Index of Doukhobor Settlements in the 1921 Canada Census

by Jonathan J. Kalmakoff

The following geographic finding aid may be used to locate Doukhobors in the 1921 Canada Census. Search by province, district, sub-district and page number to find a comprehensive listing of Doukhobor settlements (villages, work camps, homesteads, households, etc.). Then consult the Library and Archives Canada online images and microfilm copies (once available) of the original census to find specific Doukhobor entries. ***Note: This index is a work in progress. It currently contains Doukhobor entries for the provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia only; Doukhobor entries for the province of Saskatchewan will be added soon.

Index – Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta –   British Columbia

 

Manitoba

District No. and Name Sub-District No. and Description City, Town, Village, Township Doukhobor Entries Pages Microfilm
26 Brandon 8   Townships 11-12, Range 19, west of Principal Meridian. Independent Doukhobor homesteads. 11. N/A
26 Brandon 13   Townships 9-11, whole or fractional, Range 22, west of Principal Meridian lying south of the Assiniboine River. Independent Doukhobor homestead. 6. N/A
26 Brandon 34 Brandon Brandon City, all that part lying south of the centre line of Victoria Avenue and east of the centre line of Fifth Street. Independent Doukhobor households. 17. N/A
26 Brandon 35 Brandon Brandon City, that portion lying south of the centre line of Victoria Avenue and between the centre line of Fifth and Tenth Streets. Independent Doukhobor households. 11-12, 19, 22, 30. N/A
26 Brandon 37 Brandon Brandon City, that portion lying south of the centre line of Victoria Avenue and west of the centre line of Sixteenth Street, and north of the centre line of Victoria Avenue and west of the centre line of Eighteenth Street. Independent Doukhobor household. 18. N/A
27 Dauphin 2   Townships 24-25, Range 15 west of Principal Meridian within the Municipality of Ste. Rose Independent Doukhobor homestead. 15. N/A
27 Dauphin 19   Townships 27-28, Ranges 28-29, west of Principal Meridian. Independent Doukhobor homesteads. 18, 23. N/A
32 Nelson 7   Townships 33-34, Ranges 24-28, West of Principal Meridian. Independent Doukhobor homesteads. 5-6, 8. N/A
32 Nelson 8   Townships 33-34, Range 29, West of Principal Meridian, including village of Benito. Independent Doukhobor households and homesteads. 3-5, 9-13, 15-16, 18-20, 23. N/A

Saskatchewan

Work-in-progress.

Alberta 

District No. and Name Sub-District No. and Description City, Town, Village, Township Doukhobor Entries Pages Microfilm
1 Battle River 1   Townships 33-35, Range 1 and Township 35, Range 2, West of 4 Meridian. Independent Doukhobor homesteads. 8, 10. N/A
2 Bow River 13   Townships 17-20, Ranges 21-22 lying east of McGregor Lake and the Canal, West of 4 Meridian. Communal Doukhobor settlement. 3. N/A
7 Lethbridge 12   Townships 4-6, Ranges 13-15, West of 4 Meridian, including village of Skiff. Independent Doukhobor homesteads. 6-7. N/A
8 Macleod 4   Townships 3-6, West of 5 Meridian and East of Provincial Boundary. Independent Doukhobor homestead. 9. N/A
8 Macleod 7   Townships 7-8, Ranges 28-29 and Townships 7-9, Range 30, West of 5 Meridian. Independent Doukhobor homestead; Doukhobor labourers. 2, 10. N/A
8 MacLeod 8   Townships 7-9, Range 1, West of 5 Meridian, including Cowley village. Communal Doukhobor settlements. 4-6. N/A
8 MacLeod 9   Townships 7-9, Range 2, West of 5 Meridian, including Lundbreck village. Communal Doukhobor settlements. 5-8. N/A

British Columbia

District No. and Name

Sub-District No. and Description

City, Town, Village, Township

Doukhobor Entries

Pages

Microfilm

18

Kootenay West

6B

Trail

Columbia Gardens

Independent Doukhobor household.

6.

N/A

18

Kootenay West

9

Trail

Birchbank

Doukhobor labourers.

5.

N/A

Blueberry

Independent Doukhobor household.

6.

Kinnaird

Independent Doukhobor household.

7.

18

Kootenay West

10

Trail

Brilliant

Communal Doukhobor settlement of Blagodatnoye (1-5), Lugovoye (5-13), Brilliant (14-31).

1-30.

N/A

City of Trail

Communal Doukhobor commercial enterprise.

31.

N/A

18

Kootenay West

10A

Trail

Brilliant

Communal Doukhobor settlement of Brilliant.

1-23.

N/A

Crescent Valley

Communal Doukhobor settlement of Krestova.

24-30.

Glade

Communal Doukhobor settlement of Plodorodnoye.

30-42.

Shoreacres

Communal Doukhobor settlement of Prekrasnoye.

42-44.

Taghum

Communal Doukhobor settlement of Dorogotsennoye.

44.

Quory

Communal Doukhobor settlement of Skalistoye.

44-45.

Koch’s

Communal Doukhobor settlement of Kov.

45-46.

Winlaw

Communal Doukhobor settlement of Veseloye, Kirpichnoye.

47-49.

Perrys

Communal Doukhobor settlement of Persikovoye.

49.

Porto Rico

Communal Doukhobor logging camp.

50.

Rossland

Communal Doukhobor farm.

51-52.

Nelson City

Communal Doukhobor commercial enterprise.

53.

18

Kootenay West

11

Trail

South Slocan

Independent Doukhobor households.

9-10.

N/A

Shoreacres

Independent Doukhobor households.

11-12.

Tarrys

Independent Doukhobor households.

12-13.

Thrums

Independent Doukhobor households.

13-15.

18

Kootenay West

13B

Trail

Shields

Doukhobor labourer.

11.

N/A

18

Kootenay West

21

Nelson City

Nelson City

Independent Doukhobor households.

6-7.

N/A

18

Kootenay West

23

Nelson City

Nelson City

Doukhobor labourer.

11.

N/A

18

Kootenay West

25

Trail City

Trail City

Doukhobor labourers.

3, 14, 18, 23, 32, 33.

N/A

25

Yale

48

Grand Forks

Grand Forks City

Independent Doukhobor households.

2, 29-30.

N/A

25

Yale

49

Grand Forks

Cascade

Independent Doukhobor households.

6-7.

N/A

25

Yale

50

Grand Forks

Deep Creek

Doukhobor labourer.

6.

N/A

25

Yale

51

Grand Forks

Paulson

Doukhobor labourers.

1.

N/A

25

Yale

52

Grand Forks

Carson

Communal Doukhobor settlements of Fruktova, Ubezhishche, Khristovoye.

1-13, 15-25.

N/A

Notes

This finding aid may be used to locate Doukhobor census enumerations both in the original census records and in census transcriptions as they become available. Currently the census is only available through a paid subscription to Ancestry.com. For a description of the 1921 Canada Census, including its historical background, content, usefulness and reliability, availability and published indices, see the Guide to Doukhobor Census Records. If you have any additional information or clarifications with respect to Doukhobor entries in the 1921 Canada Census, please contact Jonathan J. Kalmakoff.

Index of Doukhobor Settlements in the 1916 Census of the Northwest Provinces

by Jonathan J. Kalmakoff

The following geographic finding aid may be used to locate Doukhobors in the 1916 Census of the Northwest Provinces. Search by province, district, sub-district and page number to find a comprehensive listing of Doukhobor settlements (villages, work camps, homesteads, households, etc.). Then consult the Library and Archives Canada microfilm copies or online images of the original census to find specific Doukhobor entries.

Index  – Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta 

 

Manitoba

District  No. and Name Sub-District No. and Description Doukhobor Entries Pages Microfilm
1 Brandon 3 City of Brandon Independent Doukhobor households 17, 20, 24, 25, 30. T-21925
1 Brandon 12 City of Brandon Doukhobor workers 6. T-21925
1 Brandon 13 City of Brandon Doukhobor worker 24. T-21925
5 Marquette 20 Russell RM Doukhobor worker 10. T-21927
7 Nelson 3 Swan River RM Independent Doukhobor homesteads; Doukhobor workers 9, 12, 18, 22. T-21928
7 Nelson 4 Swan River RM Independent Doukhobor homestead; Doukhobor workers 5, 10, 14. T-21928

Saskatchewan

District  No. and Name

Sub-District No. and Description

Doukhobor Entries

Pages

Microfilm

21

Mackenzie

02A

City of Yorkton

Independent Doukhobor households

24.

T-21938

21

Mackenzie

02B

City of Yorkton

Independent Doukhobor households

3, 9.

T-21938

21

Mackenzie

08

Wallace RM; Sliding Hills RM

Independent Doukhobor homesteads

Communal Doukhobor farm

1.

19.

T-21938

21

Mackenzie

09

Cote RM

Independent Doukhobor homesteads

8, 11, 15, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28.

T-21938

Vossianiye

17.

Petrovo

21, 22.

21

Mackenzie

10

Cote RM; Town of Kamsack

Town of Kamsack

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24.

T-21938

Independent Doukhobor homesteads

25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33.

Efremovka

26, 27.

Lyubovnoye

27.

Voskriseniye

34, 35.

