著者

佐々木 史郎 Shiro Sasaki

出版者

国立民族学博物館

雑誌

国立民族学博物館研究報告 = Bulletin of the National Museum of Ethnology (ISSN:0385180X)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.22, no.4, pp.683-763, 1998-03-31

---

The purpose of this paper is to clarify the trade activity of theancestors of the indigenous peoples of the Lower Amur Basin in the 18thand 19th centuries and to reexamine the discourse of their society andculture in classical ethnography. They have usually been described ashunters, fishermen, or collectors of wild plants in much ethnographysince the late 19th century, and the primitiveness of their foraging lifestyle, fishing and hunting techniques, and social structure has often beenunderlined by anthropologists, ethnologists, and historians. Thepolicies of the former Soviet Union to rescue them from the poverty causedby their primitive level of production was based on such discourse ofthe scholars.However, were they really poor? Were their life style, culture, andsociety really primitive? Historical documents written by Japanese explorersand investigators in the 18th and 19th centuries, MogamiTokunai, Mamiya Rinzo, Nakamura Koichiro, and so on, indicate thatthey had a highly sophisticated culture and a complex society. For example,modern ethnologists often underline the fact that the peoples of theLower Amur were ichthyophagi, and that a piece of dried fish occupiedthe same position as a piece of bread in European meals. On the contrary,Japanese investigators said that their staple food was a cup of boiledmillet, usually put in a small bowl of china or lacquer ware. Thoughethnologists often described fish skin coats in detail, most of theirclothes were made of cotton, and their ritual costumes were even madeof silk. It is a fact that millet, cotton, silk, china, and lacquer ware werenot their original products, but Chinese or Japanese ones which theyobtained through trade with Chinese and Japanese. It is also a fact,however, that these things occupied an important position in theircultural complex. It is an injustice for researchers not to properlyevaluate them and not to pay any attention to the trade activity.The trade activity of the ancestors of the peoples of the Lower Amurin the 18th and 19th centuries was called "Santan trade" by Japanese investigatorsof the same centuries. "Santan" was an ethnonym of the peopleof the Lower Amur, which had often been used as a name of theancestors of the indigenous people of this region as a whole. It wasMamiya Rinzo who clarified who the Santan people were. In his investigationin 1809 and 1810 he found out that the Santan lived betweenthe villages of "Uruge" (bIppH, later Russian village "MaxcrMTojm cHA") and "Poru" Mon, later Ul'chi village "LlepxbIti Ap") , thatthey called themselves "Mango" (this is the same self denotation as"Mangguni") , and that their neighbors upstream along the river werecalled "Korudekke" (Goldok) and those downstream were called"Sumerenkuru". The range of habitation, the self denotation "Mango",and the linguistic materials indicate that the Santan people wereancestors of the Tungus-speaking peoples of the Lower Amur today,especially the Ul'chi (Olcha) and a part of the lower Nanai (Goldi) .The Santan trade has long been studied as a theme of historicalstudies of Northern Japan. However, though many facts have beenclarified from the historical point of view, historians have long overlookedan important one namely that it was trade that kept the levels of lifeand culture of the peoples of the Lower Amur and Sakhalin in the 18thand 19th centuries higher than those described in ethnography. This isbecause the historians could not evaluate the function and role of tradeactivity in the society and culture of the indigenous peoples, becausetheir point of view was usually set not on the side of the indigenoustraders, but on that of authors or editors of literary sources, who wereoften government bureaucrats.This paper is one of my experiments, in which I try to describe thehistorical events of the peoples of the Lower Amur and Sakhalin such asthe Santan trade from the point of view of those who were described inthe literary sources. The final end of the experiments is a diachronicreview of the society and culture of the peoples of this region, and Iwould like to sweep away such images as "primitive", "uncivilized" or"natural people", created by anthropologists and ethnologists since theend of the 19th century.As a result of an examination of the historical literature of Japaneseinvestigators, regional government archives of the Qing dynasty (the lastdynasty of China) , reports of ethnological researches by Russianethnologists, and my own field data, I can point out the followingcharacteristics of the trade activity of the peoples of the Lower Amurand Sakhalin:1) The main peoples who were enthusiastically engaged in the Santantrade were the Santan and the Sumerenkuru (the ancestors of the AmurNivkh) , and some