ISSN 0798 1015

Vol. 39 (Number 18) Year 2018 • Page 37

«Power of soil»: Formation of new otherness in the frontier environment

«Poder del suelo»: formación de nueva alteridad en el entorno fronterizo

Sergey Nikolayevich YAKUSHENKOV 1; Anna Petrovna ROMANOVA 2

Received: 27/03/2018 • Approved: 15/04/2018

Content

1. Introduction

2. Research Methodology

3. Discussion

4. The main part

5. Conclusion

References

1. Introduction

Frontier is a specific liminal space where cultural processes acquire entirely different forms that differ from those of the Metropolis. The society that finds itself in new geographical and cultural spaces has to work out a new world view that would fully meet the new realities. The traditional worldview is a complex system of symbols whose semantics has been shaped under the influence of various factors: geographical (spatial), economical (that are tightly bound with the latter), social, political factors etc. Worldview is reflected in the language, religion, literature, folklore, art, ideology, behavioral stereotypes, in psychological types, etc. A specific set of these factors creates a national worldview that performs an important function of adapting to different circumstances, both natural and social.

Yet the worldview shouldn’t be looked upon as something secondary, something that automatically follows the external factors and depends on them. In some cases, the national worldview turns out to be primary, while the real geographic and social landscapes are but built into it or, more precisely, adjusted to it. Suffice it to recall the following maxim of the socialist era: “We need not wait for the Nature’s bounties, we should win them of her” (Michurin 1950, p. 10).

 Rebuilding nature, adapting it to our ideological patterns turns into an "internal stimulus" of historical development that overshadows all others. In this case the nature turns to be an important factor of overcoming difficulties. It seems to challenge the mankind, forces them to struggle with the nature, makes it important for humans to prove their superiority. This false cultural paradigm, built on the antinomy of Human / Nature, ultimately turns not into a gain, but a global loss. People who adhere to such a worldview are not ready for the spontaneous manifestations of nature. All this found expression in the ironic popular saying: "Winter came unexpectedly again and took us by surprise." Within such a paradigm, you can think about turning the northern rivers to the south, and remain unprepared for a regular season change.

For the people of the Soviet Union the advent of the era of socialism also meant a change in the historical paradigm, in which a new meaning was assigned to nature and geographic space. One can say the people of the USSR were alienated from the geographical space. Both the space and the lives of people were ruled from the outside, were directed from the Centre, while the real space had no place, no meaning. The real space was substituted by the imaginary space, like that on a geographic map or an atlas.

In this article we discuss the variants of perceiving space in the situations when people were forced to integrate directly into a new geographical space and into a new frontier environment. Hence, our goal is to retrace the formation of Otherness when a person has to adjust to a new reality and tries to get maximum benefits out of it. It is in search of these benefits that people go to the end of the world looking for better living conditions.

Sometimes though people can become objects, not subjects of this moving away, forced to live in a new territorial and cultural environment. In this article we describe the patterns of building a new diversity of Russian immigrants in frontier areas, which stem from the needs of adaptation to new environment. It is when old cultural norms are abandoned in favor of new ones borrowed from the local population, who are better adapted to local natural environment than the newcomers.

2. Research Methodology

To analyze the process of adaptation to the new conditions of the frontier space, we selected several theoretical approaches and methodologies. First of all, it is a frontier theory formulated by the American historian F. Turner, which allows us to look at the frontier space as a special territory that changes a person and society as a whole. F. Turner was one of the first to pay attention to how the new environment transforms the migrant. But, due to the fact that the frontier theory was formulated by him in the late 19th century, we take into consideration not only his approaches, but also approaches to the study of the frontierman by such American historians as H. Lamar and L. Tompson (1981), and W. Cronon (Cronon 1987; Cronon 1994; Cronon 2013), analyzing the relationship between nature and man in the American West.