21

Mackenzie

11

Cote RM; St. Phillips RM

Independent Doukhobor homesteads

1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22.

T-21938

Trudolyubovoye

2, 3, 4.

Tambovka

9, 10.

21

Mackenzie

12

St. Philips RM

Independent Doukhobor homesteads

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 18, 23, 24.

T-21938

21

Mackenzie

13

Livingston RM

Independent Doukhobor homesteads

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 19, 20.

T-21938

21

Mackenzie

14

Livingston RM

Independent Doukhobor homesteads

1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16.

T-21938

“Crazy” village (Khlebodarnoye)

2, 3, 4.

21

Mackenzie

15

Livingston RM

Independent Doukhobor homesteads

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.

T-21938

21

Mackenzie

18

Keys RM

Independent Doukhobor homesteads

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15.

T-21938

Nadezhda

16, 17.

Smireniye

17, 18.

Otradnoye

18, 19.

Blagoveshcheniye

20.

Kapustino

21, 22.

21

Mackenzie

19

Sliding Hills RM; Village of Veregin

Independent Doukhobor homesteads

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.

T-21938

Blagodarnoye

9, 10.

Lyubovnoye

13.

Village of Veregin

15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.

21

Mackenzie

20

Sliding Hills RM

Independent Doukhobor homesteads

1, 10, 21, 22.

T-21938

Rodionovo

5, 6.

Sovetnoye

8, 9.

Terpeniye

18, 19, 20, 21.

21

Mackenzie

21

Sliding Hills RM; Keys RM

Independent Doukhobor homesteads

13, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25.

T-21940

Novoye

22, 23.

21

Mackenzie

22

Keys RM; Village of Hyas

Independent Doukhobor homesteads

9, 10.

T-21940

21

Mackenzie

24

Good Lake RM

Independent Doukhobor homesteads

5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16.

T-21940

21

Mackenzie

25

Good Lake RM; Town of Canora

Town of Canora

2, 3, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17.

T-21940

Independent Doukhobor homestead

24.

21

Mackenzie

28

Insinger RM

Communal Doukhobor farm

20.

T-21940

21

Mackenzie

29

Buchanan RM; Village of Buchanan

Village of Buchanan

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

T-21940

Independent Doukhobor homesteads

7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19.

21

Mackenzie

30

Invermay RM

Independent Doukhobor homesteads.

27, 30.

T-21940

24

North Battleford

01

Great Bend RM

Independent Doukhobor homesteads

20, 21, 25.

T-21941

24

North Battleford

03

Mayfield RM

Doukhobor worker

10.

T-21941

24

North Battleford

04

North Battleford RM

Saskatchewan Provincial Asylum

13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 23.

T-21941

24

North Battleford

07

Redberry RM

Independent Doukhobor homesteads

12, 13, 14, 15.

T-21941

24

North Battleford

09

Blaine Lake RM; Town of Blaine Lake

Town of Blaine Lake

1, 2, 4, 5.

T-21941

Independent Doukhobor homesteads

7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33.

Petrovka 30, 31.

24

North Battleford

10

Blaine Lake RM

Independent Doukhobor homesteads

28, 29, 30, 31, 32.

T-21941

29

Saskatoon

11

Eagle Creek RM

Doukhobor worker

16.

T-21944

29

Saskatoon

12

Park RM

Independent Doukhobor homesteads

2, 3, 4, 13, 19, 24, 27.

T-21944

Pokrovka

19, 20, 21.

Kirilovka

22, 23, 24.

Bogdanovka

25, 26.

29

Saskatoon

14

Park RM; Town of Langham

Doukhobor worker

5.

T-21945

Town of Langham

21.

Alberta

District  No. and Name Sub-District No. and Description Doukhobor Entries Pages Microfilm
32 Battle River 1 Township 35, Range 4, West of 4 Independent Doukhobor homestead 33. T-21946
32 Battle River 9 Village of Provost Doukhobor workers 9. T-21947
38 Lethbridge 11 Town of Raymond Doukhobor work party 15, 18. T-21951
38 Lethbridge 13 Village of Warner Doukhobor work party 8, 10, 11. T-21951
38 Lethbridge 20f City of Lethbridge Doukhobor worker 31. T-21952
39 Macleod 7 Village of Lundbreck Communal Doukhobor settlement 14. T-21952
39 Macleod 8 Village of Cowley Communal Doukhobor settlement 5, 7, 14. T-21952
40 Medicine Hat 19 Village of Bow Island  Doukhobor work party 11-12. T-21953

Notes

This finding aid may be used to locate Doukhobor census enumerations both in the original census records and in census transcriptions such as those provided online by Ancestry.com. For a description of the 1916 Census of the Northwest Provinces, including its historical background, content, usefulness and reliability, availability and published indices, see the Guide to Doukhobor Census Records.

This article was reproduced by permission in the Bulletin Vol. 40 No. 4 (Regina: Saskatchewan Genealogical Society, December 2009).

1918 Census of Independent Doukhobors

1918 census of independent doukhobors

The 1918 Census of Independent Doukhobors by Jonathan J. Kalmakoff provides family historians and genealogists with an indispensable guide to Independent Doukhobors living in Western Canada during the First World War.

Arranged by locality, the names found in the 1918 Census of Independent Doukhobors were extracted from the original census lists held at the Saskatchewan Archives Board.  This special census was compiled at the request of the Dominion Government of Canada to determine the number of Independent Doukhobors who qualified for military exemption during World War One.

The book contains over 6,600 names taken from the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia and includes essential information on the name, family group, age, marital status, number of children and locality of each individual.  The book also includes full bibliographic references and a comprehensive index. View Sample Page.

1918 Census of Independent Doukhobors (ISBN 0-9730337-0-0) is a 187 page soft-cover book.  Price: $25.00 plus applicable postage.  To order copies through cheque, money-order or Paypal, please contact:

Jonathan J. Kalmakoff
135 Poplar Bluff Crescent
Regina, SK. S4Y OB5

Doukhobors in Hilliers, British Columbia

by Richard de Candole

In 1947, Sons of Freedom leader Michael “the Archangel” Verigin and 70 of his followers established a 320 acre colony at Hilliers, British Columbia. While it lasted, the colonists practiced community of goods, peacefully tended their gardens and awaited the second coming of Christ. At the same time, the leadership faced accusations of incendiary attacks on Doukhobor properties in the Kootenays. The following article by Richard de Condole briefly examines the history of the controversial Hilliers Doukhobor colony to the present. Reproduced by permission from the Qualicum Time (August/September 2007).

For a short time in the 1940s and ‘50s the farm at the end of Slaney Road in Hilliers now owned by my family was the centre of considerable controversy in British Columbia.

At the time it was owned by a colony of about 70 Sons of Freedom Doukhobors under the leadership of Michael “the Archangel” Verigin who had moved there in 1947 from the Kootenays to escape persecution by fellow Doukhobors.

A rooftop view of the homesite as it is today.  Photo by Richard de Candole.

More than 7,000 Doukhobors, or Spirit Wrestlers, had immigrated to Canada in 1905 from Russia. They settled first in Saskatchewan then later the Kootenays. Because they rejected the practices and authority of the Russian Orthodox Church, were pacifists and lived communally they had been subjected persecution for over 100 years.

In Canada they proved to be equally troublesome for the authorities, refusing to swear an oath of allegiance, refusing to send their children to school, and, among the Sons of Freedom, staging nude public protests, among a number of things. The latter’s anti-materialistic views were so strongly held that they believed they were called by God to burn the possessions of fellow members who had become too materialistic.

Michael “the Archangel” Verigin (1883-1951)

During the first few years of the Hilliers colony there was a series of suspicious fires in the Kootenays which were eventually linked to Michael Verigin and co-leader Joe Podovinikoff. (During this same period the Hilliers school and community hall were burned and they were believed to have been acts of retaliation.) In the spring of 1950 they were found guilty of inciting others to commit arson and sentenced to two years in jail.

By a twist of fate Michael suffered a stroke a month after sentencing and on July 27, 1951 died of pneumonia at the age of 69. His funeral attracted a large gathering of Doukhobor and non-Doukhobor dignitaries and he was buried in a small graveyard on the property, now a registered cemetery, where the ashes of my father Corry de Candole are also buried.

The Hilliers colony, however, never recovered from the loss of their leader and by the mid-1950s most of the residents had either moved back to the Kootenays or left the Doukhobor community altogether.

In addition to the burnings and their strong views on public education, the colony also adhered to an unorthodox sexual code. As an article in Time magazine on Sept. 26, 1949 described, all property was shared including husbands and wives.

Initially there was a ban on all sexual relations until the colony was deemed to be economically self-sufficient. In late 1948 the elders lifted the ban and nine months later the first child was born. After being christened Gabriel Archangelovich First the boy was surrendered by the mother to the joint parenthood of the community.

The property had been vacant for over five years when my parents Corry and Nancy de Candole discovered it in 1963, almost by accident. They had been looking for retirement property in the area and were about to return to Alberta without finding anything that appealed to them.

E.G. Thwaites, a Qualicum Beach pioneer and father of their realtor, happened to be in the office and when he heard they had found nothing gave some advice they felt they couldn’t ignore: ‘Don’t leave the Island without looking at the old Doukhobor place.’ At the time the property wasn’t even listed. On their way to the ferry they once more drove out to Hilliers. ”As soon as we drove in the driveway Corry was immediately taken by what he saw,” remembered my mother Nancy. “The place was so peaceful and private. It was at the end of the road and totally surrounded by forest. He couldn’t wait to get back into town to make an offer.”

