CC BY
19The ethnic cultures of Inner Asia have a lot to say and to give in regards to this great adventure of soulmaking and deep ecology.
References
1. James Hillman "The Good Earth: Imaginal or Literal", in atti del Convegno Corpo Spirituale Terra Celeste, Edizioni Holos International, 2003, Melide, Svizzera.
2. Keith Dowman, La danzatrice del cielo, la vita segreta e i canti di Yeshe Tso-gyel, Roma, 1985, Ubaldini Vita di Milarepa a cura di Jacques Bacot, Milano, 1991, ed Adelphi.
Уильяме Селена - исследователь из Италии. Williams Selene - researcher from Italy.
УДК 323-054.7(517.54)
Ш 758 © Збигнев Шмыт
ОБЕД С ПРЕДКАМИ. ШЭНЭХЭНСКИЕ РЕПАТРИАНТЫ В БУРЯТИИ
В этой статье автор фокусируется на стратегии социальной стратегии адаптации репатриантов из Шэнэхэна и их месте в бурятском этно-национальном дискурсе. Он выясняет, каким образом иммигранты и принимающее общество используют этно-национальные мифы в процессе обсуждения статуса группы в обществе.
Ключевые слова: Буряты, Китай, этнонациональный дискурс, принимающее сообщество.
Zbigniew Szmyt
LUNCH WITH THE ANCESTORS.
SHENEHEN REPATRIATES IN BURYATIA
In this paper I will focus on strategies of social adaptation strategies of Shenehen repatriates and their function in Buryat ethno-national discourse. I will figure out in what way immigrants and host society use ethno-national myths in negotiation of the group's status in society.
Keywords: Buryats, China, ethno-national discourse, host society.
During post-Soviet period Buryatia became an arena of many immigration processes. In the crisis of 90s north of the republic has experienced the exodus of Soviet specialists. Residents of pauperized, post-collective farm villages massively migrated to the capital - Ulan-Ude. This region has become a target point of economic migration from China and Central Asia. Therefore it is surprising that a relatively small group of migrants from Inner Mongolia -Shenehen Buryats arouses such a media interest. Currently in Transbaikalia region (Buryatia and Zabaikalsky krai) there are about five hundred Buryat immigrants from Inner Mongolia. In this paper I will focus on strategies of social adaptation strategies of Shenehen repatriates and their function in Buryat ethno-national discourse. I will figure out in what way immigrants and host society use ethno-national myths in negotiation of the group's status in socie-
ty.1 In order to understand better a repatriate's image-making process I will present a historical background of Shenehen Buryats' re-emigration.
Formation of Shenehen Buryats' group
In the early twentieth century Russian authorities attempted to modernize the country. This was due to liquidation of indirect colonial rules and intensive russification of indigenous population. Buryats lands were forwarded to Russian settlers who, thanks to the Trans-Siberian Railway, in wide scale came to Eastern Siberia. In 1901 steppe dumas - Buryat colonial self-administration were abolished. Buryats lost their group rights and were individually included in all-Russian administrative units - volosti. During World War II, twelve thousand Buryats were incorporated into the army, to the auxiliary troops, which caused their massive discontent.2 These processes led to the political mobilization of the Buryats (Atwood 2004:64). Many Buryats fled to Mongolia, and some panmongolian politicians were planning great emigration of all Buryats to Mongolia (Ountungalag 2004:37). Between 1908 and 1916 32.5% of Aga Buryats moved to Mongolia (Boronoeva 2006:38).
In 1917 in Chita was founded Buryat National Committee (Burnackom), which decided to restore reformed steppe dumas. Burnackom received strong support in the elections in 1917 and became a influential political power, but it was not able to stop the Bolsheviks from the introduction of 'socialization of land'. As a result many Buryat and Cossack lands were seized by Russian peasants. Buryats began to form military troops and the idea of Buryats' «great return» to Mongolia revived. In the years 1918 to 1921 Eastern Siberia was a battlefield for Bolsheviks, white troops of Ataman Semenov and Admiral Kolchak, Japanese and American interventionists and Czech legionnaires controlling a large part of the Trans-Siberian Railway. Many Buryats have been incorporated into the troops of Ataman Semenov. In December 1920, under pressure of the enemy Semyonov and his troops were forced to retreat to the territory of today's Hulun Buir aimag in Inner Mongolia. Buryats serving in Ataman's army and their families withdrew to the north with the Ataman. Their families joined the group of Aga Buryats who moved from Transbaikalia two years earlier. For this reason, in the Soviet collective memory Buryats living in Inner Mongolia were stigmatized as semenovcy - enemies of the Soviet Union. Among displaced families dominated Aga Buryats, who traditionally had lived near the border. To a lesser extent, were represented Barguzin, Hori and Selenge Buryats.
1 In the text I will use the material collected during a field research conducted by me in August 2008 and between August 2009 and April 2010 in Zabaikalski krai, Republic of Buryatia and Hulun Buir. Therefore the article does not apply events that happened thereafter, including problems with a project of repatriation of 500 Shenehen Buryats to Dzhida and Tunka districts.