Another important methodological approach used in this study was the Foucaultian view of space, which he defined as a heterotopia. Due to the fact that the frontier, in our opinion, is one of the forms of heterotopia, we considered it possible to apply the Foucault’s (Foucault 1994) approach to the transformation of human behavior (its transgression) under new conditions. This very fact that the heterotopia of the frontier consists in the presence of a multitude of spaces (existing in different forms), enclosed in one space, allows us to see in it a special phenomenon, in which the subject is facing a multitude of challenges to which he or she has to respond. His or her traditional cultural patterns are incapable of providing him or her with the most adequate adaptation to the new conditions. As a result, the subject is forced to rebuild behavior, id est transgress (according to M. Foucault, Klossowski and others). Quite often this transgression is expressed in simple borrowing of foreign cultural patterns, with the abandonment of their own, i.e. in the transition to the side of the Alien, acquiring a new identity.

3. Discussion

The conquest and development of new territories is a complex and contradictory process in which a wide variety of actors participate. There cannot be universal scenarios, since each of the subjects of this process approaches it with their own luggage. Discussion of the frontier colonization processes was the central topic for diverse scientists of various science fields: historians, ethnologists, sociologists, anthropologists, and so on. A lot of works by Russian and foreign authors have been devoted to the questions of colonization and adaptation to new frontier conditions (Cronon 2013; Yadrintsev 1891; Yadrintsev 1892, p. 146-189; Shunkov 1946; Shelegina 2005; Zhigunova 2011; Remnev and Suvorova 2013; Nam 2014; Ermachkova 2015; Cronon 1996; Bassin 1993; Moon 2007; Schweitzer, Golovko and Vakhtin 2013; Vakhtin, Golovko and Schweitzer 2004). In this article, we will try to trace such a scenario of adaptation to new conditions in which migrants choose the cultural patterns of the local population, even if they consider it to be at a lower cultural level.

4. The main part

The frontier situation embeds the subject not only in new natural conditions, but also in new cultural ones, as he or she appears to be face to face with the Alien, which is an integral part of this new territory, in which a frontier subject reveals themselves. Being often alone with new conditions, both natural and cultural, the subject is forced to transform themselves, undergoing certain changes. But since the frontier realities turn out to be completely new for the frontier subject, his or her experience turns out to be completely new, different from the usual experience typical for his mother society.

Hence the existential boundaries of the subject constantly change, forming a new personality, which now becomes overgrown with all the features of otherness. Life on the frontier territory, whose conditions are difficult and require maximum efforts and abilities for survival from the subject, shifts them into an extreme position in relation to the traditional norms of his or her society. New conditions of existence require a new modality and new norms from them. These ones seem to crystallize out gradually with its adaptation to new conditions. Actually, these norms are the variants of adaptation models fixed in his or her behavioral patterns.

Among these conditions (factors) affecting the transformation of the frontier subject, we can name the following:

1. Natural (geographic, climatic, etc.);

2. Cultural (both the subject’s patterns and the ethnic groups communicating with him or her);

Logically, cultural factors are exo- and endo- factors that can be subjective and objective. The ability of the subject to communicate with other subjects from the foreign culture, the rigidity of his own cultural attitudes, the ability of contact culture subjects to dialogue, the ways of communication, the conditions for cultural exchange – all that will have a significant impact on the ways and possibilities of the subject's adaptation to new conditions.

The importance of all these factors is easily revealed when analyzing the historical destinies of the various colonies in New England and their ways of incorporation into a new geographical and cultural landscapes: Virginia, Plymouth and Pennsylvania colonies. In each of these English colonies, there was a mechanism to adapt to the new reality. This applies to the development of the geographical landscape, and the relationship with the cultures of other peoples, which are an integral part of this landscape. It seems to us that the word "grounding" suits the definition of embedding mechanism of Plymouth and Pennsylvania colonists. It should be taken into account that these colonists were members of two different religious organizations, each of which interacted with local tribes differently. The forms of relations with the Indians in different colonies differed from each other greatly. When the Virginian colony was characterized by conflicts with the Indians (Cave 2011), and among colonists themselves, in Pennsylvania, there were no such conflicts the entire 17th century. The Quakers of William Penn not only managed to maintain peace with the local tribes for a long time (Merrell 1999), but they also gave shelter to other tribes in their territory, accepting them as "their Indians" (Sipe 1929, p. 102).

