THE CONCEPT OF ‘NATIVE PEOPLES’ IN

CONTEMPORARY RUSSIAN POLITICS AND LAW

by Sergei V. Sokolovski

Introduction: the Construction of Indigeneity in Russia

Indigeneity in Russia1 is not only a qualitative characteristic of particular categories
of ethnic communities and individual persons. It also has a quantitative property and thus
often thought of as possessing multiple levels and gradations in intensity. One of the
examples that immediately comes to mind in this respect is the position of Nogai within
the indigenous peoples group of Dagestan. The Dagestan State Council list of indigenous
peoples of Dagestan included all the major ethnic categories of the republic’s population –
Avars, Azeri, Darghins, Nogai and Russians among them, each numbering hundreds of
thousands.2 The inclusion of Nogai into the list have been debated, not because they are not
‘small-numbered’, but on the grounds that they arrived to the region ‘only at the end of the
XVth century’, which was not considered enough to become an indigenous people by some
of the opponents.3
Due to this peculiarity, the question of who is the most indigenous among various
inhabitants of a certain region has relevance and political salience and often serves as a
battleground for competing claimants. Internationally known examples from the former
Soviet Union include Karabakh (contested by Armenians and Azeris), Southern Ossetia
(contested by Georgians and Ossetians), Galskiy district in Abkhasia (contested by
Georgians and Abkhazians), the Prigorodnyi district in Northern Ossetia (contested by
Ossetians and Ingush) and literally hundreds other less familiar cases from the Caucasus,
Central Asia, Volga-Urals, Southern Siberia and the Far East. These are mutual territorial
claims of neighbouring ethnic groups supported by the discourse of indigeneity to the
region and heated debates of who was there first and who came later. 4


Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, Russian Academy of Sciences
(Moscow), editor-in-chief of the Russian academic journal “Etnograficheskoe obozrenie” [Ethnhographic
Review]; SokolovskiSerg@mail.ru
1
I analyze indigeneity as the category abstracted from the functioning of such Russian terms as korennye
narody (indigenous peoples), korennaia natsia (indigenous nation), korennoe naselenie (indigenous
population), korennoi etnos (indigenous ethnie), korenizatia (indigenization) etc. There is no noun derived
from a Russian root that denotes indigeneity (the word ‘korennoi/-aia/-oe’ is an adjective). Two Russian
nouns for indigeneity are produced from Latin and Greek roots: aborigennost' (from Latin ‘ab origine’ ‘from
the beginning’) and avtokhtonnost’ (from Old Greek autoV -auto, own, and  - land. The Russian
derivation tuzemnost' (from ‘tuzemets’ – the native) is rarely used and considered obsolete. However,
semantically tuzemnost' seems to be the most close correlate of the English ‘indigeneity’. Another Russian
term pervobytnost’ denotes the first epoch in the early history of mankind, though the expression
pervobytnye narody is best rendered into English as ‘aboriginal peoples’ or ‘first peoples’. The analysis of the
historical evolution of the Russian terms for indigeneity is provided in: Sokolovski 2000; 2001: 41-82, 207-
234.
2
Dagestan State Council decree of October 18, 2000 “On the small-numbered indigenous peoples of
Dagestan” [O korennykh malochislennykh narodakh Respubliki Daghestan]. According to Article 2 of the
federal government decree of March 24, 2000 “On the Unified List of Small-Numbered Indigenous Peoples of
the Russian Federation” [O edinom perechne korennykh malochislennykh narodov Rossiiskoi Federatsii]
(with changes of September 30, 2000) “The government of the Republic of Dagestan is to prepare and submit
to the State Council of the Republic of Dagestan a proposal on the small-numbered indigenous peoples
residing on the territory of the Republic for subsequent inclusion of them into the unified list.”
3
Nogai were not invited to join the Confederation of Mountaineer Peoples back in early 1990s on the same
grounds.
4
A number of such competing claims in the case of the Caucasus is analyzed in: Shnirelman 2001.
 2

In terms of historical succession (‘original inhabitants’ vs. groups that arrived to the
territory later) the quantitative character of indigeneity to some region is quite evident.
Less evident is the territorial scope factor. One might argue that we are all indigenous to
this planet; many may legitimately claim that they are indigenous to the continents they
still inhabit. Most Europeans, Asians and Africans might successfully go through the test of
verification of such a claim, though it is less obvious in the cases of North and South
Americas and Australia.5 It seems that the smaller the region, the less historically
sustainable becomes a claim of contemporaries who declare their descent from the earliest
occupants of a place, unless we want to restrict the concept to several last generations and
substantiate it by using the always biased sources of written history. 6
Russia is still a very large country and most of its inhabitants are ‘native’ or
‘indigenous’ in the technical sense of the term. That is, they and their ancestors were born
within the boundaries of this vast landmass. This technical sense of indigeneity, however,
becomes problematic if we take into consideration other basic qualifications of indigenous
groups such as their marginalisation, powerlessness and cultural and linguistic jeopardy.
Powerlessness and marginality have their own scales and their own spectrum of relativity
and are relational as well. Indeed, some groups and categories within groups are less
integrated into the lifestyle of the dominant society than others. Does this make relatively
more integrated groups less indigenous? If we try to compare the contemporary rates of
integration of various indigenous groups into the mainstream values of Russian society we
shall soon find out that the levels of integration decrease from the south to the north and
from the west to the east. This ‘south-west’-‘north-east’ axis seems to reflect the age-long
expansion of a market economy and associated values from the centres of ancient
civilisations to the vast steppe, taiga and tundra of Northern Eurasia including the more
recent expansion along the same axis of the Russian state.
As for the comparison of ‘genealogical indigeneity’ (number of generations of
occupation of a particular region) with the marginality scale, it seems that they vary
independently, so being more ‘endemic’ to the region than other claimants does not
automatically entail being more marginalised or endangered, and in practice the reverse is
often the case (see Appendix, Table 3, providing indirect assessment of integration and
showing that up to one-fourth of populations categorised in Russia as indigenous live in
central and southern regions of Russia where they do not practice any kind of traditional
subsistence economy). In fact, in contemporary post-Soviet Russia the reverse relation
between marginality and territorial indigeneity is characteristic of several republics in
which national eponymous elites (or, as they are called in Russia ‘title nations’ – ‘titul’nye
natsii’) established ethnocratic regimes which have split the republican populations into

5
This haphazard classification of continents implies that the ‘Old World’ cases of indigeneity construction are
in general more complex and more often contested, whereas the relevant ‘New World’ cases seem to be more
clear-cut and are challenged less often. They are also contested on different grounds, which have to do mostly
with ‘blood’ or genealogy (in the New World case), but not with ‘soil’ or historically constructed ‘homelands’
(as in the case of the Old World). This situation reflects the assumption that in the Old World countries, most
of their ethnic groups are more or less ‘indigenous’ or that the difference between colonists and ‘original
inhabitants’ of various regions in the New World countries seems clear-cut.
6
There are other ways of documenting the presence of a particular group on a territory, alternative to
historical accounts (bio-anthropological, linguistic and archeological data). Though they are of an undeniable
value in the construction of the factual account of regional population succession and genealogy (the
assumption that a group has preserved its identity under successive waves of conquest and immigration), they
have the innate drawback, as no one can conclusively document the fluid nature of identity of past
generations of the group’s members. These sources are often instrumentally used by competing claimants to
particular territory.
 3

minorities and title majorities (among such are Bashkortostan, Tatarstan, Tuva and Sakha
republics)7.