differences were apparent in their trading styles. Forexample, the Santan people did their business on the main traffic route ofthis region, which went from Lower Sungari to the southern end ofSakhalin through Amur and the western coast of Sakhalin, they played arole of mediator between Japanese and Chinese, and obtained a largeprofit from this business. On the contrary, the Sumerenkuru traders extendedtheir business area to the tributaries of the Lower Amur, the coastof the sea of Okhotsk and the eastern coast of Sakhalin, and played arole of distributor of Chinese and Japanese commodities among thepeoples of these areas.2) Usually the Santan and Sumerenkuru traders did not fix a businessplace but often went round their customers, being engaged in sable hunting.However, the temporary branch office of the Qing dynasty, whichwas constructed at Kiji or Deren and opened every summer, often playedthe role of a periodical market, in which the Santan and Sumerenkurutraders did their business not only with Manchu officials and merchantsbut also with other indigenous traders.3) The trading crew of Santan or Sumerenkuru traders consisted ofseveral persons from a village led by a hala i da (chief of a clan) orgashan da (head of village) nominated by the Qing dynasty.4) The conceptual classification of trade and tribute was recognized bythe Santan and Sumerenkuru peoples.5) Credit sale was the main custom of the Santan and Sumerenkurutraders in the 18th and 19th centuries. They applied it to trade with allcustomers without exception. The business with the Ainu, who, it wassaid, suffered from their debt to the Santan traders, was not a special oneto cheat them of their property.6) The trade activity of the peoples of the Lower Amur and Sakhalinswung between trade and tribute (in other words, between economy andpolitics) , influenced by the change of political conditions of this regionand the location of each people.6-1) In the 18th century, when the administrative system of the Qingdynasty was under construction on the Lower Amur and Sakhalin,tribute was superior to trade, because the regional administration of thedynasty was enthusiastically intervening in the social life of the people toestablish the sovereignty of the dynasty among them. After the end ofthe 18th century, however, when the dynasty was losing its politicalpower over the people of this region, the position of trade and tributewas reversed.6-2) The relation between trade and tribute was different among the peopleaccording to their location. I can classify them into three groups.The first is the people who lived on the main route of the trade, comparativelyfar from the regional centers of the countries (China andJapan) , i.e. the Santan and Sumerenkuru (the ancestors of the Ul'chiand Amur Nivkh) . They could take advantage of their location to intensivelyconduct their trading business without administrative intervention.The second group is those who lived on the main route of thetrade, near to the regional center of the countries, i.e. the Korudekke(the ancestors of the Nanai) and the Ainu. Their location was too closeto the center to be free from the governmental power of the countries,though their status was higher than that of the people of the first group.It was more important for them to accomplish various obligations thanto be engaged in free trade. The third group is those who lived far fromboth the main trade route and the regional center of the countries, i.e.the ancestors of the Sakhalin Nivkh, Uilta (Oroks) , Orochi, Negidars,and Evenki hunters. They were providers of fur and consumers ofChinese and Japanese products for the Santan and Sumerenkuru traders.7) The prosperity of the Santan trade from the end of 18th century to themiddle of the 19th century was held by the political and economicbalance between China and Japan on Sakhalin, and the profits of theSantan and Sumerenkuru traders were much dependent on the differencein demand and prices between China and Japan. For example, therewas a great demand for sable fur in China, and the Chinese and Manchupeople paid much for it, while the Japanese were not interested in it at alland sold it to the Santan and Sumerenkuru traders much cheaper than inChina. Therefore, their trade activity was fatally damaged by thedestruction of this balance by the third power, imperial Russia.Though I could not completely carry out the second purpose of thispaper, i.e. a reexamination of the ethnographic discourse of the societyand culture of the people of the Lower Amur basin, I could make a firststep in accomplishing it by clarifying the characteristics of their trade activity.I would like to make further steps in other papers, in which I willexamine such problems as the political background of the Santan trade,the quality and quantity of the profit of the Santan and Sumerenkurutraders, methodological problems of historical studies of the indigenouspeople of this region, and so on.

