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.