‘Indigeneity’ vs. ‘Nativity’ in Contemporary Russian Politics and Law

The distinction I am trying to draw is probably idiosyncratic to Russian political and
legal situation, though it might also be met elsewhere on Eurasian and African continents,
where territorial autonomies of localized ethnic groups converge with the presence of
nomadic and semi-nomadic peoples, such as shifting cultivators, herders, hunters and
gatherers, whose economies are rarely market-oriented, and who practice a labor-intensive
form of agriculture with little surplus product and low energy needs. For the sake of clarity
I will call the first category (in Russian case, the so called ‘title peoples’ of autonomous
republics) ‘native’, and the second – ‘indigenous’. As the political construction of nativity
differ markedly in contemporary Russian political and legislative contexts from that of
indigeneity, I will try to describe them separately, but will pay more attention to the second
category, as my principal aim is to characterize the Russian legal concept of ‘small-
numbered indigenous peoples’ and compare it with the concept of ‘indigenous peoples’ as it
exists in international law. The outline of the present legal and social situation of
indigenous peoples in Russia will be presented in the final part of the chapter.
Russia as a multi-national state has always boasted that it is the home of individuals
from more than 100 different peoples. However, not all of these peoples were unequivocally
considered native. The concept of ‘nativeness’ or nativity implied ‘traditional residence’
within the territory of the country. There were different interpretations, both lay and
professional, of the idea of ‘traditional residence’: an ethnic group was considered to belong
to the country’s population if it had ‘a homeland’ within the territory of Russia, or if it was
formed or believed to come into existence within the country’s borders 8 or administrative
borders of the region under consideration. Other ethnic categories, though reflected in the
population censuses, were often treated as ‘foreign’ or ‘migrant’ population fragments, and
had no chance to be included into the ‘natives’ even if they in fact resided on the territory of
the country for many generations. Basing on this implied and unreflected concept of
nativity some national elites from republics of Russia use in their constitutions special
formulas, proclaiming ‘title peoples’ of the respective republics as bearers of sovereignty,
subjects of self-determination, and groups with special rights and privileges. For example,
the preambles of three republican constitutions mention title ‘nations’ or title ‘peoples’ as
the subjects of self-determination or of political will (‘Bashkir nation’ and ‘Bashkir people’
in the case of the constitution of Bashkortostan; ‘Tatar people’ in the case of Tatarstan;
‘Chechen people’ in the case of Chechnya). The chapters of republican constitutions,
describing basic features of the constitutional order (‘Osnovy konstitutsionnogo stroia’)
proclaim as subjects of self-determination ‘Udmurt nation and people’ (constitution of the
Udmurt Republic) and ‘Chechen people’ (the constitution of Chechnya). Some of the
republican ‘title peoples’ are proclaimed in their constitutions as indigenous (‘korennoi
narod’ in Art.10 of the constitution of Altai, and Art.5 of the constitution of Dagestan;
‘korennoi etnos’ in Art.60 of the constitution of Khakassia).
Contemporary research on ethnicity and nationalism in Russia by historians and
anthropologists demonstrates that the Russian state has not only used existing cultural and
linguistic differences for its own purposes. In certain periods of its history it has actively
7
By ethnocracy I mean a system of social promotion that is based on ethnic affiliation, leading to effective
control of political power.
8
The process, which is according to the Soviet academic tradition was called ‘ethnogenesis’, and which was
usually reconstructed by joint efforts of ethnologists, archeologists, bio-anthropologists, population
geneticists and sometimes, linguists.
 4

constructed and imposed ethnicity and endorsed nationalism among its various regional
populations.9 Early Soviet nationalities policy could be taken as a particularly salient case
in point. Among the state initiatives promoting and supporting ethno-linguistic diversity
was the policy of indigenisation (korenizatia) of the 1920s-30s, during which the Russian
administration in regions with predominant non-Russian population was replaced by
locally trained ‘indigenous’ personnel. Other institutions included preferential treatment of
indigenous minorities in high school enrolment; alphabetisation of a number of languages,
which lacked their own system of writing; establishment of minority schools with local
languages used as a media of instruction; passport registration of ethnic identity; a body of
legal provisions supporting non-Russian languages and cultures; and, most importantly,
various forms of self-determination, including territorial autonomies in the form of Soviet
and autonomous republics and districts, resulting in the creation of ethnically-based
political elites. Census classifications were also instrumentally used in political strife
between ethnic entrepreneurs in their search for visibility and resources.
Various groups of hunters, herders and gatherers of the Russian Sub-Arctic and the
Far East were the target groups of the government’s affirmative action, providing legal
guarantees for their privileged legal status throughout various stages of Soviet and post-
Soviet nationalities policy. Among different groups claiming to be indigenous to the region
they consider their homeland there was a category that was viewed as indisputably
autochthonous. This category formed the core of the indigeneity concept in Russian
discourse. The reasons for this undisputable preferential treatment were both historical
and ideological, as Marxists employed the framework of social evolution theory with its
idea of economic formations as stages in social development, wherein ‘natives’ were treated
as ‘primordial communists’. The relatively small size of native groups, the harsh
environments they inhabit and drinking habits brought by settlers often put such groups on
the brink of extinction. All these circumstances contributed to the prevalent treatment of
native peoples as ‘dying out’ (vymeraiuschie) or almost extinct. The threat of extinction
together with the communist version of the noble savage ideal, implying presumably
unselfconscious, unselfish and naïve economic behaviour, formed the main rationale for
government’s targeting the northern native groups for preferential treatment.
The logic of historical construction of the legal category of the peoples of the North
in the case of Russia has been explored elsewhere in great detail 10. It is comparatively more
straightforward and less obscure than the logic that underpins the multilayered concept of
indigeneity in the census nationality list construction. As it has been mentioned in chapter
on the last Russian census, there are several levels of indigeneity, starting with ‘peoples of
Russia’ – the unofficial category, which has been used in deliberations associated with the
inclusion of ethnic self-designations into the lists. The second level was operative in the
claims of many groups to be included into the category of the small-numbered indigenous
peoples. One example that was had already been cited is the Dagestan State Council list of
indigenous peoples of the republic. 11 The compilers of the list failed to mention 16 small-
numbered mountain ethnic groups who claimed separate census registration from Avars
and Darghins.12 The third level, which has been designated above as the core level of
9
For extensive treatment of the history of policies towards indigenous peoples, see Slezkine 1994; Forsyth
1992; the changes of policy on minorities and ‘title peoples’ in the early Soviet period are covered in: Martin
2001.
10
See Slezkine 1994. I have written on thee subject in: Sokolovski 2000; 2001.
11
State Council of Dagestan Decree of October 18, 2000 “O korennykh malochislennykh narodakh
Respubliki Daghestan” [On the small-numbered indigenous peoples of Dagestan].
12
The Andi (Quannal), the Akhwakhs, the Bagulal (Kwantl Hekwa, Kwanadi), the Bezheta (Kapuchias Suko,
Bezhtlas Suko), the Chamalal, the Ginukh, the Godoberi, the Karata (Kirtle), the Gunzeb (Khunzal), the
 5

indigeneity, is the group of the small-numbered indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia
and the Far East. Their numbers have been growing gradually since 1993 as more and more
small-numbered categories (and, I should add, less and less indigenous in terms of their
lifestyle and degree of the integration into the culture of mainstream) were added to the
official lists of indigenous peoples and territories of their residence.
For methodological reasons this strategy of linking peoples to territories and via
territories to rights is worth noting as an effective strategy of emplacement, or what Arjun
Appadurai termed incarceration of indigenous people to the territories they inhabit. The
explicit linkage of peoples to territories is found in the law ‘On the State Guarantees and
Compensations for the Persons Who Work and Reside in the Districts of the Far North and
Equivalent Areas’ of February 19, 1993.13 The law however did not enumerate either ethnic
categories or territories of residence. It stipulated in Art. 27 the general norm, according to
which preferences in retirement go to ‘citizens, belonging to the small-numbered peoples of
the North’, as well as ‘reindeer herders, fishermen and hunters permanently resident in the
districts of the Far North and equivalent areas’ (Art. 26). It was the official regulation of the
Ministry of Social Services on retirement allowances for the persons residing in the districts
of the Far North of August 4, 1994, that provided the enumeration of those peoples that
receive special treatment. It stipulated that “the designated peoples include Nenets, Evenk,
Khant, Even, Chukchi, Nanai, Koryak, Mansi, Dolgan, Nivkh, Sel’qup, Ulcha, Itelmen,
Udege, Saami, Eskimo, Chuvan, Nganasan, Yukagir, Ket, Oroch, Tofa, Aleut, Neghidal,
Enets, Orok, Shor, Teleut, Kumanda.”14 This official commentary mentions for the first
time three new members of this group: Shors, Teleut, and Kumanda, who were added to
the previous standard Soviet list of 26 peoples. All three new groups were highly urbanised
(at a level of 50-70%), and ‘less indigenous’ than the rest of the group in terms of
integration into the mainstream urban culture (with the exception of Oroks (Uilta) of
Sakhalin and Nanai of the Far East, who by that time had high urbanisation levels as well).
In March 2000 in the governmental decree No. 255 ‘On the uniform registration of
the indigenous small-numbered peoples of the Russian Federation’ several new ethnic
categories were added to the list15, and the number of officially recognised ‘small-numbered
indigenous peoples of Russia’ reached 45. Most of the groups added did not practice
hunting, herding or fishing as subsistence economy, and their special cultural and linguistic
interests were covered under minority rights provisions of the Russian legislation. The list
of territories (a set of circumscribed communities of membership is always accompanied by
a set of circumscribed ‘homelands’), established by the government decree No. 22 of
January 1993, was supplemented by the enumeration of the territories of the Shor,
Kumanda, Nagaibak and several other peoples.