A view of the Doukhobor bath house interior. Photo by Richard de Candole.

They barely even noticed that the homesite was a collection of weather-beaten sheds and buildings, none of which were suitable for a house. Their offer of $9,500 for the 75 acres was accepted and that winter they hired Don Beaton and Qualicum Construction to build a 1,400 sq. ft. house my father designed in the shape of a U.

The author’s mother, Nancy de Candole in front of a Doukhobor dwelling.  Photo by Richard de Candole.

My father spent the next 20 years tearing down sheds, restoring other buildings, building a log house, and putting back into production a field that had been used by the Doukhobors to grow corn, cabbages and potatoes. He also served on the Coombs Fair board for most of that time.

My mother immersed herself in teaching piano and supporting church and environmental projects. Last year, at age 94, she moved to Qualicum Manor while my wife Wendy and I continue to live on the property.

Doukhobors: An Endangered Species

by Dr. John I. Postnikoff

The following is an excerpt from an address given by Dr. John I. Postnikoff at the Postnikoff Family Reunion held in Blaine Lake, Saskatchewan in 1977. Now, decades later, more than ever, his speech forcefully captures the dilemma of assimilation and cultural change challenging Doukhobors today. Reproduced from the pages of MIR magazine, No. 16 (Grand Forks, BC: MIR Publication Society, May, 1978).

…At this point, I would like to share with you some observations on our role in present and future society, and mention some facts about minority groups in general. An outside observer in our midst would be hard pressed to detect any difference between us and a group of Anglo-Saxon Canadians. I recognize the fact there may be some here from other racial backgrounds.

1. We are absolutely fluent in the English language, in fact, much more so, than in Russian. Why am I speaking in English this morning? Well, it is a great deal easier, believe me.

2. Our dress is non distinctive, call it North American. The ladies are not wearing embroidered shawls, the men are not exposing their shirt tails, and not wearing sheep skin coats. 

It was not always so, however. Our dress, speech and mannerisms are a far cry from our forefathers, who disembarked on Canadian soil in 1899. They were immigrants from Russia, members of a sect which emerged into history around the middle of the 17th century. They called themselves “People of God” or “Spiritual Christians”, implying that adherents of other sects or churches were only false Christians. The name Doukhobor, like other names treasured afterwards, was first used in anger and derision by one of their opponents, the Archbishop Serebrenikov of Ekaterinoslav in 1785. It means Spirit Wrestlers, and was intended by the Orthodox Archbishop to suggest they were fighting “against” the Holy Ghost. Its followers changed the meaning, claiming they fought “with” the spirit of God which was within them.

Allow me to skip one hundred years of history, marked by good times and bad times, persecutions and migrations, and bring you to the year 1886. Following the death of Lukeria Kalmykova (affectionately known as “Lushechka”) a major struggle developed between Lukeria’s brother Mikhail Gubanov and her apparent successor Peter Verigin concerning leadership of the group and control of the Orphan Home assets valued at roughly one million rubles. The quarrel split the sect into two factions. Those acknowledging Verigin’s spiritual leadership became known as the “Large Party”.

Since the government officials were in sympathy with Gubanov, Verigin was exiled to Siberia. This strengthened his position and his followers now regarded him as a martyr. While in exile, he met disciples of Tolstoy and became acquainted with his literature. As subsequent events proved, this had a profound affect on his outlook. He began to indoctrinate his subjects in peasant communism, pacifism, and defiance of government.

Doukhobor Leader Peter “Lordly” Verigin.

One of his directives, delivered by loyal messengers, pertained to military service, which later resulted in their expulsion from Russia. All loyal followers were not to bear arms, and to show they meant business, destroy all their weapons, which were in ample supply. This directive was obeyed, all muskets were placed in one big pile, doused with kerosene, and put to the torch.

Such a display of defiance was not to pass unnoticed by Tsar Nicholas II and his officials. Punishment, suffering, and persecution followed, which made headlines in the Western World. Quakers in England and United States, Tolstoy in Russia, rallied to their aid, and it can safety be said that without their moral and financial support, migration to Canada would never have been a reality.

Canada was suggested as a safe haven by Peter Kropotkin, a Russian anarchist living in England. Contacts were made with the Canadian Government, which appeared sympathetic. A group headed by Aylmer Maude, Prince Khilkov, and Doukhobor delegates Makhortoff and Ivin, were delegated to find a suitable locality for resettlement. They were directed to Edmonton, where twelve townships consisting of 572 square miles were available. The party agreed this would be an ideal site, returning to Ottawa to finalize the arrangements, An obstacle however was placed in their path by the Conservative opposition and the plan did not reach fruition.

I am going to ask you to stretch your powers of imagination and consider for a moment, what kind of Doukhobor society would have evolved if the chain of circumstances had been different than what actually took place:

1. Suppose there was no opposition to the block settlement near Edmonton, and all of the 7,000 plus immigrants were allowed to settle in this area and initiate an experiment in religious communism.

2. Verigin was allowed to leave Russia, accompany his subjects to Canada and be the first to step on Canadian soil. 

3. Land ownership was acquired without the controversial Oath of Allegiance.

How would this ethnic group, tightly knit by blood ties and cultural bonds, succeed in this experiment? Would a society have emerged like the Hutterites and Mennonites, agrarian in nature, committed to self sustenance and isolation from neighbours? Such an arrangement, of course, is an attempt to form a state within a state, a Dukhoboria. Would we have fared better under this arrangement? Conflict arises whenever a minority group is pitted against a dominant majority. Interaction between them, by its very nature, is competitive and is marked by hostility at many points. I have a feeling, no concrete evidence, just a feeling, that internal dissension coupled with external pressures would have been too much for many independent souls, like my grandfather. They would have “packed it in” and set up an Independent existence on available homesteads. The venture would have collapsed like it did in British Columbia years later. Back to reality however:

1. Peter Verigin did not arrive in Canada from his Siberian exile until 1902.

2. Land was not available in one block. Settlers were split into three groups, two in the Yorkton area and one in Prince Albert. Free from Verigin’s leadership, the Prince Albert group especially were already beginning to feel at home in their new surroundings. 

3. The Canadian Government insisted on registration of vital statistics and the Oath of Allegiance as a prerequisite for land ownership. This resulted in a mass migration to British Columbia under Verigin’s instigation. Many chose not to leave and remained in Saskatchewan, including most of the Prince Albert group. They accepted the Oath of Allegiance and became independent operators on their newly acquired homesteads.

Why did some stay behind rather than move to British Columbia? Perhaps they had second thoughts about collective ownership and all its ramifications. The offer of free land, even with strings attached, was a temptation hard to resist. They came from the land, they loved the soil. To them, it was a means of livelihood and economic independence. They began to clear the land and build log dwellings with sod roofs.

Tasting independence, a luxury long denied them, they came in contact with immigrants of Anglo-Saxon, Irish, Ukrainian and Polish origin. From this point, precisely, forces of assimilation, began to alter old patterns which had been in existence for decades.

Children were enrolled in public schools where they came in contact with students of different racial origin. In school they were exposed to a new language, different from the one spoken at home. For those not destined to take up farming as an occupation, it was a natural and easy step to High schools and Universities. In a short space of time, a community which knew only agrarian skills for hundreds of years had a new breed in its midst. This was a change of major proportions. Lawyers, engineers, school teachers, doctors, dentists, nurses, accountants etc., arrived on the scene, fluent in English, different only in name. Along with their agrarian cousins, they willingly accepted all that modern technology had to offer: cars, tractors, combines, television and radio. The Russian tongue was heard less frequently and in most homes English became the language of choice.

The basic dogma of our religion became a lively issue during the First and Second World Wars, more so in the Second. I can recall mother telling me when the late Peter Makaroff was conscripted in the First World War, how the Doukhobors rallied to his aid. They threatened not to harvest their grain if Peter was taken into the army, so the government did not press the issue. In the Second World War, some of our young men did alternative service under army supervision, but there was no persecution such as experienced in Tsarist Russia. Can it be Doukhobors perform best under pressure, and a crisis of major proportions might make us realize that out cultural identity is slipping away? In peace time, the issue tends to fade into the background as it does not affect our day to day activities. In other words, “the shoe is not pinching”.

After 80 years in Canada, what is the present state of affairs? We have to admit, we are in a retreating situation. I think we are all in agreement on this point. Our language has fallen into disuse; few remain who can speak it fluently. Our prayer homes are empty; many of the former worshippers are throwing in their lot with other faiths, Baptists, Mormons, Pentecostals, Jehovah Witnesses, United Church. Our young people are exchanging their marriage vows in other faiths.

Granted, the Doukhobor Community in Saskatoon is expert in making large crusty loaves of bread in outdoor ovens during exhibition week. We still like our borshchpirogi and blintsi. Outside of this, little remains. What I am really saying is we are not a healthy ethnic group with our heritage at our fingertips.

