Этническое происхождение и идентичность поморов: подходы, результаты, выводы

Abstract

The study is aimed at examining the intermediate results of the consideration of the problem of ethnogenesis and ethno-cultural identity of the Pomors in the domestic science of the XVIII – early XXI centuries. The re-search methodology is based on the principles of systemacity and historicism and includes methods of biblio-graphic analysis and systematization of information, problem-chronological method, comparative-historical method. Two opposing models of Pomor genesis and identity are characterized, one of which is based on con-structivism, the other on a moderate situativist approach and traditional conceptual apparatus. It is shown that the consequence of different interpretations of the results of scientific research was the identification of two opposite models of the genesis and identity of the Pomors, one of which methodologically relies on constructiv-ism with an external appeal to Paleoeuropean and Finno-Ugric cultural and genetic primordialism, the other – on a moderate (taking into account the primordialist principles) situationist approach and traditional conceptual and conceptual apparatus. Within the framework of the developments of the second model, it is proved that the process of formation of the Pomeranian community took not only the period of the mature and late Middle Ag-es, but also of Modern times and consisted of several local “genetic infusions” into the Slavic environment while preserving the cultural and linguistic components of the latter. Based on the analysis and understanding of the existing bibliography array, a number of conclusions and recommendations are made, the consideration of which is intended to ensure the scientific productivity of further research on the topic. These include the need to abandon the use of the concept of “protopomora” and statements about the stable genetic antiquity and ge-netic unity of the Pomors, the expediency of chronotypic localization of the concept of “Pomorie”, the unscien-tific use of the White Sea dialects, the pidgin “Russenorsk” and the history of Bespop communities of the Pomor as ethnic markers, the correctness of considering the Pomors as primarily a socio-economic group, the rele-vance of the application of the primordial conceptual apparatus in cultural terms, relying on the Russian lan-guage basis, etc.