The mechanisms of adaptation to the new conditions in the Plymouth colony were as if in the middle between the behavioral stereotypes of the colonists in the Virginia and Pennsylvania colonies. The leaders of the Plymouth colony even allocated some sums for the propaganda of Christianity among the Indians, and for the support of a number of Indian families showing zeal in becoming Christian. As a result of the efforts of these missionaries, by about 1674 approximately 1000 Indians were converted to Christianity. 142 Indian from them could even read in their own language, and 9 people learned to read in English as well. In 1685 the number of Indians who converted to Christianity already reached one and a half thousand people (Bushnell 1999, p. 70). Naturally, this created a completely new cultural situation in the colonies, whose inhabitants adjusted to the ever-changing cultural landscape. It was the situation itself which generated special hybrid personalities, combining a multitude of cultures. Not only nutritional or vestimentary traditions, languages or economic ways were blending. There was mixing at the level of mentality, the formation of a new worldview in which an Alien and a Friend were embeded in a completely new way. The difference between the subject and the Alien can be leveled, and the difference between the subject and the Friend amplified.

Being a participant in the frontier processes in the Caucasus War Leo Tolstoy noticed it well in his famous novel “The Cossacks”: “Living among the Chechens, the Cossacks intermarried with them and learned the customs, way of life and mores of the mountaineers; but they retained there, in all the former purity, the Russian language and the old faith .... Even so far, the Cossack families are considered to be related to Chechens, and the love of freedom, idleness, robbery and war are the main features of their character ... A Cossack hates the mountaineer horseman who killed his brother less than the soldier who stands with him to protect his village, but who smoked his house with tobacco. He respects the enemy-mountaineer, but he despises an alien for him and the oppressor of the soldier. Actually, the Russian peasant for the Cossack is some kind of alien, wild and despicable creature, whom he saw in the arriving traders and settlers of the Little Russians, whom the Cossacks scornfully call “shapoval” (a fuller). Foppery in the mode of dress consists in imitation of the Circassians. The best weapons are obtained from the mountaineer, the best horses are bought and stolen from them as well. A Cossack flaunts knowledge of the Tatar language and even speaks the Tatar language with his brother" (Tolstoy 1936, pp. 15-16).

Of course, it should be understood that a Grebenskoy Cossack was originally the Other even within the Russian cultural landscape, however, his otherness was not originally so significant comparing to the cultural realities that Leo Tolstoy found in the middle of the 19th century.

A similar situation can be found in various regions of Siberia. The Transbaikalian Cossacks actively mixed with local peoples. The Russian traveler, journalist and officer of the Russian Army, M. Grulyov (1901), who visited Transbaikalia at the end of the 19th century, noted that the Cossacks, and other segments of the population, due to the small number of Russian women, actively stole Buryat women, of which the church approved, willingly registering these marriages, providing the fact that the captives were converted to Orthodoxy (p. 215). All this led even to the fact that local Buryats, trying to resist this abduction, introduced the tradition of induced cross-dressing: "To protect their women from abduction by their monastic peasants, the Buryats changed the costume of girls and boys, dressing ones in the dress of the other. This was facilitated by the Mongolian race's lack of a mustache and beard. The abduction of Buryat women was followed by bitter disappointment for predators and thus prevented them from attempting against the Mongolian Sabine women. Nevertheless, the exchange of clothes among Buryat boys and girls is still observed, especially among the Ghudara Buryats: the girls cut their hair short, wear a peaked cap, an undergarment, a man's shirt, plush trousers and boots; only the one who is accustomed to this can differ a girl from a guy "( Grulyov 1901, p. 215). Thus, contacts between the two ethnic groups caused a transgression in all participants of cultural communication process. However, some transgressed in order to achieve this communication, albeit by force, and others were forced to transgress to limit this communication.

However, bride abduction aside, there were a lot of cases of natural miscegenation, as described by P. Pallas: "The citizens and rural residents of Selenga and Dauria regions mix willingly with the Mongols; because the wealthy Russians in villages and the other citizens have heard that the Tatar blood is hotter, so they developed a practice of marring Buryat and Mongolian maidens; that is not unprofitable for fathers-in-law, hence they willingly let their daughters be baptized in the Russian faith. There are also cases near Selenginsk, that Buryat men are baptized to please Russian girls in order to marry them. Of both kinds of weddings, a variety of half-bloods are born, who always have something of the Mongolian race in their facial features as well as black or very dark hair, but for all that they have very well made and pleasant faces; they are called the Karymks. However, such mixtures lead to accepting Buryat ways of living and the Mongolian language by the commoners who live in these places" (Pallas 1788, p. 383).