The number of Doukhobors claiming membership in the sect is declining at an alarming rate especially in the last years. Let us look at some figures from Statistics Canada:

Year Quantity
1921 12,674
1931 14,978
1941 16,898
1951 13,175
1961 13,234
1971 9,170

A drop of 4000 in the last 10 years. Geographical distribution per 1971 census is as follows:

Province Quantity
Newfoundland 5
Nova Scotia 10
New Brunswick 20
Quebec 220
Ontario 175
Manitoba 130
Saskatchewan 1,675
Alberta 200
British Columbia 6,720
North West Territories 10

If we estimate the number in Canada from this stock around 20,000 plus, more than half have left. Another suitable topic for my talk could be: “Lost, 10,000 Doukhobors”. We are one of the few religious groups experiencing a decline. Some examples to substantiate this in round figures:

Denomination 1921 1971
Baptists 422,000 667,000
Mormons 19,000 66,000
Hutterites & Mennonites 58,000 168,000
Pentecostals 7,000 220,000
Jehovah Witnesses 6,500 174,000

I am going to ask you once again to stretch your imagination. Assume a hypothetical situation, a gifted individual with our ethnic background arrives on the scene. He or she possesses the organizing ability of Kolesnikov, and like Lushechka, has charisma and personality. Sincere and trustworthy, he makes enough of us realize, like the whooping crane, we are an endangered species on the verge of extinction, and if we are going to salvage anything from the wreckage, we had better do something about it. There is no time to lose. He draws our attention to George Woodcock’s statement in the May 1977 issue of MIR, “unless there is a change in your attitude towards the practical things of social existence, Doukhoborism will not survive as it has existed in historic times”.

His message gets through to enough interested sympathizers. They form a committee (it seems to get anything done, you need a committee). Their terms of reference: to survey in depth, the Doukhobor dilemma and formulate a plan of action that might have some hope of reviving our cultural heritage. You will agree they have their work cut out for them. It will require tact, diplomacy, the patience of Job, and the wisdom of Solomon. They are well aware their proposals must appeal not only to all age groups but also to those who have left the sect. Hopefully they may be enticed to return. As assimilation has progressed at a faster rate in Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Vancouver than in Grand Forks and the Kootenays, the situation in these areas will have to be looked at more closely.

What are the factors which give authenticity to minority groups in general? Basically only three: language, religion, and folk arts. Take these away, a minority group could hardly perform the tasks necessary for survival or train the next generation in its way of life.

The importance of language is best expressed in the 1970 Report on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. I quote: “The significance of language retention in the over all question of cultural retention is one of the most important working assumptions of this study. Language is an essential expression of a culture. Although it is noted, some groups do retain distinctive cultural traits despite their disappearing native language, (as in the case of the Acadians in the Maritimes, and Canadian Jews) the commission felt in most cases the original cultural traits survive only partially after the adoption of the dominant language. They almost disappear after several generations. Thus culture and language cannot be dissociated”.

When our Committee surveyed the language situation, this is what they discovered. Very few people remain who are fluent in Russian. Those left who came from Russia and first generation Canadians have a good working knowledge; second and third generation Canadians will not get a good score. Why has the language fallen into disuse? Because there is no economic need for it. Nearly all of us earn our bread and butter with the use of English. It is the only language we use at work. Language is like a garden; a garden requires constant attention, watering, cultivating, spraying. Neglect it and weeds take over. Language is the same. Fluency is only maintained by constant use.

Russian – the traditional language.

A similar pattern runs through all minority groups. A survey on non official languages in Canada, came up with this finding: “Fluency decreases rapidly from generation to generation. It drops sharply in the second generation and is almost non-existent in the third and older generations”. In five Canadian cities, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver among the Ukrainians, it was found 63.6% were fluent in the first generation, 18.9% in the second, dropping to .7% in the third. That is, only 7 out of 1000 knew their ethnic tongue. We would not score any better. Needless to say, the survey ended on a discouraging note. However these recommendations were put forward by the Committee. First, it is mandatory all who have a knowledge of Russian speak it in the home and other appropriate places. I asked one of my cousins if he and his wife spoke Russian. His answer was “only when we have an argument”. It seems Russian uncomplimentary words pack a more forceful punch than their English counterparts. Secondly, school boards would be approached to include Russian in the curriculum with some subjects taught in that language. Thirdly, intermarried families pose a problem. I might be unpopular for suggesting the “other” partner be encouraged to learn Russian. My wife, Audrey, mastered fifty pages of grammar, but could not continue when her teacher failed to show up for classes.

The Committee found a divergence of opinion when it tackled the problem of divine worship. Furthermore, many suggestions were charged with emotion and prejudice. I must admit my knowledge of our worship service is meagre and I have to rely on my childhood recollections here in Blaine Lake and one year in British Columbia. One thing that stands out in my memory: no individual was designated to take charge of the service; the lot usually fell to the most able orator. If the situation has changed here and in British Columbia, I apologize for my remarks. It was not only an occasion for worship, but pertinent business matters were discussed. To my dear grandmother, it was also a social occasion, she never left for worship without her supply of roasted sun flower seeds in her home-made pouch, and she must have raised the blood pressure of many a speaker trying to deliver his message above the crackle of sunflower seeds.

The Committee were amazed at the number of problems that confronted them in devising a form of worship acceptable to meet the needs of modern Doukhobor Canadians. Who will assume responsibility for religious instruction? Will we delegate one individual on a full time or part time basis, and how will he or she be paid? What will be his or her official title? Priests are anathema. He or she will require credentials. He or she would be expected to possess a basic knowledge of theology in order to express religious truths to a fairly sophisticated congregation. Dwelling only on past exploits of our forefathers, noble as they are, would soon empty the church.

What about the Bible? Pobirokhin rejected the Bible, believing it to be a source of dissension among Christians. Silvan Kolesnikov used the New Testament. Can this be a reason why many have left our ranks, many who have come to regard the Bible as a source of inspiration and spiritual truths about our Master, do not see a Bible in our prayer homes?

What about music? We have not allowed musical instruments in our prayer homes; the only music has been choral rendition of psalms and hymns. Choral psalms would have to find a place in our liturgy; although they are complex and difficult to understand, they are unique and steeped in tradition. Prayer homes will be a place where our young people exchange their marriage vows. A modern bride will not be content unless she can walk down the aisle to the strains of Wagner’s Wedding March played on the organ.

What priority will be given to Christian education for children? There has not been an organized plan of instruction to teach Bible stories and religious precepts to our youth. This was done in the home. Regular church attendance in adulthood must be initiated in childhood.

It has been suggested a scholarship be made available to an enterprising student willing to specialize in that branch of anthropology dealing with preservation and perpetuation of folk arts. Perhaps he could arouse sufficient interest to initiate a cultural museum which could serve as a focal point for preserving our past heritage. The building would have an auditorium where family reunions such as this could meet and get acquainted with their “kith and kin”.

Participation in ethnic organizations has been regarded an important means by which language and culture are maintained. In fact, the Royal Commission research reported a positive correlation between a sense of ethnic identity and participation in ethnic organizations.

I have discussed some of the problems that face us if we are to restore and preserve our heritage. Are we equal to the task? Frankly, I am pessimistic. Too much water has gone under the bridge; we have probably passed the point of no return. I would like to be an optimist, but the hard facts militate against it. My reasons are: 

1. We are not sufficiently motivated. Motivation comes from a deep conviction that a certain goal must be achieved irrespective of cost. We are not that committed. It would take a great deal of energy and sacrifice to implement the proposals suggested. This would encroach on our lifestyle, and too many of us are set in our ways. We experience no job discrimination, or social isolation.

2. We are outnumbered, twenty-two million against ten thousand. Wherever we turn, culture of the dominant majority confronts us, which in fact, we have adopted. Quebec, with a population of four million, finds the French language is threatened by the dominance of English.

3. We are a house divided, splintered into groups. We do not present a united front. How could a Son of Freedom, an Orthodox and and Independent reach a consensus on their religious philosophy?

4. Our form of worship has not been updated to keep up with the times. Our principle precept, noble and virtuous, is not an urgent problem. Should there be a war, it is inconceivable that conventional weapons would be used, where we will be asked to bear arms. Heaven preserve us from another Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

What about the future? I’m going to make a prediction, knowing full well prognostication is fraught with danger. Doukhoborism as a viable cultural entity, fifty years hence, will cease to exist in the three Prairie provinces. We are witnessing its demise. Only major surgery and blood transfusions will revive it. Canadians, with Russian surnames, will be here, but there will be no common bond to unite them. Heirlooms, family albums, and long playing Russian records will be treasured as antiques, but the culture which gave them birth has been laid to rest with the spinning wheel and the bronze axe.

In British Columbia, specifically in Grand Forks and the Kootenays, total assimilation is meeting resistance. The younger generation are taking concrete steps to preserve their language and traditions. The new cultural centre in Brilliant is an asset in their favour. Still the tide is against them. Cultural identity in cities is difficult to preserve. Fred Samorodin in his article in MIR, March 1977, estimates there are 4,000 souls of Doukhobor background in Vancouver, only thirty-two claim membership in the Union of Young Doukhobors. 

The idea is expressed that migration back to Russia will save the group. Such a panacea is too fantastic to merit consideration. Can you see Communist Russia accepting a religious group on our terms? We would be strangers in the land where our forefathers trod. If the “be all and end all” of our life in Canada is the preservation of our heritage, then migration was a wrong move. Verigin rendered us a disservice. We should have fought it out with the Tsar. Our leader should have realized, once he brought his subjects to “Rome” they would “do as the Romans”.

