own death, then it will be bad for him in the next world, so if the Chukchi gets sick, he asks his son or brother to stab him with a knife or spear" [1893, p.60]. In addition, it should be borne in mind that among the peoples of the extreme north-east of Siberia, including the Chukchi, there was a custom of cruel treatment of captured male soldiers; they were often subjected to painful tortures and eventually killed (see, for example: [Additions..., 1859, p. 32; 1862, p. 9; Krasheninnikov, 1949, p. 402, 705; Bogoraz, 1900, p. 92 - 94, 331 - 334, 390; Ethnographic materials..., 1978, p. 121]. The Russians were also not very soft-hearted - they used tortures to prisoners of "non-peaceful foreigners", even women, and arranged demonstrative executions (see, for example, RGADA, f. 199, op. 2, N 528, part 1, d. 17, l. 8 vol.; [Senatsky Archiv, 1893, p. 202 Elert, 1998, p. 125]). In addition, the Russians often kept amanats in the north-eastern prisons, not caring much about their survival. In the late 1730s. The Irkutsk Provincial Chancellery stated: "...from that zborny amanatsky fodder sent zborschiki and service people use for themselves, and amanatomom is a small matter of yukola for the sake of food, and bolyns eat, collecting alms under the windows, and worse than cattle they keep, which is no small bitterness to such a wild people " (RGADA, f. 199, op. 2, N 481, part 7, l. 199-199 vol.).

We can hardly be mistaken if we say that the Chukchi people equated the condition of the amanat and the captive, especially since the Russians tried to use prisoners as hostages. Accordingly, for the Chukchi, to give up an amanat meant to voluntarily give a kinsman into captivity for certain tortures and death; captivity-amanatstvo was considered as death. This is probably why they declared that according to their concepts "it is a sin to give amanats". I. the demand of the Russians to make yasak under the amanats of the Chukchi was perceived as absurd - for them these amanats were already dead. However, it should be noted that the Chukchi did not exclude the possibility of" resurrection " of the dead. The comparison of arrival in amanats with death at sea is not accidental. The fact is that the Chukchi (as well as Eskimos, Koryaks and Itelmen) they did not know how to swim, although there were sea beast hunters among them. Moreover, it was forbidden even to save drowning people, and those who managed to escape were still considered dead-

page 157

in order for the collective to accept them again, a person had to undergo a special purification rite. The Eskimo fairy tale "Lost at Sea" tells us that a person who was lost at sea, in order to return to normal life, had to literally be born again [Skazki I mifi..., 1974, pp. 63-66]. V. V. Leontiev, who personally studied the Koryak-Kereks, noted: "In the past, it was believed that the one who came from the sea is not a person, but a soul, an evil spirit and must be killed. The same fate awaited those who were swept out to sea. When the shaman's divination revealed that a person had died, a rumor quickly spread all along the coast that so-and-so was missing. If he managed to escape, then he had to perform a certain rite on the seashore with a change of name to the name of the ancestor. The return of the ancestor was considered natural and ordinary" [1976, p. 212]. Since the Chukchi and Koryaks (especially between the Chukchi and their closest neighbors, the Kerek) have a lot in common (parallels in language, material and spiritual culture), and in earlier times there was even a single "Koryak-Chukchi ethnic community" [Vasilevsky, 1973, p. 143], we can assume a similarity between the Chukchi and Kerek peoples in their attitude to a person "taken by the sea". Therefore, it must be assumed that the "resurrection" of the amanats was not excluded if they passed a certain rite. Accordingly, the Amanats were considered not as finally dead, but as temporarily gone to another world.

From the mid-1750s, the Russians, having failed in their attempts to subdue the Chukchi by force, moved to a peaceful dialogue with them. The Chukchi, having suffered significant losses in the confrontation, also showed interest in establishing peace. The Russian side even refused to demand the extradition of amanats, although it still appeared in government orders (the last time it was put forward in relation to the Chukchi, probably in the instructions of 1772 to the Kamchatka commander M. Boehm: "bring them to sherti and take from them to amanats from Lutchi people" (RGADA, f. 199, op. 2, N 539, part 2, d. 4, l. 15-15 vol.)). In the second half of the 50s-60s of the XVIII century, several meetings of Russians and Chukchi took place in Anadyr; the Chukchi agreed to voluntarily contribute yasak (although only in exchange for gifts), but still refused to give amanats (see: Ibid., N 528, part 1, d. 3, l. 27; d. 10, l. 9 vol. - 10; d. 17, l. 19 vol. - 21ob.; ch. 2, d. 3, l. 28 vol. - 30 vol.; d. 4, l. 26 vol., 122 vol., 165; N 539, ch. 2, d. 6, l. 34 - 25 vol., 38 vol. - 39, 85 vol.; f. 1095, op. 1, d. 24, l. 1-2; [Vdoviy, 1965, p. 62, 76, 126 - 127, 128]). Interestingly, during the negotiations with the Anadyr commander, Ya. Peresypkin in 1767, the Chukchi offered "instead of the declared amanats, allegedly for their constancy to the Russian people" to give" for the Russian people in marriage ""Chukchi wives and girls". However, only one Cossack decided to take advantage of this offer, the rest refused, explaining that due to the relocation from Anadyrsk to Gizhiginsk, they do not want to burden themselves with their family and unnecessary expenses for moving (RGADA, f. 199, op. 2, N 528, part 1, d. 17, l. 26; part 2, d. 3, l. 30 vol.). But it is very significant that the Chukchi people outlined their own version of ensuring peace: instead of the Russian system of amanatship and the "loyalty" built on it, they proposed kinship relations, which they assessed as a guarantee of peace and friendship between family clans. Such diplomacy was in use among the local peoples. For example, in 1756," for the sake of firmness of the world, "the Chukchi and Koryaks agreed that" the Chukchi should marry their children to the Koryaks, and the Koryaks should agree to take the Chukotskys in marriage "(Ibid., part 2, d. 9, l. 13, 46).

