Ancient Bogatyr to Electric River: The Modernized Mythology of the Yenisei

IF 0.3 Q2 HISTORY
Mariia Koskina
{"title":"Ancient Bogatyr to Electric River: The Modernized Mythology of the Yenisei","authors":"Mariia Koskina","doi":"10.30965/18763324-bja10051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nIn propaganda related to the industrial hero-project of the Krasnoyarsk Dam (built 1956–1972), the Soviet press synthesized a narrative of modern conquest of nature by means of advanced hydrology and hydraulic technology with folklore-like myths that emphasized the often-mysterious greatness of the Yenisei River, the glory of the Soviet state, and the heroic feats of Soviet people. This mythology was a complex mixture of imagery that drew on the Indigenous groups of Central Siberia (the Evenks, Tuvans, and Buryats) that had been displaced and alienated by the Russian state and the historic Russian residents of Siberia. These were the very groups whose worlds and stories had been deemed culturally backward. The mythology also incorporated imperial legends of Siberian conquest and embellished stories of Lenin’s sojourn in pre-revolutionary Siberia. Soviet print literature imaginatively recreated the Yenisei River as Ionessi and Ulug-Khem – “big water” or “big river,” “brother of the ocean,” and a mighty bogatyr (or warrior-hero) cursed to be a river. Such seemingly archaic imagery may seem to contradict the narrative of socialist industrial progress in the Yenisei basin, but this article highlights how such myths were modernized and mobilized in support of late-Soviet mega-engineering projects. It argues that the modernized myths of the Yenisei’s transformation – magical and through time – aimed to show nature in flux. People constantly acted upon it, transformed it, and cooperated with it. Moreover, these myths reflected the popular fascination with the immense, often dangerous and always mysterious, features of the Siberian landscape. Thus, in contrast to Stalinist industrialization, Soviet propagandists of the Cold War era did not always demystify nature; they also built their rhetoric upon folkloric and Indigenous conceptualizations of human-nature interaction and environmental change and created a sense of belonging to the place for the people who voluntarily participated in Siberian development.","PeriodicalId":41969,"journal":{"name":"Soviet and Post Soviet Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Soviet and Post Soviet Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30965/18763324-bja10051","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In propaganda related to the industrial hero-project of the Krasnoyarsk Dam (built 1956–1972), the Soviet press synthesized a narrative of modern conquest of nature by means of advanced hydrology and hydraulic technology with folklore-like myths that emphasized the often-mysterious greatness of the Yenisei River, the glory of the Soviet state, and the heroic feats of Soviet people. This mythology was a complex mixture of imagery that drew on the Indigenous groups of Central Siberia (the Evenks, Tuvans, and Buryats) that had been displaced and alienated by the Russian state and the historic Russian residents of Siberia. These were the very groups whose worlds and stories had been deemed culturally backward. The mythology also incorporated imperial legends of Siberian conquest and embellished stories of Lenin’s sojourn in pre-revolutionary Siberia. Soviet print literature imaginatively recreated the Yenisei River as Ionessi and Ulug-Khem – “big water” or “big river,” “brother of the ocean,” and a mighty bogatyr (or warrior-hero) cursed to be a river. Such seemingly archaic imagery may seem to contradict the narrative of socialist industrial progress in the Yenisei basin, but this article highlights how such myths were modernized and mobilized in support of late-Soviet mega-engineering projects. It argues that the modernized myths of the Yenisei’s transformation – magical and through time – aimed to show nature in flux. People constantly acted upon it, transformed it, and cooperated with it. Moreover, these myths reflected the popular fascination with the immense, often dangerous and always mysterious, features of the Siberian landscape. Thus, in contrast to Stalinist industrialization, Soviet propagandists of the Cold War era did not always demystify nature; they also built their rhetoric upon folkloric and Indigenous conceptualizations of human-nature interaction and environmental change and created a sense of belonging to the place for the people who voluntarily participated in Siberian development.
古波加提到电河:叶尼塞人的现代神话
在与克拉斯诺亚尔斯克大坝(建于1956年至1972年)这一工业英雄项目相关的宣传中,苏联媒体将现代征服自然的叙事与民间传说般的神话结合起来,强调叶尼塞河的神秘伟大、苏联国家的荣耀和苏联人民的英雄壮举。这个神话是一个复杂的意象混合体,描绘了中西伯利亚的土著群体(埃文人、图瓦人和布里亚特人),他们被俄罗斯政府和西伯利亚历史上的俄罗斯居民流离失所和疏远。这些群体的世界和故事被认为是文化落后的。神话还包括帝国征服西伯利亚的传说,以及列宁在革命前西伯利亚逗留的故事。苏联的印刷文学富有想象力地将叶尼塞河重新塑造成Ionessi和Ulug-Khem——“大水”或“大河”,“海洋的兄弟”,以及被诅咒为河流的强大的bogatyr(或战士英雄)。这些看似古老的意象似乎与叶尼塞盆地的社会主义工业进步的叙述相矛盾,但本文强调了这些神话是如何被现代化的,并被动员起来支持苏联后期的大型工程项目。它认为,叶尼塞人转变的现代神话——神奇的和穿越时间的——旨在展示自然的变化。人们不断地对它采取行动,改造它,与它合作。此外,这些神话反映了人们对西伯利亚广阔的、往往是危险的、总是神秘的景观特征的迷恋。因此,与斯大林主义的工业化相反,冷战时期的苏联宣传人员并不总是使自然神秘化;他们还将自己的修辞建立在民俗和土著关于人与自然互动和环境变化的概念之上,并为自愿参与西伯利亚发展的人们创造了一种归属感。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
33.30%
发文量
18
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信