Some Notes on Folk Rules of Behavior among Ob-Ugrians

 

Tatyana Moldanova, a Khanty ethnologist, explains the principles of cus­tomary law in Khanty culture as follows: «Our world-view has been com­pletely elaborated. Basically, when you look at it, we have got spirits, hoimazl who always give you some fish. You catch fish, but they give it away. And when you at least lived in such a world as a child, you do not have conflicts whatsoever.

As with poaching and lying – this is a completely different world. There the boss makes his laws. For Khantys, there is no such a thing as inner con­flict. Their bosses act and do what they want. But locals have their own laws and there are no basic conflicts.

You know, many of us have been imprisoned, almost all men. Before I asked myself, why, what do they think about that. You see what comes out. We have got a song, saying that only the highest of spirits As tyi iki can pun­ish for sins or bad deeds, Mir susne\hum Mansi people.

Only he can do it. But if a human was imprisoned... There is a song, e.g.:

«...when you were caught in big trouble with the Russians, when you fell in the house with tiny windows, I stretch out my divine arm and pull you out of it». It comes out, then, that the laws written by Russians are simply «big trouble». Big trouble, unhappiness. Yet As tyi iki can punish. It means, your surroundings, your laws, your community, when you break them, there will be disharmony. Why people drink nowadays? The reason is that they breach the laws of their life, not because they break Russian laws. This means that these social laws are primary for them»[536]. Another Khanty scholar, Maina Lapina, also interprets ethical and moral issues in the Khanty culture as es­tablished by the gods.

As tyi iki 'old man of the upper course of the Ob River' (in the Khanty Ing.), grandchild of Kaltash, son of Jorum, among the most important Ob-Ugric gods. Also Mir vanity he, Mir vanity ho, Mir savite ho, Mir savitti hu 'Man watching the world' (in the Khanty Ing.). He lives near Khanty-Mansiysk and rides a white horse. As tyi iki sets moral standards for people[537].

Moral rules of the Khantys were explained by certain terms. The most important of them was yem, yemn ('sacred') and the others – an rakhal ('prohibited'), atm ('bad'), yam ('good'), karek ('sin'), naclat ('doing something that is not allowed')[538].

Lapina divides punishments, according to the Khanty customary law, into six categories, that are differentiated by the degree of sacredness. The first level is carried out among the closest relatives (family or kin members) in the form of moral condemnation. On the second human level (if the significance of inappropriate behavior has wider significance than for family or kin group), the punishment was public mock during the bear feasts or common disfa­vor[539].

Next levels of customary law are related to gods and spirits, representa­tives of the «Other world». The third level of punishments is connected with the spirits of a particular territory – a small river, a part of a forest, etc. They tried to regulate the relationships between people and Nature. These spirits applied punishments on their own initiative. The fourth level of customary law covered the spirits of certain larger territories. Those are the spirits of bigger tributaries of the Ob River or the spirits of the certain parts of the Ob River itself, for example, Tek iki (the guardian of the territory on the bank of the Ob River around the Tegi village, 'old man of Tegi' in Khanty). Tek iki is a guard­ian of folk ethics and punishes for its violation. On this level the spirits regu­late also the relationship of their «own» people with the people from other social groups, the strangers. Tek iki is also the guardian and ruler of lower spirits of his area. The fifth level is represented by Mir vanty hu. He does not intervene into the life of humans but regulates the life in the spiritual world. But he can also help people who have been punished unfairly. On the high­est level the moral rules are regulated by Jorum ashchi. He is watching the activities of the heavenly gods^[540].

As an important issue, Lapina highlights the following rule: «On the hu­man level, persecution of violators of moral norms was not included in the system of punishments. According to the worldview of the Khantys, killing of the violator of norms cannot solve the problem because the soul of a dead person is more dangerous than the person himself when alive»^[541].

But if the Khantys involved spirits in the punishment of violator of moral rules, the result could be unpredictable. Punishments definitely were more severe in this situation and sometimes the violator could even die. For ex­ample, Lapina describes a particular case when a Khanty man stole a fox fur from his neighbor. Owner of the fur asked spirits for help. The thief fell ill and died although the owner of the fur did not want this. So, the sacred sphere is really dangerous and one must be very careful with the involvement of spirits in the application of customary law. An important issue is also that the de­gree of violation of sacred moral norms was determined by shamans^[542].

But I must ask whether the explanations of native researchers are rele­vant to express the real native attitude or are these interpretations too ideal­istic? So, I can also touch upon non-academic native interpretations con­cerning the customary law practices among the Ob-Ugrians. During the 1990s I have interviewed a Mansi storyteller Anne Konkova. She gave me a number of elaborate descriptions of the application of customary law among southern Mansis in the beginning of the Soviet period. Let me give you an example: «If they said that we can pick lingonberries only from the 1st of September, then the whole village – adults and children – left with the sun. If somebody violated this [customary law], they were brought before the village court.