著者

佐々木 史郎 Shiro Sasaki

出版者

北海道大学出版会

雑誌

菊池俊彦編

巻号頁・発行日

pp.515-536, 2010-12-25

---

北東アジアの歴史と文化 = A history and cultures of Northeast Asia

著者

佐々木 史郎 Shiro Sasaki

出版者

国立民族学博物館

雑誌

国立民族学博物館研究報告 = Bulletin of the National Museum of Ethnology (ISSN:0385180X)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.10, no.2, pp.451-480, 1985-10-22

---

The Evenk is the largest group of Tungus-Manchuspeakingpeoples in Siberia. Their bear festival is the so called"mountain-bear festival", a series of rites based on a bearhunted in its den. This paper examines a social aspect of thisfestival in order to attempt to solve problems concerning theirhunting-breeding organization which have not been dealt withby S. M. Shirokogoroff in his studies.The bear festival of the Evenks is usually held in autumn.It consists of a series of rites of bear hunting, skinning, meatcooking,feasting, and burial of the bear's bones. There is noqualification for participation, and anyone in a camp or a village,sometimes even forigners, can take part in the feast. Participantscan be categorized as a discoverer of the bear den, nimak(he is often a wife's brother of the discoverer), hunters, elders,and others. But some rules must be observed by each participant,according to his role in the festival. They often represent rulesor principles of hunting-breeding organization among the Evenks.By examining the rules of each category of participant, thefollowing conclusions were reached :1) Camps or villages of the Evenks are not formed onclan membership, but on a local or economic basis;2) Therefore, hunting customs or rules, which regulatehunters-breeders' activities regardless of clan affiliation, are moreimportant than clan rules in camps or villages;3) The structural superiority of the wife-giver group overthe wife-taker group sometimes appears as a hunting custom indaily and ritual activities;4) The leadership in a camp or a village is in hands ofelders; and5) Reflecting these social phenomena, the bear festival ofthe Evenks is a camp or village festival, and is supposedlyconnected with locality.Based on that it is necessary to collect and organize huntingbreedingcustoms or rules in order to advance Shirokogoroff'sstudies and to make a more complete model of Evenk society.

著者

佐々木 史郎 Shiro Sasaki

出版者

北海道大学スラブ研究センター

巻号頁・発行日

pp.10-37, 1996-09-01

---

民族の共存を求めて 1

著者

佐々木 史郎 Shiro Sasaki

出版者

国立民族学博物館

雑誌

国立民族学博物館研究報告 = Bulletin of the National Museum of Ethnology (ISSN:0385180X)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.16, no.2, pp.261-309, 1991-12-28