As a result, a new hybrid culture was formed, characterized by a special identity and syncretism. Neighborhood with local peoples leads to active borrowing of a multitude of cultural elements: “These common activities with the Buryats facilitated closer rapprochement with them, and at the same time – borrowing experience from Buryats, borrowing concepts and views; gradually, the language, signs, and products of the Buryats were assimilated; accessory for saddling horses in the border Cossack villages is borrowed entirely from the Buryats, and even the Buryats terms are retained. Speaking of clothes, there were borrowed tyrlyks and delas (winter and summer dressing gown), mukluks and gutulys (winter and summer shoes). With regard to food, the Cossacks, like the Buryats, highly appreciate the kyrsen (the top of a ram’s chest), as well as hurut (cheese), shulu (soup), etc.; in all of these, as in many other cases, even the names of Buryat were kept …

But apart from these external borrowings and changing of little household things, what is much more important and sad is that many of the Cossacks under the influence of the Buryats even in the border villages and "sentries" prefer to speak Buryat than Russian, they believe in Buryat shamans, and even keep sometimes shaman Burkhans (note 1)” (Grulyov 1901, p. 223).

The process of borrowing native peoples’ traditions by Russian settlers is also noted by V. Kign-Dedlov (1894), a famous Russian writer, journalist, who worked in the Resettlement Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for a long time. In his opinion, although the Russians influenced the culture of neighboring peoples in the Trans-Ural region, they also often borrowed the culture of the Kazakhs in full: "Thousands of these people are scattered throughout the winter camps of colossal Kyrgyz territory, and ... it will somehow be embarrassing when the Kirghiz will force them out and begin to plow the land, set up villages and build mosques; and it will be even sadder if these tenants are kirgizified, of which there are many examples "(p. 56). Also, Dedlov (1984) notes the desire of the colonists to actively borrow foreign speech and manner of behavior: "The savagery of the Cossack also infects the peasants who move here from the interior provinces. Not only the tough Great Russian assimilates the Cossack robbery bravado, but even the gentle-mannered Ukrainian who speak respectfully with his zhinka (wife) and he changes his "Poltava tenor" to a hoarse baritone, and orphaned manners to the manners of a robber. The Siberian Cossacks, as they say, have already become so wild that they consider it a special glamor to speak among themselves not Russian, but local dialects. The Orenburg Cossacks are also not such kind of savages from birth. They were recruited from everywhere from the interior provinces and only turned savage here, in semi-Asia "(p. 23).

A Siberian ethnographer and writer N. Shchukin (1844), who visited Yakutsk in the first half of the XIX century, noted that "Russian old women often speak Yakut among themselves. This language dominated in Yakutsk among all classes, as we have French in capitals. Each and every resident speaks some Yakut. It is no wonder: at home a nanny is a Yakut, a cook is a Yakut, a worker and a coachman are all Yakuts. A child, starting to hear, is struck by the sounds of the Yakut language; in the sphere of a citizen’s duties there are mostly contacts with the Yakuts. The local resident, dealing with them, insensibly adopts all their customs, and speaks better the Yakut language than the native one. Residents of Yakutsk and Russia speaking to each other don’t understand each other in a complete way; it is necessary to resort to explanations and repetitions " (Shchukin 1844, p. 228). Shchukin also points out the active Russians’ borrowing of food and fashion traditions from the Yakuts (p. 229).

