The Kets are one of the smallest nationalities of the Siberian North. According to the 1959 census, they numbered 1017 people (Results of the All-Soviet Union Census, 1963, p. 302). They are settled in the northern part of the Krasnoyarsk Krai. The majority of the Kets are concentrated on the territory of the Turukhansky District. There they are located in compact groups along the Yelogoy, Surgutikha, Pakulikha and Kureika tributaries of the Yenisei. The center of the Yeloguy Kets is the settlement of Kellog, Surgutikha - Surgutikha, Kureika - Serkovo. Individual Ket families also live among the Russian population in many Prienisei settlements of the Turukhan District (Vorogovo, Sumarokove, Bakhta, Lebed, Mirnoe, Kangatovo, Alinskoye, Vereshchagino, etc.). The Iod-kamenno-tungus group (the central homestead - Sulomai settlement), according to the modern administrative division, is included in the Baikitsky district of the Evenki National District. A few families live in Yenisei (Yartsevo settlement) and Igarsky districts-Krasnoyarsk Krai.
Thus, separate groups of the nationality are removed from each other for a considerable distance, the northern Kets (Kureys) are more than one and a half thousand kilometers away from their southern tribesmen.
Most of the territory where the Kets live is part of the taiga zone. The left-bank areas and the southern part of the right-bank area abound in mixed coniferous forests (cedar, spruce, larch), which are valuable hunting grounds. In the northern part of the area, taiga gives way to forest tundra and tundra. The Yenisei is the main connecting artery of the district, and the rivers Podkamennaya Tunguska, Elogui, Bakhta, Surgutikha, Pakulikha along with large lakes (Nalimie, Munduiskoye, etc.) are the main fishing reservoirs.
The name “kets” comes from the word “ket” - “man”. It has been established in the Russian language since the 20s of this century. Before that, the Kets were known under the names “Ostyaks”, “Yenisei Ostyaks”, “Yenisei”. The Kets were called Ostyaks by Russian servants in the 17th century by analogy with the threatening Ob Ostyaks - Khanty. The Samoyedic-speaking Selkups (who were also called Ostyak-Samoyeds in the scientific literature) were also called the same. Such spreading of one ethnic term to three different peoples brought confusion to the scientific literature and hindered practical work in the field. At present, the old ethnonym, Ostygan, is retained as a self-designation among some elderly people, while the vast majority of them call themselves Kets.
Depending on the place of residence in relation to the flow of the Yenisei, the Kets call themselves “Nizovskiye” - natives of lower basin of the Yenisei River (Pghyuuyrets) and “Verkhovskiye” - natives of upper basin of the Yenisei River (Utaerets). In addition, some groups are called by their tribesmen by the name of the river near which they live: Kol'ldets ("Podkamennotunguskii" - natives of the Podkamennaya Tunguska River), Tsomydets (Surgut), Yelukdets (The Yeloguy river natives), and so on. The first component in such names is the proper name of the river, the second is the word dets - “people”. The names could also reflect any natural peculiarities of the group's residence: kas' dets - “those who lived on the sand”, shbatsdets - “those who lived on the yar”. In addition, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Kets distinguished among themselves “coastal” (who lived permanently on the Yenisei coast) and “forest” (who lived mainly on remote lands).
The neighbors of the Kets on the territory of their modern settlement have long been Russians, as well as the indigenous population of the Yenisei North - Selkups, Enets, Nenets, Evenks. The Kets have names for all of them. The Kets call the Russians kyn's' and syran (the latter term is characteristic of the descendants of the Syme Kets), the Selkups - lak (singular), lagen, l'agyn (plural). The Evenks are known to the Kets as Khsemgan (plural), Fomban (Sym Kets); they were also called tshs'dets - “stone people”.
The Nenets had the name Dyuydets and Dy, and the Kets, who lived in close proximity to the Selkups (modern Surgut and Pakulin Selkups), borrowed from the latter their Nenets name: Kselets (kylyk). There is reason to suppose that the Kets also called the Enets by their first name (dyuyden). The closeness of the language and material culture of both peoples, as well as the nature of relations (both were enemies of the Kets) could have caused a common name for them. The modern Surgut and Yeloguy Kets, who keep in touch with the indigenous population of the upper Taz River (Selkups and Evenks), are familiar with the neighbors of the latter - Khanty. The name Khanty in the Kets is Latsa, apparently of Selkup origin.
The Ket language occupies an isolated position and does not belong to any related group of languages of North Asia.