Our problem is not unique, this is history of minority groups, repeating itself. Minority groups came into existence five thousand years ago with the development of a state or a nation. Only a state with the apparatus of government, can extend law and order over sub groups, who neither speak the same language, worship the same gods, nor strive for the same values. The Aztecs of Mexico, the Maya of Yucatan, the Inca of South America, once they became minority groups, disappeared with time, to become a name only.

What about the future? We should be filled with remorse in allowing a beautiful language, rich in poetry and prose to fall into disuse. We are not taking advantage of the opportunities in Russian studies presented by our higher institutions of learning. In this regard, we are the losers and great is our loss.

However as Christians, I believe Christ is calling us to be more wide awake than ever. Firstly, we must find peace within ourselves and brotherly love towards our neighbour. As Christians, we are called to make our Community a better place to live, and take action on such issues as: the preservation of our environment; violence on television; pornography; the plight of the underprivileged here and abroad; and discrimination in any form.

Above all, let us preserve the spirit which guided our forefathers in their exodus from tyranny to freedom. Observing the 6th Commandment “Thou shalt not kill”, they were loving their neighbour as themselves. Thank you.

The Maintenance and Revitalization of Doukhobor Russian in British Columbia, Canada: Prospects and Problems

by Gunter Schaarschmidt

Over the past 75 years, the Doukhobor Russian dialect has sustained a slow but steady decline after reaching its peak of usage and functionality in Canada in 1940. This is in large part due to the increasing use of English, on the one hand, and of Standard Russian, on the other hand.  The following article by Gunter Schaarschmidt of the Department of Germanic and Slavic Studies, University of Victoria, examines the root causes of this trend and identifies a strategy for its maintenance and revitalization among the Doukhobors of British Columbia.  The author contends that to save Doukhobor Russian from imminent extinction, a second language program in Doukhobor Russian must be established at the elementary school level, with Doukhobor elders and culture incorporated into the school programs. Reproduced with the author’s permission from “Topical Problems of Communication and Culture, Collection of Research Articles of International Scholars (Moscow-Pyatigorsk, 2013).

1. Introduction

The Doukhobors are a pacifist and anarchist splinter group from the Russian Orthodox Church. Their views led Tsar Nicholas to ban them from their first concentrated settlement in the fertile Crimea to barren Transcaucasia. In 1895, the group created a huge bonfire of weaponry as a gesture to the government that they they opposed conscription. Fearing extermination for the group, the writer Leo Tolstoy with the aid of the Quakers in Great Britain enabled approximately 7,500 Doukhobors to leave Russia in 1899 and settle in Canada. Following a dispute with the Government and after living in the Province of Saskatchewan for 9 years, the colony split into two groups, with the larger group (approximately 4,000) moving to the Province of British Columbia (BC) in the years 1908-1913.

It is estimated that there are currently 25,000 Doukhobors living in Canada, 8,000 in Saskatchewan and 12,300 of them in British Columbia, with smaller groups in Alberta (3,000) and other provinces (between 1,500 and 1,700)[1]. Until the demise of the USSR there were 7,000 Doukhobors living in the Republic of Georgia, with many other members of the group dispersed all over Russia including Siberia.[2]  At the time of the group’s move to Canada, Doukhobor Russian was a language composed of two functional styles: the colloquial language based largely on a South Russian dialect and the ritual language based on Russian Church Slavonic and handed down orally from generation to generation until the early part of the 20th century.[3]  There are no written sources in Doukhobor Russian until the Book of Life (Životnaja kniga; also often translated as “Living Book”) was published in Russia by Bonč-Bruevič (1909 [1954]).[4]  The colloquial language was oral until the Doukhobors’ move to Canada and here well into the 1930s (see Section 3.1. below).

Although Doukhobor Russian (“DR”), with its estimated 15, 000 speakers[5], is as distinct from Standard Russian as Plautdietsch is from Standard German, the former has not been included as a language or as a minority language in any of the current handbooks while the latter has been (see, for example, Lewis 2009 and Moseley 2007). Plautdietsch is included as an endangered language of some 80,000 to 100,000 speakers in Canada (Moseley 2007:265; Lewis 2009: online). To some extent perhaps Russian scholars and possibly Doukhobor writers themselves are to blame for this omission since DR is often referred to as a “variety of Russian” (Makarova 2012: x) or as a “dialect” (Harshenin 1961).[6]  And yet, the Doukhobors clearly form a minority group distinct from other Russian émigré groups in three geographic areas outside of Russia: 1) the Province of British Columbia (Canada); 2) the Province of Saskatchewan (Canada); and 3) the Republic of Georgia. The possibility of revitalization and maintenance is possible in BC if something is done before the current older generation(s) disappear (Schaarschmidt 2012: 255-57); it is becoming very unlikely in Saskatchewan (Makarova 2011); and probably still has a small chance in Georgia (Lom [Lohm] 2006).

In this pilot study we shall first provide a summary of the history of DR from the first homogeneous settlement in the Crimea in 1801 until the move to Canada (Section 2); then describe the development of DR from the group’s arrival in Saskatchewan and the partial move to British Columbia, the onset of both diglossia and bilingualism in the community in BC and the present linguistic situation (Section 3); and, as DR is currently on the brink of extinction in this province, a preliminary outline of an “eleventh-hour” proposal how to go beyond the process of preservation to a systematic maintenance and revitalization process of the language (Section 4).

2.    From Koine to Leveling (1801-1899)

2.1. Some linguistic prerequisites.

According to Trudgill, new-dialect formation proceeds generally in three stages (quoted here from Kerswill 2002, 679; see also Schaarschmidt 2012, 238-9):

Stage Speakers involved Linguistic characteristics
I  Adult migrants Rudimentary leveling
II  First native-born speakers  Extreme variability and further leveling
III Subsequent generations

 Focusing, leveling and reallocation

There is a great deal of variability in the time-depth of koineization, with focusing possible already by Stage II, and the absence of focusing sometimes persisting over several generations of Stage III. In this section, we deal with Stage I, what Siegel calls the “pre-koine.” This is the unstabilized stage at the beginning of koineization. A continuum exists in which various forms of the varieties in contact are used concurrently and inconsistently. Leveling and some mixing has begun to occur, and there may be various degrees of reduction, but few forms have emerged as the accepted compromise (Siegel 1985: 373).

2.2. Rudimentary leveling: Milky Waters.

When Tsar Alexander decided to create a concentrated settlement of the Doukhobors in the area near the Moločna River (whence the English term “Milky Waters”), he also created the foundation for the rise of Doukhobor Russian, originally as a mixture of dialects, a sort of koine [i.e. a standard dialect that has arisen as a result of contact between two or more mutually intelligible varieties of the same language], later as a language with distinct functional styles (see especially Schaarschmidt 2008). The only uniting feature at this point was the ritual functional style (hereafter short: “ritual language”). We have no direct evidence of the Doukhobor colloquial functional style of this period or, for that matter, for a good 100 years before the Canadian period. The details of the koine situation of this period can thus be gleaned only from 1) the evidence provided by interviews with second- and third generation speakers in Canada in the 1950s and 1960s; 2) interference phenomena in the ritual language; and 3) the experience gained in the internal reconstruction of other languages. This evidence allows us to assert that for the Milky Waters period rudimentary leveling of the dialect features was in process and that because of the interruptions in this process caused by the migrations to Transcaucasia and Canada the leveling process took longer than it normally takes for a non-migrant community of speakers. There is no tangible evidence of a diglossic situation [i.e. where two dialects are used by a single language community] Doukhobor Russian – Standard Russian as the large majority of Doukhobors were illiterate, as was the case for four fifths of all Russians in the Empire, (acording to the first census of 1897; see, in this respect Rašin 1951: 49).

This figure is reproduced by permission from the Doukhobor Genealogy Website (www.doukhobor.org). Copyright Jonathan J. Kalmakoff. All rights reserved.

2.3. Further leveling: Transcaucasia.

We may assume that the Transcaucasian period marked the continuation of the rudimentary leveling process mentioned above in Section 2.1. For the first native-born speakers, however, there probably existed a combination of extreme dialect variability and further leveling. By the time adult speakers migrated to Canada in 1899, both the variability and the leveling were part of their dialect and were, to some extent, reflected in the ritual style.

This figure is reproduced by permission from the Doukhobor Genealogy Website (www.doukhobor.org). Copyright Jonathan J. Kalmakoff. All rights reserved.