Khwarshi (Kedaes Hikwa), the Tindi (Idaraw Hekwa, Tindal) and the Tsez (Dido, Quanal), comprising the
group of the so-called Andi-Dido peoples and closely related to them the Archi (Arishishuw), were counted as
Avars; the Kaitak (Qaidaqlan) and the Kubachi (Ughbug) – with the Dargins (Dargwa). All these groups were
included in census dictionaries among Avars and Darghins due to the pressure exerted by the Dagestan State
Council on the minister of nationalities’ affairs Vladimir Zorin, who was an officially appointed chairman of
the state Commission on publication of the census results.
13
“O gosudarstvennykh garantiiakh i kompensatsiiakh dlia lits, rabotaiushchikh i prozhivaiushchikh v
raionakh Krainego Severa i priravnennykh k nim mestnostiakh” of February 19, 1993.
14
Art. 4 of the Decree “O naznachenii pensii litsam, rabotaiushchim i prozhivaiushchim v raionakh
Krainego Severa” [On retirement payments for the persons, who work and reside in the regions of the Far
North]: Ministry for Social Protection Decree No. 657, Aug. 04, 1994; registered at the Ministry of Justice by
No. 651 on the same date.
15
Including such well integrated into the mainstream economy groups as Bessermian from Udmurt Republic
and Kirov region, Nagaibak from Cheliabinsk region, Shapsug and Abaza from the North Caucasus, and
Veps and Izhora from the North-West (Leningrad and Vologda regions and the Republic of Karelia).
 6

The linkage of peoples to territories is supported along with indigeneity discourse by

a complementary discourse on diaspora. For part of the Russian academia and journalists,
every group that migrates beyond the (often imagined) boundaries of ‘a homeland’ becomes
‘a diaspora’ and is subject to the protection of the law on national-cultural autonomy (June
1996). As the boundaries of ‘homelands’ are more often imagined than drawn on
administrative maps, it is often not clear in real situations whether a certain indigenous
person by changing her/his residence becomes a member of a diaspora. 16
According to one estimate, in 1989 there were “more than 90 distinct ethnic groups
with their historic homelands within the Soviet Union” (Anderson, Silver 1989: 610). This
view clearly demonstrates the political mechanisms of the concept of indigeneity
construction. The broad category of indigenous or autochthonous populations is further
subdivided by political categorisation, at least in the case of Russia, into those politically
viable or protected and politically vulnerable or endangered. The first category comprises
all ethnic groups with political autonomy (republics within the contemporary Russian
Federation), the second with or without administrative autonomy (autonomous okrug
[districts], and ‘national raions’ and settlements, enumerated in special legislation defining
the territories of small-numbered indigenous peoples’ residence). Though the conceptual
construction of the second smaller category of indigenous peoples is supported by internal
and international legal norms, it derives part of its political legitimacy and logic from the
first conceptually broader category of autochthonous ethnic groups. Only this logic made it
possible for Russian legislators to list some peoples from the Caucasus and Southern
Siberia within the law on indigenous small-numbered peoples of the Russian Federation.
The interplay of meanings between, on the one hand autochthonous, the broader, or
more inclusive in terms of population groups (groups with ‘homelands within the state
borders) and, on the other hand, indigenous, the narrower legal concept (autochthonous
groups who practice subsistence economy) is blurred, at least in the case of the Russian
terminological system, since both terms are translated into Russian by the same word
korennoi. The dividing line between the international legal category of indigenous peoples
and all the other autochthonous groups comprehended as native to the country
disappears17. This is by no means an exception, as many other contemporary states in the
Old World demonstrate a similar predicament in their attempts to draw the dividing line
between the autochthonous population of the cultural mainstream and marginalised
indigenous cultures and peoples18.
On the Russian Definition of Indigenous Peoples and Numerical Threshold

16
I have a postgraduate student who chose to study ‘Buriat Diaspora in Moscow’ for her PhD thesis. I asked
her whether Buriats would constitute a diaspora in Irkutsk (a city in Eastern Siberia, where many Buriats
live). She said: “No, in Irkuts they are local Buriats (mestnye buriaty)” and added that probably one should
not speak of a ‘Buriat diaspora’ on the territory of Siberia; the term applies only to Buriats in the European
part of Russia. This anecdotal evidence illustrates well the force of the territorial component in the
construction of indigeneity in Russia.
17
The Russian census of 2002 implicitly and explicitly preserved this conceptual vagueness as demonstrated
by the sorting of ethnic groups at the stage of the nationalities list construction into those belonging to the
unofficial category of the ‘peoples of Russia’ (autochtonous groups) and migrant or minority groups. At a later
stage the narrower ‘indigenous proper’ category was singled out for publication in a separate volume titled
“Korennye malochislennye narody Rossiiskoi Federatsii” [Indigenous small-numbered peoples of the
Russian Federation, Vol.14 of the census results, Moscow 2005].
18
Notable examples are India and China: the governments of both countries reject the applicability of the
international legal category of indigenous peoples to their population groups and at the same time single out
such groups for special treatment, using their own terminology (scheduled tribes or adivasi in the case of
India and minority nationalities in the case of China. For details, see: Bates 1995; Tapp 1995.
 7

To solve the problem of the allocation of resources aimed specifically at the

protection of ‘small-numbered indigenous peoples’ (the underlying rationale was that more
numerous people do not need such protection as they are not threatened by extinction and
are protected by the governments in ‘their own’ title republics 19) the Russian government
has adopted a special law with specific numerical threshold. According to the most cited
definition introduced in the mid-1990s in the Art. 1 of the law “Basic principles of legal
status of indigenous small-numbered peoples of Russia”:
“The indigenous small-numbered peoples of the North are the peoples who inhabit the
traditional territories of their ancestors, preserve an original lifestyle, number less than
fifty thousand people in Russia and recognise themselves as separate ethnic
communities”20.
The same definition (except that it specifically referred to peoples who ‘traditionally
reside in the territories of the North, Siberia, and the Far East’) is repeated in Art. 1 of the
Federal Law ‘On the General Principles of Small-Numbered Indigenous Peoples of the
North, Siberia and the Far East Communities Organisation’, adopted in July 2000.
How did this numerical threshold appear? Why is it 50,000 and not any other
number? In order to better grasp the procedures that led to the adoption of this definition,
one should take into consideration at least two external factors relevant for the discussion.
Firstly, it took place within the context of previous legislation on minorities and
numerically small peoples of the North and largely derived its logic from this legislation,
ideologically based on early Marxists views on social evolution and the discourse of
‘extinction’. It seemed only natural for scholars to look for some criteria of extinction
threat, and small population size was one evident aspect of such endangered groups. An
important change in terminology took place in the period of perestroika. The previous term
malye narodnosti (small nationalities) used in reference to indigenous peoples of the North
disappeared from official use. It was replaced by the term ‘malochilennye narody’ [small-
numbered peoples].21 Secondly, the atmosphere of hearings within committees, when lay
19
Part of the institutional set-up which forms the backbone of the nationalities policy is so called ethno-
territorial federalism. Along with territorially defined regions, Russia has regions singled out for preferential
treatment, whose territory is viewed as the ‘home’ of some ethnic group. Out of 88 regions, more than one
third is defined on ethnic criteria. Thus, along with the so called krai and oblast with predominant Russian
population, there are 21 republics, 9 autonomous districts (okrug) and one autonomous region defined
according to ethnic criteria. This arrangement contributes to the reification of ethnicity and ethnic
boundaries. Recently referendums were held to administratively unite some of the less economically viable
autonomous districts with neighboring larger administrative units (Komi-Permiak district with Perm region;
Koryak district with Kamchatka region; Ust’-Orda Buriat district with Irkuts region). Since December 1, 2005
Komi-Permiak district and Perm region had offfcially formed a single administrative unit of Permskii krai.
20
Art.1 of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation of June 19, 1996 “Ob osnovakh gosudarstvennogo
regulirovaniia sotsial’no-ekinomicheskogo razvitiia Severa Rossiiskoi Federatsii” [On the basis of the state
regulation of the social economic development of the North of the Russian Federation]; Art. 1 of the Federal
Law of the Russian Federation of April 30, 1999 “O garantiiakh prav korennykh malochislennykh narodov
Rossiiskoi Federatsii” [On the guarantees of the rights of indigenous numerically small peoples of the Russian
Federation].
21
It is worth mentioning that before 1993 the expression korennye narody (indigenous peoples) appeared in
Russian government official documents only twice, and both times in presidential decrees (decree No.118 of
February 5, 1992 proposed ratification of ILO Convention 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in
Independent Countries, and decree No.397 of April 22, 1992 contained instructions to prepare before the end
of 1992, and propose for the consideration by RF Supreme Soviet draft laws ‘On the legal status of indigenous
peoples of the North’ and ‘On the legal status of national district, national rural and village councils, clan and
commune councils of indigenous peoples of the North’). The sixty-year-long taboo of using the term
‘indigenous peoples’ and its replacement with the expression ‘small’ or ‘small-numbered’ peoples
(nationalities) was not accidental. It was clarified by the official position expressed by the USSR
representative at a session of a UN Indigenous Population Working Group. According to this position, the use
 8