It is of the agglutinative-affixal type with a weak manifestation of internal inflection. The peculiarity of the language consists in the fact that word and form formation in it takes place not by means of any one method of affixation (suffixes, prefixes or infixes), but almost equally by all three methods. Another peculiarity of the Ket language, noted by linguists since M. A. Castren, but studied in detail only recently, is the way of expressing grammatical genus in the form of three noun classes - masculine, feminine, and the class of things. Finally, a third feature of the language should be noted: the exceptional variety of verb forms (Dulzon, 1962д; Kreinovich, 1961, 1963a).
As early as M. A. Castren singled out two dialects in the Ket language (Imbat and Sym), which differed significantly from each other in phonetics, morphology and vocabulary (Castren, 1858). This classification has not lost its significance up to the present time. Modern linguistic studies claim that the overwhelming majority of the Ket currently speaks the Imbat dialect, which is subdivided into dialects depending on the place of residence of their speakers (the dialect of the Kureya, Yelogui, Surguti and other groups). The Sym dialect is preserved in a very small number of Kets (Yartsevo and Vorogovo settlements). Linguists note intensive mixing of different dialects within territorial groups, caused by significant movements of families and individuals in recent decades (Dulzon, 1964б; Werner, 1966в).
According to the 1959 census, 786 people named Ket language as their mother tongue (results of the All-Union Census, 1963, p. 302). The majority of the Kets have a good command of the Russian language, many of them also know Selkup and Evenki.
The Ket have long attracted the attention of a wide range of scholars. The interest in the Ket problem is primarily due to the peculiarities of the language, its isolated position. Many hypotheses about the origin of the people have been put forward. Initially, ethno-genetic theories were based solely on linguistic material. Much later ethnographic data began to be analyzed. And only recently attempts have been made to study the problem comprehensively, involving anthropology, archaeology, and toponymy. This process of gradual expansion of sources is clearly visible in the chronological comparison of scientific literature.
The following is a brief overview of the sources and history of the study of the Ket.
The earliest sources are official historical documents of the 17th century, the period of penetration and establishment of the Russians in the territories of the Ket ancestors' habitation: despatches of voivode (governor) offices, yasachnye (tax) statements, reports, diplomas and others. With the appearance of churches in Russian settlements and the beginning of baptism of the indigenous population, church documents (metric books, etc.) became such sources. These materials contain information about settlement, numbers, clan and territorial names of separate groups, relations with other peoples and ethnic groups. They are of great importance for the study of tribal culture, exogamy and other aspects of social life of the people.
Siberian peoples have been the subject of special study since the early 18th century. Among the first travelers sent by Peter the Great for the natural history study of Siberia was D. G. Messerschmidt, who, in particular, traveled from Yeniseisk to Turukhansk and collected information (ethnographic and linguistic) about the Kets. Messerschmidt, who, in particular, traveled from Yeniseisk to Turukhansk and collected data (ethnographic and linguistic) on the Ket people living in the early 20s of the 18th century in the area of the Yelogoy and Bakhta rivers, as well as on the southern Kets (Yenisei) groups. These materials did not see the light during the scientist's lifetime, but later extracts from his diaries were included in the work of P. S. Pallas (1782), published by I. Klaproth (1823) and V. V. Radlov (1888). In XX century the Academy of Sciences of the GDR carried out a complete edition of the materials of D. G. Messerschmidt (1964). It is assumed, however, that some of his linguistic records, including those on Ket dialects, remain as yet unidentified (Vdovin, 1954, p. 14; Dulzon, 1961a, p. 153).
Together with Messerschmidt as his assistant, F. I. Tabbert (Stralenberg) traveled to Siberia and published information about the peoples of Siberia, including the southern Ket-speaking groups (Kotts, Arins), dating back to the early 20s of the 18th century (Stralenberg, 1730).
Valuable ethnographic data on the Kotts, Arins and Turkic-speaking Kachins, who are close to them in their cultural and economic way of life, are contained in the “tales” of the servants of the Krasnoyarsk Voivodeship (Governorship) Chancellery, compiled in response to the famous questionnaire of V. N. Tatishchev. These materials are of exceptional comparative-historical interest for the study of the Kets.
The most significant source of historical and ethnographic study of the Siberian peoples of the 18th century (and among them the Kets) are numerous data collected by G. F. Miller, a member of Bering's 2nd Kamchatka expedition (1733-1743). In addition to his own observations and survey data, Miller's materials (his “portfolios”) include various documents extracted by the scientist from the archives of Siberian cities, including Krasnoyarsk, Yeniseisk, etc. A great place in Miller's research was occupied by the work on compiling the so-called vocabulariums, dictionaries of Siberian peoples, among them Ket (Yenisei-Ostyatsk), Kott, Asan and Arin. The comparative character of the construction ensured the special significance of these sources for the study of the language, the speakers of which (South Siberian groups) had already dissolved into the foreign language environment by the beginning of the last century.
In the middle of the XVIII century in Germany was published the work of another participant of the 2nd Kamchatka expedition - I. G. Gmelin (Gmelin, 1751-1752). Based on the similarity of the language of the latter with the dialects of the “Krasnoyarsk Tatars” - Asans, Kotts ) and Arins, Gmelin suggests the kinship of these groups.
The historical and, most importantly, linguistic materials of G. F. Miller were used by his contemporary and co-participant in the expedition, the historian I. Fischer. In particular, he substantiated the special ethnic place of the Kets among other peoples called Ostyaks (modern Khanty, Mansi, Selkups) and their kinship with the Ket-speaking Arins, Kotts, Asans, as well as mixed Koibals (Fischer, 1774).
The sources of second half and end of the XVIII century are the famous works of the participants of the academic expedition of 1768-1774, P.S. Pallas (1787-1784) and I.G. Georgi (1799).
The comparative dictionaries of P.S. Pallas are widely known. The Ket language proper (the language of the Inbaks) is correctly united in them with the language of the Asans, Kotts, and Pumpokols (the Ket population of the upper Ket river), but is assigned to the Samoyed group. Georgi repeats Gmelin's data about the similarity of the Ket language with the South Siberian groups, notes the closeness of the economic and cultural life of the Yenisei and Ob Ostyaks (Ugriks), speaks about the Ket blacksmithing skills, etc.
Thus, the early sources form extensive material for studying the past of the Kets.
The above material, to a large extent already identified and studied by Soviet scientists, is of great interest and awaits further comparative analysis with the data of modern Ket ethnography.
The beginning of scientific study of history and language of the Kets and the first ethnogenetic hypotheses was the XIX century. Already in the first half of the XVIII century (1823-1831) the governor of the newly formed Yenisei province A., P. Stepanov carried out a detailed description of the province. The second part of the work contains a special ethnographic section on the peoples inhabiting it.
Using historical and linguistic data of his predecessors (Stralenberg, Fischer, Spassky), Stepanov emphasizes the linguistic specificity of the Yenisei Ostyaks-Kets among the neighboring population of Western Siberia and puts forward a hypothesis about their Uigur origin. To prove his theory, Stepanov cites a legend recorded by him about the advancement of the Kets from the west to the Taz river: “from sunset to the east” (1835, p. 41). The work names four volosts (districts) of the Kets, as well as clan subdivisions of the Sym group. In addition, Stepanov (though in a very general form) talks about the economic and everyday life of the Kets of that time, wedding rites, clothing, etc. Despite their small number, these data are of undoubted historical interest. Some of them were repeated later in editions that appeared in the second half and the end of the 19th century, in particular, in the famous book by M. F. Krivoshapkin.
Before turning to these works, let us dwell on the characterization of scientific activity and its role for the study of the past of the Kets by the widely known Finnish scientist M. A. Kastren.
For several years (1845-1849) Kastren was engaged in collecting materials on a number of northern and southern Siberian peoples. For about two years the scientist was in the immediate vicinity of Turukhansk and worked among the Kets in the settlements of Antsiferovo, Nazimovo, Bakhta, and Verkhne-Imbatsky. In South Siberia, Castren's special attention was drawn to the population of the Agul district (on a tributary of the Kan river), where he managed to identify several people who spoke Kottish.
The extensive material allowed Castren to prepare the first (and for a long time - the only one) grammar and dictionary of the Ket language, a dictionary and grammatical sketch of the Kott language, as well as a comparative Ket-Kott dictionary, published posthumously by A. Schifner (Castren, 1858).
Since Castren's time, two main dialects of the Kets - the Sym and the Imbat; the same classification is also adhered to by modern linguists. Castren used the linguistic material, supplemented with folklore and historical data, to substantiate the southern origin of the Turukhan Kets and their kinship with the South Siberian Arins, Kotts, and Asans (1860, p. 362). The first clearly formulated hypothesis about the southern origin of the Kets became for many years fundamental for subsequent researchers and in a general form retains its significance to the present time. Kastren's position on the inflective character of the Ket language also became famous.
It can be confidently recognized that it is from the time of Kastren that the problem of genetic links of the Ket language, as well as the Ket ethnogenesis in general, begins to attract special attention of scientists - historians and linguists. And Castren's material remains the main source for the construction of these hypotheses for a long time.
In the second half and the end of the 19th century several works on the Yenisei North were published. Among them should be noted the books by I. A. Kostrov (1857), A. Mordvinov (1860), M. F. Krivoshapkin (1865), P. I. Tretyakov (1869), A. F. Middendorf (1869), N. V. Latkin (1892). Of particular value are the materials resulting from the authors' personal observations. For example, M. F. Krivoshapkin's careful descriptions of some Ket tools and processes of processing leather, birch bark, making a hollow boat, etc. are interesting. Information on clothing, rituals (Krivoshapkin, Latkin, Tretyakov), family relations (Krivoshapkin, Tretyakov) are interesting, despite their brevity, for comparison with later ethnographic data. Publications by Kostrov, Tretyakov, and Middendorf also include some linguistic materials (records of Ket words and expressions, numerals). Middendorf, Krivoshapkin, and Tretyakov write about the appalling poverty, starvation, and extinction of entire families, and the arbitrary treatment of them by local merchants.
The beginning of special ethnographic study of the Kets dates back to the first years of the 20th century and is associated with the activities of the Russian Committee for the Study of Central and East Asia formed in 1902. On behalf of the Committee, V. I. Anuchin was sent to the Kets, who for several years (1905-1908) was engaged in collecting ethnographic, linguistic and anthropological material.
Anuchin also collected large and diverse collections of artifacts and illustrations, which formed the basis of the Ket collections of the Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography (Saint Petersburg).
The first special ethnographic work in the literature, Review of Shamanism among the Yenisei Ostyaks (Anuchin, 1914), is best known. However, the extensive material published in the book goes far beyond not only shamanic representations, but also religious ideology in general. Up to the present time, Anuchin's perfectly illustrated publication remains an important source for studying the worldview and folk art of the Kets; it also contains valuable information characterizing other aspects of the people's life. The drawback of the work is some artificiality of the hierarchical arrangement of characters of the supernatural world; Anuchin's statements about the absence of a complex of ritual actions on the occasion of bear extraction (“bear holiday”), birth of children, veneration of deceased ancestors and some other moments were erroneous.
The rest of V. I. Anuchin's ethnographic and anthropological materials are known from the essay by N. A. Sinelnikov (1911). In addition, Anuchin recorded more than twenty rolls of phonograms of shamanic songs. Judging by the reports, he also collected significant textual and vocabulary materials
Interest to the problem of the Kets' origin in connection with the peculiarities of their language, which emerged since Castren's time, did not weaken even in the first decade of our century. In 1907, an article by G. Ramstedt, where it is said that the Ket language is related to the languages of the peoples of Southeast Asia (Tibetan, Burmese). However, the hypothesis is based only on a small number of examples of vocabulary similarity without any comparison of grammatical structure.
The Finnish researcher K. Donner, who compared Ket vocabulary material with Tibetan and Indochinese languages, as well as with languages known from manuscripts discovered by P. K. Kozlov in the Tangut city of Khara-Khoto, also adhered to the same point of view. During a trip to the Yenisei North (1911-1913) Donner collected considerable material on Ket ethnography and linguistics. The ethnographic information is presented in a special work prepared mainly from a report and drawings of the Ket by I. F. Dibikov (Kukushkin) and supplemented by the author's personal observations (Donner, 1933).
It should be especially noted that Donner, when characterizing this or that form of life, economic activity or customs of the Kets cites comparative Selkup material.
K. Donner's researches in the field of the Ket language (study of grammatical structure, phonetics, vocabulary) were a continuation and addition to the researches of M. A. Kastren.
The Kets were among those peoples who immediately after the victory of the socialist revolution in the North attracted the attention of Soviet scientists.
In 1921, an expedition led by A. Y. Tugarinov worked on the Podkamennaya Tunguska river (Stony Tunguska). The purpose of the expedition was a comprehensive study of the river and the surrounding area. The expedition, in particular, discovered the first Neolithic site near the village of Podkamennaya Tunguska. An anthropological survey of 54 Kets was also conducted (Tugarinov, 1924).
In 1925, G. N. Prokofiev studied the northern Selkups. N. Prokofiev. He also collected Ket material, which was included as comparative material in the article on the Selkups (Prokofiev, 1928; Bogoraz, 1928a). G. N. Prokofiev notes the great commonality in culture, economic and everyday life, social structure, and ideology of the Kets and Selkups. The hypothesis about two groups of aboriginal tribes (Tyan and Kup), which the Sayan Samoyed tribes encountered in their advance to the north, belongs to him. According to G. N. Prokofiev, the eastern group (Tyan) is reflected in the Ketian "dets" - “people” (Prokofiev, 1940).
One of the first Soviet specialists on the Kets was N.K. Karger. In 1928, he traveled to the Turukhansky region on the instructions of the Academy of Sciences. The purpose of his trip was to study the ethnography, language, economic and cultural status of the Kets. The linguistic material he collected enabled him to compile a brief review of the grammar of the Ket language and to prepare a primer (Karger, 1934). N. K. Karger also made significant phonographic recordings, including songs and shamanistic ritual (Dulzon, 1964, p. 6). He is also the author of a detailed article on Ket reindeer husbandry, which, in addition to characterizing the system and state of this branch of economy, gives practical recommendations (Karger, 1930).
Unfortunately, N. K. Karger's other ethnographic materials remain unknown. But the fact that he was a profound and knowledgeable researcher is evidenced by his very complete collections of items and illustrations kept in the Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography (Saint Petersburg). These collections are one of the main museum sources for all those who study Ket ethnography.
The materials of N. K. Karger were used by V. G. Bogoraz and included in the article dedicated to the memory of M. A. Kastren. Characterizing the importance of Kastren's materials for revealing the South Siberian connections of the Kets, V. G. Bogoraz also names a possible way of advancement (the Ket River - coincidence of the hydronym and the name of the people). V.G. Bogoraz connects the Kets with the Dinlins based on the self-name Deng (ding) - “people” (1927a, p. 94). The Dinlin theory of the origin of the Kets, known from earlier works (Deniker, 1902; Grum-Grshimailo, 1909, 1926) and supported by V. G. Bogoraz, until the present day. The Dinlin theory still appears in the studies of some specialists.
For a year and a half (1927-1928), the ethnographer Hans Findeisen, who was sent by the Berlin Museum of Folk Studies, worked in the Turukhan region. He collected mainly ethnographic and some vocabulary material, which was later published in a number of articles (Findeisen, 1929a, 19296, 1931, 1937, 1938, 1940, 1941). Findeisen rightly raised the question about the necessity of complex (linguistic, ethnographic and anthropological) material for the study of Ket ethnogenesis (Findeisen, 1929, p. 126).
Shortly before the II World War, G. M. Korsakov was engaged in an ethnographic survey of the Podkamennotungusskaya (Sub-Stonytungus) group. The result of his field work (summer and fall of 1938) was the article “The Kets of the Podkamennaya Tunguska”. Korsakov died during the blockade of Leningrad, and his publication appeared in 1941 only in a signal copy of the journal “Sovetsky Sever” and thus remained inaccessible to a wide range of readers. However, Korsakov's materials are of great interest, and the article is the first experience of an ethnographic essay on an isolated group. Korsakov's data on social structure (clan structure, remnants of clan relations in production and distribution) and especially the first data on kinship system in Ket ethnography are most valuable. It is also known that G. M. Korsakov had considerable linguistic material. Unfortunately, the scientist's archive has not been found.
Some information about the Podkamennotungusskiye Kets was collected in 1938 by G. D. Verbov, a researcher of the Samoyedic peoples.
The linguistic study of the Kets in the decade before the war is represented by E. Lewy's article in which he develops the position on Sino-Tibetan and Ket linguistic parallels (Lewy, 1933), as well as K. Bouda's first work on the Ket language (Bouda, 1937). N. Y. Marr brought the Ket language closer to the languages of the Japhetic group (1926).
A great role in the study of Ket history and ethnography belongs to the Soviet researcher of the peoples of the North, B. O. Dolgikh.
The beginning of his activity dates back to 1926-1927, when B. O. Dolgikh took part in the preparation and conduct of a census among the indigenous population of the Turukhan district. The census materials and personal observations, supplemented with ethnographic and historical data, served as the basis for the first consolidated work on the Kets, published in 1934. The book presents a large amount of statistical material on individual groups, characterizing the economic and domestic situation of the people by the beginning of the socialist reorganization. These data are accompanied by a historical review and some general information (names, number, clan composition, position among other peoples, etc.). During the subsequent field work (late 40s), as well as long-term study of archival sources Dolgikh collected very extensive and valuable material on the history and ethnography of the Kets. The work resulted in publications devoted to separate elements of material culture, ideology and social organization of the people (Dolgikh, 1950, 1952a, 19526, 1961). All of them are distinguished by the wide use of comparative material and the ethnogenetic aspect of the research.
B. O. Dolgikh also used Ket material in a number of works on general problems of ethnography and history of the indigenous population of the North (1949a, 1949б, 1952в, I960). Of special note is Dolgikh's great role in the development of one of the most difficult questions - the tribal structure and social history of the Ket people.
In 1948 and 1949, S. I. Vainshtein (Weinstein) collected ethnographic material from the Ket people of the Substonytungus. Later he published a number of articles on traditional and modern culture (Vainshtein, 1951a, 1951б, 1954), and also prepared an ethnographic essay on this group of people. Weinstein drew on Ket parallels in his historical and ethnographic studies of other peoples, particularly the Tuvinians (1958, 1959, 1961, 1964).
In his article on Ket ethnogenesis (1951б), Vainshtein refines the theory of the southern origin of the Ket known since Castrén's time and, just as G. N. Prokofiev did for the Samoyeds, distinguishes in the composition of the Ket, in addition to the southern, immigrant, component (which, according to Vainshtein, could be the Tagar tribes of the middle Yenisei - the Dinlins), an aboriginal stratum of unknown ethnicity.
The last decade of XX century has been marked by sharply increased scientific interest in the Ket problem in our country and abroad, as well as by the accumulation of new materials on ethnography, language, and anthropology. For the first time, archaeological survey of the territory of modern Ket settlement was started. New materials for the study of the Kets past - toponymy data - were also introduced into the scientific turnover.
A prominent role here belongs to a major Soviet scientist, linguist and archaeologist A. P. Dulzon. He has been studying the Ket language since the late 40s. As a result of many years of field work among all groups of Kets, Dulzon and the participants of expeditions led by him collected a very large grammatical, lexical, vocabulary and textual material. This allowed Dulzon to publish a number of articles (1957, 1962д) and to prepare the first generalizing monograph in science - “Essays on the Grammar of the Ket language”, the first part of which was published in 1964.
The publication of Ket tales by A. P. Dulzon's publication of Ket tales serves as the main source for the study of Ket folklore (1962ж, 1964a, 1964б, 1966a, 1966б).
A. P. Dulzon's publication of dictionary materials on Ket dialects from 18th century sources (1961a) is of great importance for both linguistic and historical-ethnographic study of the Ket. The author supplements the historical records with data of modern dialects (Yelogui and Kureya). Dulzon also revealed phonetic and morphological peculiarities and similarities of these dialects (1962в).
A. P. Dulzon recorded with exhaustive completeness the terminology of kinship and properties among the Kets, which resulted in a special work on this subject (1959a).
Knowing of the living Ket language allowed the scientist to use a very important material - toponymy data. This is of particular importance for the Ket, as all other sources about the distant past of this people are extremely scarce. Dulzon developed a convincing method of etymological analysis of Ket hydronyms, which allowed him to identify Ket toponyms in a very wide territory unknown from written sources (Tomi basin, upper reaches of the Irtysh, Middle Ob, Khakassia Northern Tuva), as well as to make a number of interesting suggestions about the direction and possible chronology of migrations.
A great deal of work in the field of Ket linguistics has been done in recent years by E. A. Kreinovich, a researcher of the Yukaghir language. The result of months of work during several field seasons were E. A. Kreinovich's articles, where such features of the Ket language as “name classes” and “classes of things” (category expression, inanimate structure of the Ket verb, etc.) are thoroughly studied (1961, 1963a, 1963б, 1965). Kreinovich also has extensive lexical and textual material. He prepared a generalizing monograph on the verb, the most complex and diverse element of Ket morphology.
The sound system of the Sym dialect of the Ket language has been studied in recent years by G. K. Werner (1965, 1966a-1966в). The special interest in the Sym dialect is due to the fact that it forms a transitional stage from the modern Ket language (Imbat dialects) to the extinct dialects, and also due to the fact that among its speakers, the Russified Kets of Sym, there are only a few people who speak the language.
V. V. Ivanov and V. N. Toporov (1964) made an attempt to reconstruct elements of the ancient Praenisei language and culture of the Ket ancestors, as well as to reveal their connections with other cultures. They also developed the reconstruction of the Ket epic and mythology by semiotics (Ivanov and Toporov, 1962a, 1962б). These undoubtedly very interesting endeavors, presented so far in the most general form, require further study.
The attention of foreign linguists has recently been particularly attracted to the identification of vocabulary similarities between the Ket language and other groups of peoples. The study by K. Bouda, where, in addition to a grammatical review of the Ket language, word parallels from the Samoyedic, Finno-Ugric, Evenki and Russian languages are given (Bouda, 1957). K. Bouda also finds 13 related Ket (Kottish) words in the Nivkh language.
L. Ligeti (1950), A. Joki (1946), and P. Hajdu also studied the ancient Ket-Samodian linguistic relations. The latter also tries to determine the place and time of interaction of peoples: the Irtysh and the territory to the east and south-east of it, II century B.C.-II century A.D. (Hajdu, 1953).
Linguistic materials, and, first of all, vocabulary similarities, continue to serve as a basis for theories about ancient genetic and historical-cultural ties of the Kets. N. Collins sees the Kets as a remnant of the ancient Tibetan population, from which the North American Athabaskan Indians descended (Collins, 1954). O.G. Tailleur hypothesized the kinship of the Ket language with Basque and Iberian-Caucasian (Tailleur, 1958). Finally, it was suggested that the language of the ancient Huns was close to Ketian. The author of the theory, the English scientist E. I. Pullyblank, bases it on the similarity of several Hunnic words known from Chinese sources with Ketian words (Pullyblank, 1963).
Among the ethnographic works of foreign scientists, should be named the publication of the researcher of ancient trade beliefs H.J. Paproth about the bear festival of the Ket people (Paproth, 1962).
The anthropological survey of the people has advanced sharply in recent years of the XX century. The peculiarity of the external appearance of the Kets in comparison with the neighboring indigenous population - greater Europeism, similarity to the American Indians - has been repeatedly noted in the literature (Kastren, 1860; Mordvinov, 1860; Prokofiev, 1928; Findeisen, 1929; Dolgikh, 1934). The same characteristic (Americanoidity mixed strongly with Mongoloids and Europeoids) was proposed by G. F. Debets, who surveyed 79 Yelogui Kets in 1941 (1947).
The study of the peoples of Siberia and the accumulation of new data on the Kets made it possible to clarify both the very concept of Americanoidity and the anthropological characterization of the people under study.
The first craniologic material (4 skulls) was obtained in the late 40s by D. M. Kogan and S. I. Vainshtein. Further accumulation of anthropological material dates back to the 1960s. In 1960, I. I. Gohman collected a craniological series of 20 skulls, as well as data on the distribution of blood groups in the Yelogui Kets according to the ABO and MN systems. I. I. Gokhman refers the Kets to the Ural anthropological type, although he admits that their ancestors could have a different complex of features (1963). The peculiarities of the Uralic type may have developed during two or three centuries in the process of mixing with the Samoyedic peoples, first of all with the Selkups. Comparison of Ket, Selkup and Nenets skulls reveals great similarity between them. The craniological similarity of the Kets with the Khanty, Khakas-Beltirs should also be noted.
In 1965, the Institute of Ethnography of the USSR Academy of Sciences organized a team for anthropological survey of the Russian and indigenous (primarily Ket) population of the Yenisei and Turukhansk districts of Krasnoyarsk Region. The program of work, in addition to anthropological features, included the study of a number of blood groups and factors, measurement of blood pressure, collection of data on palm and finger patterns, etc. The work program included the study of a number of blood groups and factors. The expedition worked in almost all locations with Ket population (except for Serkovo settlement and Lake Mundui) and surveyed 256 people. According to collected data, there are differences between the northern and southern Kets. The latter form a local group that is genetically related to some South Siberian peoples. The Northern Kets are more similar to the Selkups. In 1967, the team surveyed the remaining groups.
In 1958, R. V. Nikolaev conducted the first special archaeological survey (route reconnaissance) of the Turukhan area. Prior to that, only occasional objects were brought from the mentioned territory (Nikolaev, 1960a).
The ancient settlement of the Lower Yenisei is evidenced by the discovery of an Upper Paleolithic stone scraper (Sukhaya Tunguska). The Neolithic is represented by stone tools from the Serkovo and Podkamennaya Tunguska sites and occasional finds from Yeniseisk. According to R. V. Nikolaev (1960a), all these Neolithic implements from the Yenisei valley indicate a connection with the Neolithic of the Baikal region studied by A. P. Okladnikov (1950). R. V. Nikolaev presumably dates the pottery fragments found (Podkamennaya Tunguska; Surgutikha) to the Neolithic period. Nikolaev links the Bronze Age finds - a knife (Sukhaya Tunguska), ceramics (Serkovo; Surgutikha, types I and II) - to the Karasuk and Tagar cultures of the Khakass-Minusinsk south.
Samples of ceramics with caterpillar and comb ornamentation (type I from Surgutikha) find wide territorial analogies: from the Bolshezemelskaya Tundra to Krasnoyarsk, from the Ob to the Angara and Pribaikalye. The time of distribution of these ceramics is also very wide: from the end of the Neolithic to the Iron Age.
Nikolaev connects the bearers of the Karasuk culture with the Samoyedic ethnic stratum, and the Tagar culture with the Ket ethnic stratum (1960б). He develops the latter position in a special article, where he tries to substantiate the hypothesis of the Dinlin origin of the Tagarian Kets (Nikolaev, 1962).
Despite the small number, these archaeological data are of undoubted importance for studying both the Doketian period of the Krasnoyarsk North and the ancient history of the ancestors of the Kets (in particular, the question of connection with the cultures of the Minusinsk Basin).
The active interest of a wide range of researchers of related sciences to the Ket problem brings closer the time when the mystery of Ket ethnogenesis will finally be solved.
A great role here belongs to linguists. The vocabulary parallels to the Ket language discovered by researchers are of great interest, but all of them are still very few or even isolated. They can be used for solving genetic questions only on condition of further accumulation of vocabulary material and taking into account the typology and grammatical structure of the languages being compared. The intensive study of the Ket language by Soviet scientists allows us to hope that in the near future the question of typological characterization will be completely solved. Further accumulation of vocabulary material, the study of the Ket verb (identification of ancient words - roots in it) will make it possible to begin a broad comparative-historical study of the vocabulary of the Ket language and will make linguistic data one of the main sources on ethnogenesis.
In the near future, new anthropological materials will also enter the scientific turnover. However, in order to resolve the question about the time and origin of anthropological features of the modern Kets, we need, first, sufficiently complete data on the modern neighboring peoples, as well as on the South Siberian groups with which historical ties are found. Secondly, it is necessary to further accumulate early craniological material, and first of all, from the southern territory of Ket settlement in the past (Ket, Sym, Dubches rivers, etc.).
In archaeological terms, the territory of modern and former Ket settlement remains almost unstudied. It would be very important to establish the continuity of local cultures to the Ket proper. It has already been mentioned above about the necessity of surveying the Sym, Dubches, Ket, and the vicinity of modern Yeniseisk, where the Kets lived 3-4 centuries ago. In many places (Ket, Sym) the memory of the former Ket inhabitants (toponymy, legends, remains of dugouts), as well as Ket traditions in the construction of some elements of material culture have been preserved.
The purpose of this paper is to provide an ethnographic characterization of the economy, culture and everyday life of the Kets in the late XIX-early XX century, to introduce into scientific turnover the ethnographic material collected in 1956-1965.
Systematic description of the most important aspects of the culture of the people seems necessary due to the lack of generalizing work of this nature. Meanwhile, ethnographic data (along with linguistic, anthropological and archaeological data) are a source for solving the problem of ethnogenesis. On the other hand, until recently the Ket have preserved the most archaic forms of production, culture, and social life, so Ket ethnographic materials may be of interest both in a broader, all-Siberian, and theoretical sense.
On this basis, the publication of new data on Ket ethnography is to some extent the aim for the researchers.
When describing individual cultural elements, an attempt was made to trace their history, and also to compare them with the corresponding materials obtained from other Siberian peoples.
The chronological framework is conditioned by the material itself and basically does not go beyond the ethnographic reality, so that the study of the earliest forms went from the Kets in the late XIX-early XX century.
Not all aspects of Ket culture can be evenly covered in this work. Material culture can be considered the most studied, although archaeological parallels are necessary to determine the genesis of its individual elements. Religious ideology is given in a more general form; new material is presented here to a lesser extent, which is explained by the difficulty of obtaining information in this area, as well as by the fact that every year there are fewer and fewer persons who could explain the meaning of certain beliefs and rites. Questions of social history are considered only in the most general form.
The work is dominated by materials relating to the pre-revolutionary past. The final part focuses on the initial stage of socialist reorganization, a period that has already become history.
In addition to published scientific literature, field materials, museum and archival data were used in writing the work.