---

The purpose of this paper is to examine two concepts, which wereput forward by M. G. Levin and N. N. Cheboksarov in 1950s, in the caseof the peoples of the Lower Amur and Sakhalin. One is the concept of"economic-cultural types" and the other is that of "historicalethnographicregions". These concepts were born in Soviet ethnology inthe studies of economic and cultural diversity among the peoples of thesame level of socio-economic development.Definition of the concepts by Levin and Cheboksarov is asfollows: the economic-cultural type is to be understood as historicallyformed complexes characteristic of a given economy and culture, typicalfor the peoples living under certain natural geographic conditions, ata certain level of socio-economic development; the historicalethnographicregions are the territories where a definite cultural entitywas formed as a result of continued relations among the people inhabitingthem, of their influences on one another, and of a similarity intheir historical destiny [LEVIN 1972: 3, 5].Levin and Cheboksarov grouped the peoples of northern Siberia intofive by the concept of economic-cultural types: 1. hunter-fishermenin taiga (Siberian forest), 2. sea mammal hunters in the arctic shore andBering sea, 3. fishermen on large rivers, 4. hunter-reindeer-breeders intaiga, and 5. reindeer nomads in tundra. According to them, an examinationof the major economic-cultural types of northern Siberia andthe [Soviet] far East reveals that: 1) the same economic-cultural type maydevelop among different peoples, in different, even remote, regions butonly under conditions of the same level of development of productiveforces and of a similar geographic environment; 2) different types in aparticular territory have definite historical continuity [succession]—under certain historical conditions one type develops intoanother, for instance some hunter-fishermen of the forest zone changedtheir economic-cultual type to "hunter-reindeer-breeders" by introducingrenideer-breeding; 3) the cultural traits characteristic of each type formin the first place through the orientation of the economy to certaingeographic conditions [LEVIN 1972: 5].They also grouped the same peoples by the concept of historicalethnographicregions: 1. Yamaro-Taimyr region, 2. Western Siberianregion, 3. Sayan-Altayan region, 4. Eastern Siberian region, 5. Kamchatka-Chukchi region, 6. Amur-Sakhalin region.Although these two concepts make it possible to classify the peoplesof Siberia and the Soviet Far East by cultural similarity and diversity,one can find some defects which must be corrected by examination ofconcrete cases.For instance, as it stands, the concept of the economic-cultural typescannot explain the case of the peoples of Lower Amur and Sakhalin whohave complex economic systems. Such a defect was caused by the factthat Levin and Cheboksarov did not systematically examine the productiveactivities of the peoples of Siberia and the Soviet Far East.They mentioned only five activities: fishing, forest hunting, sea mammalhunting, forest rendeer breeding, and tundra rendeer breeding; but itis obvious that there are four other activities, i. e. tundra reindeer hunting,nomadism in steppe and forest-steppe zone, cultivating withdomesticated animals, and plant collecting. Each activity has not onlyeconomic meaning but has its own cultural phenomena and activities.In this paper I have made a typology of these productive activities andtheir respective cultures and called it "fundamental types of productiveactivity and culture". There are nine types in Siberia and the Soviet FarEast, because each of the above mentioned activities has its own culturalset and can be considered a distinct type.Economic systems of the peoples of Siberia and the Soviet Far Eastconsist of combinations of these nine types, which are determined byecological and cultural conditions. The economic -cultural type, whichclearly show the relation between the economic system and culture, canbe defined as a combination of some of the fundamental types of productiveactivity and culture.From such a point of view, the "economic-cultural types" of thepeoples of Lower Amur and Sakhalin can be grouped as follows: a) combinationof fishing, forest hunting, cultivationg with domesticatedanimals, and plant collecting (Nanais of Amur, Sungari and Ussuri); b)combination of fishing, forest hunting, sea mammal hunting, and plantcollecting (Ul'chi, Nivkhi, Orochi, Ainu, and Negidals), c) combinationof fishing, forest hunting, sea mammal hunting, forest rendeer breeding,and plant collecting (Uilta and Evenki), d) forest hunting, fishing, plantcolledting (Udehes, a part of Nanais and Negidals, and Uilta and Evenkiwithout rendeer).An examination of these corrected "economic-cultural types"reveals that: 1) each type is fundamentally determined by the ecologicalsystem of the region; 2) it is often determined also by cultural andhistorical conditions, e. g., cultural interactions, development of productiveforce and technology, etc.; 3) the same economic-cultural type rarelyappears in regions geographically distant from