A similar situation persisted in certain regions of Siberia by the end of the 19th century. The well-known ethnographer and narodnik (populist) V. Bartenev (1896), exiled to the Tobolsk province in 1891 and serving his exile in the village of Obdorsk, noted: "Almost all the Obdorsk dwellers speak the Ostyak and Samoyed languages. The Ostyaks, in general, understand Russian very poorly, and the Samoyeds, who always wander in the tundra, do not know the Russian language at all. The Russians sometimes speak Ostyak among themselves; there are also those who, almost, have forgotten their native language and gone completely wild, but this is rare, and in general the dominance of foreign languages in Obdorsk is weaker than, for example, in the Yakut region "(p. 20). V. Bartenyev writes about active dissidents’ borrowings of various elements of culture among the local peoples. First of all, this applies again to the vestimentary (clothes) and alimentary (food) traditions (pp. 16-20). Should we include all these facts in the processes of the Russian population's miscegenation with local peoples? V. Bertenev, referring to the literacy of the population, makes it clear that "in Obdorsk, a significant part of the Russian population that has preserved the purity of blood (marriages with foreigners are extremely rare) are literate" (p. 16). According to his observations, Russian marriages with representatives of local peoples were very rare (pages 24-25).

As we can see, all the above mentioned authors note this tendency of rapprochement with local peoples, the readiness to move to the language of the Alien even among themselves, to adapt to the Alien, to adopt their clothes, even look like them, gradually turning into the Other within the framework of own ethnic community, more and more coming closer to the Alien.

As M. Grulyov (1901) noted, not only cultural contacts with local peoples influenced the transformation of the culture of Russian settlers in Transbaikalia, the geographical factor was equally important: "Even more important in this respect belonged to the physical conditions of the terrain: the first Russian new settlers inevitably blurred in a vast space, coming in scattered, almost single forces in contact with the massive native population of the Mongol-Buryat race. Finding themselves in free and wild land, with uncultivated and infertile soil, the first Russian settlers were most likely to take up cattle breeding, which had already been tested by the natives; especially since vast meadows and an abundance of livestock did not require almost any care contributed to this "(p. 222). According to V. Bartenev, it is the influence of the environment that accounts for all borrowings of the food and costume traditions from the Natives. The very environment forces you to eat sliced frozen meat (stroganina): "Eating venison in its raw form is partly explained by the high cost of vegetables and, in general, seasonings to fried and boiled meat. In addition, venison generally is not so tasty when being boiled, and fried, too, is not particularly delicious, so it is best when eatten raw " (Bartenev 1896, p. 19).

It draws attention that even the Russians of Siberia, even where they live compactly and do not mix with the local population, gradually turn into the Other, being named (Siberians), embodying specific characteristics (extraordinary health, strength, freedom-loving, etc.). And even within the framework of this large regional group, there are many similar local entities: the Cheldones, Semeiskiye, Kamenshiks, Kerzhaks, etc.

On the frontier territory, the subject acquires incredible opportunities to either maximally maintain their Otherness, or create it on a new basis. It is in this connection that frequent attempts are made to compare the differences between Siberian "old-timers" (starozhils) and new settlers from Russia. The developed characteristics of these two groups of the Siberia population are given by the economist A. Kaufman (1905), who specifically studied the issues of the economics of settlers. He notes that the new settlers treat with contempt the economic way of the old-timers: "And the settlers themselves, moving to Siberia, always expect to apply their own, Russian customs on a new spot as well as their own, Russian, tools; they strictly condemn the first days and weeks of staying in Siberia, the extensive economy of the surrounding old-timers, promising to "learn" the old-timers to work, "show them what the land can give," to plant fruit or berry gardens - and this innocent boasting appeals to many "friends of settlers" and undoubtedly reflects on their judgments and assessments" (pp. 327-328).

The exiled writer doctor S. Elpat'evsky is even more categorical in his remarks (Elpat'evsky 1893): "Among the diverse elements that inhabit the Siberian village, there is only one which is absent – the Russian one. This conclusion did not immediately come to me, for a long time I felt only that something was missing in Siberia; but when this conclusion came, it did strike me. "Russian" is not visible or heard, Russia is not felt in Siberia. Among the various buildings you will not see only one – the ordinary Russian hut of the middle forest belt of Russia; among all sorts of costumes you will not see a padded coat and a sarafan (Russian female dress). There are no khorovods (round dances), there is no Russian dance, there is no Russian dialect, you cannot even hear the scolding - the one that I was sure would pass with a Russian person through the Urals. In the street crowd you will come across, obviously not native, some sort of international, erased faces, so to speak, usually shaved, with a diminished expression of the eyes, but those about who it would be possible to say directly "this is a Russian," will be met very rarely. Where is the Russian? Where do these waves of Russian people flowing into Siberia every year – exiles and migrants, trade and service class people go "(pages 29-30)?