There is no tangible evidence of a diglossic situation Doukhobor Russian – Standard Russian during the Transcaucasian period. There may, however, have been elements of bilingualism, as trading with the non-Slavic peoples (mainly Turko-Tatars) would have required a vehicle of communication, if only a pigeon [i.e. a simplified language that develops as a means of communication between two groups that do not have a language in common] of the Russenorsk type or that used today in trading on the Russian-Chinese border area in the Far East. Many of the linguistic features collected are based on interviews with speakers in their 60s and 70s, i.e., those who migrated from Transcaucasia to Canada (see, in this respect, Schaarschmidt 2012: 241-3). We shall select here only the category of loans to illustrate the partial leveling process at this stage in language development (see also Tarasoff 1963 and Beženceva 2007:123-6). Due to the later influence of Standard Russian it is not always clear whether such loans are actually genuine loans directly from Turko-Tataric or indirect loans in a later period. This can be exemplified by the apparent Doukhobor loan from Turkic džiranka ‘deer’, for which there exist the Standard Russian variants džejran, dzeren and zeren/zerenka, referring, however, to a kind of antelope (see Fasmer 1964–73, I: 510–11; II: 95). The Doukhobor language in present-day Georgia also contains many loans from the adjacent or co-territorial non-Slavic languages but here again many assumed Doukhobor loans may in fact also be loans in Standard Russian or internationalisms, as exemplified by the loan mazun ‘matzoon/madzoon’ (a type of yoghurt), cf. Standard Russian maconi, borrowed from Armenian.

The Transcaucasian period was marked by a considerable variability in the area of phonology, morphology, lexical structure, and syntax. An apparent Doukhobor Russian innovation in morphology is the replacement of the neuter gender by the feminine gender in the first and second generations (Inikova 1995, 156). The loss of the neuter gender may have been caused by the coalescence of unstressed o, a, e in post-tonic desinences and that coalescence was then extended to stressed endings and modifiers, i.e., эта жабa [èta žaba] ‘this toad’: это сало [èta sála] ‘this lard,’ therefore моя жабa [majá žába] ‘my toad’: моё сало *[majá sála] ‘my lard.’ This coalescence can be seen widely in the Anglicization of place-names, such as Ootischenia, a locality in Castlegar, BC, referred to in a modern spelling Ooteshenie in Tarasoff (2002, 470), cf. Russian утешение ‘consolation.’

The Doukhobor settlements today are found primarily in the Republic of Georgia.

This figure is reproduced by permission from the Doukhobor Genealogy Website (www.doukhobor.org). Copyright Jonathan J. Kalmakoff. All rights reserved.

The question of the revitalization and maintenance of DR in the Republic of Georgia is not within the scope of the present investigation. It seems, however, that in spite of the significant exodus of speakers to Russia, present levels of maintenance appear to be vigorous. To be sure, the chances of a successful revitalization and maintenance process of Doukhobor Russian in Georgia are decreasing rapidly because as the leader of the Georgian Doukhobor community, Tat’jana Tixonova put it: “out of the more than 6-7,000 Doukhobors who lived in Georgia at the end of the 1980s no more than 800 are left, and these are basically between 50 to 70 years old“ (Beženceva 2007, 100; translation mine – GS). A somewhat more optimistic view is expressed in Lom [Lohm]: 2006, 48 (translation mine – GS): “One must note, however, that there are often apocalyptic[7] prophecies concerning the future of the Doukhobors. Already in the 1960s the scholars predicted that the Doukhobor identity would disappear in the near future. When saying goodbye to us, a Doukhobor woman told us: ‘you know, every year we say that we are going to leave for Russia. But in the end we always stay.’”

3.    Focusing and Reallocation: 1899-1938

3.1. Saskatchewan

Focusing, i.e., the selection of one of the competing forms, was considerably impeded by the influence of the language of the “Galicians”, i.e., of Ukrainian.[8]  This influence was still felt for a short while after the move to British Columbia (see 3.2. below). Reallocation took place, for example, in the borrowing of words from English into DR primarily in the workplace (Harshenin 1964, 1967), thus narrowing the linguistic functions of either Ukrainian borrowings or traditional DR lexical items. This period also saw the beginning of diglossia since in a letter of February 1, 1899, to Leo Tolstoy the Doukhobors’ spiritual leader in exile had stated that “teaching literacy to the children, including the girls, must be considered a priority right at the start” (Donskov 1995, 43).

This figure is reproduced by permission from the Doukhobor Genealogy Website (www.doukhobor.org). Copyright Jonathan J. Kalmakoff. All rights reserved.

The time for a revitalization of DR in Saskatchewan may have passed: Makarova (2011) predicts that the language will be extinct within a decade.

3.2. Move to British Columbia

The Doukhobors’ move to British Columbia in a relatively secluded area, free from interference with Ukrainian, allowed the Doukhobor community to conclude the focusing, leveling, and reallocation of linguistic features resulting in the demarcation of three functional styles: the colloquial language, the ritual language, and the written language. English – Russian bilingualism developed fully within one generation (roughly between the 1930s to the 1960s), primarily due to forced schooling in English (Schaarschmidt 2009: 35-36).

Due to the increasing use of English, on the one hand, and of Standard Russian (“SR”), on the other hand, both the colloquial DR style and the ritual language began their inevitable retreat after reaching their peaks of usage and functionality between 1801 and 1940. This is manifested in 1) a growing SR component in the diglossic DR/SR situation in the form of home-schooling in Standard Russian using old-country bukvari (primers) as well as in the launching of Russian schools maintained by the Union of Spiritual Communities of Christ in the main Doukhobor centres of Grand Forks and the West Kootenays in BC since 1935; 2) an increase in code-switching in the colloquial style; 3) the marginalization of the DR colloquial style or its replacement by the Standard Russian colloquial style; 4) the translation of ritual texts into English or the standardization of DR ritual texts, e.g., by removing Church Slavonicisms or obscure passages; and 5) the launching of Russian-language courses from kindergarten to Grade 12 in schools in the Doukhobor areas in the early 1980s, thus further marginalizing the DR colloquial style.

This figure is reproduced by permission from the Doukhobor Genealogy Website (www.doukhobor.org). Copyright Jonathan J. Kalmakoff. All rights reserved.

4. A Strategy for the Maintenance and Revitalization of DR

4.1. The present situation

There can be no question that DR in British Columbia has sustained some heavy losses in the past 75 years, resulting in a crisis situation in our days. It is good to know, however, that there is currently a kind of revitalization of DR carried out in this province. To be sure, this “revitalization” is more aimed at recording lexical items and texts for the sake of saving as much information as possible for future generations. From efforts such as a series of thus far sixteen two-page articles of DR data in the monthly magazine Iskra (Popoff 2012) it is still a long way to the revival of DR as a vehicle of communication and a school subject. But it is a good testing ground as to how far educators in conjunction with the community are willing to go in this revitalization process.

4.2. What can be done?[9]

As in traditional native cultures, the Doukhobor elders “were the source of all knowledge and the keepers of the value and belief systems. The elders used oral language as a means of passing on their knowledge and cultures and thus education … meant that elders, language and culture were inextricably interwoven.” (Native Language Education 1986: 1; Government of Alberta 2010:2).Thus, in order to develop a Second Language Program in DR from Grades 1-3, the Doukhobor elders and cultures must be brought into the school programs. The subject DR faces stiff competition from a numerically stronger relative, i.e., Standard Russian (SR), historically a compromise language based essentially on the Moscow dialect.

The current need for the maintenance and revitalization of DR is similar to the needs of many other minority languages including autochthonous ones. We will select here one that is within our research experience and competence, viz., Lower Sorbian (a Slavic language) in Germany. About a dozen years ago, Lower Sorbian was spoken only by people older than 60 years, and it was predicted that in about 15 to 20, maximally 30 years, the language would be dead (Jodlbauer, Spieß and Stenwijk 2001: 204). The remedy for this was seen in revitalizing Lower Sorbian as a second language beginning in pre-school years. For this purpose, a special day-care centre, called Mato Rizo, was established in a district in the city of Cottbus. In that day-care centre, part of an anticipated chain of such centres called WITAJ (“welcome”), Lower Sorbian was taught as an immersion course in the hope that a new generation of second-language speakers would compensate for the losses suffered in the last two decades. In addition, as a possible interim supporting measure it was hoped that Lower Sorbian could be increasingly taught as a foreign language with English and possibly French and Russian as powerful competitors (Jodlbauer, Spieß and Stenwijk 2001: 207-208).

Like in the case of Canada’s First Nations languages, such efforts for the revitalization of Lower Sorbian require the active involvement of elders with native or next-to-native (semi-speaker) proficiency in the WITAJ project. But similar to the Doukhobor Russian situation, Lower Sorbian language activists have come out against making two languages, viz., Lower Sorbian and English compulsory subjects even though they do not agree with public opinion that learning two languages in addition to German would present a burden. Admittedly, the possible range of applicability of Lower Sorbian as a second language is very limited in present-day German society; however, the language does have a rich written tradition to look back on. On balance, then, Doukhobor Russian is more in the situation of Canada’s First Nations Languages: for the latter, especially the smaller groups like some Salish languages in British Columbia, it is often suggested that they would be better off learning a major First Nations language, such as Cree (see also Schaarschmidt 1998:463). This is similar, then, to the view expressed in the Doukhobor community that Doukhobor children should learn Standard Russian but that all efforts should be made to document as much as possible of Doukhobor Russian so as to preserve it as a museum language.