each other (in contrast to"fundamental types of the productive activity and culture" which arecommon to regions distant from each other); 4) it is possible for a regionto change or step up from one type to another. Such a case is typicallycaused by the adoption of new productive activities or the technologicaldevelopment of present activities.In the case of the peoples of Lower Amur and Sakhalin somecultural elements concerning their productive activities or economicsystems, e. g. foods, fishing and hunting tools, utensils, and so on, arecommon to this area. This is because the people has formed a trade areasince the 17th century in this region and they trade or exchange their productsto provide each other with indespensable things of their daily life.Such a fact could be one of the factors which made this area one of thehistorical-ethnographic regions.As to the concept of the historical-ethnographic regions, there is acriticism that each region has been identified by the author's impression[大林 1990a: 51]. In fact, Levin and Cheboksarov did not show anytheoretical basis to distinguish the above mentioned six regions of theSiberian peoples. They proposed this concept in order to classify thepeople by the cultural elements and historical factors which are commonamong the people of the region but which have nothing to do withecological and economic systems. However, Levin and Cheboksarov didnot indicate such elements and factors in their works at all.In the case of the peoples of Lower Amur and Sakhalin it is true thatthere are many cultural elements and characteristics which are commonand unique to this region, and that therefore this area can be treated as agenuine historical-ethnographic region. However these elements andcharacteristics must be concretely shown.Cluster analysis is an effective way of classifying the cultures of theSiberian peoples, because it can quantitatively show the similarity anddiversity of cultures. Such analysis reveals distributions of the same orsimilar elements and one can clearly find the border of the region.Though it is difficult to show all the common elements and their distributionsin this brief paper, we can guess that there are three types of commonelements in Lower Amur and Sakhalin; 1) elements of fundamentalcultural stratum, 2) common elements of various ethnic origins (e. g.Tungus, Nivkhi, or Ainu origin), and 3) elements of Chinese, Manchu,Korean, or Japanese origin.It is also necessary to review the political and economic history ofthe given areas. The border of the historical-ethnographic region isoften decided by political borders or economic areas.In the case of Lower Amur and Sakhalin, the rule of the Qing dynasty(17th century—middle of 19th century) was decisive in creating a typicalhistorical-ethnographic region. The Nerchinsk treaty (1689) obstructedthe invasion of the Russians to this region, and the dynasty prohibitedthe immigration of other peoples of the empire to northeastern Manchuriain order to monopolize the fur trade in this area. It was only afew administrators and merchants who could visit there and have contactand trade with the people of this region.Such a policy encouraged the trade activity of the people of LowerAmur and Sakhalin to fourish. They traded not only with each otherbut also with the Chinese, Manchu, and Japanese traders at the entrancesof this region. The native traders exchanged ,products of eacharea and provided the people with various things from China, Manchuria,and Japan. Their activity mixed many different cultures, anddistributed them all over the region. It is inevitable that the politicalborder coincided with that of the historical-ethnographic region in thecase of Lower Amur and Sskhalin.In conclusion, we point out as follows: 1) by adopting the conceptof fundamental types of productive activity and culture, it becomes possibleto make a typology of economic systems and cultures of the peopleswith complex economic systems, and it becomes easier to examine theecological and historical factors which determined the characteristics ofeach type; 2) the historical and ethnic background of the historicalethnographicregion can be clearly shown in the case of Lower Amur andSakhalin. Cluster analysis and reexamination of regional history help usto identify an area which has common history and cultural elements, notinfluenced by ecological factors.

著者

佐々木 史郎 Shiro Sasaki

出版者

北海道大学大学院文学研究科北方研究教育センター

雑誌

北方人文研究 = Journal of the Center for Northern Humanities (ISSN:1882773X)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2, pp.101-105, 2009-03-31

著者

佐々木 史郎 Shiro SASAKI

出版者

島根県立大学北東アジア地域研究センター

雑誌

北東アジア研究. 別冊 = Shimane journal of North East Asian research. [Special issue] : North East Asian region (ISSN:13463810)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.4, pp.77-99, 2018-09-13

著者

Kazunobu Ikeya Nobuhiro Kishigami Shiro Sasaki Mikako Toda 池谷 和信 岸上 伸啓 佐々木 史郎 戸田 美佳子

出版者

国立民族学博物館

雑誌

国立民族学博物館研究報告 = Bulletin of the National Museum of Ethnology (ISSN:0385180X)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.42, no.3, pp.321-372, 2018-02-28