Thus, by the end of the 19th century, between the old and new settlers there were still clear differences recognized by both groups of the population. However, over time, they were still leveled, since the new settlers adapted to the already existing set of economic relations, as a rule, determined by special local physical and cultural factors: "Though the newcomers bring to new places some minor aspects of their economic means, they don't teach the locals the new ways – on the contrary, they borrow from the locals their basic economic means. Having left their native lands to escape from the progressive crash of their economy, they easily transgress to the regressive economy of the new lands.

Whether they come from the North-East of Russia, from the Ukraine or from the Russian Middle lands, whether they settle down in the Taiga of Ussuriysk, in the steppes of Kyrgyzstan or in the prairie of Amur – all of the settlers borrow the economic ways of the locals with their extensive methods of agriculture.

Moreover, the extensive methods of the Siberian natives can be considered progressive compared to the ugly ways of the newcomers in the steppes of Kyrgyzstan. Thus, the “power of soil” that failed to overcome the traditional ways and means back in the old lands now easily overpowers them in the new settlements.

And that is not surprising: back home this power has to rely on allies, like knowledge and funds, while regressing to the primeval economy needs neither, so the leap backwards comes that easy." (Kaufman 1905, pp. 329-330.

These acts of transgression, or rather, even cultural reduction, can be seen everywhere. New terrain and new cultural realities make the subject transform into the already existing local cultural norms (economic, political, clothe and food traditions, etc.). And this exists along with the conviction that all these local cultural realities are "at a lower stage of development." However, they are perceived as the most acceptable for living in this area. Despite the fact that the transgression can take a variety of forms (Yakushenkova 2013, pp. 264-266), most often it goes along the line of nutritional and clothes patterns. Sexual transgression also prevails in the process of subject‘s adaptation to the new conditions of the frontier.

As noticed by Siberian researchers A. Remnev and N. Suvorov (2013), the settler was not ready "for the rapid adaptation of his agricultural methods to the new natural and climatic conditions, he lacked the spirit of enterprise. Naturally, the settlers were looking for those conditions which they were accustomed to at home, and if they did not find them, they could, without the necessary knowledge, determination, endurance and material resources, quickly lose patience and confidence in their abilities, they abandoned the land which they had little to do with"(p. 181). We must agree with the opinion of these historians, however, it seems to us that such a situation was the result of adaptation to new conditions that allowed extensive farming, with a minimum of effort and innovation. This was the integration into existing models aimed at simplifying the economic life of settlers. However, this is exactly what was required from the subject of the transgression, i.e. transition to an existential model that would provide him with maximum access to resources, and hence survival. For the Subject, the old question of confronting civilization and savagery (i.e. farming and hunting) lost all significance in the new conditions. In addition to agricultural work, the settler discovered a lot of other possibilities on new lands: hunting, gathering and cattle breeding, which further alienated him from the traditional Russian model. Hunter went further into the taiga, adopting the methods of hunting and catching the beast from local people or old residents, adapting to the new reality: "And this struggling man should be always on guard, always looking closely and listening - the branch may crack under the weight of the bear's paw, a blue back of the Arctic fox may dart past. As he forgets human speech, he learns the beast language - learns to recognize unmistakably the cry of birds and the roar of the beast, understands their manners and, like Tungus, begins to determine on the trail, whether the bear is angry or quiet. As he starts to forget the morals of men, he becomes more and more accustomed to live in the mores of the bestial. He is alone and must rely only on himself. Russian sloppiness and good-natured laxity start to go away: he gets fitter; his thick, spreading lips get sharply folded, tightened; his eyes do not look openly, but look out from under his brow, tracking down ... The hand will not falter, the face will not turn pale, the heart will not throb from fear when the bear suddenly pops out on him, and, certainly, there will be no pity for this bear " (Elpat'evsky 1893, p. 23).

