From the very moment of its creation, photography becomes an integral part of human life, a phenomenon of art, an instrument of scientific knowledge and recording of the world. She offers vivid iconographic images and inverts the worldview, creating visual categories that replace written and oral text, presenting a ready-made example for the imagination, turning us to patterns stored in memory. It allows you to overcome distance in time and space, creating an instant image, recording a fait accompli1.

Photography amazed contemporaries with its ability to reflect the world and was perceived as a copy of nature (the reliability of which is unshakable), reproducing all the details of the object, even those that the human eye does not notice. The idea arose that the problem associated with the subjectivity of perception and reflection of reality could be resolved, since it is impossible to introduce anything original into mechanical copying. One of the strengths and attractive aspects of mechanical photographic imaging was seen in the ability to create replicated images with the most accurate representation of an object, which could not be achieved in other types of fine art.

However, at the time of the invention of photography, no one imagined how wide the scope of its application would be. It was photography that became the ancestor of cinema and, in a sense, modern visual mass media, which form such an important part of our lives today and often become a conductor of “norm” and “taste”.

If we talk about ethnography, photography has created myths about various peoples and cultures, and they are often trusted because they perceive photographic images without criticism. Photographic materials contributed not only to education

1 Virilio P. Vision machine. St. Petersburg, 2004. P. 42.

2 Ruys A. A millennium-long dispute // Impact: science and society. Photography on the border between art and science. 1993. No. 4. P. 8; Bazin A. Ontology of the photographic image // What is cinema. M., 1972. pp. 42, 44. viewers, but also the creation of stereotypes, their modeling and codification3. A photograph is considered an immutable document confirming that the photographed event actually took place and occurred exactly in the form in which it was recorded in the image.

Ethnographic photography, which is the subject of this work, being a mass scientific source, is very diverse and variable. This creates many difficulties when working with it. Representatives of various humanities study photography as a source, but, unfortunately, they interact little in their research. You can often encounter diametrically opposed interpretations of the content of this source by representatives of different scientific directions. All this does not contribute to the development of a unified concept of understanding and interpretation of the image created by technology as a source, born in culture and representing culture.

Ethnography as a science was developing rapidly during the period when photography was taking its first successful steps, so scientists immediately tried to make the camera a tool of scientific knowledge. The new invention was immediately put into practice, despite the imperfection of technology. The photographic method of recording surrounding realities retained its leading position even after it was proven that photographic material may not be absolutely reliable, and even the advent of cinema and video did not replace photography. All these methods of recording the world have found their niche in scientific research and interact well with each other.

Ethnographic photography has come a long way in development - in technical terms, in the methods of its creation and areas of application. Despite the fact that photography was developed only in the 19th century, researchers managed to record many passing realities - before peoples, cultures, countries disappeared against the backdrop of technological progress, redistribution of territories and globalization.

J Scherer J. The Photographic Document: Photographs as Primary Data in Anthropological Inquiry // Anthropology and Photography 1860-1920. London, 1997. pp. 32-33.

Photography has become both a source for science and a powerful ideological weapon, which is used quite widely to this day. At different times it was imbued with different meanings and readings. Ethnographic photography is multifaceted and can be used to achieve many purposes, serving as a means of obtaining information and evidence of both the truth and falsity of many facts and conclusions.

1. Relevance

The study of photography as an ethnographic source was rarely addressed, despite the fact that it was quite actively used for illustrative purposes. In Russian science, the diverse study of photography began relatively recently - just a few decades ago, when representatives of different specialties began to focus on it. In earlier periods, only individual works by archivists appeared who stored photographic material and tried to determine its value parameters and criteria for selection into the collection. More widely, photography began to attract domestic specialists in the social sciences in connection with the arrival in Russia of such a direction as visual anthropology, when it became clear that the possibilities of photography are not as limited as previously thought and that photographic material can serve as an independent source in the study of certain aspects of the life of cultures and societies . However, the publications devoted to photography that have appeared over the past decades have turned out to be limited to a small range of issues. The topics most often addressed are the study of family photo archives and their cultural significance in society. A number of works are devoted to the internal structure of photography, reading its content, understanding its influence and functioning in groups. Studies that would consider scientific photography comprehensively, taking into account such problems as the diversity of material, the possibilities of its reading and application, the history of the emergence and development of scientific photography, have not appeared.

Turning to the study of photo sources in the social and humanities, researchers are faced with the problem of the lack of fundamental and monographic theoretical, methodological and applied research in the field of historiography, document science, archival studies and source studies. The lack of development of this issue is associated with the imperfection of existing theories and methods, the need to overcome technical barriers, insufficient awareness of the composition of materials, and the lack of reference books and indexes4.

When starting to work with ethnographic photography, the researcher is faced with the fact that its scope, possibilities of use, and scientific potential are not clearly defined. That is, it remains unclear on the basis of what characteristics this or that image is considered to be ethnographic and not related to any other science. Classifications based on time, content, materials have not been developed, and there is no special terminology. The lack of the necessary scientifically developed methodology for working with historical visual sources, classification groups, as well as insufficiently generalized experience in historical source studies and other areas related to photography (both documentary and artistic), are recognized by many researchers5. All this leads to the fact that due to the lack of elementary systematization and large groups at the level of subject-thematic complexes, photo archives are not always available for work; the researcher is faced with isolated facts and information contained in separate documents, from which it is almost impossible to get a complete picture of the event and phenomenon. As a result, visual sources are rarely used and studied, and their publications are mainly illustrative in nature and do not pursue the goal of revealing the significance of the content.

4 Magidov V.M. Film-photo-phonological documents in the context of historical knowledge. M., 2005. pp. 37-38.

5 Ibid. P. 19.

6 Lavrentieva L.S. Catalog of illustrative collections of the MAE Europe Department // MAE Collection. From the cultural heritage of the peoples of Eastern Europe. St. Petersburg, 1992. T. XLV. P. 180: Magidov V.M. Film, photo and sound documents in context. P. 23. 68.

Perhaps this is also due to the fact that, as R. Barthes noted, photography cannot be classified, since each individual image is a random manifestation, therefore it is beyond the limits of meaning7. We cannot completely agree with this statement, but at its core it confirms that it is quite difficult to identify single complexes in photography.

All of the above leads to the fact that ethnographic photography is not fully included in scientific circulation, and its potential in providing scientific information is not used to its fullest. Most currently existing studies in the field of ethnographic photography, with very few exceptions, cannot be considered complete, since they are not supported by a special theory and methodological developments, and often photographic images are read in a completely inappropriate way. As V. M. Magidov notes, scientific comparative analysis is often replaced by a descriptive comparison of the content of photographic materials. Researchers limit themselves to a small thematic array of documents that have not been subjected to source criticism, and consider mainly information that is of a general nature and does not affect the content of published sources. Therefore, most domestic research devoted to ethnographic photography has not progressed further than establishing the history of the creation of the material, the biography of the author and the characteristics of the depicted themes. Moreover, there are no special techniques for photographic field work; all their developments remained at the level of instructions of the 1960s and do not at all correspond to the modern realities of expeditionary activity. Such serious omissions significantly complicate the selection of scientific photography itself from the entire complex of available photographic material.

Despite the fact that ethnographic photography as a separate class of images has existed for about 170 years, today the need for the development of theoretical methodological and terminological

7 Bart P. Camera lucida. M„ 1997. P. 14, 56.

8 Magidov V.M. Film, photo and sound documents in context. pp. 9-10, 241. The basis of ethnographic photography, ways of identifying it among all available photographic material, creating internal classifications and criteria for criticism, taking into account the time and technology of filming, as well as determining the possibilities of its use for scientific tasks.

2. Object of study

As an object of study, the work considers photographic materials stored in the photographic fund of the MAE (Kunstkamera) RAS, as having the status of an ethnographic source

3. Subject of research

The subject of the study is the specifics of the ethnographic photographic source, the features of its creation and reading depending on time, working methods, theories explaining the development of society, and the possibilities of representing culture.

4. Chronological framework

The chronological framework of the work fits into 160 years of the existence of analogue photography, starting from 1839, which is considered the year of birth of the new technology, and until the early 2000s, when analogue photography was replaced by digital photography.

The material is structured strictly chronologically in the second chapter. This is justified by the fact that the development of photographic equipment, scientific trends in ethnography, methods of its work in connection with field research cannot be considered outside of chronology. Other, theoretical, problems described in the work are not always associated with specific dating.

The purpose of this paper is to propose ways to determine the potential of ethnographic photography as a scientific source. Thus, it is possible to reveal some aspects of its existence, give examples of how it is created and functions, and partially outline the range of problems that need to be solved for the initial assessment of the material. It is necessary to raise questions and set directions for further scientific research in order to more fully introduce photography into the circle of scientific sources and understand whether it is possible for it to exist as an independent, independent source or whether it will continue to remain an auxiliary source. The answers to these questions should give impetus to further, deeper and more detailed study of the capabilities of the ethnographic photographic source and its assessment. It is important to identify those general problems with which it is necessary to begin the study of an ethnographic photographic source, to highlight characteristics that will help in the future, when moving directly to the study of the content of the image, to more clearly determine the level of information content of the material. Here we must agree with the statement of V.M. Magidov that the main meaning of photographic documents is revealed by interpreting their content and the researcher’s goal is to reveal in what form events and facts are reflected in the visual material9. However, this requires developing basic criteria for thematic combination of material and understanding the patterns of its creation. Therefore, the goals of this study were not to examine individual collections, but to identify general theoretical points related both to the patterns of formation of the MAE photographic fund (similar to the ethnographic collections of other institutions in the country), and to the general trends in the creation, reading and classification of ethnographic photographic material.

6. Research objectives

Define ethnographic photography and characterize those types of photographic material that can be used for scientific purposes.

Highlight the stages of development of ethnographic photography for more accurate attribution of the material.

Propose criteria for initial classifications of photographic material, focusing on the characteristics of the source.

9 Magidov V.M. Film, photo and sound documents in context. P. 235.

Determine the main external factors influencing the formation of the content of the source, such as: authorship, historical situation, ideology, purpose and objectives of the photographic work.

Identify the peculiarities of reading the content of a photo source in different periods of time and establish the circumstances that influence the understanding of the image, its description and commentary.

7. Methodology and work methods

The methodological basis of the study is a comprehensive problem-based approach to the study of photography as an ethnographic source. The work uses a comparative historical method, which allows us to identify the stages of the formation of ethnographic photography depending on the development of ethnography in general, photographic equipment, methods of expeditionary work, scientific and artistic movements, and ideology. It will also help to compare previously uncompared phenomena in science and culture in relation to the purposes of creating a visual source. The comparative typological method was used to construct classifications of photographic materials and analyze data according to similar and different characteristics. Component analysis was carried out in order to, through the identification and description of various specific features, present the overall capabilities of photography as a source, identify new connections that will lead to a more accurate reading of visual material. The proposed classifications should become both a starting point for further research in the field of ethnographic photographic sources and a basis for criticism of the existing material. This method will help identify new and revise old criteria for comparing existing materials.

8. Sources and literature

The sources for this work were photo collections and individual photographs (photoprints and negatives) from the collections of the Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography. Peter the Great (Kunstkamera) RAS (hereinafter MAE, or Museum).

The most typical ones are used in the Appendix to illustrate the data presented.

The specialized literature on ethnographic photography can be divided into several periods. Each of them has its own characteristics in the study of photography, its own current topics, its own directions of journalism and critical analysis. The work uses both domestic and foreign literature. The Museum's collection contains not only a fairly large amount of Russian materials, but also images representing various peoples of the world; and the problems associated with their creation are better covered in Western literature. Some issues concerning the features of the ethnographic photographic source are not addressed in domestic publications, but they have been partly considered by foreign researchers.

As mentioned above, photography from the moment of its invention was perceived as a tool for scientific knowledge of the world. Therefore, almost the entire 19th century is characterized by the accumulation of material, the search for its place in science and art, and an attempt to comprehend the possibilities and future use of technology.