and unprofessional opinions of politicians and activists clashed with those of experts, often
led to the simplification of arguments and adoption of decisions on the basis of these
simplified criteria. The numerical threshold had in this respect an immediate appeal of
being a simple and ‘graspable’ characteristic which could be used at all levels of
administrative decision-making without further need for clarification.
Back in 1993 each of the peoples on the list of 29 (except Nenets and Evenk) was
numerically well beneath the threshold of 30,000 (Graph 1). On the other hand, all other
officially recognised peoples within the numerical range of 50 to 100,000 (such as
Karelians, Nogai, Khakass, Altaians and Circassians) had ‘their own’ title republics and
thus were presumed to be protected by ‘their own’ governments and republican legislation
(see Appendix, Graphs 1-6). Via comparison of indigeneity to the region, numerical
strength and regional access to power, the legislators adopted the numerical threshold of
35,000 in the drafts of the laws on indigenous peoples.

Graph 1. Demographic Changes in the Group of Indigenous Small-Numbered Peoples, 1979-2002

1979 1989 2002

45000

40000

35000

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
Nenets
Evenk
Khant
Even
Churchi
Nanai
Mansi
Koryak
Dolgan
Nivkhi
Sel'qup
Itelmen
Ul'cha
Saami
Ket

2002
Eskimo
Udeghe
Yukagir
Chuvan
Tofa
Oroch

1979
Nganasan
Neghidal
Aleut
Uilta(Orok)

Enets

Taz

Kerek

In 1995 the Russian anthropological journal ‘Ethnographic Review’

(Etnograficheskoe obozrenie) published in its several successive issues a draft law on
indigenous peoples and its discussion (Sokolova et al. 1995; Kriazhkov et al. 1995;
Arutiunov et al. 1995; Bogoslovskaia et al. 1995). The publication described the
development of legislation for the protection of indigenous populations during the early
1990s. The readers were informed that in 1991-92, various expert groups under the
auspices of the State Committee of the North and the Assembly of the Deputies of the
Peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East were drafting a law on the small-numbered
of the ‘indigenous peoples’ term was considered appropriate only in a colonial context. It was declared that
the USSR had no legally defined ‘indigenous peoples’ within its territory (Barsh 1986: 375).
 9

indigenous peoples.22 The published draft was initially (in 1991) prepared by three
specialists in Arctic and Siberian anthropology (Yuri Simchenko, Zoya Sokolova and
Natalia Novikova) and edited by Valery Tishkov, to be re-drafted by a slightly different
expert team (Z. Sokolova, N. Novikova and N. Bogdanova). Both drafts contained the
following definition of the small-numbered indigenous people:
“Art.1. The main concepts
This law applies to the indigenous peoples of the North, the peoples whose origin and
development as an ethnos is connected to a particular territory.
The criteria for recognition of indigenous people are: the development of the people on the
territory and the permanent residence of its members on the territory of its ancestors or in the
neighbouring regions.
The small-numbered peoples of the North are the peoples who are recognised by their small
numbers (not more than 35,000 persons), by the practice of traditional economy and by a
complete and direct dependency on the environment.
They need a special protection by this law, because they preserve as the basis of their culture the
traditional subsistence economy in the form of reindeer herding and other branches of subsistence
[promyslovoe] economy (hunting, fishing, sea mammal hunting, wild plant gathering).
The scope of this law embraces ethnic groups of distinct peoples, residing in the North and
practicing reindeer herding and subsistence economy (the list of the groups is attached). ”23

The idea of a numerical threshold had already been discussed at the start of the
1990s, when the relevant legislation was drafted. The 35,000 threshold was raised to
50,000 at one of the discussions of the IEA Academic Council in 1992, where the argument
of the possible demographic growth of several peoples within the legal group of northern
indigenous minorities was brought into consideration. However, several important points
have eluded the logic of legislators and expert teams:
1) the idea of numerical threshold is based on a primordialist and essentialist treatment of
ethnicity; the experts had not taken into account the fluid nature of ethnic identity; ethnic
mobilisation of the early and mid-1990s led to the formation of various ‘splinter groups’
from larger ethnic entities within the official classification of ethnic categories;
2) it is built on a rigid treatment of indigeneity and territorialised ethnicity, as well as on
crude ethnic geography, the conceptual construction that marginalised a number of
potential claimants who were viewed as ‘foreigners’ or ‘non-indigenous minorities’.
The new Russian legislation of the turn of the century contributed to the identity change of
many people with mixed ancestry, a fact that was documented by the Russian population
census of 2002. On the other hand, many new ‘splinter groups’ claimed official recognition
as indigenous, basing their claims on the broadly viewed concept of indigeneity and the 50
thousand numerical threshold.

Graph 2. Demographic Changes by Indigenous Small-Numbered Peoples, 1926-89

(the group of indigenous peoples with population numbers over 20,000 in 1989)

22
There were several drafts: draft law ‘On the small-numbered peoples of the USSR’ (a different draft of the
same law ‘On the development of the small-numbered peoples of the USSR’ (1990), prepared by a group of
experts, including two anthropologists (Pavel I. Puchkov and Zoya P. Sokolova from the Instiute of Ethnology
and Anthropology, Russian Academy of Sciences); draft law ‘The legal status basis of the small-numbered
peoples of the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic’ (1991) with the former member of the IEA RAS
research staff Leokadia M. Drobizheva among the expert group; draft law ‘On the guarantees of the revival
and development of the small-numbered indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia, and the Far East’, initiated
by the Supreme Soviet Commission for Autonomous Regions in 1990.
23
A draft law ‘The legal status basis of the indigenous peoples of the North’, dated March 01, 1993 and
published as an attachment to Sokolova e.a. 1995: 80.
 10

90000

80000

70000

60000 Khakass
Altay
50000 Nenets
40000 Abaza
Evenk
30000
Khant
20000

10000

0
1926 1959 1970 1979 1989

Although the ideological tropes underpinning the construction of indigeneity in

Russia share some of their traits with international (post)colonial discourse (e.g. the
linkage of peoples to territories; salvage ideology etc.), they downplay at the same time one
of the most important characteristics of indigeneity as a legal construct of international law
– a special link to land. Though criticised by such eminent anthropologists as Arjun
Appadurai (1988), Andre Beteille (1998), and Tim Ingold (2000) as a trope ‘incarcerating’
peoples in their territories, this link has intrinsic qualities of spirituality and sacredness
that go beyond ordinary peasants’ loyalty to the land or urban sentiments of regionalism
and patriotism. I would venture to put forward a hypothesis that this spiritual link stems
from animistic beliefs 24 of indigenous peoples throughout the world. Positing this link as
indispensable for the international legal construct of indigeneity throws a new light on the
contemporary discussions of indigenous peoples’ land rights and helps to identify new
threats to indigenous identity. These threats come not only from oligarchic encroachment
on their lands and the danger of assimilation, but also from the new charismatic religious
movements successfully converting the younger generations among indigenous groups
throughout the world and eliminating the distinctive character of their link to land that
served as fundamental rationale for the creation of a special international regime for the
protection of indigenous rights.