This connection with the land, with a special habitat, the feeling of belonging to this earth ultimately led to the fact that it turns out to be the Alien with respect to the rest of the groups of the Russian ethnos, and not the Russian, but other local peoples are perceived friends. This same dichotomy was revealed by the Omsk historian M. Zhigunova, who studied questions of identity among the Russian population of Omsk. The antagonism of the local population to the newly arrived Russians from the CIS countries ultimately leads new settlers to the puzzled question: "Why they [the Siberians] are better friends with the local people but treat us worse, they do not consider us close to them, after all we are Russians too" (Zhigunova 2011, p. 172).

5. Conclusion

We demonstrated in this article how the faraway Frontier lands, new environment and new cultural landscape form the otherness of the colonizers; turn them into the Strangers, even the Aliens in the eyes of their countrymen. We gave examples how many frontier lands witnessed the rise of specific regional sub-cultures where new identities are formed.

It’s is not always the dominant identity, as the very concept of dominance (political, economical or social) can be revised. The external evaluation of a dominant/ subdominant culture is not as important as whether the new culture can effectively adapt to new realities. The dominance is important only for identity, but it losses its importance when the survival is at stake. “The feeling of belonging to a dominant society (for instance, to the Russian nation) becomes irrelevant or lost altogether (more often this feeling is not experienced by the subjects at all)” (Vakhtin and Golovko 2004; Yannaras 2005; Zadvornov and Hairullin 2016).

This pattern is surely not the only possible one. The frontier lands have another pattern, when some communities cling to their traditional culture. But usually these communities had been marginalized even before they moved to new lands; they already turned into the Strangers. The Frontier gives them a unique chance to preserve their ethnical identity. Besides, these communities by the time they move to the new lands are already tightly bound and prone to keeping away from other cultural or ethnical groups.

Summing it up we can say that the Frontier shapes new regional cultural communities that are formed on new natural and cultural backgrounds. Their identities are formed in a complex process influenced by many factors.

Nevertheless, the second generation of such immigrants give up easily the identities of their fathers and create new or mixed identities or even identify themselves with the Natives.

During certain critical periods of history, this otherness can cut the new frontier communities off their core ethnicities and even drive them into antagonistic relations with their former countrymen.

Acknowledgements

The research was conducted with the financial support of Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation No З5.6373,20l7/БЧ “The creation of a model of tradition and innovation functioning on the Frontier”

References

Bartenev, V.V. (1896). On the extreme north-west of Siberia: essays of Obdorskaya region. St. Petersburg: M.F. Paikin, pp. 154

Bassin, M. (1993) Turner, Solov‘ev and the “Frontier Hypothesis”: the Nationalist Signification of Open Spaces. Journal of the Modern History, 65, 473–511

Bushnell, D. (1999). The Treatment of the Indians in Plymouth Company. В A. T. Vaughan (Eds.). New England Encounters: Indians and Euroamericans Ca. 1600-1850. Boston: Northeastern University Press, pp. 59-83.

Cave, A. A. (2011). Lethal encounters: Englishmen and Indians in colonial Virginia. Oxford, Santa Barbara: Praeger, pp. 216

Cronon, W. (1987) Revisiting the Vanishing Frontier: The Legacy of Frederick Jackson Turner. The Western Historical Quarterly, 18(2), 157-176.

Cronon, W. (1994) The West: A Moving Target. Western Historical Quarterly, 25(4), 476-481.

Cronon, W. (1996) The Trouble with Wilderness: Or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature. Environmental History, 1(1), 7-28

Cronon, W. (2013) Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England. New York: Hill & Wang, pp. 288

Dedlov, V.L. (1894). Settlers and new places. Travel notes. St. Petersburg: M.M. Leder’e and K, pp. 201

Elpat'evsky, S. Ya. (1893). Essays on Siberia. Moscow: T-va. Kushnerev and K, pp. 2015

Ermachkova, EP (2015) Ethno-national relations in the Siberian village on the example of the Ishim region XVIII-XIX centuries. Bulletin of the Kemerovo State University, 1 (61) 4, 46-49

Foucault M. (1994). On transgression. Tanatography of Eros: Georges Bataille and French thought of the mid-20th century. St. Petersburg: Mif-ril, pp. 111-132.

Grulyov, M.V. (1901). From the past of Transbaikalia. Russian antiquity, CVI, 203 - 224.