At the time of writing, only the oldest generation of Doukhobors in BC is still using the language in one or the other function. Children pick up bits and pieces from grandparents but they don’t speak it for the simple reason that their parents don’t know how to speak it any more. This situation in general implies the impending death of a language/dialect. True, there are many who would like to save the dialect and they can learn a lot from the situation of the First Nations languages in British Columbia where considerable progress has been made even in those cases where there were only 50 adult speakers. There are also opponents who either do not see any value in maintaining and revitalizing the language of the elders or view this process as an extra burden on the children in the light of Standard Russian as a school subject. It is difficult to counter value judgments except perhaps with the argument that there are benefits in maintaining something that could be of good use some day (Harrison 2010:274). The extra-burden argument does not hold water because the human brain between three and six years of age can pick up an indefinite number of languages or dialects (even closely related ones) without any difficulty (for a detailed discussion of the pros and cons of multiple-language acquisition, see Harrison 2010: 221-242). Another hindrance to the revitalization project is the auto- and heterostereotype perception of DR: 1) the Doukhobors themselves consider DR to be outdated and not good Russian (being based on a South Russian, DR is often felt to be like Ukrainian). The notion of DR being outdated is perhaps best expressed in this quote from a Doukhobor: “Personally, the so-called ‘Doukhobor dialect’ is interesting as a minor artifact of life, but the real future is in learning Standard Russian, one of the important international languages of the world” (Koozma Tarasoff, Spirit Wrestlers Blog, May 21, 2011. www.spirit-wrestlers.com). This negative autostereotype perception is enforced by the heterostereotype perception as exemplified by references to DR as being “artificial” and “defective” (Golubeva-Monatkina 1997: 35; translation mine – GS).

As stated in the Introduction, the present study should be viewed as a pilot study to be followed by a detailed proposal how to 1) get DR into the school system at least in Grades 1-3; 2) develop a teacher training programme and curriculum as well as teaching aids in consultation with elders; and 3) secure funding for such a programme perhaps in the form of a foundation grant as well as grants from the Provincial Government.

4.3. Getting DR into the BC school system

4.3.1. Teacher training programs

Selkirk College in Castlegar, BC, would be the most appropriate place to develop a teacher training programme and workshops as well as curriculum and teaching aids perhaps with the assistance of the University of Victoria, a traditional supporter of DR studies and teacher training initiatives since the early 1980s. A Doukhobor foundation grant would help with the financing of these efforts as well as with the preparation of the kinds of materials mentioned in 4.3.3. below.

4.3.2. Writing DR

One of the first things that were done for Sencoten, a language like DR with an oral tradition, was to develop an alphabet for the language. This was carried out by John Elliott, a non-linguist who has managed to incorporate four of his new graphic symbols into UNICODE (see www.languagegeek.com/salishan/sencoten.html and Claxton & Elliott 1994). For DR it will make good sense to use the cyrillic alphabet but perhaps with the addition of the Greek letter γ (gamma) to denote the pronunciation of Cyrillic г as either [γ] or [h] in DR as well as the letter ў to denote bilabial [w].

4.3.3. Texts, dictionaries and a grammar

A second task will be to create an archive of texts in both oral form and cyrillic letters. A grammatical outline of DR as well as dictionaries will also be essential as teaching aids.

5. Conclusion

In concluding this pilot study we wish to emphasize that we take it for granted that saving a language from extinction is just as important as ensuring the survival of an animal or plant species. As the Australian language expert Wurm (1991: 17) put it: “With the death of a language […] an irreplaceable unit in our knowledge and understanding of human thought and world-view has been lost forever.” And to paraphrase Harrison (2010: 274), what the elder generations of the Doukhobors know – “which we’ve forgotten or never knew – may someday save us.” It is imperative that, once a community decision has been reached to embark upon a revitalization program, a school program in DR should be started very soon, certainly while the elders are still around because creating a generation of DR as second-language speakers may make good economic sense the benefits of which might only be felt a couple of generations later.

As Harrison quoted one of his “last speakers”: “trouble is, they say they want to learn it [=the language, G.S.], but when it comes time to do the work, nobody comes around” (Harrison 2010: 249). It is noteworthy that in those cases where somebody did come around (Sencoten, Lower Sorbian), the experience has invariably been a rewarding one.

Footnotes

[1] This statistics are based on the possibly quite outdated information given in Popoff 1983, 117. Later figures put the totals somewhat higher, e.g., in Tarasoff 2002, 12.

[2] Current estimates for the Republic of Georgia vary widely due to a lack of reliable statistics from 800 speakers to a mere 150 (see also Section 2.3. of the present study).

[3] DR has been variously referred to as a “language’, a “dialect”, or a “variant” (of Russian). We are using “language” where many writers have been using “dialect”, and we prefer to use “style” as opposed to “dialect”. This question of nomenclature is not trivial, see also the discussion of the hetero- and autostereotype perception of DR in Section 4. of the present study.

[4] In the transliteration of cyrillic, we follow the “ISO Transliteration System”. In one instance, viz., in the discussion of the loss of the neuter gender in DR in Section 2.3., we decided to use the original cyrillic because it seemed to us to make the opposition stressed : unstressed clearer.

[5] This is on the assumption of a 60% language maintenance estimated in Schaarschmidt 1998, 466. The level of maintenance has probably shrunk to something like 50% during the last 15 years, amounting to a total of 12,500 speakers including a large number of semi-speakers.

[6] We prefer to label the relation DR – SR in BC as a diglossic situation. Due to the fact that Canadian English is rapidly becoming the first language for BC Doukhobors, there is bilingualism in addition to diglossia (Schaarschmidt 2012: 249-50). For a discussion of the various forms of diglossia, as opposed to bilingualism, see Myers-Scotton 2006: 80-89.

[7] The term “apocalyptic” seems to refer to the “Day of Judgment” said to arrive possibly in the year 2000, as quoted in Inikova 1995, 194. For some recent literature on the protection of the Doukhobors in Georgia, see also also Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Georgia: Treatment of Doukhobors (Dukhobors) and state protection available to them, 1 January 1999, GGA31028.E, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6ab9448.html [last accessed 6 February 2013]. For the reduction in the number of schools with Russian instruction in Georgia and an action plan to remedy this situation, see Council of National Minorities (2012).

[8] Young (1931:185) reports many cases of intermarriage between Doukhobors and Ukrainians.

[9] Most of these steps are outlined in Hinton and Hale 2001. A convenient shortcut guide for indigenous languages can be found in FPCC 2013 http://www.fpcc.ca/language/toolkit/begining_an_Indigenous_Language_Initiative.aspx (last accessed February 20, 2013).