The demilitarization of Russian-Chukchi relations affected the perception of Russians by the Chukchi people: from" strangers", enemies, they gradually turned into neighbors with whom they could peacefully coexist. At the same time, their perception of amanacy was changing. In 1775, during negotiations with the Russians near the Gizhiginsky fortress, the Chukchi "foremen" Menyakhta, Tetkhey, Mumkal, Umych, Tygagirgin, Aigit, Enut and Lokhatka with their camps voluntarily gave up amanat for the first time. However, this experience was unsuccessful largely due to the fault of the Gizhiginsky commander Ya. Peresypkin. When the Chukchi wanted to make sure that amanat was alive or not, Y. Peresypkin not only refused them, but also demanded to hand over the second amanat. The case ended in an armed clash, during which the Chukchi were defeated. However, the conflict was settled thanks to the reasonable actions of I. S. Shmalev and N. Daurkin, a baptized Chukchi, who were specially sent by the government to settle Russian-Chukchi relations (see: Ibid., No. 539, part 2, d. 6, l. 41-57 vol.; f. 7, op. 1, d. 2451, l. 65-70; f. 1096, op. 1, d. 42, l. 24-38 vol.;

* An interesting observation about this was made by G. V. Steller. "If in the old days someone accidentally fell into the water, the Itelmen considered it a great sin if this person managed to escape somehow," he noted. "They are of the opinion that if such a man was already destined to drown, then he did the wrong thing by not drowning. Such a man was never admitted to his home again, no one spoke to him again, absolutely no food was served to him, and no women were given to him as wives. Such a person was considered by the Itelmen to be really already dead, and he had to either seek happiness in a foreign land or starve to death at home. ...If someone fell into the water in front of others, those present did not allow them to escape, but forcibly drowned them, helping them to die" [1999, p.172].

page 158

D. 43). After negotiations in the Gizhiga fortress, the Chukchi left their amanats twice: in 1778, toyon Amulat Khergyntov - 4 people. (Ibid., f. 7, op. 1, d. 2451, l. 16 vol.), in 1779 toyon Hevruvya - 2 people. (Ibid., f. 199, op. 2, n 539, part 2, d. 6, l. 50-53 vol.). But in the future, the Russian authorities refused to take amanats from the Chukchi, which corresponded to the general policy towards the Siberian aborigines (refom of yasach taxation during the First Yasach Commission of 1763 (see: [Complete Collection of Laws..., 1830, p. 153-154; History of the Yakut ASSR, 1957, p. 133-140, 206 - 207; Fedorov, 1978, p. 56 - 58, 115 - 117, 122 - 156]).

Analysis of the attitude of the Chukchi people to the practice of hostage-taking shows that to understand the nature of Russian-Aboriginal contacts during the annexation of Siberia to Russia, it is not enough to know their external, event-related side; it is necessary to study the mental representations and stereotypes of group psychology of interacting societies.

List of literature

Bogoraz V. G. Materials on the study of the Chukchi language and folklore collected in the Kolyma district. - St. Petersburg, 1900. - Ch. 1: Samples of Chukoch folk literature (translated texts and retellings). - 417 p.

Bogoraz V. G. Chukchi. - Part 2: Religion. - L.: Publishing House of the Institute of Peoples of the North, 1939. - 126 p.

Vasilievsky R. S. Ancient cultures of the Pacific North. Novosibirsk: Nauka Publ., 1973, 267 p. (in Russian)

Vdovin I. S. Ocherki istorii i etnografii Chukchi [Essays on Chukchi History and ethnography]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1965, 401 p. (in Russian)

Vdovin I. S. Priroda i chelovek v religioznykh predstavleniyakh chukchi [Nature and man in religious representations of the peoples of Siberia and the North (the second half of the XIX-early XX centuries)]. - l.: Nauka, 1976. - pp. 217-253.