Socioeconomic Situation of ‘Small-Numbered Indigenous Peoples’

The acknowledgment of the immanence and essentiality of such constitutive traits of
the indigenous peoples as their spiritual link with the lands they inhabit and the
subsistence character of their economies bring forward the issue of natural resources they
are dependent on both spiritually and physically (wild berries, salmon, wild geese, caribou
and domesticated reindeer, reindeer moss pastures, walrus, whales etc.). Most groups from
24
Here I use the term in its broadest sense as some form of belief in spirits and attribution of divinity to
natural phenomena. Thus animistic beliefs would in this sense be characteristic of totemism, fetishism,
shamanism and neo-paganism.
 11

the Russian legal category of ‘small-numbered indigenous peoples’ live in the harsh
climatic conditions of Arctic and Sub-Arctic. These are also the groups, some members of
which managed to preserve animistic beliefs and, thus, the spiritual connection with land.
However, it would be erroneous to assume that all the peoples on the list, provided
by the government decision “On One List of Indigenous Small-Numbered Peoples of the
RF” of March 24, 2000 (supplemented by the list adopted by the government decision “On
One List of Indigenous Small-Numbered Peoples of the Republic of Dagestan” of March 28,
2001) could be categorized as reliant on natural resources, leading a traditional way of life
characterized by dependency on subsistence economy (such as reindeer herding, hunting,
fishing, or aboriginal whaling), or sharing animistic beliefs. Many groups from the lists do
not practice any traditional subsistence activities as a whole and are Moslem and Christian
believers. Besides, many individual members of the groups, which are usually categorized
as indisputably indigenous as a whole, live in towns and cities and have urban professions.
This means that the Russian legal category of indigeneity conflates ‘native’ and
‘autochthonous’ groups with ‘indigenous’, and puts autochthonous minorities in the same
class as indigenous peoples.
I have already discussed the case of Dagestan minority peoples, whose rights could
be effectively protected by the standard minority rights, envisaged by the European
Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (ratified by Russia on
June 18, 1998). Other groups from Northern Caucasus (such as Abaza and Shapsug) and
Russian North-West (Veps, Izhora), the Ural (Bessermian, Nagaibak) and Southern
Siberia (Kumanda, Teleut, most of the Shor) are quite well integrated into the mainstream
economy. Their special needs in culture and language are covered by the protective
measures designed for minority protection legislature.
Most of the remaining 37 groups could be provisionally put into the category of
indigenous peoples as it is defined in the international law (i.e. ILO Convention No.169),
though the problem of internal differentiation into urban and rural populations within
particular groups persists. I have suggested elsewhere (Sokolovski 2004: 158-159) to work
out specialized protective instruments by targeting different groups within the Russian
legal category of the ‘small-numbered indigenous peoples’ via special laws and programs
(standard minority protective measures for well integrated autochthonous minorities;
economic development programs for groups of indigenous peoples, residing in urban
settlements of the European and Siberian North; and protective measures specially
designed for those who practice traditional subsistence economy). 25 This conceptual
subdivision of the category is supported by the fact that most of the individuals, comprising
the groups, considered indigenous (and by inference, regarded as leading traditional way of
life and relying on subsistence economy) do not practice any form of traditional economy,
but have urban professions and are well integrated into the mainstream culture. The data
of the recent Russian population census demonstrate that approximately half of the peoples
classified as ‘indigenous minorities’ have over one third of urban dwellers among their
respective populations, and by ten peoples the level of urbanization is near or higher than
50% (see Table 1 below).
Table 1. Indigenous Population Groups, % Urban, Census 2002
(autochthonous minorities are italicized)
 
Indigenous Total Urban % Indigenous Total Urban %
25
The latter group demographic growth (including the growth rates determined by identity change of Métis
and some more numerous neighboring groups into indigenous) is reflected in the data of Graph 1 (above) and
Appendix, Tables1-2.
 12

group number urban group number urban

Shor 13975 9939 71,12 Nanai 12160 3702 30,44
Uilta (Orok) 346 201 58,09 Neghidal 567 164 28,92
Kamchadal 2293 1297 56,56 Ket 1494 406 27,18
Veps 8240 4624 56,12 Udege 1657 425 25,65
Kumanda 3114 1704 54,72 Shapsug 3231 810 25,07
Izhor 327 177 54,13 Bessermian 3122 766 24,54
Mansi 11432 5919 51,78 Evenk 35527 8576 24,14
Kerek 8 4 50,00 Chukchi 15767 3402 21,58
Oroch 686 338 49,27 Enets 237 51 21,52
Nivkh 5162 2483 48,10 Nganasan 834 165 19,78
Yukagir 1509 685 45,39 Nagaibak 9600 1889 19,68
Teleut 2650 1142 43,09 Ulchi 2913 564 19,36
Abaza 37942 16283 42,92 Nenets 41302 7844 18,99
Saami 1991 853 42,84 Selqup 4249 786 18,50
Taz 276 110 39,86 Dolgan 7261 1334 18,37
Itelmen 3180 1194 37,55 Tofa 837 138 16,49
Khant 28678 9924 34,60 Chelkan 855 135 15,79
Chuvan 1087 366 33,67 Tuba 1565 150 09,58
Even 19071 6116 32,07 Soyot 2769 252 09,10
Aleut 540 172 31,85 Chulym 656 54 08,23
Eskimo 1750 557 31,83 Telengit 2399 115 04,79
Koryak 8743 2765 31,63 Todja 4442 7 00,16

Moreover, only among six groups (Dolgan, Nenents, Oroch, Chukchi, Enets, and
Nganasan) the share of practicing traditional subsistence economy reaches 20% (in the
case of Dolgan, almost 30%). The rest of the indigenous peoples communities, often
stereotyped as pursuing reindeer, hunting or fishing economies have urban professions and
derive their income from such activities as local government administration, health care
and education, banking, commerce, transportation, construction building etc. (see
Appendix, Table 4 for details). Even specialists dealing with the study of the indigenous
populations do not acknowledge the fact that out of approximately 125 thousand persons of
working age (among those who reside in the North, Siberia and the Far East and classified
as ‘small-numbered indigenous peoples of the North) only 17 thousand (or 13%) are
employed in some form of agricultural economy, or indicate as the base of their subsistence
hunting, fishing, forestry, or processing industries. At the same time more than 16
thousand indigenous persons (the same 13 %) are working in health care and education
systems, and more than 5 000 (4%) in administration and banking service.
This professional structure clearly demonstrates that the association of the whole
groups of indigenous population with reindeer-breeding, hunting or fishing is based on
stereotypes. Predictably, most of the Russian legislation on indigenous peoples is based on
the same stereotypes. Hence, Russian federal parliament adopted laws “On the Main
Principles of the Organization of Communities of the Indigenous Small-Numbered Peoples
of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the RF” (June 20, 2000), and “On the Territories
of Traditional Nature Exploitation of Indigenous Small-Numbered Peoples of the North,
Siberia and Far East of the RF” (May 7, 2001), specifically aimed at protection of
subsistence economy and life ways of indigenous hunters, herders, and reindeer herdsmen.
However, there are no specific legal regulations designed for the protection of special
interests of those members of indigenous minorities who do not hunt, or fish, or practice
reindeer herding. Hence, post-Soviet policy towards indigenous peoples has effectively
continued the Soviet one by endorsing traditional economy and associated activities (fur
 13

animal farms, traditional decorative arts etc.). As these economic branches (except,
perhaps, reindeer herding, but only in certain regions and historical periods) depended on
central subsidies, their rise and fall followed ebbs and flows of country’s economy at large.
The economic crisis of the early and mid-1990s had severely curtailed the state subsidies
with the result that most of the state farms disintegrated and people either became
unemployed or tried to live on those resources that still were handy. This period has been
labeled by some of researchers of the North as neo-traditionalism (Pika, Prokhorov 1994).
The movement to the land of the 1990s, however, was not characteristic only of indigenous
groups; people throughout the country started to develop small plots in neighboring fields
and forests to grow potatoes and vegetables, and even Moscow lawns on the city periphery
were used for vegetable gardens. What looked as return to tradition by groups that were
tribal centuries ago, was in fact a much more broader social survival strategy in times of
economic hardship. With the slow rise of the state’s economy the economic trends were
reversed, the plots were left to nature again, the movement to ‘traditional subsistence
territories’ was reduced to some families who were practicing traditional economy before;
people from urban settlements who had previously left them came back, and by the time of
the census the structure of economic employment and sources of income resembled those
of pre-crisis times. This is not to say, that the social and economic situation in the small
urban settlements was improved, but only to state that the government’s salaries and
pensions got back to the subsistence level. The social situation in small urban settlements
(posiolki) remains depressed, with highest alcoholism and unemployment levels. This is,
again, not specific to indigenous settlements in the North, but is true of most small urban
settlements and towns throughout Siberia and of many regions of the European part of
Russia. It seems that specific programs for indigenous groups support do not work when
the state’s economy and social situation have not made sufficient progress to guarantee
employment and decent way of life to the majority of the country’s population.
 14

