Ètnografičeskoe obozrenie

The article is a brief introduction to the issue’s special theme focusing on the “Anthropology of Heritage: Critical Concepts in Russian Contexts”. It presents the contributions by P.S. Kupriyanov, M.A. Mochalova, D.G. Chubukova and V.A. Tanailova, and characterizes them in the framework of scholarly debates around the influential concept of authorized heritage discourse (AHD) proposed by Laurajane Smith.

This study examines the interactions between Soviet researchers and sacred Nganaasan objects known as koika-idols in the 20th century. The systematic ethnographic study of the Nganaasan people, the accumulation of knowledge about them, and the museumification of their culture began alongside Soviet modernization on the Taimyr Peninsula. The modernization process included efforts to combat indigenous peoples' traditional beliefs, which simultaneously were subjects of interest for Soviet ethnographers. In the case studies researchers appear as observers of their informants' practices of interaction with various idols, sometimes becoming involved in these practices themselves, describing both the objects and rituals, witnessing and participating in the collision between traditional beliefs and modernizing discourse, and, notably, bringing the idols themselves to museums, thus becoming actors in the process of indigenous heritage production. Drawing on L. Smith's critical concept of authorized heritage discourse (AHD), the author attempts to describe the origins of indigenous heritage space formation in the USSR, trace decision-making processes, and analyze the knowledge production practices about the Nganaasans by some of their first researchers – A.A. Popov and B.O. Dolgikh. Various levels of problems related to the role of scholars in heritage production and indigeneity discourses are examined. The research is based on published and archival texts of Soviet researchers, materials from the author's field research on the Taimyr Peninsula in 2021, 2022, 2024, as well as data collected from museum and scientific archives.

The article discusses a case where the processes of space heritage production by the Russian state and the production of family heritage by the author are intertwined. I examine the activities and motivations of four heritage actors: institutions directly implementing the state position in the field of space heritage, a school museum of space history in Krasnogorsk, my grandfather who worked for a long time as an engineer and referent for S.P. Korolev, and myself. The research optics is determined, on the one hand, by works dealing with the links and features of the interaction between heritage and politics; on the other hand, by works exploring the role of emotions and affects in the processes of heritage production. I employ the concept of authorised heritage discourse (AHD) to identify actors within the case, and the material analysed does not always fit within the conceptual framework. For example, one of the important elements of the AHD concept is the thesis of dominance of the expert community in the processes of heritage production and the hegemony of the expert knowledge they produce. My research, however, shows that drawing clear boundaries between experts and non-experts is not always possible, and actors’ inclusion or exclusion from the authorised discourse is not as unambiguous as it may seem at first glance. I pose several questions: how is the process of heritage production carried out by different actors? how are actors related to each other? what place do feelings and emotions occupy in the production of heritage by these actors and how are they related to the motivation for inclusion in this process? The research was drawn on interviews with museum workers, staff of the Krasnogorsk school № 18, and my own relatives, as well as archival materials including those belonging to my family, and autoethnographic work.

Emotional facial expressions are one of the main sources of human non-verbal communication. At the same time, emotions are transmitted through facial expressions both consciously and unconsciously. In particular, micro-facial expressions and background facial expressions of low intensity are those that are poorly amenable to conscious control. According to many studies, micro-facial expressions can be considered a window into a person’s true feelings. However, due to their fleetingness and low intensity, micro expressions are very difficult to catch with the naked eye. This article presents an overview of scientific knowledge about human micro-facial expressions, starting from the discovery to the current level of development. We consider the history of studying the topic and describe in detail the current state of the art. We further discuss the limitations and presents ideas on the prospects for further studies of micro-facial expressions, taking into account the cross-cultural component.

In this article, we attempt to assess the distribution of color designations or color markers in the ethnonymy of the Turkic peoples and to consider the practice of their use in a specific historical and cultural context, that is taking into account the chronology and geography of the recording of such ethnonyms. The article focuses on two-component ethnonyms where the word denoting color is used as an adjective. Dominant in the nomenclature of ethnonyms of Turkic peoples are usually color markers such as qara (black), sarïγ (yellow), and aq (white), while less commonly these might be qïzïl (red) or kök (blue). Historically, we encounter the opposition “black–yellow” earlier, and “black–white” later. In all historical periods, the word qara (black), based on its original semantics, had the meaning of “ordinary”, “common”, which implied the presence of a contextual opposition. In some cases, this marker may be added to the names of secondary or subordinated groups that have separated from the original community designated by the main ethnonym; in others, this marker designates the original communities, as opposed to the bearers of the same name with other markers. We argue that, at present, there are no reliable grounds for talking about the identification of any specific patterns. The existing explanations relating color ethnonyms to the designation of political-administrative divisions or markers of spatial-geographical orientation remain at the level of hypotheses and cannot be applied to all cases.

The article examines the ways in which wedding rituals in the families of migrants from Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan in Russia are transformed under the influence of migration experience. The theoretical and methodological framework is the concept of liminality of Arnold van Gennep and Victor Turner. The research is based on in-depth semi-structured interviews with migrants from Central Asia in the Moscow region. The choice of certain rituals shows the position of the individual and family in the transnational space linking the sending and hosting societies. The research has shown that the degree to which people are serious about the wedding ceremony and strive to properly observe it is coherent with the degree of inclusion in the sending or receiving society, which in turn is related to the specificities of migration experience. The impact of migration on wedding rituals cannot be regarded as unidirectional. Migration expands the variety of acceptable wedding rituals, including both those that are customary in the sending and receiving societies, and those that emerge as mixed hybrid variants simultaneously possessing the characteristics of the former and the latter.

The article examines methodological projects for research within online settings, the authors of which used images of classical, or conservative, fieldwork to design methods of digital anthropology. Digital anthropologists address various conceptual and pragmatic aspects of the fieldsite, fieldwork, and ethnography, rethinking the production of anthropological knowledge for internet research. Denying the possibility of applying classical fieldwork techniques in online settings, anthropologists engaged in virtual ethnography and user experience research have prepared an intellectual context for the anthropology of virtual worlds and social media and its methodological projects for digital fieldwork. Description of the classical fieldsite, including the version by B. Malinowski, influenced anthropologists to conceptualize the digital field, remove the ontological distinction between a real and virtual place, and problematize the anthropologist's position as an avatar and user. In conclusion, this methodological strategy is situated within a discussion of the political and epistemological dimensions of the field and ethnography. The author shows that methodological projects based on the images of classical fieldwork have allowed digital anthropologists not only to substantiate the corporate identity of their research area but also to demystify field practice, re-establishing its pragmatic and conceptual foundations and critical potential.