Writing the History of the Northern “Field”: An Introductory Note

Dmitry V Arzyutov

doi:10.3167/sib.2017.160101

Abstract

This issue became possible thanks to two research projects “Etnos: A Life History of the Etnos Concept among the Peoples of the North” (ESRC, UK) and “Etnos and Minzu: Histories and Politics of Identity Governance in Eurasia” (The Leverhulme Trust, UK), led by Professor David G. Anderson (University of Aberdeen). We thank Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography (Kunstkamera), Saint Petersburg, Russia, and Estonian National Museum, Tartu, for the permission to publish some photographs and drawings from the collections. We also thank proofreaders Daniel Edward Allen (Tartu, Estonia) and Sarah Buckmaster (Brighton, UK) who made this issue more readable.

Highlights

What do we know about the fieldwork of the ethnographers/ anthropologists of the North? How did they organize their research and what ideas have they left behind in their archived field notes? Historians of anthropology along with anthropologists attempt to find answers to these questions through the analysis of field notes, diaries, letters, and reports, as well as published and unpublished works from the fieldworkers of the past
Conference participants involved in the discussions were divided into two camps: (1) the supporters of long-term field research, which was akin to the participant observation of Malinowskian anthropology, and (2) the supporters of “route” field research, which took less time and usually focused on one particular research aim
This difference in opinion divided Moscow and Leningrad ethnographers—the former supported the route field research, whereas the latter preferred to follow the ideas of the leader of Siberian ethnography at that time, Vladimir Bogoras, and his charismatic appeal

Summary

Introduction

What do we know about the fieldwork of the ethnographers/ anthropologists of the North? How did they organize their research and what ideas have they left behind in their archived field notes? Historians of anthropology along with anthropologists attempt to find answers to these questions through the analysis of field notes, diaries, letters, and reports, as well as published and unpublished works from the fieldworkers of the past. It was at the conference of ethnographers from Moscow and Leningrad in 1929, just before Miklukho-Maclay’s canonization, that the discussion about the meaning of the field took center stage.

Results

Conclusion