2 By the time of World War I minorities were not incorporated into the Russian army. Exceptions were indigenous Cossacks.
77
The beginnings of Buryat minority's formation in Inner Mongolia were only partly related to the political and military activities of Ataman Semenov. Buryats, in the result of conflicts over land with Russians began to seek new pastures in the South before the Civil War. In 1917, a delegation of Aga Buryats headed by M. Bogdanov and B. Namdyk arrived to Hulunbuir aimag and obtained the consent of the local administration to settle Buryats in an uninhabited part of the aimag, from where local population had fled few years earlier because of the anthrax epidemic prevailing there. The next year another Buryat delegation signed an agreement with the local amban allowing Buryats to inhabit the land for a period of ninety years. In that 1918 year the first group of Buryats resettled from Aga steppes to the locality Shenehen.3 A group of 350 pastoral households (including twenty holdings of Russian and Hamnigan), i.e. about 2200 people came to the steppes near the river Shenehen (Sanzieva 2005:29). In 1921 was created Buryat banner (khoshuu) with four somons, and in 1922 came a second big wave of refugees - about 700 people - 160 households. In 1929, a group of about 100 households, under the command of Erencen noyon, moved in search of fertile pasture land to the south and reached the territory of Uzumchin banner in Shilin gol aimag (Nimaev 2007:16). S. Baldanov (2007:6) has separated three phases of migration of Buryats to Shenehen:
1. 1918-22 - period of Revolution and Civil war.
2. 1929-31 - period of forced collectivization, purges of party and political repression.
3. Patriotic War period
Reasons for migration of Buryats from Transbaikalia to Inner Mongolia were closely associated with political anxiety, repression and economic conflicts. Culturally conditioned reaction to the confusion and conflicts at the time were the Buryat millenarian movements. Lama from Kizhinga aimag, Lubsan Sandan Cydenow in 1919 announced the creation in his hermitage, «Kingdom of Dharma» which anyone could join. He himself was proclaimed by his disciples dharmarazha - king of dharma (Atwood 2004:66). Community created by Cydenov had communitas features - antistructure, suspension of rules in a liminal phase between the old and new social order (Turner 1977:42).
An even wider range had Buryats' idea of return to the mythical land of their ancestors - Nayan Dava. It was supposed to be located somewhere in southern Mongolia (Namsaraeva 2010:3). From mouth to mouth were passed down predictions of Molon bagshi living in the nineteenth century, that Buryats will leave Russia when there is persecution in their lands. Prediction ordered Buryats to leave Russia when the «fiery snake wraps the earth» (bur. gal mogoj gazar oreho). This event was to be a prelude to the persecution of the Buryats. People have said that those who will go south first would take their herds and all their belongings. Those who will go out later could save lives, but lose their livestock, while those who do not give up home lands will die. «The fire snake» was identified with the Trans-Siberian Railroad and in 1918 year
3 The word Shenehen can be translated from Buryat language as "someone new".
78
Buryats who fled south, to Mongolia, Barga and Manchuria were convinced that they fulfill the prophecy of Molon bagshi (Boronoeva 2006:37-47).
At the time of withdrawal to the south the apocalyptic prophecies functioning in the Buryat folklore were used by Grigory Semyonov. He spread similar prophecy with the help of his Cossacks and lamas, to persuade the Buryats to flee the territory of Barga. Moving out the southern borders of Russia was not a difficult thing for the Buryats. Some of Aga Buryats had periodic grazing there. Barguts were considered by Aga Buryats as kindred group which had a language understandable to the Buryats and ran similar economy. Neighboring groups such as Evenks, Solons, Orochons, Daurs also were not culturally alien to the Buryats. Buryats aroused interest of the local community, because they brought a range of technologies with them, unknown to local shepherds and farmers. Daurs called Buryats 'people of three machines', because they were familiar with riding mower of hay, milk separator and sewing machine (Zambalova 2007:243).
Also, the early years of Soviet power in Siberia have developed a number of push factors of migrants: conflicts during the division of land, political repression, purges of the party apparatus, and the forced collectivization. The latter cause was a strong push factor for richer Buryat shepherds. The migrants were trying to flee across the border with their families, along with the herds. Escape to Shenehen lasted until about 1932. After creating Manchukuo state dependant from Japan, the Soviet authorities acceded to the purification of the border from politically uncertain communities. The border has become a highly militarized territory, which was exceeded only by the Soviet punitive expeditions. Buryats fearing Bolsheviks punitive expedition collaborated with the Kwantung Army and the administration of Manchukuo. Cooperation with the Japanese and the Emperor Puyi administration was more easier for Buryats, because new government pursued a policy of supporting Mongolian ethnic minorities as counterbalance to Chinese majority (Bazarov 2001).