Kaufman, A.A. (1905). Resettlement and colonization. St. Petersburg: Obshchestvennaya pol'za, pp. 444

Lamar, H. and Thompson, L. (1981) Comparative Frontier History. The Frontier in History: North America and Southern Africa compared, ed. Howard Lamar and Leonard Thompson. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 360

Merrell, J.H. (1999) Into the American Woods. Negotiators on the Pennsylvania Frontier. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, pp. 464

Michurin, I. V. (1950). The results of sixty years’ work. Moscow: Academy of Sciences of the USSR, pp. 550

Moon, D. (2007) Agriculture and the environment on the steppes in the nineteenth century. Peopling the Russian Periphery. Ed. N. Breyfogle, A. Schrader & W. Sunderland. London: Routledge, pp. 81-105.

Nam, I.V. (2014) Institutionalization of Ethnicity in Siberian Resettlement Society (late XIX – early XX Century) The Bulletin of Irkutsk State University. Series "Political science. Religious Studies, 10, 34-49.

Pallas, P. S. (1788). Travels through different provinces of the Russian Empire (part. 3 vol. 1). St. Petersburg: Imp. Akad. nauk Publ., pp. 654

Remnev, A.V. and Suvorova, N.G. (2013). Colonization of Asian Russia: the imperial and national scenarios of the second half of the XIX-early XX centuries. Omsk: Nauka, pp. 248

Schweitzer, P. P., Golovko, E. V. and Vakhtin, N. B. (2013) Mixed Communities in the Russian North; or, Why Are There No “Creoles” in Siberia? Ethnohistory, 60(3), 419-438

Shchukin, N. (1844). The trip to Yakutsk. St. Petersburg: Department of military settlements, pp. 315

Shelegina, O.N. (2005). Adaptation processes in the culture of life-support of the Russian population of Siberia in the XVIII - early XX centuries: (Stating the problem). Novosibirsk: Siberian scientific book, pp. 192

Shunkov, V.I. (1946) Essays on the history of the colonization of Siberia in the 17th - early 18th centuries. Moscow: Academy of Sciences of the USSR, pp. 544

Sipe, H. C. (1929). The Indian wars of Pennsylvania. Harrisburg: The Telegragh Press, pp. 908

Tolstoy, L. N. (1936). The Cossacks (Complete works, Vol. 6). Moscow: Khudozhestvennaya Literatura, pp. 316

Vakhtin N.B., Golovko, E.V. and Schweitzer, P. (2004) Russian old-timers in Siberia: social and symbolic aspects of self-awareness. Мoscow: Novoye izdatel’stvo, pp. 290

Vakhtin, N. B. and Golovko, E. V. (2004) "Are we to blame for being so written?" Mixed ethnic communities of northeastern Siberia in official classifications. Studia Ethnologica. Proceedings of the Faculty of Ethnology. St. Petersburg: Publishing house of the European University in St. Petersburg, pp. 61-97.

Yadrintsev, N.M. (1891) Siberian aliens, their everyday life and contemporary state. St Petersburg: Publ. house of I. M. Sibiryakov, pp. 200

Yadrintsev, N.M. (1892) Siberia as a Colony in Geographical, Ethnographical, and Historical Respects. St Petersburg: Publ. house of I. M. Sibiryakov, pp. 750

Yakushenkova O. S. (2013) Transgression as a mode of existence in the frontier heterotopia. The Caspian region: politics, economy, culture, 4, 262-267

Yannaras, H. (2005). Selected works: Person and Eros. Moscow: Russian political encyclopedia, pp. 95

Zadvornov A. and Hairullin A. (2016). Dialectic Of Social Being And Consciousness Tradition And Potential Of Its Renovation. European Journal of Science and Theology, 12(4), 131-145

Zhigunova, M.A. (2011). The population of Siberia: interethnic contacts and problems of regional identity. In M.A. Zhigunova, & Danchenko E.M. (Ed.), Population of Siberia: Interethnic Relations, Education and Cultural Identity. Omsk: Printing Center KAN, pp. 163-179

1. Astrakhan State University, 414056, Russia, Astrakhan, Tatischeva Str., 20а.

2. Astrakhan State University, 414056, Russia, Astrakhan, Tatischeva Str., 20а.

3. Mongolian sculptures