Bibliography
Anderson, Barbara A., and Brian D. Silver. 1989. Demographic Sources of the Changing
Composition of the Soviet Union. Population and Development Review.15:4, 609-656.
Arjun Appadurai. 1988 Putting Hierarchy in Its Place. Cultural Anthropology. 3:1, 36-49.
Arutiunov, Sergei, Dmitry Funk, and Olga Murashko. 1995. Obsuzhdenie proekta zakona
RF ‘Osnovy provovogo statusa korennykh narodov Severa’. Etnograficheskoe obozrenie 3,
110-121 [Discussion of the draft law of the Russian Federation ‘The Legal Status Basis of the
Indigenous Peoples of the North’ Ethnographic Review].
Atnagulov, I.R. 1998. Etnicheskaia spetsifika material'noi kultury nagaibakov. In Sibir' v
panorame tysiacheletii. Vol. 2. Novosibirsk. pp. 28-32 [Specific Character of the Nagaibak
Ethnic Material Culture. In: Siberia in the Panorama of Millenium].
Barsh, Russel L. 1986 Indigenous Peoples: An Emerging Object of International Law.
American Journal of International Law. 80:2, 369-385.
Bates, Crispin. 1995. Lost Innocents and the Loss of Innocence": Interpreting Adivasi
Movements in South Asia. In Indigenous Peoples of Asia (eds.) R. H. Barnes, Andrew Gray,
and Benedict Kingsbury. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. pp.103-120.
Beteille, Andre. 1998. The Idea of Indigenous People. Current Anthropology. 39:2, 187-191.
Bogoslovskaia, Liudmila, Aleksandr Kalabanov, and Hugh Beach. 1995 Obsuzhdenie
proekta zakona RF ‘Osnovy provovogo statusa korennykh narodov Severa’.
Etnograficheskoe obozrenie 6, 131-136 [Discussion of the draft law of the Russian
Federation ‘The Legal Status Basis of the Indigenous Peoples of the North’ Ethnographic
Review].
Dolghikh, Boris. 1982. K istorii rodoplemennogo sostava ketov. In Ketskii sbornik.
Leningrad: Nauka. pp. 84-131 [To the history of the clan composition of Kets. In Ket
collection].
Forsyth, James. 1992. A History of the Peoples of Siberia: Russia's North Asian Colony,
1581-1990. Cambridge and New York : Cambridge University Press. 455 pp.
Funk, Dmitry. 2000. Predislovie. In Chelkantsy v issledovaniakh i materialakh XX veka.
Moscow. pp.3-6 [Introduction. In: Chelkans in the Research and Sources of the XXth c.].
Gurvich, Ilya, and Elena Batyanova. 1999. Chuvantsy. In Sibir': etnosy i kultury. Issue 4.
Moscow; Ulan-Ude. pp.4-11 [Chuvan. In Siberia: ethnic groups and cultures].
Ingold, Tim. 2000. The Perception of the Environment. Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and
Skill. London: Routledge, 458 pp.
Kriazhkov, Vladimir, Agnes Kerezsi, Aleksandr Konev, and Elena Martynova. 1995.
Obsuzhdenie proekta zakona RF ‘Osnovy provovogo statusa korennykh narodov Severa’.
Etnograficheskoe obozrenie 2, 141-148 [Discussion of the draft law of the Russian
Federation ‘The Legal Status Basis of the Indigenous Peoples of the North’ Ethnographic
Review].
Liapunova, R.G. 1999. Aleuty. In Sibir': etnosy i kultury. Issue 4. Moscow; Ulan-Ude. pp.12-
36 [Aleut. In Siberia: ethnic groups and cultures].
L'vova, Eleonora, and Vladimir Dryomov. 1991. Vvedenie. In Tiurki tiozhnogo Prichulymia.
Tomsk. pp.3-24 [Introduction. In The Turks of the Taiga Chulym Basin].
Marcus, George. 1995. Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multisited
Ethnography. In Annual Review of Anthropology. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews, Inc. pp.95-
117.
Martin, Terry. 2001. The Affirmative Action Empire. Nations and Nationalism in the Soviet
Union, 1923-1939. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. 496 pp.
 15

Murashko, Olga. 1999. Itelmeny i kamchadaly. In Sibir': etnosy i kultury. Issue 4. Moscow;
Ulan-Ude. pp.60-105 [Itelmen and Kamchadal. In Siberia: ethnic groups and cultures].
Pika Aleksandr, and Boris Prokhorov (eds.) (1994). Neotraditsionalizm na Rossiiskom
Severe i gosudarstvennaia regional'naia politika. Moscow: Institut narodokhoziaistvennogo
prognozirovaniia [Neotraditionalism in the Russian North and the state’s regional policy].
Shnirelman, Viktor A. 2001. The Value of the Past: Myths, Identity and Politics in
Transcaucasia. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology. 465 pp. – (Senri Ethnological
Studies, No.57).
Slezkine, Yuri. 1994. Arctic Mirrors: Russia and the Small Peoples of the North. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press. 456 pp.
Sokolova, Zoia, Natalia Novikova, and Nikolai Ssorin-Chaikov. 1995. Etnografy pishut
zakon: kontekst i problemy. Etnograficheskoe obozrenie 1, 74-88 [Ethographers Write a
Law: Context and Problems. Ethnographic Review].
Sokolovski, Sergei V. (ed.). 1994. Ethnokognitologia: podkhody k izucheniiu etnicheskoi
identifikatsii [Ethnocognitology: Approaches to the Study of Ethnic Identity]. Moscow.
156 pp.
Sokolovski, Sergei V. 2000. The Construction of ‘Indigenousness’ in Russian Science,
Politics and Law. Journal of Legal Pluralism 45, 91-113.
Sokolovski, Sergei V. 2001. Obrazy drugikh v rossiiskoi nauke, politike i prave [Images of
Others in Russian Science, Politics and Law]. Moscow. 235 pp.
Sokolovski, Sergei V. 2004 On Perspectives of Ethno-National Policy Concept in the
Russian Federation. Moscow, 258 pp.
Tapp, Nicholas. 1995. Minority Nationality in China: Policy and Practice. In Indigenous
Peoples of Asia (eds.) R. H. Barnes, Andrew Gray, and Benedict Kingsbury. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan. pp.195-220.
Tishkov, Valery A. 1997. Ethnicity, Nationalism, and Conflict In and After the Soviet Union:
The Mind Aflame. London: Sage. 334 pp.
 16

APPENDIX
Table 1. Population Numbers of Indigenous Peoples in Soviet Censuses and Estimates, 1926-1989