In 1945, fearing the invasion of the Soviet Red Army in Manchukuo, more than a half of the Buryats migrated south in the area of today Shilin gol aimag. Their fears were confirmed on 8 August 1945. Buryats, who stayed in Hulun Buir aimag were repressed. Buryats in Shilingol aimag formed guerrilla units and took part in the Chinese civil war fighting with the Chinese Communists. Buryat troops were defeated and many of the guerrillas were shot. Those who survived migrated west to Lake Kukunor in Qinghai province. In 1956, the Buryat survivors were transferred back to Shenehen banner and in 1957 they received Chinese citizenship (Hurelbaatar 2000:88). In the Soviet Union Shenehen Buryats were seen as sworn enemies of Soviet regime. They were called 'Shenehen bandits'. To avoid repression Buryats, who lived in Transbaikalia did not admit to having relatives in Shenehen.4 There was almost no contact between the two groups, and especially since the '60s, when as a result of the political rift between China and the Soviet Union border regime was tightened and any cross-border communication was prevented.
4 Interwiew with Cyren D. (M. 56 l.), Aginsk, 18 VIII 2008.
79
In 1947, in Shenehen lived about 7000 people (870 families), including 500 buryatizied Evenks - Hamnigans (Sanzieva 2005:31). Lack of indigenous population in the territory contributed to the compactness and isolation of the group. This fact promoted conservative model of integration into the host society, in which social integration was accompanied by preservation of the cultural complex, imported from the country of emigration. Aga's and Shenehen's geographical and natural similarity has also played its role. This allowed continuing existing pastoral economy techniques, and other elements of culture. More over, neighboring Mongol and tungus-language groups had similar economy. We may say Buryats integrated with the pastoral part of society.
Buryats in Shenehen
Currently, the number of Buryats living in the PRC is estimated at 10 000 (Baldanov 2007:6). It is estimate because Buryats in China are not recognized as an official ethnic minority. In censuses they are classified as Mongols. Now the former Buryat banner is called Evenki banner, in honor of thirty-thousand Evenks group living there. In addition, in this banner (including Buryat somons where Buryats constitute 77% of the total population) live the Chinese (Han), Dagurs, Horchin-Mongols, Barguts, Koreans, Manchu, Shibe and Russians.5 The majority of Shenehen Buryats live in the area of Shenehen Balgaas, consisting of three somons: Zuun, Baruun and Mongon Shuluun. The latter has separated from the western somon. Within these three somons Shenehens divide into 12 brigades (gachaa) Bayan hushuu, Shebee, Teme Hu Zuun, Holboo, Haan uula, Hara tohoy, Harg, Burda, Bayan uula, Mungen Tuya, Mungen Shuluun, Uydhoon. Population of Shenehen is 8287, including 6441 Buryats (Sozoeva, 2007:63).
Large concentration of Buryats is in the nearby town Nantun - center of Evenki banner. Buryats can also be found in Hailar, the border city Manchuria and in Hohhot, which is the capital of Inner Mongolian Autonomous Region. The majority of Buryats living in somons breeds cattle and does farming. In 2002 Shenehen Buryats had 125 492 heads of cattle, in 2003 151 217, and in 2004 in Baruun Somon there were 120 thousand sheep, 25 thousand cows, four thousand horses and 220 camels (Sanzieva 2005:31). Some part of the diaspora works in the service sector and in the bodies of local administration. During periods of intensive work (e.g. during haymaking) many Buryats living in Nantun and Hailar come to the provinces to help their relatives. The development of cross-border trade caused that some of Shenehen Buryats serve Buryats and Russians coming to Manchuria and Hailar to buy cheap Chinese goods. Despite the group's concentration on pastoral economy, some of its members have got higher education and managed to make career in major Chinese cities. Almost all members of the diaspora are connected by ties of kinship or affinity. On the basis of ethnic identity and kinship Shenehen Buryats developed strong social network connecting province with local cities and Siberian motherland. A. Hurelbaatar noted that this network has a clear moral
5 Census data from 2003, for: 63 Shozhoeva
character and is characterized by mutual trust of its members, complex of favors, long-term and mutual obligations. Buryats who come to Manchuria or Hailar almost never spend a night in hotels. They are hosted in homes of group members (2000:89). Rallying point in the cities are restaurants with Buryat cuisine.
Now Buryats in China are not isolated anymore. Over the past fifteen years Horchin-Mongols, Harchin-Mongols and Chinese come to Buryat somons. These are mainly shepherds, small businessmen, farmers and government officials. Horchins from Mongon Shuluun told me that they decided to move to this region because there are better conditions herding.6 Buryats are not satisfied with the influx of migrants from other regions of Inner Mongolia, as they are competitors in access to pasture. As a result of the government land reform, there is an intense competition for the right to grazing leases in Inner Mongolia. Buryat shepherds, due to territorial restrictions are not able to increase their herds.7 Lack of land has become an important push factor for migrants. Another important factor is attachment to the land of ancestors and the 'myth of return', particularly expressed by the older generation.8 Opening of border traffic, and thus, trade with Buryats from Transbaikalia allowed many Shenehens find their relatives over the border. Increasingly, there is an opportunity not only to be repatriated, but also to leave for seasonal work in Russia. Shenehens, who settled in Siberia in the 90s of the last century, often help their compatriots to find such job. They also more frequently visit their origin land for business and social events.
For many years the lack of contact with the society of the country of origin caused that diaspora developed in an independent manner. Buryats, along with other ethnic groups living in Inner Mongolia, participated in the economic and socio-cultural transformation generated by the Chinese communists. At least until the 90s of the last century Shenehens showed no greater tendency to assimilate with the dominant Han group - ethnic Chinese. Most researchers tend to explain this fact by diasporic nature of the group. D. Boronoeva (2007:25) distinguished basic characteristics of Shenehen diaspora:
- functioning in psychological and physical isolation from ethnic homeland;
- an emotional bond with the country of origin expressed in an idea of the return to ancestral lands;
- functioning as a minority in the 'alien environment';
- collective solidarity;
- compactness of settlement with the number sufficient to maintain the community.
6 Interview with Horchins family in a tool store, in Mongon Shuluun somon, 8 VIII 2009.
7 Interview with Badmacyren and his family 20 VIII 2009, Baruun somon.
8 T. Sazejewa writes that in the past Shenehen Buryats burned their dead in the steppe and scattered their ashes so that wind carried them to their homeland (Sazejewa 2005:32). Currently Buryats use the services of crematorium and further scatter ashes on the steppe (Zambalova 2007:146).
Without a doubt, these elements of a diaspora were and still are in the Buryat community of Shenehen. Nevertheless, I would like to pay attention to specific ethnic situation in Hulun buir aimag. Besides Han ethnic majority, Mongolian and Tungus language groups, such as: Dagurs, Ewenki, Old and New Barguts, Horchin-Mongols, and many others live there. Representatives of these groups, like Buryats often lead a pastoral type of economy, creating separate ethnic enclaves or coexisting with other groups within somon. Each of these groups forms a network of internal relationships, but at the same time, in spite of linguistic, cultural and identity differences create pastoral community. This is not just an external effect (made by a researcher) of binary division to ethnic pastoral minorities and Chinese majority. Individual groups combine local ties resulting from occupied common economic niche, exchange marriage, language community (enforced by basic education in Mongolian), similar cultural patterns, and sense of common history. Members of pastoral minorities tend to strengthen inter-relationships, which are reflected in marriage preferences. The catalyst of discussed ties is ethnic policy conducted by Chinese authorities. These groups have the same status, and even the law distinguishes them from Chinese (the possibility of having more than one child, Mongolian-language education, investment in preservation of cultural heritage, free land rent for grazing, preferential access to higher education, etc.). Buryats in China mainly integrate with neighboring pastoral groups, instead to assimilate into Chinese majority. We can talk about segmental assimilation, during which Buryats were not incorporated into the mainstream society, but into the pastoral community (Wimmer 2007:4).
Further development of the Buryat diaspora in China will depend on two factors: from the relationship with the country of origin and the corn of Buryat nation. Cultural and social change among the group depends also on the development of Mongolian minority in China. Individual Mongolian and Evenki language communities in the region show similar trends, although of course differ in detail, including the degree of sinicising the language. Therefore PRC's ethnic policy and minorities' ability to adapt in the conditions of strong economic growth will be crucial for further development of these groups. It should be remembered that individuals are not weak-willed victims of historical process, such as Chinese assimilation, but active negotiators, co-creators of that process. Even with unequal power - individual relations they can locally adapt more global processes. Buryats, and more specifically, individual representatives of Shenehen diaspora, work out its own model of adaptation, using its status of Mongolian minority and Buryat diaspora.
Return to land of ancestors
Above I mentioned that the idea of return to homeland was a strong factor that integrated the group and implied conservative model of intergenerational cultural transmission. Implementing the idea of return became possible only in the 90s. In 1993 more than 300 Shenehen Buryats moved to Buryatia in Ulan Ude, and to Muhoshibirsky, Ivolginsky, Zaigrayevsky and Horinsky aimags (Zigzitova, Bainova 2010). Thirty five families returned to the ancestral lands
to the former Aginsky Buryat Autonomous District. People who found themselves in the first group of returnees told me that it was not a formal, organized by the government repatriation, but rather its own initiative, and that the government has not helped them in moving, finding work and accommodation. Nevertheless, the authorities of the Republic of Buryatia in some way have helped in return action when persuaded Chinese local authorities to permit these people to emigrate. Later they granted a residence permit to repatriates. Currently, in a small historical homeland - in Aginsky district - there are about 35 families of Shenehens.9 They live in Aginsk, Mogoyto and other localities of the district. The descendants of refugees from the near-border Borzya did not return to this place, since it is now inhabited by another community, mostly newcomers Russians. Shenehens prefer to settle close to kindred Aga Buryats. Nevertheless, about two thirds of Shenehen Buryats live in Buryatia, in the capital of republic, as well as in its aimags. It should be noted that in recent years the nature of Shenehen migration changed. Circular trade and labor migration is more common than attempts to repatriate. Potential returnees were recently deterred by such factors as lack of support from local authorities or complicated procedure for granting Russian citizenship, which requires from candidates good knowledge of Russian.10 In addition to the difficulties in legalization of stay in Russia, unfavorable factor for the repatriates was pastoral character of Buryat community in Shenehen.
Crossing the state border with livestock is prohibited. Buryats can not move to Russia with their herds, and therefore are forced to sell animals in China at prices that do not allow them to purchase new stock in Buryatia. Many returnees are forced to organize their lives 'from scratch', to look after other people's grazing animals, and in time build their own herd. Poor development of the local economy also discourages Buryats to return to their historical homeland. On the other hand, we must admit that the prospect of access to a huge amount of grazing is an important factor in attracting pastoral immigrants. Among Shenehen migrants several categories can be distinguished due to the legal status and type of economic activity. In terms of the degree of legalization in Russia, my informants belonged to three categories:
- those who have obtained Russian citizenship. These are mainly people who came to Russia in 1993 and were able to obtain citizenship before tightening procedures for naturalization;
- those who received the right to stay in Russia, but not yet received citizenship. Many of them do not speak Russian. Most people with this status take Russian language exam as a major obstacle in obtaining citizenship, which is performed during the procedure of examining applications for Russian citizenship. They are mostly middle-aged and older, for whom learning a new language is a big problem;
9 The data is obtained in the administration of the town Aginsk in August 2008.
10 Buryats in China kept Buriat language but can not speak Russian.
83
- those who reside in Russia on a tourist visa, working or private, issued by right of relatives' invitation. These are mostly people involved in cross-border trade and temporary workers.
Because of visa restrictions, these people are forced to drive circular migration between Inner Mongolia and Transbaikalia. President of Shenehen community in Ulan-Ude, Damba clearly presented the problems faced by Shenehens coming to Russia:
The most important problem is to obtain citizenship. This is quite a complex procedure. First you receive an invitation and make visa at Russian consulate in Beijing. Upon arrival, you need to make a temporary residence for three years. Only after living one year in Russia, Shenehens are eligible for residence. At the same time documents should be deposited no later than six months to the end of a temporary residence permit. There are also requirements hindering to obtain permanent residence, such as requirement to have your own property in Russia with living space minimum 12m2 per a family member. They can apply for citizenship only after five years of living in Buryatia. However, to obtain citizenship is a significant difficulty for many Buryats who know only Buryat and Chinese, they necessarily need to know Russian language. This is a particularly big problem for Buryats of the older generation (Zigzitova, Bainova 2010).
People who have a problem with a full validation of their status are subjected to repression by the state apparatus. When I first tried to conduct research among Shenehen owners of eateries, most of them would not even open the door for me. Restaurants were formally closed and allowed to enter only regular customers. It turned out that the reason for this strange behavior was recent militia control, which financially penalized the owners for illegal running a gastronomical point. Buryats took me as a secret functionary, because at that time Russians have not eaten there yet. The problem is that without all the documents available to a citizen of the Russian Federation, it was difficult to obtain the relevant permit. However a year later, in 2009, eatery-keepers were able to develop a functional path to legalization of their business.
Differences in legal status of migrants affect their differentiation in terms of employment. People without Russian citizenship have problems in finding a job in state institutions. In addition to the legal status, occupational preferences determine the language skills of immigrants. Most of the Buryats coming from China are trilingual. In daily life they speak Buryat and Chinese. Besides Buryats know Mongolian language in varying degrees, which in Inner Mongolia is a communication tool between pastoral minorities. In the researched group all respondents said that upon arrival to Russia they did not know Russian language. They had to learn it in Russia. Some of them learned the basic Russian through daily interactions with members of the host society -mainly local Buryats. Younger generation have already finished Russian schools and speak well both Russian and Buryat languages. Most of them do not know Chinese language. Another factor influencing the economic adaptation strategies of immigrants is their socio-cultural competence, such as
habits of nomadic pastoralism, knowing of local Chinese economy, relations with Chinese and Buryats living in Inner Mongolia.
Basically Shenehen Buryats are occupied in five professional niches. They are: herding, cross-border trade, labor transfer from China, ethnic cuisine and language education. In countryside Shenehen repatriates are mostly employed in herding. At first, they were grazing herds belonging to local Buryats. For their work they were paid in cash, as well as in some of offspring. After a few years they already had their own flocks, which still reproduce. Just as they did in China, they tend to create large flocks, which allow them to achieve high income. For this purpose, they must often change pastures and at least temporarily give up a sedentary lifestyle. Shenehen pastoralism model contrasts with the local pastoral economy where many farms operate below the threshold of self-sufficiency. According to local authorities, Shenehen immigrants could become a remedy for depopulation of rural areas. They should restore semi-nomadic husbandry. Thanks to their hard work Shenehen pastors quickly gained respect of local people, who received a good example of a profitable private breeding.
Many of Shenehen Buryats are involved in local border trade. Most of people working in this sector trade building materials, clothing and other consumer goods needed in Siberian villages and towns. Besides local border trade, there are several businessmen who have bigger companies that import goods from China or export Siberian wood. In their companies they employ both Shenehens and other Buryats. In addition, experienced businessmen act as intermediaries between Russian and Chinese entrepreneurs. They provide access to relevant business partners, translate from Chinese to Russian, negotiate prices and terms of transaction, arrange legal assistance and ensure with their authority diligent implementation of contracts. Shenehen agents work both sides of the border, using a network of diasporic contacts. For their services they usually get negotiated in advance percentage of a transaction value (Sarmaskeeva 2007:135-149).
Besides goods transfer Shenehen businessmen are employed in providing transfer of Chinese labor to the two branches of economy: construction and agriculture. In Aginsky district I noticed that they mediate the lease of land under cultivation. Chinese farmers receive the right to grow agricultural products for several years. These products are later sold at a local market cheaper than products imported from China. Sometimes Shenehen brokers bring their countrymen from abroad for seasonal work: wood-felling, construction of wooden houses and renovations. Chinese also come for such kind of work. Because of its low cost Chinese labor force is largely used on construction sites in Siberia. Shenehens not only organize arrival of Chinese construction brigades, but also organize their stay in Russia. Some of them work as translators between an employer and Chinese workers. Almost every major construction in Siberia requires translation service that is why people who know Chinese are highly required. For that reason second generation of immigrants start learning Chinese. At the Department of Sinology at the local
university I met few Shenehen students who have worked just as construction translators.
The most visible area of economic activity of Shenehen Buryats is gastronomy. In urban space of Ulan-Ude and smaller towns there are several restaurants serving Buryat cuisine. Many small restaurants are located on the ground floor of wooden houses in the center of Ulan-Ude. In the neighborhood of the Central market Shenehen restaurants are located side by side over several streets. From noon until evening people come here hungry for «real» Buryat cuisine. Buryat buuza (steamed dumplings with meat, shaped like yurt) are generally considered the most delicious and are very popular. Many times at a lunch time I saw a chain of luxury cars parked at the restaurants located in a dilapidated wooden household. In these restaurants, people generally use Buryat language, but if it is necessary you can be served in Russian. Customers explained to me that food here is very special, because Shenehens save all Buryat traditions and use natural meat. In their view, local Buryats can not cook this way, because they are very much russified. I think around Shenehen fine cuisine, has been created a myth of purity of Buryat culture. I got an impression that some of Buryats who go there do not only eat lamb, they absorb tradition, given in uncontaminated form. Some Shenehen restaurants are located in the felt tents (yurt or ger) which are set in the center of the city near Soviet style buildings. City residents reacted very lively on such tents. They treated it as a manifestation of 'the rebirth of Buryat tradition'. Yurt, which originally served to nomads, still stands today next to the skyscrapers evoking postmodern bricolage effect. Here yurt indicates 'authenticity', 'traditional character' of its owners, who in Buryats collective imagination seem to function as 'our living ancestors', people that we could be, if not russification.
A relatively small professional group among emigrants from Shenehen is school teachers and caregivers. They usually work in Buryat language schools and boarding schools where they teach children Mongolian classical writing and Buryat language. Some of them are engaged in local universities teaching Japanese, Mongolian and Chinese. Shenehen scientists help to develop cooperation between scientific institutions in Hailar, Huh-Hot and Ulan-Ude. In the early 90s of the last century they established student exchange programs between Buryat and Inner Mongolia universities.
From Diaspora to Diaspora? The tale about guests from the past
Shenehen Buryats in China formed a diaspora with strong inter-group ties. In the last two decades they have made a network between city and countryside inhabitants. This model was later extended to the group that moved to Buryatia. Local ethnologists from Ulan-Ude and Irkutsk put an idea of reproduction of Shenehen diaspora in Buryatia. Researchers noted the cooperative practices within a group of returnees, as well as the lack of openness in relation to the rest of society (Baldano, Datlov 2008:164-193). Although for Buryats in China, the reference point was lost homeland -
Buryatia, but now repatriates miss Shenehen, a small motherland, where they were born, where their relatives live and where their places of the ancestral worship oboo is. This is because Buryats over several generations of emigration symbolically tamed new territory and created a new clanterritorial group. Although most of them have relatives among Aga Buryats, it is difficult to take Shenehens just as Aga. There is nothing new in emerging of clan-territorial units. After all, Aga Buryats themselves rose as a result of separation from Hori Buryat tribe. Shenehen Buryats like other tribal-territorial groups founded in 1993 in Ulan-Ude own association, becoming in this way another collective player in a local game of origin groups. Even for Aga Buryats Shenehens are related, but qualitatively distinct group. The current chairman of Shenehen association emphasizes that the main task of the association is to help arriving repatriates. They are lobbying for implementation of repatriation program. They also provide legal assistance to Shenehens who themselves often fail to arrange necessary documents.11 The association's functioning is likely to influence strengthening of Shenehen identity.
During the research I put attention to a very limited spectrum of social contacts of many immigrants from Shenehen. Perhaps this is due to language difficulties (as explained by my informants), but in most cases immigrants are only in touch with Buryat language speakers. Russians and Buryats who do not speak Buryat language are outside of their social interests. At the same time Buryats hold on professional contacts with Chinese but do not weave them into private life. The researched group quickly developed its place in the host society by positioning itself as countrymen, repatriates, but at the same time they are use diaspora like network. In Ulan-Ude re-emigrants hardly integrate with Russian part of the society. Instead of that they operate very efficiently in the environment of Buryat language speakers, mainly newcomers from the countryside. It is therefore an example of very effective segmental adaptation.
Social prestige of the group is worth noting. Its members adapt to the expectations of the host society and emphasize its unique traditional character. Thanks to it they play an important role in the discourse of ethnic revival. Reemigration of the first Shenehens not accidentally coincided with ethnic mobilization period. Herdsmen who do not know Russian language were enthusiastically taken for cultural 'living fossils', representatives of 'pure Buryat culture' unspoiled by sovetization.12 With the beginning of the third millennium Buryat etnno-national movement has lost its power. Ethnic parties have stopped to work; most activists abandoned demands of restoring the republic's old boundaries and increasing autonomy. Nevertheless, the discourse of ethnicity still plays an
11 The program of compatriots' return who migrated from the territories of Tsarist Russia or the Soviet Union is governed by special law from 2006.
12 In recent years, there were research papers devoted to the adaptation of Buryats (especially linguistic) to Sino-Mongol population of Inner Mongolia. Nevertheless, Shenehen Buryats are usually perceived as a fully-isolated group, whose culture has not changed since Tsarist times.
important role in the concepts of Buryatia's development. I think that stereotype of that Shenehen Buryat has important functions in the discourse.
Shenehens are considered to be people with traditional lifestyle. The media emphasizes their hard work and high productivity of their pastoral economy. These opinions are often used in public debate as an argument for reintroduction of semi-nomadic pastoralism revival in Buryatia. Return to pre-revolutionary forms of economy would be a remedy for the economic degradation and rural depopulation. Proponents of this theory criticize postcollective, sedentary type of agro-pastoral economy. Concentration of rural population determines formation of small inefficient farms that are not able to breed more cattle. The resettlement project to Dzhidinsky and Tunkinsky aimags for five hundred Shenehen Buryats should help to develop transhuman pastoralism. It would also favor demographic growth, and what is the most important, for the benefit of the republic's titular nation in the percentage representation.
In ethnic discourse Buryats are also appointed as guardians of tradition. They are expected not only to develop traditional Buryat herding, but also other areas of culture. Local media consistently create an image of a Shenehen Buryat - genuine Buryat. Buryat TV regularly broadcasts documentaries and interviews, in which Shenehen Buryats show their skill in sewing Buryat caftans (degel), singing ancient songs, and performance of long-forgotten rituals. On TV channel Arig Us I have heard such statements as: Shenehen Buryats were able to reproduce wealth and preserve culture in such form as it was over a hundred years ago. In a local newspaper Inform Polis appeared equally important headlines Shenehen is a reserve of Buryat spirit and culture (07/04/2004), They do not speak Russian and live as they lived 100 years ago (09/07/2005). In another local newspaper, Nomer Odin, one could read:
They live like a century ago. They were passed by collectivization, industrialization and the Second World War. There were not May Day demonstrations, era of stability or perestroyka's cards-stamp for them. But there was life in accordance with centuries-old Buryat traditions, full of daily hard work for the good of their family. Historical memory of Buryat immigrants' descendants is not trashed with changes of recent decades. Shenehen Buryats, who in the early twentieth century, colonized Inner Mongolia, were able to reproduce wealth rescued from the Bolsheviks and preserve their culture in such form in which it occurred over a hundred years ago (Nomer Odin 02.06.2004, by: Transgranicnye... 2009:160)
After just a few quotes we can see that already produced paradigm, by which this group is characterized. It seems that a group of Buryats in 1918 crossed the border and were put to cultural hibernation. Now from the 'fridge of history' ancestors, the only authentic Buryats, are back alive. The history of the group in exile was concealed. Perhaps silence is intended to escape difficult position of diaspora in historical process. There is no mention of Japanese marriage with Shenehens, Bolshevik pogroms of Shenehen sediment or heroic struggle of those Buryats with Chinese and Soviet communist troops. Shenehens' participation in Chinese social processes is also ignored, including Cultural Revolution. Shenehen Buryats function as ethnic truth. They must
therefore be unchanging and innocent in its original authenticity. They became a mirror for concerned about their identity Buryat intelligentia. Shenehens take this image and use it creatively. They sell authenticity in the form of buuza, steppe songs or skillfully sew festive degel. Perhaps even the fact that they founded their own homeland association, not just joining Aga community, shows widespread expectations of their peculiarity. During my stay in Buryatia, I noticed that Shenehens' children who finished city schools willingly speak Russian, and russisms sneak into the innocent Buryat language. In the group of temporary workers Shenehens are characterized by high productivity, but a single immigrant quickly adapts to the standards of a local collective.13 Perhaps double diasporic nature of Shenehen repatriates will disappear in the second generation. However, it is quite possible that myth produced by the host society will become a group ethos.
Conclusions
Shenehen Buryats living in China derive from the vast majority of Aga Buryats' group. Under conditions of diaspora cut off from the parent group, they produced a new clan-territorial identity. These Buryats participated in ethnic, economic and social processes different than their kinsmen had in Russia. They were an integral part of Mongol-Chinese society of Inner Mongolia, although over the years they kept the idea of return that integrated the group. In the early 90s of the last century Sino-Russian border ceased to be an impassable barrier, and has become an important element of the local economy. Shenehen Buryats began to create a network of cross-border trade links using the revived kinship and ethnic ties. Some of them decided to the repatriate to Russia.
After arriving to Buryatia migrants accomplished segmented assimilation, generating economic and social ties primarily with Buryat speaking part of society. The choice of their adaptive strategies was limited by their cultural competence, difficulties in legalization of residence and economic activity. Buryat intelligentia included immigrants from Shenehen into the project of ethnic revival. Idealized image of Shenehens began to symbolize tradition and the essence of Buryat culture. Migrants adopted social role assigned to them and began to simulate essentialistic self-representation, which provided the acceptance of Buryat part of host society. The role they play in ethnic discourse promotes reproduction of its distinctive features.
References
1. Atwood C. Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire, Bloomington. 2004.
2. Baldano M., V. Datlov. Senehenskie buraty: iz diaspory v diasporu, Diaspory, Nr 1, 2008, s. 164-193.
13 Similar conclusions have prompted acquainted businessman from Yeravna to employ only Shenehen brigades of workers, in order to avoid destructive impact of local lazy and drunk Buryats.
3. Baldanov S. Priciny emigracii burat i ih sovremennoe polozenie v Mongolii i Kitae, v: Diaspory v sovremnennom mire, L. Abaeva, D., Boronoeva, S. Dasieva (red.), Ulan-Ude, s. 2007. 3-20
4. Bazarov B. General-lejtnant Man'czou-Go Urzin Garmaev, Ulan-Ude. 2001.
5. Boronoeva D. Vozniknovenie buratskoj diaspory za rubezom, v: Buraty v kontekste sovremennyh etnokul'turnyh i etnosocial'nyh processov. Tradicionnaa kul'tura, narodnoe iskusstvo i nacional'nye Vidy sporta burat v usloviah polietnicnosti, T.3 Diaspory v kontekste sovremennyh etnokul'turnyh i etnosocial'nyh processov, L. Abaeva, D. Nimaev, D. Boronoeva (red.), Ulan-Ude, 2006, s. 33-47.
6. Buratskoe zarubez'e: opisanie i analiz, v: Diaspory w sovremennom mire, L. Abaeva, D., Boronoeva, S. Dasieva (red.), Ulan-Ude, 2007, s. 21-28.
7. Hurelbaatar A. An Introduction to the History and Religion of the Buryat Mongols of Shinehen in China, Inner Asia 2 (2000), pp. 73-116.
8. Namsaraeva S. Avuncular Terminology In bury ad Diaspora Relationships with both Homeland and Host Society, Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology Working Paper No. 126, Halle. 2010.
9. Nimaev D. Buratskie diaspory, v: Diaspory w sovremennom mire, Ulan-Ude, 2007, s. 9-20.
10. Ountungalag A. Mongol ulsyn buriaduud, Ulaanbaatar. 2004.
11. Sanzieva T. Formirovanie hozajstvenno-kul'turnogo kompleksa lokalnoj buratskoj etniceskoj obsiny v Kitae, v: Lokal'nye osobennosti buratskoj etniceskoj obsiny Vnutrennej Mongolii Kitajskoj Narodnoj Respubliki, G. Sanzieva (red.), Ulan-Ude, 2005. s. 26-45.
12. Sarmaskeeva N. Povsednevnye praktiki kitajskih posrednikov v Respublike Buratia, w: Migranty i diaspory na Vostoke Rossii: praktiki vzaimodejstvia s obsestvom i gosudarstvom, V. Datlov (red.), Moskva-Irkutsk, 2007, s. 131-144.
13. Sozoeva B. Formy i uruven' vladenia buratskim, mongol'skim i kitajskim azykami senehenskih burat Vnutrennej Mongolii Kitaa, v: Diaspory v sovremennom mire, L. Abaeva, D., Boronoeva, S. Dasieva (red.), Ulan-Ude, 2007, s. 62-74.
14. Transgranicnye migracii i pronimause obsestvo: mehanizmy i praktyki wzaimoj adaptacii. Monografia, V. Datlov (red.), Ekaterinburg. 2009.
15. Turner V. Frame, Flow and Reflection: Ritual and Drama as Public Liminality, in: Performance in postmodern culture, M. Benamou, Ch. Caramello (eds.), Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 1977, s. 33-68.
16. Wimmer A. How (not) to think about ethnicity in immigrant societies: A boundary making perspective, Working 2007. P. 44.
17. Zambalova S. Rasskaz senehenskogo burata Soktyn Zamso, v: Diaspory v sovremnennom mire, L. Abaeva, D., Boronoeva, S. Dasieva (red.), Ulan-Ude, 2007, s. 241-249.
18. Zigzitova V., A. Bainova. S dobrymi pomyslami, Mor Bajkala, Nr 2(26) 2010.
Шмыт Збигнев - доктор философии, Институт Этнологии и Культурной Антропологии им. Адама Мицкевича, Познань (Польша).
Szmyt Zbigniew - (PhD) Institute of Ethnology and Cultural Anthropology, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland.
