COMMENTS ON THE MAPS

Maps 1.1 to 1.4 show the entire North of Russia, Siberia and the Russian Far East and support mainly topics discussed in Part 1. Maps 3.1 to 3.7 refer mainly to the corresponding chapters in Part 3, but also illustrate the ethno-geographic distribution discussed in Part 2.

The quality of the maps clearly reflects the short deadline of this report. Further collection of data would be needed to represent satisfactorily all involved items with a homogeneous quality. However, together with the text sections, they still give a general impression of the indigenous areas in the North of the Russian Federation.

Geographical map base: Digital Chart of the World (DCW). Drainage data have arbitrarily been generalised. Some spelling of place names has been corrected.

Projection: Lambert, spheroid Clarke1866. Standard parallels for all maps: 66° and 69°N. Central meridians: 35°, 54°, 73°, 97.3°, 139°, 177.5° and 167.5°E for the individual maps (3.1-3.7), respectively.

Map sheet subdivision and scales (maps 3.1 to 3.7): The map sheet subdivision (see Map 1.2) is supposed roughly to represent the administrative subdivision, and to fit the page format. At the same time, scales had to be chosen with respect to the amount of data to be represented. This compromise resulted in a scale of 1:7,000,000 for the central and eastern map sheets (Maps 3.4-3.7), while the western areas have larger scales, Kanin to Yamal 1:4,000,000 (Maps 3.2 and 3.3), and Kola 1:3,000,000 (Map 3.1).

Indigenous population: Coloured map areas reflect areas used by indigenous peoples, here including the Komi and Yakuts. Data have been taken from the map “Narody Rossii i sopredelnykh stran” (1:4,000,000; PKO “Kartografiya”, Moskva 1995). As these data seem to be out-dated in several areas, some changes have been done, especially in the Taymyr area (Map 3.4). Areas more or less exclusively used by Russians (here including representatives of other immigrant peoples like Ukrainians, Tartars etc.) are left white.

Areas with a significant portion of immigrant population or immigrant land use are spotted white on the coloured background corresponding to the respective native people. Again, these data, mainly applied from the above mentioned source, do not reflect the almost ubiquitous participation of Russians and Ukrainians in ost indigenous subsistence areas.
Mingling of two or several indigenous peoples is indicated by areas hatched with two or more colours. The maps do not necessarily reflect all modern population dynamics locally resulting in an intense mingling of various ethnic groups (see comments in Part 3). Other inaccuracies occur in connection with areas of devastation and subsequent indigenous abandonment of land areas, e.g. through the recent oil and gas exploitation.
Traditional indigenous subsistence areas, that presently cannot be used due to the difficult social and economic conditions, are still left in the respective colour. Outside the Russian Federation (small parts of Maps 3.1 and 3.6), data are roughly supplemented from other, non-specified sources.

Protected areas: Protected areas are shown in order to indicate where the development of infrastructure and exploitation of natural resources is restricted. Data are mainly from the publication “Proposed Protected Areas in the Circumpolar Arctic 1996” (CAFF Habitat Conservation Report No.2) and “Conserving Russia’s Biological Diversity” (Krever et al. 1994, WWF). A few additions are made from other sources that are specified in the respective sections. Categories applied: 1) Strict nature reserves (Russ. zapovednik, almost closed areas with a research programme); 2) National parks (only outside Russia); 3) Nature conservation areas (a variety of areas with varying restrictions of a lower status, sometimes ineffective).

Boundaries of administrative areas: The state boundaries on Map 3.1 are transferred from the DCW. All other boundaries are manually added from the “Times Atlas of the World” (London 1992), in places corrected from the “Atlas SSSR” (Moskva 1984). They are probably not in absolutely correct positions.

Communication lines: Roads, tracks, railways and power transmission lines are plotted directly from the DCW, unless stated differently. They may not be up-to-date, but certainly indicate the general status of infrastructure development in most areas, except those marked as “Hydrocarbon development area”, that continuously change. For oil and gas pipelines, the DCW data are significantly supplemented with data from modern atlases and recent publications, but may still not be complete.

Boundaries of oil and gas provinces are transferred from the chart “Stratigraphic distribution of oil and gas deposits in the former Soviet Union” (CASP 1994). They are not distinguished concerning the importance of the hydrocarbon reserves and priority of development. See comments in the respective sections.

Settlements: Settlements are plotted directly from the DCW, though some have been erased in densely populated areas on the 1:7 mill. maps. Unfortunately, the DCW does not show up-to-date data on populated places. A few important places, that were found to be omitted, have been supplemented, though others may lack.
Also, many populated places - especially indigenous villages - that were closed during the Soviet era, are still in the data base. For some places, where information was available, this fact has been stated on the maps (Maps 3.4 and 3.7). A number of other villages shown on the maps may not exist anymore.
Naming of populated villages has been carried out sporadically in the white “Russian” areas, while it is more complete in the coloured, indigenous areas. Only places that also are shown in the “Atlas SSSR” (Moskva 1984) are named on the maps in order to increase the probability that named places still exist.
Major administration centres and indigenous population centres are indicated with bold type (see comments in the text sections or in Part 2). The item “camp” is only represented on Maps 3.6 and 3.7 and refers mainly to fishing camps on the Arctic islands, though many other permanent, indigenous subsistence camps should be included.

Other relevant sites:

Airports are uncritically plotted from the DCW, where no differentiation is made. The maps are certainly not complete with respect to military airfields and minor landing strips, whil others may be out of use.

Seaports, including important river ports, are transferred from “Atlas SSSR” (Moskva 1984).

Lighthouses are uncritically plotted from the DCW.

Oil / gas production sites are transferred from “Atlas SSSR” (Moskva 1984) and supplemented from recent publications cited in the respective text sections (Part 3).

Mines are transferred from “Atlas SSSR” (Moskva 1984) and supplemented from recent publications cited in the respective text sections (Part 3).

Factories/industrial areas are transferred from “Atlas SSSR” (Moskva 1984) and recent publications.

Power plants are plotted from the DCW and supplemented with data from “Atlas SSSR” (Moskva 1984)

Nuclear power plants, recycling sites, dumping sites and test sites are indicated according to information in Stortingsmelding from UD (Report to the Norwegian National Assembly by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) No. 34, 1993-1994 (“Atomvirksomhet i våre nordlige nærområder”).