Her name was Tais. She settled [in the Ivyr village] with two kids and she did not have a husband. She started to pick lingonberries earlier. Somebody found this out and a court session was held there. She was punished in the following way: three bricks were placed in the birch box. The box was hanged to her back and she had to move from one end of the village to the other. At the same time she must shout about her misbehavior. Adults did not follow her. But me, my brother, and other kids ran after her and watched her [she had to shout all the time]. We instructed her... And she became so afraid that she might lose her voice. If she reached the other end of the vil­lage, she did not have a voice at all:

«I... stole... the lingonberries... I... would not... do this... again... I... will not... do it... again...»^[543]. Anne Konkova also explained the overall spirit of this kind of customary law: «Only women are able mess things up. Despite that there was the Mother of Mothers. But men were very strict. So a court was held. And men could beat at home, also. If a wife heard something here and talked to someone else... Master could beat for this. The laws were very strict but nobody felt them. These rules did not make people feel depressed. These laws Oust existed] somehow... If the rules were provided, they were there»^[544].

Mother of Mothers – according to Anne Konkova she was the leader of village women, an elderly lady with magical skills. In the 1920s the Mother of Mothers of Ivyr village was Okol, the grandmother of Anne^[545].

Lapina also estimates that it was especially important for women to fol­low the behavioral rules. Violating customary rules by a woman could lead her family, kin and even the whole ethnic group to chaos^[546].

I think a feminist approach might be applicable to the issue of feminist policy of early Soviet period. On the one hand it can be argued that the at­tempt by the Soviets to «liberate» women was just an additional reform in­tended to alter the indigenous societal structure and bring Northern people under greater control of the State, and, accordingly, change the «discrimina­tive» folk law practices, as well. This is true, of course. But we cannot limit ourselves to only one perspective, and idealize a set of gender roles of in­digenous societies, particularly, in Western Siberia, without thinking about it a little bit more.

For example, an ambivalent attitude towards the link between gender roles and customary law is evident in the stories told by Anne Konkova. I would like to quote her statement, again:

«Only women are able to mess things up. Despite there was the Mother of Mothers. But men were very strict. So a court was held. And men could beat at home, also. If a wife heard something and talked to someone else... Master could beat for this. The laws were very strict but nobody felt them. These rules did not make people feel depressed. These laws Oust existed] somehow... If the laws were provided, they were there»^[547]. But a few minutes prior to this, Auntie Anne had also given another perspective on Mansi law and the issue of gender roles. She stated:

«You see, what kind of bastards the men were! You know, I can tell you, even nowadays, I give you my word of honor, my word of honor, I'm telling the truth: the women were much wiser than men, much wiser... I give you my word, I've lived for a long time – wiser, wiser! And also – hard-working. Yes, yes, yes, yes. I don't know, how it is in your country, I don't know how it is among the Russians, I don't know, I don't know. I'm talking about our women. [They are] wiser, more hard-working. A woman can be a hunter, she can also go fishing, she has to take care about kids. But a husband comes home from hunting, the wife prepares some food for him. He lays down for a rest. The wife must dry and check everything that her husband was wearing. <...> She must dry, wring everything out. And in the morning she must bring to her husband all things and those must be warm and folded. You see, who the husband is – a monster of cruelty... A wife must bring firewood. We had such a law – the man doesn't touch firewood. If a man goes to bring water, it can kill him! He feels insulted. Think about it – those were awful laws, ah? Everything [must be done by a] wife, all her, all her, all her, all her... all her. And because of that we had a saying: What is a man? Nothing more than a stray dog. Indeed – he just comes, stays overnight, he comes to have a rest. Just like a dog – always outside. Such is a man – sometimes he goes fishing, then hunting, there for a while, then off somewhere else. And sometimes it also happens that... he gets drunk... you see, and so he goes and hangs around somewhere, again»^[548]. Auntie Anne concluded the discussion on Mansi customary law issues with the following statement: «You see, what kind of laws were there. I can tell you that these laws were awful»^[549].

It is evident that Anne somehow considered Mansi customary law to be normal yet at the same time complains about some tendencies that allow men more freedom in behavior and the right to interpret and apply the law. This simultaneous-attitude of women towards traditional gender roles also appears in Kristiina Ehin's article^[550]. According to Ehin, Estonian runo-singer Kadri Kukk has expressed her seemingly unquestioned loyalty to certain set of rules shaping women's and men's behavior but then was also sometimes critical of a number of limitations placed on women their everyday lives It leads us to conclude that women's feelings concerning the issues of cus­tomary law and multiple behavioral rules inside a traditional society have been ambivalent The perspective also becomes more problematic if the So­viet reforms that dealt with the role of women m the communities of the northern peoples are also considered There was, perhaps, a kind of incen­tive for accepting at least part of changes offered (or, in fact, applied in com­pulsory way) by the Soviet power We must also consider that Auntie Anne was not an «ideal» representative of traditional Mansi society. She studied at the Khanty-Mansiysk Pedagogical College in the early 1930s and had been employed as a teacher in several parts of Western Siberia, and later, as a radio journalist. So, perhaps, she must have been influenced considerably by Soviet discourse on gender issues, and by extension, her stories about life in Ivyr village in the 1920s might also be influenced by this official ap­proach Another question might be what really happened m the field of «lib­erating women» from a role they had in traditional indigenous societies be­fore the Soviet reforms. This question is too large to answer in two words But, mainly, on the surface the changes were quick and successful for the Soviets. However, in reality changes m gender roles have been much slower and even nowadays a lot of things continue to be done in the traditional way For example, my friend Liivo Niglas has done research on the role of women in one Tundra Nenets community on Yamal Peninsula. His work demon­strates that multiple rules exist, restricting female behavior m this Nenets group and yet there is no resentment toward these «discriminative» rules Perhaps, the situation is quite similar in many other places as well^[551].

И. Е. Фадеева *