For example, the Khudozhestvennaya Gazeta in 1840, in an article dedicated to the first successes of photography, recognized a great future for photography - for travelers and naturalists, but not for art, in particular portraiture10. And here critics and researchers of photography agreed on a positivist view of the image as a copy of reality, which is indispensable in capturing culture in all its manifestations. So V.V. Stasov, in his work “Photography and Engraving”11, wrote that all photographs will be the same, therefore, having photographed a certain object, it will be possible not to return to it - such an image will be made once and for all. The editor of the magazine “Svetopis” I. Perepelkin said that descendants will have an immutable criterion of reliability and will be able to get acquainted with the situation of the era without

10 Art newspaper. 1840. No. 2. P. 12. Stasov V.V. Photography and engraving // Russian Bulletin. 1856. T. 6, Book. 1-2. according to the reactions of foreigners and the subjective assessments of contemporaries, but according to photographs, while his generation is forced to be content with descriptions and a few drawings, which differ greatly from each other12.

A number of publications of this period are related to recommendations for working with photography outside of studios, since for a long time this caused great difficulties. In these developments, one can become familiar not only with photographic techniques and chemistry, but also with what equipment needed to be carried, how much it weighed, and how it needed to be packaged. It also contained advice on what equipment, for example, is more suitable for use in extreme conditions. Here we can especially note Vishnyakov’s publications

E. P. “Application of photography to travel and working on negative films

1^kah" and "The Application of Photography to Travel".

The most interesting works of this period can be considered publications of materials about travel, where information is often found on how the first photographs were taken in the field. Among such authors we can note N. M. Przhevalsky (his name is associated with a wide controversy that took place in scientific journals about the development of special cameras and materials for photography on expeditions)14, P. K. Kozlova, G. E. Grum-Grzhimailo , G. N. Potanina, N. N. Miklouho-Maclay.

All noted works were not special studies and did not represent any theoretical constructions. They have not yet gone beyond the boundaries of personal experience and its primary analysis. The only work that can be considered theoretical to one degree or another is the development of N.I. Vtorov, who made very detailed descriptions of the clothing of the inhabitants of the Voronezh province in a photo album made to his order. He also

12 Khrenov N. Photography in the context of culture // Photography. Problems of poetics. M., 2007. P. 44. ь Vishnyakov E.P. Application of photography to travel and working on negative films. St. Petersburg, 1889; Vishnyakov E.P. Applying photography to travel. St. Petersburg, 1893.

14 Actions of the V department of the IRTS. Meeting June 10, 1883 // Photographer. Organ of the V Department of the IRTS on photography and its applications. 1883 St. Petersburg, 1883. No. 6. P. 140-141: Journal of council meetings on January 31, 1876 // News of IR-GO. 1876. T. 12, Issue. 2. P. 59. was the author of a note in which he indicated how best to carry out ethnographic filming13.

From the first decades of the 20th century, an understanding of the accumulated photographic material and methods of its creation began, and an understanding emerged that for a photographer to work more effectively in the field, scientific methodology is necessary. A number of researchers have tried to create a similar technique.

S. M. Dudin is known for the most serious developments in this area. In two articles16 he outlines his experience of photographic field work. His technique was advanced for its time and today remains practically the only development for photographic recording of ethnographic material. Separate theses on this topic can be found in other methodological recommendations devoted to field work, but no one else has ever approached this issue so carefully - however, few of his contemporaries had such extensive experience of such complex work. S. M. Dudin analyzes the technical features of photography; describes in what situations it is more convenient to use one or another technique; focuses on the methods of filming various thematic subjects, noting that the most difficult thing is to work with people, and offers options on how this can be done. It must be admitted that many ideas and innovative proposals written almost a hundred years ago are still not outdated. Of course, the photographic equipment of that time has become a thing of the past, but his advice on preparing an expedition, drawing up preliminary programs and the procedure for recording various aspects of everyday life is still relevant.

Among the studies in which there are individual fragments dedicated to field photography, one can note a short article by V. Gal

1 7 kova “Amateur photography in the service of natural history and homeland studies”,

13 Russian art sheet. 1860. No. 34. pp. 131-138.

16 Dudin S.M. Photography on scientific trips // Local history. M., Pg., 1923. No. 1-2; Dudin S. Photography on ethnographic trips // Kazan Museum Bulletin. Kazan, 1921. No. 1-2.

17 Galkov V. Amateur photography in the service of natural history and homeland studies // Reasonable photography. Kharkov, 1915. where he, in a very similar vein to Dudin, examines some issues of ethnographic photography in rural Ukraine. Represent

18 interesting monograph and articles by A. M. Donde, where he, paying more attention to the technical side of photography during travel, discusses the tasks of recording photography. D. N. Anuchin19 also writes about the need for photographic recording in ethnography and related sciences, but he does not propose any methodology, noting only that amateur photographers traveling around the country need to be actively involved in this matter. This thesis of his will be adopted a little later, when they begin to create working photo circles. Thematically close to this period can be considered the work of N. P. Tikhonov 20

1932. The study is primarily devoted to the methods of photographic recording in archeology, but it provides quite a lot of useful information on filming inanimate, static objects, large and small things, which can also be used in ethnography. This work also contains information about the achievements of photographic equipment of that time for field work.

In the second half of the 1920s, a new period of theoretical study of photography began in the Soviet Union. In pre-revolutionary Russia, the development of technology and scientific thought proceeded in parallel with European countries and the United States, but after the revolution, the development of theory in the field of ethnographic photography slowed down. We can say that the need to develop a special method of field photography and prepare equipment for this, and the study of scientific photographic material, was forgotten for a very long time. Scientific methods were often replaced by an ideological basis and directive instructions on what and how to shoot in a given situation.

The work of ethnographers and photographers is being replaced by the work of journalists, containing specific instructions on how to present various events

18 Donde A. Tasks of recording photography // Bulletin of photography. 1913. No. 4; Donde A.M. Photography while traveling. M., 1919; Donde A. M. Principles and methods of applied photography and examples of their application in science and technology // Photographic almanac. 1929. No. 2; Donde A.M. Technology in the service of the spiritual interests of humanity. M., 1924.

19 Anuchin D.N. A few words about the development of geosciences and the tasks of the geographical circle in Moscow // Earth Sciences. M., 1894. T. 1, Book. 1; Anuchin D.N. On the tasks of Russian ethnography // Ethnographic Review. 1989. No. 1.

20 Tikhonov N.P. Photography in field work. L., 1932. and facts in a light favorable for propaganda purposes. In this area you can

1 "y* special mention should be made of the works of L.P. Mezhericher and G.M. Boltyansky. The widespread use of photographic data for propaganda and scientific purposes attracted the attention of not only scientists, but also political and public figures. The photographic documents reflected in the most vivid form the main events and facts of the pre-war era23.

During this period, photography work groups became widespread. Their participants were sent both to document work and life at their enterprises, and to film rural life and the environment during vacations and special excursions. The issue of training professional photographers for this field has been discussed in a number of articles24.

In 1966, G. G. Gromov’s work “Methodology of Ethnographic Expeditions”25 was published. It devotes quite a lot of space to the methodology of ethnographic photography. The author gives useful tips on how to take photographs, describing in detail the things required for photographic work in the field, such as the use of large-scale objects, indicating weather conditions acceptable for work, listing the most common topics and subjects of recording, and also suggests a method for maintaining field photo diaries. The method of marking films is described in great detail to avoid confusion. The author characterizes the types of suitable photographic equipment and available photographic films. This work by G. G. Gromov turned out to be the last major publication devoted to the methodology of ethnographic (and photographic, in particular) work in the field; it is still used today.

Turning to foreign developments on the topic under consideration, it is necessary to note a number of interesting publications. In general, the topics of Western research

21 Mezhericher L. Soviet photographic information at a new stage. M., 1931.

22 Boltyansky G.M. Photography and the public. M., 1930.

23 Magidov V.M. Film, photo and sound documents in context. P. 72.

24 Belikov A.A. Achievement of working photo circles // Photographer. 1929. No. 6; Belikov A.A. School photo club in the service of local history // Soviet photo. 1928. No. 8; Belikov A.A. Local history work of an amateur photographer // Soviet photo. 1928. No. 16.

25 Gromov G.G. Methods of ethnographic expeditions. M., 1966. The findings concerning the problems of visual recording of various cultures fit into two main periods:

1. From the beginning of the 20th century until the 1970s, ethnographic photographic materials were actively collected during various expeditions. Based on this work, various methods of field photographic recording and possibilities for further scientific use of the data obtained are proposed.

2. Since the 1970s, foreign photographic research has intensified - this is due to the fact that three new directions have been added to the field collection of photographic materials.

Turning to the early period of development of foreign research, it is important to note that F. Boas was one of the first to speak about the need for detailed photographic recording of cultures. The most famous work in field photography and

26 method of visual fixation “Balinese character” was written by his student M. Mead in collaboration with G. Bateson. It is believed that it was this work that became the basis for the creation of the direction of visual anthropology. The main idea of ​​the work was that the lexical forms of one culture cannot adequately convey the characteristics of another, but this can be done using visual language. A method of recording culture was proposed, following which the authors tried to record, as fully as possible, various aspects of people's lives in villages on the island of Bali. The filming was usually carried out with two cameras, directed by G. Bateson, and M. Mead conducted the interviews. This was an innovative technique, tested and brought significant results in the study of culture. The researchers not only described the proposed methodology in detail and published the footage, but also examined the situations in which photographic recording was carried out. It should be noted that neither earlier nor later did ethnographers focus on such details as a description of the environment during photography. In “Balinese Character”, there are constantly notes from which it follows that the objects being photographed are carefully

26 Bateson G., Mead M. Balinese character: a photographic analysis. New-York, 1942. but adjusted to the requirements of the fixation being carried out. This information makes it possible to adjust the use and evaluation of the material. Another interesting thing about the researchers’ work is that when they subsequently viewed the images, they noted what was missed during recording and supplemented the collection with new images. The disadvantage of the methodology described in this work was that the authors themselves did not realize how much they influenced the recorded facts with their presence and technical requirements for filming.

A rich selection of methodological solutions is offered by J. Collier’s work “Visual Anthropology: Photography as a Research Method”27. Some of the described methods of work are close to sociological (for example, in terms of conducting statistical research based on photography). However, for ethnography it is also important to record the entire building with all its details and interior decoration - in order to later compare it with similar images of another building. J. Collier was one of the first to write about the fact that you can photograph a culture in as much detail as possible and then immerse yourself in its study from photographs. This thesis is not indisputable, however, this approach is still used in field work. J. Collier also approached cultural representatives with a request to comment on the images in the photographs just taken. It should be noted that in the practice of domestic ethnographers and photographers there was experience when returning to their previous place of work to bring photographs with them; even known

There have been 28 cases of exhibitions, but the practice of such commentary has spread only in recent decades.

Since the 1970s, three new directions have emerged in the field of visual cultural studies: 1). Study of ethnographic photographic heritage deposited in special collections; 2). Development of a theoretical basis for visual anthropology; 3). Consideration of the peculiarities of the functioning of an image in culture as a material object bearing a memorial load.

27 Collier J. jr. Visual Anthropology: Photography as a research method. New York, 1967.

28 Nikitin V. On the outskirts of Leningrad // Motherland. 1993. No. 2. P. 126.

First of all, there is a sharp increase in interest in old materials stored in the collections of private collectors, archives and museums. Ethnographic photo collections begin to be studied, evaluated, rediscovered, and materials are introduced into scientific circulation. The materials obtained in the European colonies are of greatest interest. Moreover, the available volume of images is huge. Among the many studies developing this direction, several publications deserve special mention.

The pioneers of this trend made an attempt to summarize archival materials on ethnographic photography, field photography, photographers and collectors in a number of collections. The articles described the first research photographic methods, examined the significance of the first photographic materials for getting to know world cultures and for laying out the ideological background of colonialism and social Darwinism.

A conference was held in Germany in 1989, which culminated in the publication of the illustrated volume “Stolen Shadows: Photography as an Ethnographic

29 document”, equipped with an extensive reference apparatus. German ethnographic museums have published many thematic collections with critical analyzes of some of their photographic collections30. The authors of the articles in the collection “Anthropology and Photography”31 discuss various problems concerning the history of the development of photography in general and the reflection of this whole in the particular - using the example of ethnographic photography. K. Gehry published a monograph and a series of articles devoted to photographic recording of African cultures in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. She tries to read the content of photographic material against the background of historical facts; outlines the framework of its understanding at the time of creation and explains what the photographers were guided by when choosing and constructing subjects,

29 Der Geraubte Schatten. Photographie als ethnographisches Document. Munich, 1989.

30 Die ethnographische Linse Photographien aus dem Museum fur Volkerkunde Berlin. Berlin. 1989; Mit Kamel und Kamera. Historische Orient-Fotografie 1864-1970. Hamburg, 2007.

31 Anthropology and Photography 1860-1920. London, 1997. j2 Geary Ch. M. Missionary Photography: Private and Public Readings // African Arts. 1991. Vol. 24, no. 4; Geary Ch. M. “On the Savannah” "Marie Pauline Thorbecke"s Images from Cameroon, West Africa (1911-12) // Art Journal. 1990. Vol. 49, no. 2; Geary Ch. M. Photographs as Materials for African History Some Methodological Considerations // History in Africa. 1986. Vol. 13. describes how the visual recording of African culture developed and how these materials influenced public consciousness.

A fairly large number of publications are devoted to the works of individual photographers who created material with ethnographic subjects. Unfortunately, such publications are usually catalogs of images, and only in the preface can one find a small information about the identity of the author. An example is publications based on the works of the famous American photographer E. Curtis, who photographed American Indians33.

Research in the field of the theory of visual anthropology is developing. Similar work was undertaken before the 1970s, but the revival of interest in this issue begins with the sociologist H. Baker, who turned to studying the possibilities of photography in anthropological research (1974)34. Among the leading experts are S. Pink, P. Hawkings, M. Banks and others.35 Researchers define the subject and object of study of visual anthropology in different ways, and argue about what exactly it studies. Nevertheless, all humanities research using visual means is now associated with this direction.

The third modern direction in the study of photography is the consideration of the structure of the photographic image and its semiotic meaning, the analysis of the functioning of the image in culture, as well as the application of a philosophical-sociological approach to the study of photography. R. Barth was the first to introduce for photography such concepts as denotative message (an analogue of reality) and connotative message (additional meaning), assigning

36 my image in accordance with its functioning in culture. In fact, many studies are now based on this, looking at

JJ History of Photography. From 1839 to the present day. M., 2010. P. 430^433.

34 Harper D. Framing photographic ethnography. A case study // Ethnography. London, 2003.Vol. 4(2). P. 243; Becker H. Photography and sociology // Studies in the Anthropology of Visual Communication. 1974. Vol. 11. No. 1.

35 Pink S. Doing visual ethnography: images, media, and representation in research. London, 2001; Principles ofVisual Anthropology. Berlin, 2003; Banks M. Visual Methods in Social Research. London, 2001; Rethinking Visual Anthropology. New Haven, 1997.

36 Bart P. Camera lucida. Comments on the photo. Moscow, 1997; Bart R. Photographic message // Bart R. Fashion system. Articles on semiotics of culture. M., 2003. internal structure of photography. Among the most prominent followers of this group are the works of S. Sontag37, P. Bourdieu38 and others. Representatives of this trend most often turn to the study of family albums, so-called autobiographies, and the works of famous masters.

These three approaches to understanding photography are interesting for ethnography because they allow us to consider the self-representation of culture through photographic images.

Considering the directions of visual research, V. M. Magidov notes that Western schools in the field of archival studies and source studies of visual anthropology in many ways cannot be called established39. The above directions in the study of photography are developing in parallel and almost do not interact with each other. The authors exist largely on their own; they conduct research and create methods, often using photographic materials of different types, which cannot lead to the unification and unification of the research methods being developed.

In Russian science, active study of photography returned in the 1980s. Several trends immediately emerged that may be of interest to ethnography. Russian science, following global experience in this direction, is trying to offer something of its own, new, in using different approaches to considering Russian photographic heritage.

A large number of works related to photojournalism appeared. The authors tried to determine the place of photography in Russian culture. To do this, they resorted to considering the history of development and the influence of photography on the masses. Photography was considered as a new form of figurative creativity; it was compared with other types of fine arts. A. S. Vartanov and G. K. Pondopulo are the most famous authors who again turned to the problems of the significance of photography for society40. Works in this direction Sontag S. On photography. New York, 1977.

38 Bourdieu P. Photography: A Middle-brow Art. Stanford, 1990. j9 Magidov B.M. Film, photo and sound documents in context. P. 256.

40 Vartanov A.S. From photos to videos. M., 1996; Vartanov A.S. Photography: image and document. M., 1983; Pondopulo G.K. Cinema and photography in the assessment of Western aesthetics and art theory. M., 1988; Pondopulo G.K. Photography and modernity. M., 1982. The studies showed the possibility of using methods of art criticism of photographic documents in source studies41.

Since the late 1980s, with the emergence of the direction of visual anthropology in Russia, it immediately gained many followers, and works appeared devoted to the structure and reading of the photographic message (the content of the photograph). Researchers have always had difficulty assessing hundreds of objects and using the data that is revealed in an image, and for this reason photography has had little use in the work of ethnographers and anthropologists42. This new direction for domestic research with its methodology was intended to resolve difficulties, since within its framework photography was perceived as an independent object, and not as an illustration of a fact.

The number of studies of personal photo archives is increasing; family albums are considered as a functioning system. Initially, this direction concentrated on urban photography, but gradually it becomes wider, and expeditions begin to collect materials from the personal photo archives of rural residents and consider the functioning of photographic images in rural culture (peculiarities of placing photographs on walls, “feeding” photographs of deceased relatives, similar to “feeding” icons). The autobiographical direction is interesting because with the help of photographs you can study the internal view of culture, in contrast to the external view of the photographer-scientist (traveler). Due to the popularity of this issue today in Russia, many special works have been published, and a dissertation has also been defended.

Two collections of articles edited by E.R. are devoted to various aspects of visual anthropology (the study of photography, film/video, mass media, etc.).

41 Magidov V.M. Film, photo and sound documents in context. P. 78.

42 Collier J. jr. Visual Anthropology. P. 6.

4j For example: Nurkova V.V. Mirror with memory. The phenomenon of photography. M., 2006. P. 19; Flusser V. For the philosophy of photography. St. Petersburg, 2008; Petrovskaya E. Photo(bio)graphy: towards the formulation of the problem // Autobiography. On the question of the method. Notebooks on analytical anthropology. M., 2001.

44 Boytsova O.Yu. Amateur photography in the urban culture of Russia at the end of the 20th century. Diss. .cand. ist. Sci. St. Petersburg 2010.

Yarskaya-Smirnova, and P.V. Romanov45. They highlight the particularities of studying ethnographic/anthropological film to a greater extent; they discuss general problems of understanding the language, structure and semantics of photography; the issues of studying photographic material as a historical source are practically not touched upon.

Ya. E. Markovsky was one of the first in Russian research to talk about the existence of the language of photography as a system of signs and about the time factor as a specific element of photographic creativity46. The semiotic-philosophical study of photography, however, has not yet brought anything fundamentally new, and the authors retell in different words the ideas expressed in the work of S. Sontag about the peculiarities of the language of photography47. An interesting discussion is being held on the question of whether an image is a code, a system of signs, as R. Barthes wrote, or whether there is no such code48.

The literature on the history of photography sometimes contains information that is quite interesting for an ethnographer. It is divided into works on the history of the development of photography in general and publications dedicated to individual photographers. Several of the most important publications need to be noted. The stages of development of the technical side of photography are examined in some detail in the monograph by K. V. Chibisov49. The most prominent researcher who touched upon a very wide range of photographic problems and published a number of monographs is S. A. Morozov. Let us dwell separately on only one of his works, dedicated to domestic travelers30. This is the only study of its kind, telling about the photographic works of famous Russian travelers. It describes the preparation of expeditions, materials, photo methods

45 Visual anthropology: new perspectives on social reality. Saratov, 2007; Visual anthropology: adjusting the optics. M., 2009.

46 Markovsky Ya.E. The language of photography as a semiotic problem. M., 1988; Markovsky E.Ya. Paths of science in photography // Photography in the press: questions of history, theory, practice. Sverdlovsk, 1985.

47 Podoroga V. Unpresented photograph // Autobiography. On the question of the method. Notebooks on analytical anthropology. M., 2001: Petrovskaya E. Photo(bio)graphy: towards the formulation of the problem.; Petrovskaya E. Antiphotography. M., 2003.

48 Markovsky Ya.E. The language of photography. P. 11; Yakimovich E.B. Portrait photography as a way of social representation // Visual aspects of culture. Izhevsk, 2005. P. 62.

49 Chibisov K.V. Essays on the history of photography. M., 1987.

50 Morozov S. Travel photographers. M., 1953. graphing and many other facts. There is not much information about the early expeditions of ethnographers, but it conveys the spirit of the times and allows us to understand the methods and features of field photography in the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Among generalizing works on the history of photography, it is necessary to note the recently published work of E. V. Barkhatova31. It contains many little-known facts published for the first time; it describes the situation around photography in the first stages of its existence, how the technical innovation was established, what its main advantages and directions of work were seen, what difficulties were associated with the first years of its existence. Such a generalizing work is important for understanding the conditions under which ethnographic photography arose and how contemporaries understood it.

Among all the literature devoted to photography, the publications of archivists stand apart32. They have always perceived photography as a source that can be widely used in the humanities, and even tried to develop classifications of material by medium, by time of creation and by content. However, their works had no points of contact with the rest of the photographic literature; they seemed to have created their own, very closed world. Having extensive research material at hand, they focused on describing and characterizing data on the history of the revolution and the Great Patriotic War, so the research, although initially having significant potential, became confined to a circle of very narrow topics. This did not allow us to offer any complete classification and characteristics of photographic material, covering possible variations. However, some specific issues (for example, image falsification) have been analyzed and characterized in sufficient detail by researchers in this area. Barkhatova E. Russian light painting. The first century of photography 1839-1914. St. Petersburg, 2009.

52 Kuzin A.A., Roshal L.M. Film and photo phono archives. Study guide. M., 1982; Kuzin A.A. On some issues of examination of the value and use of film and photo documents // Soviet archives. M., 1976. No. 2; Evgrafov E.M. Film and photo documents as a historical source. Study guide. M., 1973; Volkov L.P. Basic principles of selecting photographic documents for state storage // Questions of archival science. 1963. No. 4.

An exception to the general mass of such works are the studies of V. M. Magidov. He approached the topic much more broadly and made an attempt to characterize a thematically heterogeneous range of sources53. It is necessary to dwell separately on his monograph “Cinema-Photo-Phono Documents in the Context of Historical Knowledge”54. This is the first and so far the only work in Russian historiography that considers a whole range of issues on the source study of film, photo, and sound documents and is based on the funds of several of the largest archives." The researcher notes the lack of independent research on the problems of source study of photo documents and the incompleteness of the theory of historical photo sources. He writes about the urgent need to develop many problems related to terminology, systematization and other features of the material. V. M. Magi has many innovative ideas in solving problems of source study of photo sources.

A separate layer is represented by publications of archival photographic materials: both simple catalogs and publications with a fairly detailed research description of the materials. In this range of publications, we can highlight the studies of G.V. Dluzhnevskaya, who presents materials from the photo archive of the Institute of Humanities and Mathematics of the Russian Academy of Sciences36. For example, in the book “The Muslim World of the Russian Empire in Old Photographs”, against the background of the history of the formation of the archive, the published materials are examined in detail and the environment in which they were created is described, as well as additional information about the depicted objects is provided.

Magidov V. M. Film, photo and sound documents: the problem of historiography, archival studies and source studies. Author's abstract. diss.doctor. ist. Sci. M., 1993; Magidov V.M. Film, photo and sound documents as a historical source. Domestic history. 1992. No. 5; Magidov V.M. Film-photo-phonological documents as an object of source study (historiography of the issue) // Soviet archives. M., 1991. No. 4; Magidov V.V. Film, photo, and sound documents as an object of source study (historiography of the issue) // Soviet archives. M., 1991. No. 5.

54 Magidov V.M. Film, photo and sound documents in context.

55 Ibid. pp. 37-38, 61-62.

56 See for example: Dluzhnevskaya G.V. Photo documents on Kyrgyzstan in the photo archive of IHMC RAS ​​// Proceedings of the Institute of World Culture. Statehood and religion in the spiritual heritage of Kyrgyzstan. Vol. 3; Dluzhnevskaya G.V. The Muslim world of the Russian Empire in old photographs. St. Petersburg, 2006.

With the advent of the Internet, researchers have gained ample opportunities to familiarize themselves with the contents of museum, archival and private collections37, which was previously complicated by the lack of special publications and catalogs, as well as the concentration of these publications in a narrow circle of special libraries. Now we can compare materials from different collections, which is important for studying ethnographic photography and the history of its formation.

Domestic researchers began to actively introduce old materials into scientific circulation, and in recent years a number of articles published by ethnographers have appeared, which examine photographs of the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries. However, for the most part these works remain descriptive or are devoted to the history of the origin and receipt of objects in museum and archival funds. Russian archives have rich and varied material for studying the ethnography of not only the indigenous population of our country, but also of foreign countries, while Western European science is often based on working with photographic material from former colonies, since little ethnographic recording was actually carried out within the borders of their states. North America stands somewhat apart in this regard, where, for various reasons, the traditional culture of indigenous peoples was actively recorded, which brings American materials closer to Russian ones in terms of data variability.

The proposed study is devoted to the features of only one ethnographic photographic fund - the photographic fund of the Peter the Great Museum of Ethnography and Anthropology (Kunstkamera) of the Russian Academy of Sciences. It was staff members who most often turned to the study of the MAE's photographic fund, and other researchers do not always have free access to museum photographic collections; In addition, the MAE lacked the technical capabilities to work with photographic materials, so we need to dwell in detail on the experience of the Museum staff and

See for example: Catalog of photo collections of the MAE RAS: URL: http://www.kunstkamera.ru/kunst-catalogue/index.seam?c=PHOTO; catalog of the Central State Archive of the KFFD St. Petersburg. URL: http://www. photoarchive. spb.ru:9090 /www/showChildObjects.do?object=2000656316: catalog of the photo archive of IIMK PAH. URL: http://www.archeo. socspb.ru/catalogue/index.phtml?action=seek&idfund=-1 &idregion=-1 &idtheme=-1 &key words~ consider the directions in which the study of ethnographic collections takes place.

58 illustrative collections”, where a brief description of photographic collections by museum department was published. Previously, this part of the fund was approached quite rarely. It is necessary to note a number of articles by V. A. Prishchepova, for whom the study of illustrative collections of the department of Central Asia and Kazakhstan became one of the main scientific topics back in the 1980s. Currently, most of her publications on this topic have been combined into a book39. We emphasize that today this is the only study of this scale and direction in Russia that consistently examines the regional aspect of the museum’s photographic fund. The monograph takes into account early additions to the MAE collection, which are of the greatest interest due to the content of the material; Among them, the first visual images on the culture of the peoples of Central Asia and Kazakhstan are highlighted. The department's collection represents one of the Museum's richest illustrative collections. V. A. Prishchepova considered a wide range of issues related to the formation of the fund and the problems of attribution, and made a number of proposals regarding the storage, registration and publication of photographic materials. The work illustrates a multifaceted approach to the problem of studying photographic collections.

Interest in the study of photographic collections has increased significantly over the past 10 years. The museum is gaining experience for a primary analysis of the accounting of the existing fund, about which almost nothing is known except the names of famous collectors and the stories of major expeditions. Several areas of research can be identified here.

58 Treasures of the Kunstkamera. From the fund of photo-illustrative collections. St. Petersburg, 2001.

59 Prishchepova V. A. Illustrative collections on the peoples of Central Asia of the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries in the collections of the Kunstkamera. St. Petersburg, 2011.

1. General thoughts on the possibility of using photographic material in the exhibition activities of ethnographic museums. A. M. Reshetov was one of the first to address the problem of how to most informatively include visual material in the exhibition in addition to clothing collections, citing as an example the general characteristics of the wealth of the MAE photographic fund, with mention of some of the most famous names of collectors60.

2. Information about the photo collections stored in the museum. Often, such publications reflect the information contained in the inventory, to which a brief description of the image is added. These are, for example, several works by V. N. Kislyakov, joint articles by L. S. Lavrentieva and A. K. Salmin, as well as an article by T. A. Shrader61. These publications were important as the first attempts to go beyond the study of clothing collections themselves. Currently, available information can be found on the MAE website; a significant part of the photographic prints with comments from the museum catalog are posted on the Internet. The main focus of the research work should be a scientific commentary on the published data.

3. Characteristics of the photographic fund by department (internal division of the Museum into scientific regional departments) or region. As a rule, collections are arranged by date of receipt, by subject or by people, their brief description is given, information about the author or collector is given, the time of collection or receipt, the name and area of ​​​​work of the expedition are indicated, as well as

60 Reshetov A.M. Photographs in the collections of the ethnographic museum // Problems of acquisition, scientific description and attribution of ethnographic monuments. L., 1987.

61 Kislyakov B.H. Photo collection of academician B.M. Alekseev at the MAE // Kühner Readings. St. Petersburg, 2001; Kislyakov V.N. Photo collection of K.I. Weber on Korea in the funds of the MAE RAS // Kühner readings 1995-1997. Brief contents of reports. St. Petersburg, 1998; Kislyakov V.N. A little-known document from the time of the Russian-Japanese War (photo album “Life of Manchuria” from the collections of the MAE RAS // Kühner Readings (2001-2004). St. Petersburg, 2005; Kislyakov V.N. Kalmyk collections of the MAE RAS // Kühner Readings (2001-2004) . SPb., 2005; Kislyakov V.N. Early illustrative collection No. 732 at the MAE RAS // Küner collection. Materials of East Asian and Southeast Asian studies (2008-2010). Lavrentyeva L.S. Salmin A.K. Collections of the MAE RAS (Catalog experience) // Collections of the MAE Department of Europe. St. Petersburg, 2008. Salmin A.K., Lavrentyeva L.S., Kondratyeva N.B. , Tolmacheva E.B. Holidays, rituals and beliefs of the Mari and Udmurts (things and photographs from the collections of the Department of Europe of the MAE RAS) // Collections of the Department of Europe of St. Petersburg, 2008. T. LIV; Scandinavia in illustrations. (in the funds of the MAE RAS) // Radlov collection. Scientific research and museum projects of the MAE RAS in 2006, St. Petersburg, 2007. The main ethnographic themes reflected in the photographic material are listed. This direction includes the works of V. A. Prishchepova (photo fund of the department of Central Asia and Kazakhstan), L. S. Lavrentieva (the first such publication, which is equipped with a table indicating all collections and their list by topic) - on the peoples of Eastern Europe, A . K. Kasatkina and E. S. Soboleva (photo fund of the department of Australia, Oceania and Indonesia), V. I. Dyachenko (peoples

Siberia), M. A. Yanes (peoples of South and South-West Asia), S. A. Korsun

North America) . The subject matter of these works is somewhat broader than the previous ones. They represent an attempt to comprehend the accumulated material and allow for a general comparison of the available photographic funds - in terms of time of receipt, breadth of coverage of regions and cultures, ethnographic topics, as well as quality of execution.

4. Research related to the study of the heritage of a particular collector or materials from a particular expedition. The authors provide a fairly detailed biography of the researcher and the history of his work, consider part of the photographic heritage on the topics presented, without claiming to be an exhaustive analysis of the contents of the entire collection. The publication of the Aleutian diaries of V. I. Yochelson (in Russian and English) is equipped with photographs of all his informants and residents of the Aleutian Islands. E. A. Rezvan published a catalog based on materials from expeditions to Kazakhstan (1899 and 2010); I. I. Krupnik and E. A. Mikhailova presented the expedition of A. S. Forshtein; D. A. Samsonov paid special attention to three photo collections on Korea; A.K. Kasatkina - A. Grubauer’s collections on North Borneo; L. S. Lavrentyev - to the works of M. A. Krukovsky; T. A. Shrader - to the European collections of V. V. Radlov; A. A. Lebedeva

62 Prishchepova V.A. The past and present of the peoples of Central Asia and Kazakhstan in the materials of the MAE (photo collections of the Museum of Ethnic Studies: 1920-1930) // Radlovsky collection. Scientific research and museum projects of the MAE RAS in 2006. St. Petersburg, 2007; Kasatkina A.K. Illustrative materials of the department of Australia, Oceania and Indonesia on the islands of Southeast Asia // Radlov collection. Scientific research and museum projects of the MAE RAS in 2008. St. Petersburg, 2009; Soboleva E.S. Illustrative museum collections as an ethnographic source (on the example of the Indonesian MAE Foundation) // Collection of MAE. St. Petersburg, 2000. T. HUSH; Korsun S.A. Illustrated collection of MAE on the peoples of North America Radlov Readings-2004. Abstracts of reports. St. Petersburg, 2004; Yanez M.A. Photo-illustrative collections of the Department of South and South-West Asia of the MAE RAS // Radlov Readings-2002. Materials of the annual scientific session. St. Petersburg, 2002; Lavrentieva L.S. Catalog of illustrative collections. ; Dyachenko V.I. Photo-illustrative collections of the Department of Siberia // Collection of MAE. 285 years of the St. Petersburg Kunstkamera. SPb., 2000. T. HUSH. two photo collections on the ethnography of Australia63. Note that a brief description of photographic data on the main topics presented is supplemented by previously unknown information about collectors and other details. In particular, thanks to the notes of A. S. Forshtein and V. I. Yochelson, it was possible to find out the names of individuals depicted in the portraits, as well as provide some biographical information. The work of D. A. Samsonov is of particular interest, since it describes the political situation in which the expedition’s work took place, and the goals for which the Russian missions to Korea were equipped.

5. Use of photographic materials as illustrations. The text of a study devoted to any ethnographic topic includes visual data that allows the reader to understand what it looks like. As an example, we can note articles by L. E. Sutyagina about the disappeared monuments of the Leningrad region, which were recorded by photographer A. A. Belikov in the late 1920s, Yu. V. Ivanova-Buchatskaya about the features of the Mecklenburg house, V. A. Prishchepova about the musical instruments that can be seen in the photographs, Yu. M. Botyakova according to the traditional beliefs of the Circassians64. Of particular interest within this subsection is the catalog of the exhibition by E. A. Rezvan, dedicated to the salars63. Here b" Krupnik I.I., Mikhailova E.A. Landscapes, faces and stories: Eskimo photographs of Alexander Forshtein (1927-1929) // Anthropological Forum. No. 4; Samsonov D.A. History of the formation and characteristics of Korean illustrative Fund of the Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography named after Peter the Great // Collection of MAE: things, history of collections, texts. T. LV; Illustrative collections of M.A. Scientific research and museum projects of the MAE RAS in 2007, St. Petersburg, 2008; Treasures of the Kunstkamera: as V. Yochelson saw them, St. Petersburg, 2001; European photo collection of V.V. Radlov. / Radlov readings-2002. Materials of the annual scientific session. St. Petersburg, 2002; Kasatkina A.K. Northern Borneo in photographs by Albert Grubauer // Radlovsky collection. Scientific research and museum projects of the MAE RAS in 2009. St. Petersburg, 2010; Illustrative materials of the MAE RAS on Australia // Australia, Oceania and Indonesia in the space and time of history. Maklayevsky collection. St. Petersburg 2010. Issue. 3; Rezvan E.A. Samuil Dudin - photographer, artist, ethnographer (materials of expeditions to Kazakhstan in 1899 and 2010). St. Petersburg, 2010.

64 Sutyagina L.E. Disappeared monuments of the Russian province (based on materials from the photo-illustrative collection of A.A. Belikov at the MAE) // Radlovsky collection. Scientific research and museum projects of the MAE RAS in 2010. St. Petersburg, 2011; Ivanova-Buchatskaya Yu.V. Mecklenburg house-courtyard in photographs from the collection of the Kunstkamera (2000) // Radlov Readings-2005. Abstracts of reports. St. Petersburg, 2005; Prishchepova V.A. Musical instruments of the peoples of Central Asia and Kazakhstan from photographs of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. from the collection of MAE RAS // Music of the Kunstkamera. St. Petersburg, 2002; Botyakov Yu.M. Archival and illustrative materials by E.M. Shilling on the traditional beliefs of the Circassians from the collection of the MAE // Collection of the MAE. Cultural heritage of the peoples of Central Asia, Kazakhstan and the Caucasus. St. Petersburg, 2006. T. L1I.

63 Rezvan E.A. Between Turkestan and Tibet. Exhibition catalogue. St. Petersburg, 2010. It is interesting to compare the old photographic collections of the Museum and modern photographic materials obtained during the expedition.

6. Methodology for attribution of numberless, undescribed photographic material stored in the Museum’s collection. The first article on this issue is by O. B. Stepanova66 and talks about the experience of determining the authorship of an unnumbered, unregistered photo collection. In particular, the locations where some of the images were taken were identified. Copies of this collection preserved in the Russian Geographical Society, which were archived in a better quality, helped to carry out this work.

Available in-museum publications on ethnographic photography indicate that there is no single algorithm for processing photographic material. The study of photographic data is approached in the same way as with clothing collections, describing the history of creation and acquisition and giving a brief description of the object. Only in the monograph by V. A. Prishchepova a number of recommendations are given on how information can be obtained about an image and from an image and how the identified facts can be used in the future. Most researchers treat the content of photographic material in a positivistic manner, concentrating on what exactly it reflects, and the question of how, by what means photographic material reflects reality and how reliably is not even raised, and certainly no attempt is made to deeply analyze any pictures as example. Obviously, this remains to be done by future researchers.

9. Theoretical and practical significance

This work may be of interest to ethnographers, sociologists, historians and scientists of other humanities, as well as curators of photographic funds and other professionals involved in the study of the photographic heritage of Russia and neighboring countries. It can become the basis for subsequent developments in the field of the theory of ethnographic photography as a source

66 Stepanova O.B. On the attribution of one Siberian photo collection to the MAE // Collection of MAE. SPb., 2000. T. HUSH. data for the social sciences, and also serve as a basis for studying individual collections, the history of the development of ethnographic photography, for the formation of thematic photographic funds in museums and archives, establishing their collection value, and developing criteria for selecting images for storage. The work can be useful in terms of identifying materials with an ethnographic focus, their attribution, dating, determining authorship and region, which will allow creating a source thematic base that is diverse in nature. The most productive step in the study of photographic funds is to identify their characteristic specific properties in order to define them as an independent type of historical source67. Individual fragments of the work can be taken into account when compiling methodological manuals for photographic recording in the field.

10. Scientific novelty

The peculiarity of ethnographic photography is that although it is often called a scientific source, there is not a single study that would develop the characteristics and approaches to studying the content of ethnographic photography, which would allow it to be approved as such. To date, not a single monograph has been published in Russia that considers photography as a historical/ethnographic source (primarily for the social sciences). This paper attempts to fill some of these gaps and take a comprehensive approach to exploring a range of issues associated with photography used as a scientific source. For the first time, a historical periodization of the development of ethnographic photography has been proposed in connection with the development of photographic equipment, field research techniques and the history of scientific theories. For the first time, a number of questions have been raised regarding the classification of material according to various criteria. For the first time, the question of the source study potential of ethnic

67 Magidov V.M. Film, photo and sound documents in context. P. 219. graphic photography, features of critical analysis of the source and methods of working with it.

Certain provisions of the work were presented by the author in several publications and in a number of reports at scientific conferences. Among them are the VIII and IX Congresses of Anthropologists and Ethnographers of Russia (Orenburg, 2009; Petrozavodsk, 2011), Radlov Readings (St. Petersburg, 2007, 2009, 2011), the conference “Expertise and Photography” (St. Petersburg, 2010), the festival and scientific conference “Intermediary Camera” (Moscow, 2010)

12. Structure

The work consists of an Introduction, four chapters, a conclusion, provided with a list of abbreviations, a list of used literature and sources, and a list of terms. The dissertation is supplemented by an appendix in the form of an album of illustrations from the MAE photo collection; a critical analysis of individual illustrations was carried out by the author of this work.

CONCLUSION

This dissertation research proposes some ways to solve the problem of finding ways and possibilities for determining the potential of ethnographic photography as a scientific source at the stage of primary external analysis. A number of solutions have also been proposed for characterizing individual features of photographic data.

Photography as a multifaceted source can be considered in different aspects, according to the characteristic features inherent in the image - a technical tool for recording the world and as an artistic, author's work. The need to classify photographic images, determine their properties and capabilities has been long overdue, due to the fact that in order to obtain ethnographic information it is necessary to study the internal content of photographic data, to establish its semantic and informative capabilities, but this cannot be done without being able to analyze the features of the external form of the photo source. The advent of digital technology brings not only a new shooting technique, but also new possibilities for reflecting the surrounding world, and therefore the methods of studying the source will change somewhat. Consequently, today it is necessary to evaluate all accumulated photographic material as a specific source that has gone through a long path of development. Studying various options for visual recording of surrounding realities will lead not only to the opportunity to take a different look at the existing material, but also to justify the introduction of new data into scientific circulation, as well as to approve photography as an official source, along with text data and audio recordings. A comprehensive analysis of photographic material will help develop rules and methods for creating a field source in such a way that it can more informatively and reliably reflect ethnographic realities. All this, in turn, will make the content of the image more understandable, suitable for further study and attribution of visual data.

In this work, we tried to show the complexity and versatility of the phenomenon of ethnographic photography, to identify and explore the features of various approaches to its study. Focusing attention on individual problems illustrates the ambiguity of the source, the dependence of the meaning put into it on the environmental conditions during the production of the material, and also reveals its potential, the possibility of providing unique scientific and cultural information.

Achieving this goal required a comprehensive analysis of historical, technical and methodological data, as well as solving a number of practical and theoretical problems.

The periodization proposed in the work and the identification of the main technical and theoretical stages in the development of ethnographic photography contribute to the reattribution of materials according to the time and place of creation. Systematization of the available data makes it possible to present the entire photographic heritage that remains from the era of the classical photographic method. Classifications of a photographic source were developed in order to allow photographic material to be combined according to common characteristics, which will help not only to evaluate its informative capabilities and understand the features of criticism, but also to compare both the photographs themselves and the information obtained from them.

The work proposes criteria on the basis of which it is legitimate to connect a set of photographic materials with the concepts and requirements of ethnographic science.

The very concept of “ethnographic photography” does not have a clear definition, and therefore is interpreted by researchers quite broadly and unsystematically. The work outlines the range of materials that can be classified as ethnographic. The main criterion by which images are classified as data for scientific study is the ultimate purpose of the photograph that guided the author when creating the image. It is this principle that determines the content of photographic material and in accordance with what methods it will be filmed. Thus, determining the purpose of the survey will help to more accurately delineate the boundaries of the scientific source and exclude data that cannot be considered special and sometimes should be completely excluded from the range of images that can provide useful information.

Based on this, three groups of data are distinguished according to the degree of their proximity to the interests of ethnographic science:

1). Materials created specifically for ethnographic science.

2). Materials created for sciences related to ethnography.

3). “Near-scientific” photographic material, which can also, in certain cases, become an ethnographic source.

The complexity of the source is also important: whether it represents a single, random material or is it an integral collection, where one image complements the other. A significant role in determining how suitable the available photographic data is for scientific purposes is played by the peculiarities of archival fund formation at the stage of formation of a stock collection and the answer to the question of how the image got into a special repository, whether it is a random photograph or images brought from a scientific expedition. Studying the history of the origin of the collection will help classify it either as scientific materials, or as data that has an ethnographic plot only externally and cannot claim a high level of information provided. Thus, the images can be divided into three groups based on the composition of the collection and the method of receipt:

1) Single materials that do not represent an integral complex and do not give a general idea of ​​a cultural phenomenon.

2) Materials received from non-professional ethnographers. Collections acquired by the Museum as a gift, purchase or other means.

3) ^Collections from trips, expeditions, and many years of work by ethnographic researchers.

The two classifications proposed above reflect the characteristics of a photo source from the point of view of setting the general task during its creation - the formation of a profile collection. Within their framework, the material must also be divided according to content.

In continuation of the first classification, among photographic materials related to ethnography of the socio-humanitarian sciences, one can distinguish anthropometric, historical, military topographical, folklore/philological and other types of photographs. Among the so-called “pseudo-scientific” data, commercial, colonial, missionary, military, urban, etc. are most often represented. All selected groups of photographs differ in different levels of information content and reliability. Understanding the status of the collection or individual image being studied will allow you to initially determine the specifics of the data available for study.

The prevalence of various genres in ethnographic photography is also of great importance for image analysis. Determining the genre helps to attribute the image by the time of creation, and also tells us whether a specialist or a casual traveler worked in the field, and how deeply he was immersed in the culture being studied.

A lot of information about the characteristics of a photographic source can be provided by determining how the photographer and the culture he records interacted with each other. This study proposes to distinguish five levels of contact between the photographer and the photographed subject, which to varying degrees characterize the visual material as more or less reliable:

1. Photographing inanimate objects.

2. The subjects of the shooting do not see the camera pointed at them.

3. The subject being photographed knows about the fact of photographic recording.

4. The type of shooting, which is considered the actual production. The photographer and the subject are in contact, working on camera takes place, while there is a background as a cultural context for the realities being recorded.

5. The interaction between the subject and the photographer occurs as in the previous case, but without a background (shooting in a studio or against an artificial background).

The gradually improving capabilities of technology play a significant role here. The development of optics and the emergence of more advanced cameras contributed not only to improving the quality of images, but also provided the opportunity to take photographs in any conditions, which immediately affected the quality of the photographic information provided and the possibility of its further use. Now, provided that the correct recording method is developed and complete accompanying data is available for the image, it becomes possible to study many everyday aspects, focusing largely on their photographs.

One of the important factors influencing the peculiarities of the creation, content and reading of a photo source are cultural stereotypes. This is a rather interesting aspect of studying photography within an ethnographic approach. This includes the visual implementation of the ideas of some peoples about others, the people’s ideas about themselves, as well as the refraction of the concept of cultural phenomena through the prism of the perception of three characters: the person being photographed, the photographer and the viewer. The reflection of stereotypes in photography has its own standards, and is also divided into different types, which can also be classified, as shown in a number of examples given in the work, based on the most common groups of images.

Consideration of the problem of authorial individuality illustrates how significantly an author can influence the content of a work and its subsequent understanding in scientific and cultural terms. Here we consider the most common mistakes made by researchers when establishing the authorship of a source, those factors that can force a photographer to testify to an event in one way or another. The peculiarity of photography is that it can have several authors, each of whom adds new meaning and significance to the existing image.

The peculiarities of the textual description of ethnographic photographic material remain one of the most pressing problems, since both curators of photographic collections, collectors and researchers are faced with commenting on it. In the author's commentary on the image, on the one hand, it must be taken into account that the photographer knows the events in which the shooting took place, on the other hand, with his description he gives the image a certain meaning, addressing the viewer to specific elements of the photographic material. Perception and understanding of data that has not been commented on by the collector is particularly difficult, since in this case there is a reconstruction of the circumstances in which a particular frame was created.

There may also be falsification of photographic and textual material, produced both for aesthetic purposes and with a deliberate desire to change real facts, which contributes to the spread of errors in attributing the material and working with it.

It is also important for understanding the features of photography how the culture itself allows itself to be recorded, how it responds to the attempt to create its image, regulating what can and what should not fall into the camera lens.

Scientific trends in ethnography had a great influence on the content of the image. Here, the main role was played by how intensively the researchers working within the framework of a certain theory involved a photographic source for their scientific purposes, as well as how they created it, what they tried to put into the idea of ​​​​the image so that it would confirm the proposed theory.

A separate problem that researchers rarely address is the universality of ethnographic photographic information. Many photographs lose their significance over time, becoming not so much a source for ethnography as a science that studies culture, but a source for the history of science. However, some modern scientists, not wanting to notice this, still use such materials as evidence of their theories and as illustrations in the description.

Thus, we have identified a range of factors influencing the content of an ethnographic photographic source, analyzed their features and degree of impact, and also showed the importance of classification for determining the quality level of the information received. The entire proposed set of characteristics of ethnographic photography determines the scientific potential of photographic material. Taking all this data into account when analyzing both entire collections and individual images will help to more reliably interpret images and more accurately evaluate the information obtained.

Summing up the results of the study, it should be noted that it examined only the most pressing part of the problems associated with the study of both photographic sources in general and ethnographic sources in particular. Full coverage of the topic is impossible due to the fact that the phenomenon of photography itself and its significance for culture and science have not yet been sufficiently studied. Experience in studying images stored in the MAE photographic collection. indicates that the capabilities of the photo source are still understood by specialists quite simply and unambiguously, but in reality its potential is far from exhausted.

Most of the considered theoretical problems require further development, study and clarification. Therefore, the proposed recommendations should be considered as the first stage in the scientific study of ethnographic photography, as a basis for conducting the so-called external analysis, which today is not given much importance, since it is understood at the level of determining the authorship, place, time of creation of the document, establishing the recorded people. The main focus of the research was in many ways the formulation of questions that need to be resolved at the present time, and the proposed solutions are by no means universal and exhaustive.

Photography itself cannot yet be unconditionally considered as an impeccable tool of scientific knowledge. In domestic science there is not yet enough research, theoretical and methodological developments and practical research to be able to understand the world through photography, being confident that the information from the image is read adequately. However, it is possible that some of the issues raised in the study will serve as a catalyst so that new special developments in this direction can turn it into a full-fledged scientific ethnographic source.

1. Bogoraz-Tan V.G. Field ethnography program. JI., 1925. SPbFA RAS. F. 250. Op. 3. Unit hr. 170. 66 l.

2. Dudin S.M. Letter from V.V. Radlov dated August 10, 1894, SPbFA RAS. F. 177. Op. 2. Units hr. 102. 13 l.

3. Yochelson V. Letter. SPbFA RAS. F. 142. On. 1 (until 1918). Unit hr. 73. 273 l.

4. Letter from the Head of the Main Directorate and Chairman of the Caucasian Statistical Committee to the President of the Imperial Academy of Sciences dated July 25, 1880. SPbFA RAS. F. 2. Op. 1-1878. Unit hr. 6. 33 l.

5. Anuchin D.N. A few words about the development of geosciences and the tasks of the geographical circle in Moscow // Earth Sciences. M., 1894. T. 1, Book. 1. pp. 1-16.

6. Anuchin D.N. On the tasks of Russian ethnography // Ethnographic Review. 1889. No. 1. P. 1-35.

7. Anuchin D.N. About people of Russian science and culture. M., 1952. 336 p.

8. Bazhak K. History of photography. The emergence of an image. M., 2006. 159 p.

9. Bart R. Photographic message // Bart R. Fashion system. Articles on semiotics of culture. M., 2003. pp. 378-392.

10. Bart P. Camera lucida. M., 1997. 224 p.

11. Barkhatova E. Russian light painting. The first century of photography 1839-1914. St. Petersburg, 2009. 300 p.

12. Belikov A.A. Achievement of working photo circles // Photographer. 1929. No. 6. P. 176-178.

13. Belikov A.A. Local history work of an amateur photographer // Soviet photo. 1928. No. 16. P. 511.

14. Belikov A. Communications and photography // Photographer. 1929. No. 11-12. pp. 348-352.

15. Belikov A.A. School photo club in the service of local history // Soviet photo. 1928. No. 8. P. 380.

16. Belkov P.JI. Ethnicity and mythology. Elementary structures of ethnography. St. Petersburg, 2009. 281 p.

17. Baudrillard J. Simulation and simulacra // Modern literary theory. M., 2004. pp. 258-270.

18. Boytsova O.Yu. Amateur photography in the urban culture of Russia at the end of the 20th century. Diss. .cand. ist. Sci. St. Petersburg, 2010. 148 p.

19. Boltyansky G.M. Photography and the public. M., 1930. 32 p.

20. Borisov V. What and how to film on a collective farm. M., 1932. 48 p.

21. Botyakov Yu.M. Archival and illustrative materials by E.M. Shilling on the traditional beliefs of the Circassians from the collection of the MAE // Collection of the MAE. Cultural heritage of the peoples of Central Asia, Kazakhstan and the Caucasus. St. Petersburg, 2006. T. LII. pp. 81-95.

22. Vartanov A.S. Documentary forms in art // Photography: problems of poetics. M., 2008. P. 15-32.

23. Vartanov A.S. From photos to videos. M., 1996. 224 p.

24. Vartanov A.S. Photography: image and document. M., 1983. 272 ​​p.

25. Vasiliev S.L., Daugovish S.N., Kudryavtseva L.N., Pugachev V.V., Stoyanova E.P., Tulupov V.V., Chernyakov B.I. Photography in the press: ways of formation and development // Photography in the press: issues of history, theory and practice. Sverdlovsk, Tyumen. 1989. pp. 7-92.

26. Virilio P. Vision machine. St. Petersburg, 2004. 144 p.

27. Virsky M.M. Department of photography and images of various peoples // Anthropological exhibition. 1879 M., 1879. Issue. 4. 12 s.

28. Vishnyakov E.P. Applying photography to travel. St. Petersburg, 1893. 148 p.

29. Vishnyakov E.P. Application of photography to travel and working on negative films. St. Petersburg, 1889. 18 p.

30. Volkov L.P. Basic principles of selecting photographic documents for state storage // Questions of archival science. 1963. No. 4. P. 39-45.

31. Gadamer H.G. Truth and Method. M. 1988. 704 p.

32. Galkov V. Amateur photography in the service of natural history and homeland studies // Reasonable photography. Kharkov, 1915. P. 3-26.

33. Gringmut V. Enemies of painting. M., 1893. 96 p.

34. Gromov G.G. Methods of ethnographic expeditions. M., 1966. 106 p.

35. Gutman J.M. Through the eyes of an Indian: the development of photography on the Indian subcontinent // Impact: science and society. Photography on the border between art and science. 1993. No. 4. pp. 65-75.

36. Actions of the V department of the IRTS. Meeting on March 18, 1883 // Photographer. St. Petersburg, 1883. No. 4. pp. 91-96.

37. Actions of the V department of the IRTS. Meeting June 10, 1883 // Photographer. St. Petersburg, 1883. St. Petersburg. No. 6. pp. 139-162.

38. Demin V. The language of photography // Soviet photo. 1979. No. 5. P. 27-28.

39. Dluzhnevskaya G.V. Historical and archaeological heritage of Asian Russia in photographic documents of the second half of the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries. (based on the funds of the scientific archive of the Institute of the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences). Author's abstract. diss. . doc. ist. Sci. St. Petersburg, 2008. 38 p.

40. Dluzhnevskaya G.V. The Muslim world of the Russian Empire in old photographs. St. Petersburg, 2006. 304 p.

41. Dluzhnevskaya G.V. Photo documents on Kyrgyzstan in the photo archive of IHMC RAS ​​// Proceedings of the Institute of World Culture. Statehood and religion in the spiritual heritage of Kyrgyzstan. Bishkek, 2003. Issue. 3. pp. 184-192.

42. Donde A. Conversations on photography. M., 1932. 114 p.

43. Donde A. Problems of recording photography // Bulletin of photography. 1913. No. 4. pp. 274-277.

44. Donde A. Photography while traveling. M., 1919. 208 p.

45. Dudin S.M. Photography on scientific trips // Local history. M., Pg., 1923. No. 1. P. 31-46.

46. ​​Dudin S.M. Photography on scientific trips // Local history. M., Pg., 1923. No. 2. pp. 134-146.

47. Dudin S.M. Photography on ethnographic trips // Kazan Museum Bulletin. Kazan, 1921. No. 1-2. pp. 31-51.

48. Dyachenko V.I. Photo-illustrative collections of the Department of Siberia // Collection of MAE. 285 years of the St. Petersburg Kunstkamera. St. Petersburg, 2000. T. XLVIIL pp. 178-184.

49. Evgrafov E.M. Film and photo documents as a historical source. Study guide. M., 1973. 48 p.

50. Zherebtsov B. This is a prosperous collective farm life! // Soviet photo. 1934. No. 1. P. 24-25.

51. Journal of the meeting of the ethnography department of the IRGO on November 20, 1867 // News of the IRGO. 1867. T. 3. pp. 188-190.

52. Journal of the meeting of the IRGO council on March 4, 1868 // News of the IRGO. 1868. T. 4. St. Petersburg, 1869. P. 22-28.

53. Journal of meetings of the IRGO council on January 31, 1876 // News of the IRGO. 1876. T. 12, Issue. 2. 144 p.

54. Ivanova-Buchatskaya Yu.V. Mecklenburg house-courtyard in photographs from the collection of the Kunstkamera (2000) // Radlov Readings-2005. Abstracts of reports. St. Petersburg, 2005. pp. 88-101.

55. History of photography. From 1839 to the present day. M., 2010. 768 p.

56. Source study: Theory. Story. Method. Study guide. M., 1998. 702 p.

57. Kagan M. Once again about documentary and artistic quality // Soviet photo. 1981. No. 3. P. 25.

58. Kasatkina A.K. Illustrative materials of the department of Australia, Oceania and Indonesia on the islands of Southeast Asia // Radlov collection. Scientific research and museum projects of the MAE RAS in 2008. St. Petersburg, 2009. pp. 277-281.

59. Kasatkina A.K. North Borneo in photographs by Albert Grubauer // Radlov collection. Scientific research and museum projects of the MAE RAS in 2009. St. Petersburg, 2010, pp. 130-135.

60. Catalog of the geographical exhibition in Moscow in 1892. M., 1892. 140 p.

61. Kislyakov V.N. Kalmyk collections of the MAE RAS // Kühner readings (2001-2004). St. Petersburg, 2005. pp. 61-69.

62. Kislyakov V.N. A little-known document from the time of the Russian-Japanese War (photo album “Life of Manchuria” from the collections of the MAE RAS // Kühner Readings (2001-2004). St. Petersburg, 2005. pp. 55-61.

63. Kislyakov V.N. Early illustrative collection No. 732 on Indochina at the MAE RAS // Kühner collection. Materials of East Asian and Southeast Asian Studies (2008-2010) St. Petersburg, 2010. Vol. 6. pp. 146-167.

64. Kislyakov V.N. Photo collection of academician V.M. Alekseeva at the MAE // Kühner readings (1998-2000). St. Petersburg, 2001. pp. 73-74.

65. Kislyakov V.N. Photo collection of K.I. Weber on Korea in the funds of the MAE RAS // Kühner readings 1995-1997. Brief contents of reports. St. Petersburg, 1998. pp. 67-69.

66. King D. Missing Commissioners. M., 2005. 208 p.

67. Kitaev A. Subjective. St. Petersburg, 2006. 380 p.

68. Klein L.S. Archaeological typology. L., 1991. 448 p.

69. Kozlov P.K. Mongolia and Kam. 1905. T. 1, Part 1. 256 p.

70. Kozlov P.K. Tibet and the Dalai Lama. Pg., 1920. 100 p.

71. Korsun S.A. Illustrated collection of MAE on the peoples of North America // Radlov Readings-2004. Abstracts of reports. St. Petersburg, 2004. pp. 106-109.

72. Coleman A.D. Photography in everyday life: prerequisites, functions and context // Impact: science and society. Photography on the border between art and science. M., 1993. No. 4. P. 31-46.

73. Krupnik I., Mikhailova E.A. Landscapes, faces and stories: Eskimo photographs by Alexander Forshtein (1927-1929) // Anthropological Forum. 2006. No. 4. pp. 188-219.

74. Krutkin V. Jay Ruby on visual anthropology. Abstract translation // Visual anthropology: new views on social reality. Saratov, 2007. P. 398^12.

75. Kuzin A.A. On some issues of examination of the value and use of film and photo documents // Soviet archives. M., 1976. No. 2. P. 40-45.

76. Kuzin A.A., Roshal JI.M. Film and photo phono archives. Study guide. M., 1982. 68 p.

77. Lavrentieva L.S. Illustrative collections of M.A. Krukovsky // Radlovsky collection. Scientific research and museum projects of the MAE RAS in 2007. St. Petersburg, 2008. pp. 273-279.

78. Lavrentieva L.S. Catalog of illustrative collections of the MAE Europe Department // MAE Collection. From the cultural heritage of the peoples of Eastern Europe. St. Petersburg, 1992. T. XLV. pp. 180-206.

79. Lavrentyeva L.S., Salmin A.K. Collections of MAE RAS. Chuvash (Catalog experience) // Collection of MAE. Collections of the European Department. St. Petersburg, 2008. T. LIV. pp. 109-135.

80. Lebedeva A.A. Illustrative materials of the MAE RAS on Australia // Australia, Oceania and Indonesia in the space and time of history. Maklaevsky collection. St. Petersburg, 2010. Issue. 3. pp. 313-316.

81. Levy-Bruhl L. Primitive mentality. St. Petersburg, 2002. 400 p.

82. Magidov V.M. Film-photo-phonological documents in the context of historical knowledge. M., 2005. 400 p.

83. Magidov V.M. Film, photo and sound documents as a historical source // Domestic history. 1992. No. 5. P. 104-116.

84. Magidov V.M. Film, photo, and sound documents as an object of source study (historiography of the issue) // Soviet archives. M., 1991. No. 4. P. 27-38.

85. Magidov V. M. Film, photo and sound documents: the problem of historiography, archival studies and source studies. Author's abstract. dis. doc. ist. Sci. M., 1993. 36 p.

86. Makariev S.A. Field ethnography. A short guide to collecting ethnographic materials. L., 1928. 104 p.

87. Markovsky E.Ya. Paths of science in photography // Photography in the press: questions of history, theory, practice. Sverdlovsk 1985. pp. 95-111.

88. Markovsky Ya.E. The language of photography as a semiotic problem. M., 1988. 48 p.

89. Materials for the history of academic institutions for 1889-1914. Pg., 1917. Part 1. 632 p.

90. Medushevskaya O.M. Source study: theory, history and method. M., 1996. 90 p.

91. Mezhericher L. Soviet photographic information at a new stage. M., 1931. 32 p.

92. Melodiev E. Photography on hikes and excursions // Bulletin of Photography. 1916. No. 10-12. pp. 205-211.

93. Miklouho-Maclay N.N. Collected works. M., 1990. T. 1. 472 p.

94. Mikhalkovich V. Problems of creativity. Photo. Problems of poetics. M., 2008. pp. 66-83.

95. Morozov S. The art of seeing. M., 1963. 272 ​​p.

96. Morozov S. Russian art photography. M., 1961. 154 p.

97. Morozov S. Travel photographers. M., 1953. 187 p.

98. Morozov S. Man saw everything. M., 1959. 208 p.

99. Morozov I.A. From the compiler // Men's collection. A man in traditional culture. M., 2001. Issue. 1. pp. 3-8.

100. Instructions for those wishing to take photographs for the benefit of anthropology // Izvestia IRGO. 1872. T. 8, No. 2. P. 86-88.

101. Neuhaus R. From the impressions of a travel photographer. Sketches of a stay in New Guinea // Bulletin of Photography. St. Petersburg, 1911. No. 10. P. 297-305.

102. Nikitin V. On the outskirts of Leningrad // Motherland. 1993. No. 2. P. 122-127.

103. New history of photography. M., 2008. 336 p.

104. Nurkova V.V. Mirror with memory. The phenomenon of photography. M., 2006. 386 p.

105. Osipovich Ya. Against photo lies and photo liars // Soviet photo. 1934. No. 2. S. 3.

106. From the photographic commission of the administrative committee for the organization of the Russian ethnographic exhibition. M., 1866. 4 p.

107. Perevozchikov I.V. Fundamentals of anthropological photography. M., 1987. 60 p.

108. Petrovskaya E. Antiphotography. M., 2003. 112 p.

109. Petrovskaya E. Photo(bio)graphy: towards the formulation of the problem // Autobiography. On the question of the method. Notebooks on analytical anthropology. M., 2001. pp. 296-304.

110. Podoroga V. Unpresented photograph // Autobiography. On the question of the method. Notebooks on analytical anthropology. M., 2001. P. 195-240.

111. Pondopulo G.K. Cinema and photography in the assessment of Western aesthetics and art theory. M., 1988, 80 p.

112. Pondopulo G.K. Photography and modernity. M., 1982. 176 p.

113. Pondopulo G.K., Rostotskaya M.A. New arts and contemporary culture. Photography and cinema. M., 1997. 234 p.

114. Potanina A.B. From travels in Eastern Siberia, Mongolia, Tibet and China. M., 1895. 296 p.

115. Prishchepova V.A. Musical instruments of the peoples of Central Asia and Kazakhstan based on photographs of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. From the collection of MAE RAS // Music of the Kunstkamera. St. Petersburg, 2002. pp. 185-193.

116. Prishchepova V.A. The past and present of the peoples of Central Asia and Kazakhstan in the materials of the MAE (photo collections of the Museum of Ethnic Studies: 1920-1930) // Radlovsky collection. Scientific research and museum projects of the MAE RAS in 2006. St. Petersburg, 2007. pp. 134-139.

117. Prishchepova V. A. Illustrative collections on the peoples of Central Asia of the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries in the collections of the Kunstkamera. SPb., 2011.452 p.

118. Prishchepova V.A. Central Asia in photographs of researchers (based on materials from illustrative collections of the MAE RAS) // Central Asia. Tradition in the face of change. St. Petersburg, 2007. Issue. I. S. 223-260.

119. Przhevalsky N.M. From Kyakhta to the sources of the Yellow River. St. Petersburg, 1888. 537 p.

120. Pushkarev JI.H. Forms and content of a historical source // Soviet archives. 1966. No. 5 P. 34-40.

121. Rezvan E.A. Between Turkestan and Tibet. Exhibition catalogue. St. Petersburg, 2010. 410 p.

122. Rezvan E.A. Samuil Dudin is a photographer, artist, ethnographer (materials from expeditions to Kazakhstan in 1899 and 2010). St. Petersburg, 2010. 60 p.

123. Reshetov A.M. I.S. Polyakov, scientist-encyclopedist // Bulletin of the Sakhalin Museum. Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, 2002. No. 9. P. 178-193.

124. Reshetov A. M. Photographs in the collections of the ethnographic museum // Problems of acquisition, scientific description, and attribution of ethnographic monuments. L., 1987. pp. 69-74.

125. Ruys A., A dispute of a millennium // Impact. Science and society. Photography on the border between art and science. 1993. No. 4. P. 5-12.

126. Russian photography of the 19th century. V. Carrick pictures of Russian life. St. Petersburg, 2010. 218 p.

127. Russian photographers of the 19th century. Photographer-inventor Ivan Boldyrev. Exhibition catalogue. St. Petersburg, 2008. 104 p.

128. Russian art sheet. 1860. No. 34. P. 131-138.

129. Savchuk V. Philosophy of photography. St. Petersburg, 2005. 256 p.

130. Salmin A.K., Lavrentieva L.S., Kondratyeva N.V., Tolmacheva E.B. Holidays, rituals and beliefs of the Mari and Udmurts (things and photographs from the collections of the Department of Europe of the MAE RAS) // Collection of the MAE. Collections of the European Department. St. Petersburg, 2008. T. LIV. pp. 136-143.

131. Samsonov D.A. History of the formation and characteristics of the Korean illustrative fund of the Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography named after. Peter the Great // Collection of MAE. East Asia: things, history of collections, texts. St. Petersburg, 2009. T. LV. pp. 277-302.

132. Light painting. Supplement to the magazine "Light". 1878. Issue. 1, no. 5. pp. 17-20.

133. Light painting. Supplement to the magazine "Light". 1878. Issue. 1, no. 7. pp. 25-28.

134. Soboleva E.S. Illustrative museum collections as an ethnographic source (on the example of the Indonesian MAE Foundation) // Collection of MAE. St. Petersburg, 2000. T. XLVIII. pp. 190-195.

135. Sosnovsky Yu.A. Expedition to China 1874-1875. M., 1882. T. 1, 4.1. 894 pp.

136. Treasures of the Kunstkamera. Aleuts: how V. Yochelson saw them. St. Petersburg, 2001. 100 s.

137. Treasures of the Kunstkamera. From the fund of photo-illustrative collections. St. Petersburg, 2001. 56 p.

138. Sreznevsky V. Memories of Vasily Andreevich Carrick // Notes of the IRTS. 1879. Issue. 3. pp. 114-119.

139. Sreznevsky V. Modern photography. Her successes, tasks and means // Photographer. 1882. No. 1. p. 1-5.

140. Stasov V.V. Photography and engraving // Russian Bulletin. 1856. T. 6, Book. 1. P. 359^400.

141. Stasov V.V. Photography and engraving // Russian Bulletin. 1856. T. 6, Book. 2. P.555-576.

142. Stepanova O.B. On the attribution of one Siberian photo collection to the MAE // Collection of MAE. St. Petersburg, 2000. T. XLVIII. pp. 195-198.

143. Stigneev V. About artistic and non-art photography // Photography. Problems of poetics. M., 2008. pp. 109-125.

144. Strigalev A. Pirosmani and photography // Photography. Problems of poetics. M., 2008. pp. 267-279.

145. Sutyagina L.E. Disappeared monuments of the Russian province (based on materials from the photo-illustrative collection of A.A. Belikov at the MAE) // Radlovsky collection. Scientific research and museum projects of the MAE RAS in 2010. St. Petersburg, 2011. pp. 106-112.

146. Schensovich V. Life and everyday life // Photographer. M., 1927. No. 5-6. pp. 170-172.

147. Tikhonov N.P. Photography in field work. L., 1932. 134 p.

148. Index to the Russian ethnographic exhibition organized by the Society of Natural History Lovers, affiliated to the Imperial Moscow University. M., 1867. 148 p.

149. Fomenko A. Montage factography, epic. St. Petersburg, 2007. 376 p.

150. Foucault M. Archeology of knowledge. St. Petersburg, 2004. 216 p.

151. Khrenov N. Photography in the context of culture // Photography. Problems of poetics. M., 2008. pp. 36-65.

152. Art newspaper. 1840. No. 2. P. 12.

153. Chibisov K.V. Essays on the history of photography. M., 1987. 256 p.

154. Shrader T.A. European photo collection of V.V. Radlov in the funds of the MAE RAS // Radlov Readings-2002. Materials of the annual scientific session. St. Petersburg, 2002. pp. 141-145.

155. Shrader T.A. Scandinavia in illustrations (in the collections of the MAE RAS) // Radlov collection. Scientific research and museum projects of the MAE RAS in 2006. St. Petersburg, 2007. pp. 95-99.

156. Sztompka P. Visual sociology. Photography as a research method. M., 2007. 168 p.

157. Shulman M. Photo editors went to the field // Soviet photo. 1934. No. 4-5. pp. 26-29.

158. Yanez M.A. Photo-illustrative collections of the Department of South and South-West Asia of the MAE RAS // Radlov Readings-2002. Materials of the annual scientific session. St. Petersburg, 2002. pp. 91-96.

159. Yanson Yu.E. Paris Geographical Exhibition // News of IRGO. 1875. T. 9, Issue. 6. P. 415-430.

160. Yakimovich E.B. Portrait photography as a way of social representation // Visual aspects of culture. Izhevsk, 2005. pp. 61-66.

161. Alesich S.K. Family Portraits in Rural Indonesia: Photography and Ethnographic Knowledge // The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology. 2007. Vol. 8, no. 4. P. 321-331.

162. Banks M. Visual Methods in Social Research. London, 2001. 203 p.

163. Bateson G., Mead M. Balinese character: a photographic analysis. New York, 1942. 278 p.

164. Becker H. S. Photography and sociology // Studies in the Anthropology of Visual Communication. 1974. Vol. 11, No. 1. P. 1, 3-26.

165. Bourdieu P. Photography: A Middle-brow Art. Stanford, 1990. ix, 218 p.

166. Bravman B. Using Old Photographs in Interviews: Some Cautionary Notes about Silences in Fieldwork // History in Africa. 1990. Vol. 17. P. 327-334.

167. Collier J. jr. Visual Anthropology: Photography as a research method. New-York, 1967. xv, 140 p.

168. Der Geraubte Schatten. Photographie als ethnographisches Document. Munich, 1989. 537 p.

169. Edwards E. Introduction // Anthropology and Photography 1860-1920. London, 1997. P. 3-17.

170. Geary Ch. M. Missionary Photography: Private and Public Readings // African Arts. 1991. Vol. 24, no. 4. P. 48-59.

171. Geary Ch. M. “On the Savannah”: Marie Pauline Thorbecke's Images from Cameroon, West Africa (1911-1912) // Art Journal. Depictions of the Dispossessed. 1990. Vol. 49, No. 2. P. 150-158.

172. Geary Ch. M. Photographs as Materials for African History Some Methodological Considerations // History in Africa. 1986. Vol. 13. P. 89-116.

173. Grimshaw A. The Ethnographer's Eye. Cambridge, 2002. 223 p.

174. Harper D. Framing photographic ethnography. A case study // Ethnography. London, 2003.Vol. 4(2). P. 241-266.

175. Jenkins P. The Earliest Generation of Missionary Photographers in West Africa and the Portrayal of Indigenous People and Culture // History in Africa. 1993. Vol. 20. P. 89-118.

176. Korlekar M. Re-visioning the Past. Early Photography in Bengal 1875-1915. New Delhi, 2005. 198 p.

177. Mack J. Documenting the Cultures of Southern Zaire: The Photographs of the Torday Expeditions 1900-1909 // African Arts. Special Issue: Historical Photographs of Africa. 1991. Vol. 24, no. 4. P. 60-69, 100.

178. Mit Kamel und Kamera. Historische Orient-Fotografie 1864-1970. Hamburg, 2007. 376 p.

179. Poignant R. Surveying the Field of View: The Making of the RAJ Photographic Collection // Anthropology and Photography 1860-1920. London, 1997, pp. 42-73.

180. Principles of Visual Anthropology. Berlin, 2003. 562 p.

181. Quan R. Photography and the Creation of Meaning // Art Education. 1979. Vol. 32, no. 2. P. 4, 6, 8-9.

182. Rethinking Visual Anthropology. New Haven, 1997. 297 p.

183. Scherer J. The Photographic Document: Photographs as Primary Data in Anthropological Inquiry // Anthropology and Photography 1860-1920. London, 1997. pp. 32-41.

184. Sontag S. On photography. New York, 1977. 210 p.

185. Vergara B.M. jr. Displaying Filipinos: Photography and Colonialism in early 20th century Philippines. University of the Philippines press. 1995. 186 p.

186. Wallis B. Black Bodies, White Science: The Slave Daguerreotypes of Louis Ag-assiz // The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education. 1996. No. 12. P. 102-106.

187. Webb V. L. Photographs of Papua New Guinea: American Expedition 19281929 // The Journal of Pacific Arts Association. 1995. No. 11-12. P. 72-82.

188. Wright Ch. An Unsuitable man: The Photographs of Captain Francis R. Barton // Pacific Arts. 1997. No. 15-16. P. 42-60.

189. Yee J. Recycling the “Colonial Harem”? Women in Postcards from French Indochina. French Cultural Studies. 2004. Vol. 15, no. 1. P. 5-19.

190. Young M. Malinowskfs kiriwina. Fieldwork photography 1915-1918. Chicago, London. 306 p.

191. Daguerre, Niepce, Talbot. To the centenary of the discovery of photography in 1938. URL: http://www.vivovoco.rsl.ru/vv/books /daguerre/daguerre.htm (access date 06/07/2010).

192. Andreev A.I. The history of the first photographs of Tibet and Lhasa. URL: http://www.geografia.ru/tibet-lhasa.html (date of access: November 25, 2010).

193. Dluzhnevskaya G.V. Ottoman architecture in photographs of the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries. (based on materials from the photo archive of the Institute of the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences). URL: http://www.archeo.socspb.ru/text/st/ (access date: 09/10/2011).

194. Zharmuhame J. Ideology in images: visual representation of women in Soviet women's magazines of the 50-60s. URL: http://www.takaya.by/texts/essay/sov magazin/ (date of access: 09.09.2009).

195. Magidov V. Experience in source study interpretation of archival documents on visual anthropology URL: http://www.norfest.ru/?cat=89 (access date: 06/11/2009).

196. Klimov O. Photographers or manipulators. August 25, 2006. URL: http://www.photographer.ru/columnists/678.htm (access date: 09.09.2009).

197. Catalog of the photo collection of the MAE RAS. URL: http://www.kunstkamera.ru/kunst-catalogue/index.seam?c=PHOTO (accessed 08/04/2011).

198. Catalog of photo collections of the Central State Archive of the KFFD St. Petersburg. URL: http://photoarchive. spb.ru: 9090/ www/show Child0bjects.do?object=2000656316 (date of access: 08/04/2011).

199. Catalog of photo collections of the photo archive of the IHMC RAS. URL: http://www.archeo.socspb.ru/catalogue/index.phtml?action=seek&idfund=-l&idregion=-l&idtheme=-l&keywords= (Access date: 09/04/2011)

200. Wright T. Photo Siberian success. No. 1. 2001. URL: http://www.photographic.ru (access date: 08/08/2011).

201. Sazonova E. Russian photography of the mid-19th early 20th century “In Russian style.”. URL: http://www.runivers.ru/doc/d2.php?SECTIONID= 6744&CENTERELEMENTID=150900&PORTALID=7957 (date of access: 07/08/2011).

202. Tolkacheva I. Photography in the artistic process at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. November 19, 2006. URL: http://www.photographer.ru/magazine/article. htm?rubrika= 1st 16&id=699 (date of access: 12/08/2010).

203. Ethnographic genre in Russian photography 1860s-1900s. URL: http://www.nlr.ru/exib/inv/etno.htm (accessed September 01, 2011).1. LIST OF TERMS

204. Shutter speed, exposure is the time interval during which the camera shutter is open and light acts on photosensitive material within the entire image field.

205. Aperture is a device in a camera lens that allows you to regulate the amount of light passing through the lens.

206. Fixing, fixing a chemical process for the purpose of fixing a light-resistant image obtained during development that does not change during long-term storage.

207. Shutter is a device used to block the light flux projected by the lens onto photographic material. The curtain-slit shutter is one of the first instant shutters, where an opening mechanical curtain allows light to pass through a slit.

208. A mirror lens is an analogue of a telephoto lens, for shooting distant objects, but with a limited number of functions.

209. Frosted glass type viewfinder, focusing screen.

210. Niepsotype is a method of producing a negative image on a glass plate impregnated with a light-sensitive solution, which was used to make positive paper prints.

211. Print, photographic print, a reverse copy of a negative, obtained by printing from a negative onto photographic paper or film, followed by chemical and photographic processing.

212. Negative photographic image on a transparent medium, which is a single negative image of an object, object, phenomenon, obtained using technical means of photography on a negative film after shooting and chemical-photographic processing.

213. A positive photographic image, the light tones of which correspond to the distribution of brightness of the subject being photographed.

214. A light filter is a design mounted on a lens or lighting fixtures to adjust or reduce the intensity of light passing through the lens and obtain additional photographic effects.

215. A photosensitive layer is a collection of one or more emulsion layers that can be located on one or both sides of the negative or positive substrate.

216. A photographic document slide in the form of a single positive image on a transparent film carrier, intended for viewing against the light or projecting onto a screen.

217. Talbotype, calotype is a method of producing a negative image on paper soaked in a light-sensitive solution, which was used to make positive paper prints.

218. Celluloid is a hard and elastic shiny horn-like substance obtained from cellulose and used for the manufacture of cinematographic tapes, photographic plates, etc.

219. Photo archive, photo fund physical storage of photographic documents, as well as classification, thematic association of photographic images.

220. Photo storage physical storage of photographic documents.

221. Photographic document is a document containing information recorded on it using photographic technology.

222. Exposure of the effect of light on a photosensitive material at the moment the camera shutter opens. The same term is sometimes used in the meaning: “to photograph something, to take a picture.” h,

223. Scientific supervisor: Ph.D. Ushakov Nikita Vadimovich1. St. Petersburg 2011206ъ11. No. 107-12

224. Woman of the Botokudo tribe. Brazil. 1840 Author Thesson E.

225. Women in traditional costumes. Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug, Tsingalinsky district. Khanty. 1880. Collector: Polyakov I.S.52. No. 106-93

226. Trip to the funeral. Kazakhstan, Semipalatinsk region. Kazakhs. 1879. Collector: Polyakov I.S.53. No. 106-86

227. A Kyrgyz family in traditional costumes. Kazakhstan, Semipalatinsk region. Kazakhs. 1880 Collector: Polyakov I.S.101. No. I-1026-107

228. Tractor. Mongolia. Mongols. First third of the 20th century.102. No. I-2035-170

229. Machine threshing of grain. China. Chinese. 1950s.103. No.I-1122-37

230. The wife of Stakhanovite Ustemirov works on a sewing machine. Kazakhstan. Kazakhs. First third of the 20th century.161. No. 7425-8 16.2. No. 7425-13

231. Mina-tapa. Rio de Janeiro. Collector Miklouho - Congo Man. Rio de Janeiro Collector Mik-Maclay H.H. Lukho-Maclay H.H.

232. Fruit seller. Palestine, Bethlehem. Arabs. Late XIX - early XX centuries. Collector: Ost M.F.182. No. 211-2b

233. Smoking pipe cleaner. Japan. Japanese. Second half of the 19th century. Collector: Schmidt F.B.

234. See: Emmons G.T. The Tlingit Indians. New York, 489 p. P. 401.321. No. I-1345-26322. No.I-1345-25

235. Women sifting grain.

236. Karachay. Aul Arkhyz. 1935 Karachais Collector:

237. Abramovich I. E., Siebert E. V.

238. Women sifting grain.

239. Karachay. Aul Arkhyz. Karachais 1935 Collector:

240. Abramovich I. E., Siebert E. V.

241. Mestizo in a feather outfit. First quarter of the 20th century Peru. Collector: Gaiman S. V.361. No. 136-35

242. Tekins of the Merv expedition. Turkmenistan, Turkmenbashi. Turkmens. Entered in 1883. Collector: Seydlitz N.K.

243. Prishchepova V. A. Illustrative collections. pp. 222-2241. S^"sno 5s*Ga ttsr"mnl1. Sp* sn,*? S about 3 sn"olo."