Additions to historical acts. - St. Petersburg, 1857. - Vol. 6. - 517 p.; 1859. - Vol. 7. - 489 p.; 1862. - Vol. 8. - 523 p.

[Dyachkov G.] Anadyr region. The manuscript of the village of Markov / / Zap. Amur region of study. edges. - Vladivostok, 1893. - Vol. 3. - XXVIII, 158 p.

Efimov A.V. From the history of Russian expeditions in the Pacific Ocean. The first half of the XVIII century. - Moscow: Voenizdat, 1948. - 341s.

Zelenin, D. K., The custom of "voluntary death" among primitive peoples, in Pamyati V. G. Bogoraza (1865-1936), Moscow; L: Izd - vo A. N. SSSR, 1937, pp. 47-78.

Zuev, A. S., Russians and natives of the far North-East Siberia in the second half of XVII - the first quarter of the XVIII century - Novosibirsk: novosib. GOS. UN-t, 2002. - 330 p.

Zuev A. S. D. I. Pavlutsky's commemorations on the activity of the Anadyr Party in the early 1730s. - Ser.: History, Philology. Novosibirsk, 2003, vol. 2, vol. 2: History. - P. 133-139.

Zuev A. S. Annexation of the Far North-East of Siberia to Russia: military and political aspect. The second half of the XVII-XVIII century: Author's abstract of the dissertation of the Doctor of Historical Sciences. - Tomsk, 2005. - 48 p.

Istoriya Yakutskoy ASSR [History of the Yakut ASSR], Moscow: A. N. SSSR Publishing House, 1957, vol. 2: Yakutia from the 1630s to 1917, 419 p .

Colonial policy of tsarism in Kamchatka and Chukotka in the XVIII century: Collection of archives, materials. - L.: Publishing House of the Institute of Peoples of the North, 1935. - 210 p.

Krasheninnikov S. P. Description of the land of Kamchatka. With the application of reports, reports and other unpublished materials. - M.; L.: Glavsevmorput Publishing House, 1949. - 841s.

Leontiev V. V. Po zemle drevnykh kerekov [On the land of ancient Kereks]. Notes of an ethnographer. - Magadan: Kn. izd-vo, 1976. - 230 p.

Otkrytiya russkikh zemleprokhodtsev i polarnykh morokhodov XVII veka na severo-vostoka Azii [Discoveries of Russian land explorers and polar navigators of the 17th century in the North - East of Asia], Moscow: Geogr. lit., 1951, 618 p. (in Russian).

Monuments of Siberian history of the XVIII century. - St. Petersburg, 1882. - Book 1. - XXXII, 551c; 1885. - Book 2. - XXIV, 541 p.

Polevoy B. P. New discovery of Kamchatka. - Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky: Kamchat. pechat. dvor Publ., 1997, Part 2, 201s.

The Complete Collection of Laws of the Russian Empire. Meeting I. St. Petersburg, 1830, vol. 16, N11749, pp. 153-154.

Sgibnev A. S. Materials for the history of Kamchatka. Shestakov's Expedition // Morskoy sb. - SPb., 1869. - Vol. 100. - N 2, neofits. ed. - p. 1-34.

Senate Archive. St. Petersburg, 1893, vol. 6, 836 p.

Skazki i mifi narodov Chukotki i Kamchatki [Fairy tales and Myths of the peoples of Chukotka and Kamchatka], Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1974, 646 p.

Steller G. V. Description of the Kamchatka land. - Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky: Kamchat. pechat. dvor Publ., 1999, 287 p .

Fedorov M. M. Pravovoe polozhenie narodov Vostochnoi Sibiri (XVI - nachalo XIX v.) [Legal status of the peoples of Eastern Siberia (XVI-early XIX century)]. Yakutsk: Kn. izd-vo, 1978. 207 p.

War and Peace in the early history of mankind, Moscow: Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1994, vol. 1, 176 p.

Elert A. Kh. Problema vkhozhdeniya korennykh narodov Sibiri v sostav Rossii v nepublikovannykh trudakh G. F. Miller [The problem of entry of indigenous peoples of Siberia into Russia in G. F. Miller's unpublished works]. Istoriya russkoy dukhovnoi kul'tury v rukisnom nasledii XVI-XX vv. - Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1998. - pp. 121-133.

Elert A. H. Peoples of Siberia in the works of G. F. Miller. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo IAEt SB RAS, 1999, 240 p. (in Russian)

Ethnographic materials of the North-Eastern Geographical Expedition (I. I. Billings - G. A. Sarychev). 1785-1795-Magadan: Kn. izd-vo, 1978. - 174 p.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 27.11.06.

page 159

Permanent link to this publication: