"Indigenous peoples" as a constructive concept: discourses and practices

Mosolova Lyubov' Mikhailovna Doctor of Art History Professor, Department of Theory and History of Culture, Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education "A. I. Herzen Russian State Pedagogical University 191186, Russia, g. Saint Petersburg, ul. Moiki, 48 zykinalex@mail.ru Bondarev Aleksei Vladimirovich PhD in Cultural Studies Associate Professor, Department of Theory and History of Culture, A.I. Herzen Russian State Pedagogical University 191186, Russia, g. Saint Petersburg, nab. Reki Moiki, 48 aleksej-bondarev@yandex.ru

Zykin Alexey PhD in Philology Associate Professor, Head of the Foreign Languages Department, The State Institute of Economics, Finance, Law, and Technology 196601, Russia, Saint Petersburg, Pushkin, ul. srednaya 6/1-28, ul. Srednaya 6/1-28 zykinalex@mail.ru Other publications by this author

This work is a logical continuation of the research devoted to the concept of "indigenous peoples". Previous works ^{[18, pp. 50-59; 19, pp. 19-24; 34, pp. 31-50]} were mainly a theoretical and methodological basis.Let's turn to some historical materials and actual examples to explain the basic theoretical calculations of the works.

We do not know which ethnic ancestors of modern peoples primarily lived in the most ancient period of history on different continents of our planet. Fossils of ancient people of the Stone Age are known to us from skeletal remains and archaeological cultures (complexes of tools, weapons, dwellings, clothing, etc.). It is believed that the first population of Europe from the genus Homo were Paleoanthropic Neanderthals, whose existence dates back approximately to the period from 200 to 35 thousand years ago. And no one will be able to say anything about their ethnicity and what ethnic connection they have with modern peoples. Scientists have traced the presence of powerful migrations of peoples, their multi–vector migrations in subsequent times - in the Mesolithic, Neolithic, Bronze Age. However, the names of these communities are unknown to us.

During the formation, heyday and extinction of ancient civilizations (5 thousand BC – V century AD), there was also a process of active migrations of peoples, the formation of cities and states, which have long been carefully studied in world science. However, the issues related to the primacy of their appearance and the primordial nature of the territories on which they "sat down" and began to develop effectively remain unclear.

For example, the well–studied Sumerians - a stocky, big–eyed, big-nosed, very sharp-witted people who created the great city-states of Sumer in the Interfluve of the Tigris and Euphrates - came, as vaguely mentioned in ancient texts, "from the shining of the sea." Where is their "root"? For which territory were they "indigenous people"? And who can claim to be the ethnic descendants of this "first nation"?

The ancient Indo-Aryans, who created the Vedas, descended through mountain passes from the northwest to the "smiling ones" in the II millennium BC. Nehru, Indus and Ganges valleys ^[20]. Their ancestral homeland was the space from the Volga to the Urals, and their ancestors were the steppe light–skinned tribes of the "Andronovo community", who spoke one of the melodious Indo–European languages, created monumental elite necropolis - mounds, invented chariots with sled horses and wonderful bronze weapons ^[11].

In Mongolia, in the deepest Tarim depression of the Taklamakan desert, dozens of cities, settlements, cemeteries, and traces of agricultural civilization have been discovered deep under the sand since the beginning of the twentieth century. The origin of this population of the period from VI thousand BC to I thousand BC became a mystery. Dozens of perfectly preserved female and male mummies in dry sands were distinguished by high growth (1.8–2 m.), light and red hair, whiteness of the body and blue eyes. Where they came from, where and why they disappeared is unknown… Who was "indigenous" here – Indo–Europeans or Mongoloids - is unclear. There are various versions of modern researchers about their ethnicity – to the steppe Andronovo community, to the later Uighurs, Huns, Tokhars, etc. ^{[9; 10]}

Arctic peoples also migrated at different times. Following the famous reconstructions of the Northern scholar Y.B. Simchenko, we note that the sittabs (ethnic legends) of Nganasan tell about the conflict that arose when two streams of population met – the Mongoloids of the forest tundra – "Short-nosed Sons of earthlings", "holding short arrows" and "Long-nosed", which included "peaceful people with ears to shoulders". According to Y.B. Simchenko, these were Mongoloid ethnoi moving along the coast of the Arctic Ocean, and Caucasoids following the melting of glaciers from the south along the Russian Plain to the northeast ^{[1; 22; 23, pp. 148-185; 24, pp. 313-331]}.

A number of peoples living on the territory of Southern Siberia today (Altaians, Tuvinians, Khakas, Shors, Teleuts, Tubalars, Kumandins, etc.) are called "indigenous". However, long before them, the ethnoses of the huge Scythian-Saka mountain range from the "Danube to sunrise" lived here. The mass movement of Huns (Huns) from Northern China in the era of the Great Migration of Peoples is known. Together with them came the Avars, who "took root" in the North Caucasus, Bulgars and Chuvash – on the Volga, Hungarians – on the Danube, etc.

The appearance of the ethnonym "Tatars" among the Mongol tribes living to the southeast of Lake Baikal first appears in the IV century. As a result of the Mongol-Tatar invasions and conquests, this name was spread and fixed for some peoples who were part of the Golden Horde during the XIII-XIV centuries. Kazan Tatars, formed into a nation by the end of the XIX century, consider themselves indigenous in places where the Volga Bulgars once lived.

The Mongolian-speaking Kalmyks, descended from the Oirats of Dzungaria, some of whom moved to the Lower Volga region at the end of the XVI century, are also considered indigenous people. In this regard, it is fair to ask the question of the legitimacy of considering Russians living in the Siberian region to be non-indigenous if they "took root" here about 400 years ago, exactly like the Kalmyks in the Volga region?

Modern research has shown how actively at different stages of history the "indigenous" peoples "following the deer" and "waiting for Putin" moved in the spaces of Siberia and the Far East, and how they deeply interacted with other ethnic groups of this region from the tundra to the Amur, mixing with them, changing adaptation to nature, society, enriching its own arsenal of cultural stability ^[8]. Where exactly are their roots?

On the American continent, in Australia, New Zealand, the island of Tasmania, systematic large–scale migrations of Europeans took place, with a specific history of conquest in the XVI - early XX centuries, as a result of which many local peoples who took root here in the Stone Age (approximately 26-20 thousand years BC) were exterminated or partially displaced to other territories.). The Caucasians who migrated to Australia and have been living here for more than two centuries now consider themselves to be rooted too.

In Africa, as in Asia, the expression "indigenous peoples" is not applied to all indigenous ethnic groups, but only to those who are threatened and who are not dominant. These are, for example, the San (Bushmen) peoples in the Kalahari Desert and the Mbati (Pygmies) in the humid tropical forests of Central Africa, the traditional way of life of which is increasingly being negatively affected by settlers. Most African States, in particular tropical equatorial Africa, do not recognize the existing concept of indigenous peoples at all, believing that all the peoples of Africa are indigenous ^{[3, pp. 22-23]}.

According to the UN, there are about 300-350 million representatives of the so-called "indigenous" peoples living in 72 countries in the world. Approximately 70% of them fall on Asian States, in particular India, Iran and Iraq. At the same time, many scientists in Asia, as well as in Africa, do not accept the definition of the concept of "indigenous people" that has developed in Western doctrine and propose to limit its application in relation to the First nations of Australia and America ^{[32, p. 13]}. In particular, Bangladesh and India stated that they could not determine who is more indigenous among the peoples inhabiting these countries ^{[35; 3, p. 89]}.

Explanations and examples of the doubtfulness and inconsistency of using the expression "indigenous peoples" as a scientific concept defining the specifics of small peoples can be significantly supplemented. However, the examples given here, it seems to us, are quite enough to realize the entire relativity of the term "indigenous people". This expression, in our opinion, is not a concept at all and, moreover, a scientific category (from Greek. kategoria – a statement, a sign) is the most general and fundamental concept affecting the essential properties of the peoples under consideration, their relationship to nature, society, man, to other societies, to God, to himself.

Back in 1996, E.I. Daes stressed that for all the years of analytical work as Chairman-Rapporteur of the UN Working Group on Indigenous Peoples, she had not been able to find a convincing argument for distinguishing "indigenous" and "tribal" peoples in the practice or precedents of the United Nations. She has also repeatedly expressed doubt that there is any special difference between "indigenous" peoples and "peoples" in general, in addition to the fact that groups usually defined as "indigenous peoples" did not have the opportunity to exercise the right to self-determination by participating in the construction of a modern nation-State. As a result, E.I. Daes came to the conclusion: "No one has managed to develop a definition of "indigenous peoples" that would be clear and internally valid from a philosophical point of view and at the same time meet the requirements of limiting its regional scope or legal consequences. All previous attempts to achieve both clarity and limitation in one definition have in fact led to even greater vagueness" ^{[33, p. 22]}. Moreover, representatives of the "indigenous peoples" themselves have repeatedly declared joint appeals and resolutions in the UN on the concept and definition of the concept of "indigenous peoples", in which they categorically rejected any attempts to give a universal definition of the concept of "indigenous peoples" ^{[33, p. 2]}.

The more you delve into the analysis, the more you become convinced that the concept in question is not only not heuristically significant in scientific terms, but is also often used in large-scale socio-cultural myth-making, for political and geopolitical purposes, in fueling interethnic conflicts, in inciting national enmity and other similar situations. This dubious concept is anti-historical and dangerous for the process of preserving the peaceful and sustainable existence of peoples within and between States. It generally contradicts the humanistic ideology of self-preservation of mankind. It is not surprising that the decades-long purposeful attempts of the UN intellectual elite and the best scientists around the world to develop a universal and comprehensive definition of the concepts of "indigenous peoples" turned out to be fruitless, numerous discussions on this topic ended with a prudent refusal to give any definition to this term even in the text of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is an absolutely extraordinary case in the entire world legal practice – to adopt a fundamental international document concerning the fate of hundreds of millions of people, without any definition of the very subject of its action! Nevertheless, it was a wise and constructive decision based on all the experience of the UN Working Group on Indigenous Peoples – without wasting time on vain searches for a definition of some mythical "rootedness" of peoples, to engage in legal support of an effective and effective system of support for the original ethnic groups themselves, experiencing various difficulties and in need of international protection of their rights.

And now let's ask ourselves the question: why is such a dubious and slippery term as "indigenous people" so actively and persistently used in descriptions of the special status history of a particular people, in fiction and scientific literature, in official documents and practices of influencing interethnic processes? There are good reasons to assume that this is largely due to the global scale of socio-cultural mythoconstruction of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. The lack of reliable foundations in historical identity, the experience of economic, political and ideological crises give rise to the need to explicate various modes of mythologizing the history of one's race, ethnicity, special personalities, including in the modes of one's eternal rootedness on this land, the primordial right to possess it.

The idea of a functional-instrumental interpretation of the myth and its use in modern culture is most consistently presented in the works of Mircea Eliade ^[29]. Based on the material of studying the culture of traditional societies, he showed that the fundamental action in demonstrating by one or another clan or tribe the legitimacy of its presence in the developed territory and possession of it was telling myths, which is a kind of return to its roots, origins, archetypes of consciousness, as if to perfection. Similar versions and mechanisms of social myth-making existed in the history of states of the twentieth century, inspired by totalitarian ideologies and fueling national-political myth-making. It is enough to recall the mythological ideology of Nazism with its idea of the superiority of the Nordic race and its right to rule over the peoples, as well as the bloody realization of this idea, which cost the lives of tens of millions of people.

Today, too, we are increasingly faced with historical revisionism, attempts to revise assessments of key events of the past, to adjust them to today's conjunctures, vain ambitions and tasks of politicians. The mythologization of history is created by modern technologies, the essence of which is reduced to purposeful influence on a person in order to orient his consciousness in a certain, pre-planned way. Largely due to the high informatization of modern society, these technologies allow us to model the value-semantic and behavioral sphere of a person as quickly and efficiently as possible. The semantic interpretation of key events actualizes and forms emotional reference points for mass consciousness, rationalizes and legitimizes the necessary political and ideological attitudes ^{[26, pp. 59-76]}. Historical myths, including the myth of "indigenous" and "non–indigenous" peoples, are information support optimally tailored to a certain policy ... ^{[6, p. 150]}.

In Russia, the concept of "indigenous" began to be used especially actively in relation to small ethnic groups only in the era of perestroika in the liberal press. Although even foreign experts recognized that "in the legally strict understanding of this term, there are no indigenous peoples on the territory of the USSR" ^{[31, p. 375]}. And this was absolutely true if we proceed from the fact that the use of the expression "indigenous peoples" is appropriate only in the context of colonial or postcolonial relations, relevant discourses and specialized studies on this sad topic.

Only occasionally in the Russian-language literature there was a phrase "indigenous population". For example, it was sometimes used by academician N.Y. Marr (1864-1934), who developed his own special theory of autochthonicity: migrations that occur repeatedly in history inevitably lead to the mixing of aliens with the former (local) population. The descendants of these centuries-old interethnic stratifications are, by now, and in a certain territory, the "indigenous population", bearing (in actual or latent form) the entire multi-layered heritage of these cultural crosses, such is the genesis of any autochthonous culture (See, for example, "Book legends about the foundation of Kuar in Armenia and Kiev on Rus", "Suomi-Karelian and Somekh-Kart languages", "Sukhum and Tuapse" and his other works)^[1]. After Stalin's defeat of Marrism, any development of these ideas was condemned and the term "indigenous population" in this sense was hardly remembered at all.

In the Soviet post-war legislation, up to the mid-1980s, the phrases "peoples of the North" or "small peoples of the North" were used, and only then they began to be replaced by the phrase "small peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East" ^{[26, pp. 59-76]}. All these terms were respectively translated into English as "minority peoples", "small-numbered peoples of the North", «small-numbered tribes of the North», «numerically small peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East».

After the destruction of the USSR, Russia and all other post–Soviet national republics were flooded with foreign experts on national and cultural issues, various kinds of organizations and missionaries who actively engaged in the "enlightenment" of "indigenous peoples" - as it turned out later, for economic gain and political decentralization, stimulating the spread of archaic forms of worldview, inciting them to autonomy and interethnic conflicts ^{[4, pp. 43-47]}. The phrase "indigenous peoples" itself penetrates into Russian official documentation only in 1992, being legalized in presidential decrees signed by Boris Yeltsin^[2]. Since 1993, with the adoption of the new Constitution of the Russian Federation, the term "indigenous small–numbered people" has entered legal practice, which is repeated together with the corresponding formula on the division of powers in the texts of many republican constitutions - Adygea (Article 54, paragraph 1), Buryatia (Article 62), Komi (Article 64, paragraph m), Mordovia (Article 62, item m), Yakutia (Article 42), etc. In addition, references to the titular peoples as indigenous are contained, for example, in the Constitutions of Dagestan (Article 5) and Komi (Article 3) ^{[26, pp. 59-76]}. Thus, through Yeltsin's decrees, "from above", without any scientific, expert and public discussion, a completely alien and artificially constructed term "indigenous peoples" was legislatively implanted into the Russian-language lexicon, carrying a postcolonial discourse and conflict potential interpretations that are completely inconsistent with Russian historical realities.

As examples, we will point out the relations between the Pomors, the authorities and the so-called "indigenous peoples" of the north. "Gentle hint" is a "Pomor theme" in its various aspects: the northern trade route, the "Norwegian nature" of the Pomors, fish catch control, the lack of status of an indigenous small–numbered people ^{[14, pp. 22-35]}.

Another vivid example is the Shors^[3], who were outlawed: how indigenous peoples turned out to be strangers on their land. At the end of 2019, a draft law on the gratuitous provision of land and forest plots to indigenous minorities was submitted to the Federation Council. The developer of the project, lawyer, expert on the legislation of the relevant committees of the State Duma and the SF Mikhail Anatolyevich Todyshev^[4], commenting on the need to adopt such a document, said: these people were disenfranchised in the territories where their ancestors lived for centuries. In addition to the status of "strangers" on their land, the stumbling block is the extraction of minerals in places of traditional economic activity. The lands on which the Shorts and Teleutes have always lived and managed are given over to mining. It is not surprising that representatives of small nations in the region do not seem to notice. For example, in the draft strategy of socio-economic development of the region "Kuzbass-2035" there was not a word about shorts and teleouts. Although they live on 1/3 of the territory of the Kemerovo region, and it is on these lands that coal and iron ore are mined ^[5].

It is symptomatic that in the former Soviet republics, as a result of sovereignization and the need to build their own national state, there was a huge interest in knowing their own "root" origins, creating works of art on mythological themes in the context of nostalgia for the origins ^[17]. By itself, the appeal of peoples to their mythology and the legendization of outstanding events and heroes is natural and very important not only for understanding the past, but also for acquiring modern national identity ^{[30, pp. 358-361]}.

It is another matter when, with the help of pseudo-mythology, the history of ethnic groups and their modern reality is falsified, and when this falsification is directed by interested forces to solve their geopolitical problems. In this regard, the division of peoples into "indigenous" and "non-indigenous" is used by these political forces most often in the function of a "bone of contention" both within the country (see examples above) and between States. In this regard, the events in the south of Kyrgyzstan in Osh in 2010 are indicative. At that time, residents of Kyrgyz and Uzbek nationalities clashed here, who initially participated in heated disputes about which of them – Uzbeks or Kyrgyz – are the autochthonous population of the Osh region, who owns the territory and what rights different groups have. The well-known facts that both the farmers of the valley and the nomads of the Ferghana Ridge and the Pamir foothills have been living here since the III – II thousand BC had no effect. The clashes took extreme forms due to the incitement of radicals and their advisers from outside. The confrontation turned into a real massacre. Houses, shops, cars were burned, dozens of people were killed and hundreds injured ^{[27, pp. 245-246]}.

In the course of this research and analysis of the material, deep contradictions were found in the interpretations of the phenomenon of small indigenous peoples in the works of foreign and Russian authors, as well as the lack of clear and reasoned criteria for classifying certain ethnic groups as indigenous. As a rule, these terms are used without proper reflexive comprehension not only by representatives of the general public, but also by a number of specialists studying certain ethnic groups. In international and Russian legislation, the ideas about the "rootedness" of some peoples in relation to others and the rights and obligations arising from this have not yet acquired a convincing and unambiguous legal interpretation.

The concept of "indigenous peoples" is particularly ambiguous, vague and unclear in content, as well as contradictory in its essential interpretation in different States. Its interpretation largely depends on the historical architectonics of the existence of ethnic groups on different continents, on their presence in various social systems, as well as on their socio-cultural typology and other determinations. The question remains, who in the modern globalized world meets the criteria of "truly indigenous", this only strengthens our skepticism about the concept of "indigenous peoples" as universal or relevant only in a certain ethno-political context ^{[12, p. 393]}. Meanwhile, the term "indigenous peoples" has become very relevant in the modern world and the real existence of specific peoples, the development of their life-support culture and mental orientations, as well as the role and status in interethnic interaction both within the state and beyond depends on its understanding or not understanding. In this regard, it can be concluded that there is a need for terminological revision, "sanitation", "disinfection" or even "disinsection" from misleading concepts and harmful ideas in humanitarianism, public journalism, ethnopolitical practice and regulatory documentation. It is necessary to exercise extreme caution in using such vague terms, since there are potential manipulation tools behind them.

The development of the UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples is the result of a difficult process for more than twenty years. And although the adoption of this Declaration was a significant event, its text was not adopted by consensus, since the interests of all states where numerous indigenous peoples live were not taken into account (representatives of the United States voted against, and representatives of the Russian Federation abstained from voting). Nevertheless, the Declaration has already had a great impact on the morale of indigenous peoples. It establishes an important rule for the treatment of them, and it is a powerful means of eliminating the injustice, discrimination, marginalization and human rights violations that indigenous peoples have suffered for centuries. It is also a landmark event, based on which Governments and indigenous peoples will cooperate in creating new equal, democratic, constructive relations and fruitful cooperation. Although the right to self-determination established in article 3 of the Declaration is of cardinal importance for indigenous peoples, it does not carry the right to separatism. On the contrary, article 46 of the Declaration clearly provides for respect for the principles of territorial integrity and political unity of sovereign and independent States. In international law, only the right to internal self-determination is recognized for indigenous peoples. In this regard, F.R. Ananidze reasonably emphasizes: "the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples does not mean automatic separation and the creation of their own state and is currently reduced to the right to development, that is, the solution of those socio-economic, cultural and other problems faced by indigenous peoples" ^{[2, p. 55]}. The form of exercising the right to self-determination may be the granting of broad autonomy to indigenous peoples, thereby ensuring the preservation of their traditional way of life and ethno-cultural characteristics ^{[3, p. 13-16]}.

Summing up the above, we point out that in this work analytical procedures of problematization and thematization of the terms under consideration were carried out to identify their content and meanings, and the absence of works with an attempt to meta-disciplinary generalization of both common features of small peoples and generalizing individualization procedures is shown ^[15], it is important to reach a higher level of generalization of knowledge about the specificity and uniqueness of small the peoples of the planet – "so that the forest can be seen behind the trees." This opens up an ethno-cultural perspective for the continuation of the initial stage of research proposed here.

The authors of the article, having considered a series of migrations of large and small peoples at all stages of history from antiquity to the XX century to different regions of the world, found out that the change of territories of their habitat during periods of long duration was a permanent historical process. Throughout the history of mankind, individual ethnic groups and sometimes even entire peoples have changed their places of residence for one reason or another, moving in many historically recorded cases to the territory already inhabited by other peoples, coming into contact with these peoples and developing in each case different (constructive or destructive) forms of interaction. Based on historical materials, we see that migration waves one after another form a kind of ethnocultural layers of different times on a particular territory, which can acquire different configurations and enter into a variety of relationships with each other. This was the case in the past, these processes continue in the present and there is every reason to assume that this will happen in the future. The term "indigenous peoples" has a certain meaning only within the framework of colonial and postcolonial discourse, outside of these limits, this term is either heuristically meaningless, or acquires an instrumental-biased and even speculative character. In this sense, the relativistic and even opportunistic subtext of the appeal to the "rootedness" of a particular people in a certain territory and the resulting political or economic claims is clearly revealed. Nevertheless, the vagueness and dubiousness of the term "indigenous peoples", oddly enough, does not prevent its use in scientific discourses, in solving identity problems, in ethnopolitical, socio-economic and international legal spheres. The authors have revealed that this is due to the processes of mythoconstruction of national histories by small and large peoples and, to a certain extent, geopolitical interests.

The discussion of the practices of mythologizing national histories showed that they become more active in connection with systemic crises that generate the need to use the mythological modes of the history of their ethnic group and their outstanding personalities. It is essential that the appeal to the mythologization of their ancestral homelands and their ancestral rootedness in the occupied territory is a phenomenon that can be said to be natural for many ethnic groups, and for small nations in particular. In this sense, it is extremely important to promote the formation of a positive image of their own history among small indigenous peoples, what some researchers call "cliotherapy" ^[16], prompt diagnosis and prevention of the injection of various kinds of "mental viruses", the slag of "mass culture", xenophobic "microbes", the elimination of complexes about "smallness" is necessary or "backwardness". In this regard, non-governmental organizations of indigenous peoples are an important form of self-organization of genuine enthusiasts of distinctive ethnic communities:The Association of Indigenous, Small-Numbered Peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Federation, the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, the Sami Union, the Information Center of the Indigenous Peoples of Russia "L'auravetl'an", the Information and Legal Center of the Indigenous Peoples of the North, the Union of the Indigenous Peoples of Russia, etc. All these are very different public associations (concentrations). Nevertheless, they act as a constitutional and legal form of institutionalization of indigenous peoples, the identification of their real will, the realization of collective rights and legitimate interests. In a situation where these peoples, for various reasons, are deprived of the opportunity to have their own state or municipal entities, the key regulatory and legal way to exercise the collective rights of indigenous peoples is to recognize the corresponding status of their public associations. ^{[5; 7; 13; 21; 25, pp. 23-27; 28]}.

A critical analysis of the use of the term "indigenous peoples" in modern sciences and legal documents has led to the conclusion that it does not meet the criteria of a scientific concept or category, it is often associated with the mythoconstruction of national histories. Its use as a tool of scientific knowledge and a navigator of socio-political or national orientations is not heuristically promising. In the context of the regulation of interethnic relations, the term "indigenous peoples" is fraught with conflict potential and can act as a dangerous weapon in the arsenal of radical forces and those to whom their actions are politically beneficial. The materials and conclusions of the article are of practical importance for the protection of adequate value and semantic orientations of small peoples, clarification of scientific and legal terminology in the field of interethnic relations, increasing the effectiveness of ethnoculturological, ethnopolitological and ethnosociological expertise, and are also a theoretical and methodological basis for conducting a large-scale analysis of relations and ties of small peoples of Russia in the frame "state-ethnos" and "ethnos-ethnos".

Thus, a critical analysis of the use of the terms "small peoples" and "indigenous peoples" in modern sciences, legal documents and socio-cultural practices allowed us to draw the following conclusions.

The term "small peoples" should be attributed to a scientific concept or category, since it reflects the essential features of the existence of these peoples, thanks to which they can be distinguished from all others. In this concept, among the billion, million and various multi-thousand peoples, those ethnic groups that are called small are very clearly defined. This concept, like all scientific concepts, has a conventional basis (the number is less than 50 thousand people).

The term "indigenous peoples" does not have a consistent conventional basis, it does not reflect the root topochron of all the small ethnic groups of the planet, and therefore it is heuristically doubtful. Therefore, its use as a terminological tool in scientific cognition and as a cognitive navigator in the system of ethno-cultural or ethno-political orientations is meaningless. Instead, the authors propose to use the term "original peoples" or, in extreme cases, "a second–tone ethnic groups", meaning precisely the emphasis on ethno-cultural identity and originality, and not the notorious "rootedness". "Original ethnic groups" are those peoples who have preserved (or are trying to restore) and are ready to defend their original historically formed way of life, spiritual culture, values, their own local development, commercial territory, management system, traditional education system, etc. Our proposal is all the more justified because the only point in which all the numerous attempts to give a succinct definition of "indigenous peoples" and the specific features of "indigenity" are precisely ethno–cultural identity, all other signs turned out to be either variable, or insignificant, or opportunistic, or disputed by representatives of certain "indigenous peoples" themselves.

The right of peoples to ethno-cultural identity is free from any territorial claims, it is designed to ensure the conditions for the preservation and development of ethno-cultural identity not only within sovereign States (without violating their territorial integrity), but also to protect ethnic communities living outside the State (territory) of origin. After all, it is living outside the Homeland, outside of their ancestral place of development, i.e. the territory of origin, the lack of the opportunity to associate and identify themselves with it, that make ethnic minorities particularly vulnerable.

Thus, instead of the principles of Jus sanguinis ("right of blood") and Jus soli ("right of soil") we propose to introduce into the indigenous discourse and resolutely defend in practice Jus ad identitatem, i.e. the indigenous right for each people ethno-cultural identity, "the right to otherness". This principle could, from an ethnocultural point of view, significantly complement and concretize Jus gentium ("the right of peoples"), Jus inter gentes ("the right between peoples") and Jus communicandi ("the right of interpersonal communication/ exchange") with their criteria of "good faith" ("bonae fidei") and "justice" ("aequitas") in solving the whole variety of issues that affect oppressed ethnic groups and ethnic minorities around the world^[6]. Without observing Jus identitatem any talk about rights in the territory, control over natural resources, economic preferences and social benefits is an empty fiction, populism or an instrument of political manipulation. Small indigenous peoples do not need small handouts, some local reservations, or imposed benefits, which ultimately cost them dearly. Peoples who have preserved their traditional way of life and unique patterns of behavior need genuine and inviolable guarantees of the inviolability of their identity and the creation of comprehensive conditions to ensure the lifestyle that their ancestors bequeathed to them and that they are ready to support and defend in the present and future. The right to be and remain ourselves, to live on the land of our ancestors, preserving our traditional economic system and our fishing territory; the right to choose for ourselves what to borrow from whom, how and to what extent to do it, and maybe the right to decide for ourselves what to share from our unique spiritual experience, ways of life support and careful relationship to nature. Modern people who have fallen into the civilizational "trap" of insatiable consumerism with all the consequences that follow from it can still learn a lot from the peoples who have preserved their identity.

In this regard, we believe that the term "indigenous people" is a concept – a bundle of meanings of a particular culture of a certain people. They are expressed not in strictly scientific concepts, but in verbal images, metaphors, in material objects. The concepts represent the concrete-figurative component of the mentality of a particular ethnic group, or as I.G. Herder said, "The Spirit of the people" ("Volksgeist"). Moreover, we come to the conclusion that indigenous discourse and the concept of "indigenous peoples" itself have a constructive the potential capable of largely motivating, orienting, programming, designing, configuring – in a word, "building" an ethno-cultural and socio-political reality in a particular local region. The only question is that this should be an expression of internal ethnic needs, namely the fundamental interests of the original peoples, and not just the selfish ambitions of nationalist-oriented activists and some transnational non-governmental organizations. As a result, it is necessary to carry out a conceptual analysis of indigenity, as well as various indigenous models, ideas about indigenous peoples, ways of manipulating indigenous discourse, etc., which we propose to do in our next article.

In conclusion, we emphasize that the main and painful feature of the peoples under consideration is precisely their small number and, consequently, the difficulties and difficulties of their existence, preservation and development of their traditional cultures in the conditions of modern civilization. Remembering the words of Chingiz Aitmatov, we will ask, – "And is there a people on earth who would not like to be eternal?" The question is rhetorical ... Small ethnic groups, equal to all peoples in their uniqueness and invaluable in the diversity of cultural and historical experience, need adequate scientific study, full care and support from states and international human rights organizations.

^[1] Here is one of N.Ya. Marr's illustrative quotes, which makes it clear what he meant by "rootedness": "The roots or foundations of newly emerging cultural phenomena, as well as the spirit that creates them, are in the environment of their time, but the connections of these foundations can take us far, very far, beyond the ancient and most ancient civilized world, leading us to prehistoric and prehistoric times, tribal layers and social creative elements of which, like remnants of ancient languages, still continue to retain their vitality in the mass of the people" (Marr N.Ya. Armenian culture: its roots and prehistoric connections according to linguistics: [Trans. from arm.] / Nikolay Marr; [Foreword by O.T.Ganalanyan]. – Yerevan: Hayastan, 1990. – 53 p. http://www.iatp.am/culture/articles/marr.html )

^[2] Decree No. 118 of February 5, 1992 with a proposal to ratify the Convention of the International Labour Organization No. 169 "On Indigenous Peoples and Peoples leading a Tribal Lifestyle in Independent Countries" and Decree No. 397 of April 22, 1992, containing an order to prepare by the end of 1992 and submit to the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation draft laws "On the legal status of the indigenous peoples of the North" and "On the legal status of the national district, national village and settlement Councils, tribal and community Councils of the indigenous peoples of the North".

^[3] Shors outlaws: How indigenous peoples turned out to be strangers on their land. https://19rus.info/index.php/obshchestvo/item/117295-vne-zakona-kak-korennye-narody-okazalis-chuzhimi-na-svoej-zemle

^[4] Mikhail Todyshev has been fighting for the rights of the Shors, a small people living on the territory of Kuzbass, since the early 1990s. Todyshev is a member of the Council of Elders of the Shor people, helps local activists. He also participated in the UN working group on indigenous peoples of the world. https://shor-people.ru/news/ego-missija-na-zemle.html

^[5] In August 2018, representatives of Shortsev and Teleutov developed their proposals in the draft strategy, but they were not taken into account in the final version

^[6] Francisco de Vitoria thought about this back in the XVI century.