Ethnic Categories Census Data

1926 1959 1970 1979 1989
‘Peoples of the North’ 132549 131665 153246 159324 184510
Nenets 17566 23007 28705 29894 34665
Evenk 38746 24151 25149 27531 30163
Khant 22306 19410 21138 20984 22521
Even 2044 9121 12029 12286 17199
Chukchi 12332 11727 13597 14000 15184
Nanai 5860 8026 10005 10516 12023
Koryak 7439 6287 7487 7879 9242
Mansi 5774 6449 7710 7563 8474
Dolgan 650 3925 4877 5053 6945
Nivkh 4076 3717 4420 4397 4673
Selqup 1630 3768 4282 3565 3612
Ulcha 723 2055 2448 2552 3233
Itelmen 899 (3704*) 1109 1301 1370 2481
Udege 1357 1444 1469 1551 2011
Saami 1720 1792 1884 1888 1890
Eskimo 1293 1118 1308 1510 1719
Chuvan 707 (534) 1 1 1511
Nganasan (831) 748 953 867 1278
Yukaghir 443 442 615 835 1142
Ket 1428 1019 1182 1122 1113
Oroch 647 782** 1089** 1198** 915
Tofa 415 586 620 763 731
Aleut 353 (449) 421 441 546 702
Neghidal 683 (350) 537 504 622
Enets (476) ? ? (300) 209
Uilta (Orok) 162*** (300) ? (317) 190 (341)
Abaza 13825 19591 25448 29000
Veps 32785 16374 8281 8094 12142
Izhora 16137 1062 781 748 449
Kamchadal 2997 (3704)* ? ? ? ?
Shor 12600 15300 16500 16033 15745
Altay 39062 44654 54614 58879 69409
Kumanda 6327 (7000) ? ? ?
Teleut (1000) ? ? ? 2594
Chelkan (1000) ? ? ? (700-800)
Khakass 45600 56800 66700 70800 78500
Chulym ? ? ? ? (560)
* the number of Itelmen for 1926-27 includes some of Kamchadal as well (according to the data of the Circumpolar economic census of
1927 there were 899 Itelmens and 2997 чел (Source: Murashko 1999: 63); according to the Census of 1926 their total number was 4217.
** the number of Oroch is assessed wrongly, as it included Uilta of Sakhalin as well.
*** the number of Uilta of Sakhalin for 1926-27 indicates their number in Northern Sakhalin only.
Numbers in brackets show assessments of various researchers: Nivkh for 1959 from the data of Anna Smolyak; Chelkans at the end of
1990s from the data of Dmitry Funk (2000: 3); Nagaibak at the end of 1990s by the data of I. Atnagulov (1998: 29); Chuvans from the
linguistic assessments of Ilya Gurvich and Elena Batyanova (1999: 10); Aleut in the column of 1926 is an assessment by R.  Liapunova for
1917 (1999: 31); Chulym for the end of 1980s from the data of Eleonora L'vova and Vladimir Dryomov (1991: 3); for Ket in 1926 from the
data of Boris Dolghikh (1982: 85-6); the count for Enets in the column of 1926 is based on the assessment of the number of Yenisei
Samoed for 1897, as in the period from 1926 to 1979 there were counted as Nenets (the same holds for Nganasan, which in the Census of
1926 were counted as Nenets).
 17

Table 2. Indigenous Population Dynamics, 1979–2002

 
Total Total 1989/1979 Total 2002/1989
Ethnic
1979 1989 (%) 2002 (%)
group

Aleut 489 644 131,7 592 91,9

Chukchi 13 937 15 107 108,4 15 827 104,7
Chuvan – 1384 – 1300 93,9
Dolgan 4911 6584 134,8 7330 105,0
Enets – 198 – 327 165,0
Eskimo 1460 1704 116,7 1798 105,5
Even 12 452 17 055 137 19 242 112,8
Evenk 27 941 29 901 110,6 35 377 118,3
Itelmen 1335 2429 181,9 3474 143,0
Ket 1072 1084 101,1 1891 174,4
Khant 20 743 22 283 107,4 28 773 129,0
Koryak 7637 8942 117,1 9077 110,0
Mansi 7434 8279 111,4 11573 133,9
Nanai 10 357 11 883 114,7 12355 104,0
Neghidal 477 587 123,1 806 137,3
Nenets 29 487 34 190 115,9 41454 121,2
Nganasan 842 1262 149,9 879 69,6
Nivkhi 4366 4631 106,1 5287 114,0
Oroch 1040 883 84,9 884 100,1
Saami 1775 1835 103,4 2132 116,2
Selqup 3518 3564 101,3 4367 125,5
Tofa 576 722 125,3 1020 141,3
Udeghe 1431 1902 132,9 1665 87,5
Uilta (Orok) – 179 - 432 241,3
Ulcha 2494 3173 127,2 3098 97,6
Yukagir 801 1112 138,8 1529 137,5
Subtotal 1 156 575 181 517 116,4 212 489 117,0
Kerek – – – 22 –
Taz – 210 – 291 138,5
Subtotal 2 – 181 727 – 212 802 117,0
Kumanda – – – 3123 –
Shor – 15 745 – 14 018 89,0
Teleut – – – 2658 –
Todja – – – 36 230 –
Subtotal 3 – 183 272 – 268 831 –
Kamchadal – – – 2422 –
Soyot – – – 2833  
Telenghit – – – 2614 –
Tuba – – – 1569 –
Chelkan – – – 864 –
Chulym – – – 661 –
Total – – – 279 794 –

Graph 1. Census 2002, ‘Indigenous Peoples’, Numerical Size Range 15,000-100,000

 18

Didoi*
Komi-Izhem
Chukchi
Even
Andi*
Kriashen
Agul*
Khant
Rutul*
Finn
Evenk
Abaza
Nenets
Circassian
Altaian
Khakass
Nogai
Karelians
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000

* peoples of Dagestan

Graph 2. Census 2002, ‘Indigenous Peoples’, Numerical Size Range 5,000-15,000

Nivkh
Karatin*
Bezhitin*
Akhvakh*
Pomor
Dolgan
Veps
Koryak
Nagaibak
Siberian Tatar
Tsakhur*
Mansi
Nanai
Shor

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000

Graph 3. Census 2002, ‘Indigenous Peoples’, Numerical Size Range 2,000-5,000

 19

Astrakhan Tatar
Kamchadal
Tat*
Telengit
Talysh*
Teleut
Soyot
Ul’chi
Kumanda
Bessermian
Itelmen
Shapsug
Mountain Jew*
Sel’qup
Tyva-Todja
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Graph 4. Census 2002, ‘Indigenous Peoples’, Numerical Size Range 1,000-2,000

Gunzib*
Chuvan
Ket
Yukagir
Khemshil
Tuba
Udege
Eskimo
Saami

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

 20

Graph 5. Census 2002, ‘Indigenous Peoples’, Numerical Size Range 500-1,000

Ghinukh*

Aleut

Neghidal
Chulym

Oroch
Nganasan

Tofa

Chelkan

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Graph 6. Census 2002, ‘Indigenous Peoples’, Numerical Size Range 0-500

Kaitag*
Kerek
Chamalal*
Botlikh*
Yug
Godoberin*
Baghulal*
Tindal*
Vod’
Kubachi*
Archin*
Khvarshin*
Akkin-Chechen
Enets
Taz
Inkeri
Izhora
Uilta (Orok)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Table 3. Population Numbers of Indigenous Peoples from the Russian Population Census of 2002, by Region and Federal District

Siberian Federal District Far Eastern Federal District

incl. Taimyr Autonomous District

Total

incl. Koryak Autonomous District

incl. Evenk Autonomous District

Chukotka Autonomous Region

Respublic of Sakha (Yakut)
Central Federal District

Novosibirsk Region.
Krasnoyarsk Region

Khabarovsk Region

Kamchatka Region.
North-Western FD

Kemerovo Region

Primorskii Region

Sakhalin Region.
Magadan Region
Tomsk Region.
Altay Republic

Irkutsk Region

Amur Region.
Chita Region.
Omsk Region
Altay Region
Southern FD

Khakassia
Volga FD

Urals FD

Buriatia
Tyvaа
Aleut 540 23 13 14 11 3 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 2 3 446 6 4 0 0
Aliutor 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0
Chelkan 0 4 1 0 0 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
855 1 3 10 5 1
0
Chukch 1576 20 141 62 68 33 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 148 14 24 126
602 54 85 12 11
i 7 7 9 7 12 8 22
Chulym 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
656 2 2 1 159 1 1 0 2
4
Chuvan 1087 7 36 7 4 5 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 6 2 7  39 2 951
Dolgan 0 580 551 127
7261 28 49 24 18 9 8 0 7 1 30 1 2 7 6 3 3 4 10 2 0 0 0 1 1
5 7 2
Enets 237 0 15 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 213 197 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Eskimo 175 31 11 14 13 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 153
29 6 9 16 4 19 3 26 1
0 4
Even 190 63 30 23 31 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 127 177 75 25 140
69 60 21 8
71 8 57 2 9 1 27 7
Evenk 3552 16 218 80 75 139 233 463 38 14 10 14 182 10 453 15 24
7 21 13 305 22 22 12 15 7 25 37
7 5 4 2 02 31 3 92 32 3 3 01 3
Itelmen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 229 11 64
3180 42 28 22 17 4 32 4 29 35 4 4 35
6 81 3
Kamcha 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 188 13 31
2293 16 9 5 6 1 19 0 13 13 5 0 13
dal 1 2 4
Kerek 8 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ket 0 118 21 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1494 27 67 5 10 38 0 1 10 7 16 9 6 11 3 93 2
9 1
Khant 2867 16 252 99 13 2691 87 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 6 4 3 14 19 0 1 26 7 26 59 7
8 1 1 4 3
Koryak 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 732 67 88
8743 97 28 32 32 10 20 49 4 4 55
4 8 10 8
Kuman 93 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3114 17 15 8 39 29 3 2 4 11 0 0 13 294 18 14 7 6 40
da 1 63
Mansi 1143 17 1086 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
86 104 59 40
2 5 2 6
Nanai 1216 59 47 43 21 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 109 15
64 63 35 63 21 15 9
0 7 93 9
Neghid 25 3 5 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
567 5 3 505 2 2 2 1 2 1
al
 Total

incl. Taimyr Autonomous District

incl. Koryak Autonomous District

incl. Evenk Autonomous District

Chukotka Autonomous Region

Respublic of Sakha (YakuT
Central Federal District

Novosibirsk Region.
Krasnoyarsk Region

Khabarovsk Region

Kamchatka Region.
North-Western FD

Kemerovo Region

Primorskii Region

Sakhalin Region.
Magadan Region
Tomsk Region.
Altay Republic

Irkutsk Region

Amur Region.
Chita Region.
Omsk Region
Altay Region
Southern FD

Khakassia
Volga FD

Urals FD

Buriatia
Tyvaа
Nenets 4130 18 945 102 11 2809 0 0 0 318 305 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 4 12 30 6 6 25 5 2
2 7 3 1 1 8 4
Nganas 7 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
834 8 811 766 7
an
Nivkh 46 15 35 14 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 245 0 0
5162 22 9 29 14 2 0 7
2
Oroch 11 12 13 3 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
686 6 2 24 426 5 1 0 42 2
6
Saami 189 17 28 5 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1991 30
2
Selqup 49 35 23 1879 0 0 17 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4249 9 2 1 5 4 412 9 4 4 15 8 4
87
Shor 1397 10 70 50 65 134 14 10 16 115 0
6 42 201 4 4 43 75 13 41 10 69 23 37 13 6 0 21 5
5 6 1 78 5 54
Soyot 7 0 0 0 0 0 273 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2769
9
Taz 5 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0
276 3 3 0 0 0 1 3
6
Telengit 0 24 2 1 1 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2399 3
68
Teleut 1 0 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 253 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2650 6 32 2 15 1 14 1 7 2
4
Todja 0 2 0 1 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4442 2 1 1
35
Tofa 34 6 6 4 0 0 0 72 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
837 9 4 4 4 2 12 0 1 13 4
3
Tuba 0 2 0 0 7 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1565 1 7 12 1 1 1
33
Udege 11 8 8 19 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 0
1657 8 3 613 5 16 5 5 12
8
Uilta (Orok)
10 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0
346 4 1 2 24 1 0 0 0
8
Ulcha 34 6 11 5 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 271
2913 10 6 15 2 15 7 9 9 3
8
Veps 788 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8240 92 29 56 29 21
0 3
Yukagir 150 31 16 20 3 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109
48 4 5 1 1 0 79 2 185
9 7
3794 31 366 12 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Abaza 156 490
2 0 40 3 9
Besser 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3122 13 10 8 50 7 6
mian 28
Izhora 327 20 280 8 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nagaiba 28 32 73 9329 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9600 36
k
Shapsu 322 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3231 4
g 7
48982 74996 8578 156438 5592 10218 8994 2278 3822 33308 10374 7893 4610 28864 404 166 6834 3074
Sum
612912 4044 33519 2000 17825 1636 15364 8819 4978 806 16855
Total
Table 4. Indigenous groups sources of income in areas of principal residence (North, Siberia, and the Far East)
for ages 15-64, Russian population census 2002
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

no. in working ages

%administration and finances,

urban, %

working ages, %

no. in traditional subsistence

medicine and education, %

transport, communication,
Subsistence economy, %

construction building, %
total no. in area

economy
urban
Aleut 446 96 21.5 291 65.2 16 05.5 09.6 7.2 6.2
Dolgan 7077 1194 16.9 3998 56.5 1176 29.4 19.5 2.3 2.9
Itelmen 2939 1012 34.4 1859 63.3 94 05.1 10.7 4.2 2.0
Ket 1189 199 16.7 715 60.1 27 03.8 08.1 4.1 1.1
Koryak 8271 2368 28.6 5070 61.3 498 09.8 17.3 5.0 2.3
Kumanda 2888 1522 52.7 1867 64.6 84 04.5 04.0 0.5 0.6
Mansi 10820 5487 50.7 6273 58.0 384 06.1 11.6 3.5 3.5
Nanai 11569 3278 28.3 7411 64.1 553 07.5 11.1 2.5 2.2
Nganasan 811 147 18.1 458 56.5 85 18.6 16.6 2.4 1.5
Neghidal 505 115 22.8 308 61.0 35 11.4 13.0 3.2 0.3
Nenets 39813 6781 17.0 21188 53.2 5449 25.7 11.9 3.0 1.7
Nivkh 4902 2291 46.7 3082 62.9 301 09.8 09.4 2.8 2.3
Oroch 426 150 35.2 268 62.9 63 23.5 07.5 2.6 3.0
Saami 1769 680 38.4 1090 61.6 151 13.9 07.3 6.0 2.4
Selqup 4056 645 15.9 2512 61.9 306 12.2 10.6 5.2 3.6
Teleut 2534 1044 41.2 1597 63.0 77 04.8 05.6 2.6 7.3
Tofa 723 42 05.8 457 63.2 17 03.7 09.2 2.8 0.7
Tuba 1533 120 07.8 894 58.3 99 11.1 07.2 1.9 1.7
Todja 4435 3 00.0 2495 56.3 102 04.1 15.5 2.1 0.7
Udege 1531 337 22.0 968 63.2 119 12.3 11.5 3.4 1.7
Uilta (Orok) 298 169 56.7 196 65.8 24 12.2 08.7 9.7 1.5
Ulcha 2718 413 15.2 1666 61.3 142 08.5 11.7 4.7 1.9
Khant 27655 9190 33.2 16128 58.3 1793 11.1 13.8 4.3 3.2
Chelkan 830 113 13.6 502 60.5 31 06.2 12.7 4.2 2.2
Chuvan 990 295 29.8 581 58.7 74 12.7 20.0 7.9 4.5
Chukchi 14034 2320 16.5 8377 59.7 1598 19.1 18.6 3.3 2.2
Shor 12773 9094 71.2 1831 62.7 199 10.7 05.2 2.5 3.1
Evenk 34610 7901 22.8 20269 58.6 2271 11.2 13.4 5.6 1.9
Even 18642 5831 31.3 10877 58.3 1405 12.9 13.4 5.1 1.5
Enets 197 24 12.2 122 61.9 23 18.9 18.0 6.6 1.6
Eskimo 1534 394 25.7 951 62.0 86 09.0 16.4 7.7 3.2
Yukagir 1176 494 42.0 671 57.1 84 12.5 12.1 8.2 3.9
Total 225575 64779 28.7 124972 55.4 17393 13.1 13.0 4.0 2.3
The Table’s entries are counted on the basis of the Census 2002 results (Vol. 13, tables 11 and 12). Column 8 was
counted as the sum share of those employed (ages 15-64) in agriculture, hunting, forestry, fishing, and processing
industries. Column 10 is the sum share of in finance, real estate business, social services, administration and security.
Some indigenous groups (such as Kerek, Soyot, Kamchadal, Taz, Telengit and Chulym) are absent from the table, due
to the absence of the relevant data in the census publications. 16280 indigenous persons of working ages, residing in
the regions of Siberia, North, and the Far East work in education and health facilities; 5010 persons – in finance,
administration, social service, real estate business, and security. 2843 persons are employed in construction building,
transport and communication industries.