References

  • Beženceva, Alla (2007). Strana Duxoborija. Tbilisi: Russkij klub.
  • Bonč-Bruevič, Vladimir. 1909 [1954]. Životnaja kniga duxoborcev. St. Petersburg: B.M. Wol’f. (Materialy k istorii i izučeniju russkogo sektantstva i raskola, 2.) [Reprinted Winnipeg, Manitoba: Regehr’s Printing.]
  • Claxton, Earl, Sr. and John Elliott, Sr. (1994). Reef Net Technology of the Saltwater People. Brentwood Bay, BC: Saanich Indian School Board.
  • Council of National Minorities. Tolerance Center under the Public Defender of Georgia (2012). Monitoring results of implementation of the National Concept and Action Plan on Tolerance and Civil Integration (http://www.infoecmi.eu/index.php/georgia-minorities-monitoring-report/).
  • Donskov, A.A. Ed. (1995). L.N. Tolstoj i P.V. Verigin: Perepiska. S.-Peterburg: Institut mirovoj literatury RAN/Izd. “Dmitrij Bulanin”.
  • Fasmer, Maks [Vasmer, Max]. (1964–73). Ètimologicheskij slovar’ russkogo jazyka. 4 vols. Trans. and supplemented by O. N. Trubachëv. Moscow: Progress
  • First Peoples’ Cultural Council (FPCC) (2013). How to Begin an Indigenous Language Revitalization Initiative. Brentwood Bay, BC (http://www.fpcc.ca/language/toolkit/begining_an_Indigenous_Language_Initiative.aspx).
  • Golubeva-Monatkina, N.I. (1997). O sovremennoj russkoj reči „russkix kanadcev“ (èmigracija 1899-1960 gg.). In: Sociopragmatika i prepodavanie inostrannyx jazykov. Sbornik naučnyx trudov, pp. 30-35). Moscow: MGIMO.
  • Government of Alberta (2010). First Nations, Métis and Inuit (FNMI) Language and Culture Twelve-Year (Kindergarten to Grade 12) Template. Edmonton, Alberta: Ministry of Education.
  • Harrison, K. David (2010). The Last Speakers. The Quest to Save the World’s Most Endangered Languages. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic.
  • Harshenin, Alex P. (1961). The phonemes of the Doukhobor Dialect. Canadian Slavonic Papers 5: 62-71.
  • Harshenin, Alex P. (1964). English Loanwords in the Doukhobor Dialect, 1. Canadian Slavonic Papers 6: 38–43.
  • Harshenin, Alex P. (1967). English Loanwords in the Doukhobor Dialect, 2. Canadian Slavonic Papers 9 (2): 16–30.
  • Hinton, Leanne, and Ken Hale. Eds. (2001). The Green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice. San Diego: Academic Press.
  • Inikova, Svetlana (1995). Doukhobors of the USSR at the end of the 1980s. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 27, 3, 181-95.
  • Jodlbauer, Ralph, Gunter Spieß, and Han Steenwijk (2001). Die aktuelle Situation der niedersorbischen Sprache: Ergebnisse einer soziolinguistischen Untersuchung der Jahre 1993-1995. Bautzen: Domowina-Verlag (Schriften des Sorbischen Instituts, 27).
  • Kerswill, Paul (2002). “Koineization and Accommodation” in J. K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill and Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds), pp. 669-702. The Handbook of Language Variation. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Lewis, M. Paul. Ed. (2009). Ethnologue: Languages of the World, 16th ed. Dallas, Texas: SIL International (http://www.ethnologue.org/show_country.asp?name=CA).
  • Lom, Xedvig [Lohm, Hedvig] (2006). Duxobory v Gruzii: Issledovanie voprosa zemel’noj sobstvennosti i mežètničeskix otnošenij v rajone Ninocminda. In Working Papers 35. Flensburg, Germany: European Centre for Minority Issues (http://www.ecmi.de/publications/detail/35-dukhobors-in-georgia-a-study-of-the-issue-of-land-ownership-and-inter-ethnic-relations-in-ninotsminda-rayon-samtskhe-javakheti-161/).
  • Makarova, Veronika et al. (2011). Jazyk saskačevanskix duxoborov: vvedenie v analiz. In Izvestija vuzov. Serija “gumanitarnye nauki”, 2.2: 146-151.
  • Makarova, Veronika (2012). Introduction. In Veronika Makarova (ed.), pp. vii-xv. Russian Language Studies in North America. New Perspectives from Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. London: Anthem Press.
  • Moseley, Christopher. Ed. (2007). Encyclopedia of the World’s Endangered Languages. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Myers-Scotton, Carol (2006). Multiple Voices. An Introduction to Bilingualism. Malden, MA/Oxford, UK/Victoria, Australia: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
  • Native Language Education (1986). Grades 1-9: Generic Curriculum. Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Education.
  • Popoff, Eli A. (1983). “The Doukhobors” in Charles P. Anderson, Tirthankar Bose, and Joseph. I. Richardson (eds.), pp. 113-19. Circle of Voices: A History of the Religious Communities of British Columbia. Lantzville, BC: Oolichan Books.
  • Popoff, Dmitri Eli (Jim) (2012). Adventures in Russian. With Jimitri’s “Dictionary of Doukhoborese”. Iskra. Voice of the Doukhobors, Nos. 2050-2056, 2058-2061 (January-July, September-December).
  • Rašin, A.G. (1951). “Gramotnost’ i narodnoe obrazovanie v Rossii v XIX i načale XXvv” in: Istoričeskie zapiski, 37, 28-80.
  • Schaarschmidt, Gunter (1998). “Language in British Columbia” in John Edwards (ed.), pp. 461-8. Language in Canada. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Schaarschmidt, Gunter (2008). “The Ritual Language of the British Columbia Doukhobors as an Endangered Functional Style: Issues of Interference and Translatability.” Canadian Slavonic Papers 50 (1–2): 102–22.
  • Schaarschmidt, Gunter (2009). “English for Doukhobors: 110 Years of Russian-English Contact in Canada” in Nadezhda Grejdina (ed.), pp. 30-43. Aktual’nye problemy kommunikacii i kul’tury. Vyp. 10. Mezhdunarodnyj sbornik nauchnyx trudov. Moskva – Pjatigorsk: Pjatigorskij gosudarstvennyj lingvisticheskij universitet. (also published as https://www.doukhobor.org/Schaarschmidt-Russian-English.htm).
  • Schaarschmidt, Gunter (2012). “Russian Language History in Canada. Doukhobor Internal and External Migrations: Effects on Language Development and Structure” in Veronika Makarova (ed.), pp. 235-260. Russian Language Studies in North America. New Perspectives from Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. London: Anthem Press.
  • Siegel, J. (1985). “Koines and koineization” in Language in Society 14: 357–78.
  • Tarasoff, Koozma J. (1963). “Cultural interchange between the non-Slavic peoples of the Soviet Union and the people of Russian background in the greater Vancouver area.” Term paper, Slavonic Studies, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
  • Tarasoff, Koozma (2002). Spirit Wrestlers: Doukhobor Pioneers’ Strategies for Living. Brooklyn, NY: Legas/Ottawa: Spirit Wrestlers Publishing.
  • Trudgill, P. J. (1998). “The Chaos before Order: New Zealand English and the Second Stage of New-dialect Formation” in E. H. Jahr (ed.), pp. 1-11. Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Trudgill, P. J., E. Gordon, G. Lewis and M. Maclagan. (2000). “Determination in New-dialect Formation and the Genesis of New Zealand English”. Journal of Linguistics 36: 299–318.
  • Wurm, Stephen A. (1991). “Language Death and Disappearance: Causes and Circumstances” in Robert H. Robins and Eugenius M. Uhlenbeck (eds.), pp. 1-17. Endangered Languages. Oxford and New York: Berg.
  • Young, Charles H. (1931). Ukrainian Canadians. Toronto: Nelson.

For More Information

For additional research about the Doukhobor dialect spoken in Canada, see Gunter Schaarschmidt’s articles Four Norms – One Culture: Doukhobor Russian in Canada as well as English for Doukhobors: 110 Years of Russian-English Contact in Canada.  Read also about his Day-trip to Piers Island: Reminiscing About the Penitentiary, 1932-1935.  Finally, for Gunter Schaarschmidt’s exclusive translations of 19th century German articles about the Doukhobors, see The Dukhobortsy, 1822-1828 by Daniel Schlatter; Passage Across the Caucasus, 1843 by Kuzma F. Spassky-Avtonomov; The Dukhobortsy in Transcaucasia, 1854-1856 by Heinrich Johann von Paucker; Notes from the Molochnaya, 1855 by Alexander Petzholdt; Doukhobors in the Caucasus, 1863-1864 by Alexander Petzholdt; Report from the Caucasus, 1875 by Hans Leder; and Travels in the Caucasus and the Armenian Highlands, 1875 by Gustav I. Sievers and Gustav I. Radde. 

Brands of the Doukhobor Stockmen of Alberta, 1904-2009

by Jonathan J. Kalmakoff and the Stockmen’s Memorial Foundation

Brands have been used to identify livestock ownership in Alberta for more than 125 years and are an essential part of its ranching heritage. The following database contains over 125 cancelled cattle and horse brands registered by Doukhobor stockmen in Alberta between 1904 and 2009. Compiled from the files of the Stockmen’s Memorial Foundation, each entry includes the stockman’s name and town, brand registration date, brand description and reference information. Learn about the brands used by Alberta Doukhobor stockmen along with their history and significance. Last updated April 10, 2009.

Introduction

For almost a century, Doukhobors have played a significant role in the livestock industry of southern Alberta. As early as 1911, the Doukhobor Community supplied 100 oxen and 30 drivers to break land owned by the Canadian Wheatlands Company at Bowell and Carlstadt. From 1911 to 1920, Doukhobor work crews of 100 men and twice as many horse and oxen were hired by the Canadian Land and Irrigation Company to construct the McGregor Lake dam near Milo for the Bow River Irrigation Project. From 1915 to 1937, the Doukhobor “Christian Community of Universal Brotherhood” operated a vast communal farming and ranching enterprise in the Cowley and Lundbreck districts. Another smaller Doukhobor colony was established in the Arrowwood and Shouldice districts from 1926 to 1945. Following the demise of these communal ventures, many Doukhobors remained in the areas as individual farmers and stock growers. At the same time, throughout the Teens and Twenties, hundreds of Doukhobors settled independently on ranches and farms in the Pincher Creek, Mossleigh, Nanton, Crowfoot, Queenstown, Vulcan, Vauxhall, Skiff, Lethbridge, Rosebud and other districts. Many of their descendants continue to live and ranch in these districts today.

Doukhobor breaking prairie sod on Canadian Wheatlands project near Bowell, Alberta, c. 1912. Glenbow Archives NA-587-1.

Like other stockmen in Alberta, Doukhobor ranchers and farmers branded their livestock. The brand was a unique, highly visible, permanent mark applied to an animal for identification purposes. It was vital in determining ownership, returning strays or stolen livestock to their rightful owners, and serving as a deterrent to theft. It was a road map of an animal’s history and told a story of its owner. Sometimes, the brand became better known than the individual who used it. Under Alberta law, a brand had to be registered before it could be used, and a rigid set of specifications was followed when issuing a new brand. Only one brand of a particular design, configuration and location could be registered, to avoid potential conflicts in similar brands. The brand registration had to be kept in good standing and renewed on a regular basis. It was an offence to use an unregistered brand or to alter a registered brand.

Doukhobor Brands

The following database has been compiled from the cancelled brand files and Brand Books held by the Stockmen’s Memorial Foundation Library and Archives. Arranged alphabetically by surname, each entry includes an image of the brand, the stockman’s name and town, brand registration, brand description and reference information.

Androsoff, William

Dates: Jun 20, 1936 – cancelled Dec 6, 1957
Brand Description: W A running bar – C. l. r
Town: Queenstown, Arrowwood
Box Number: 46
File Number: 70447

Androsoff, William S. & John

Dates: Apr 27, 1944 – cancelled Jan 22, 1981
Brand Description: B A over bar – C. r. h
Town: Mossleigh
Box Number: 139
File Number: 77541

Bartsoff, John

Dates: Nov 14, 1958 – last renewal date Nov 7, 1962
Brand Description: P B over quarter circle – C. r.r
Town: Raymond
Box Number: 80
File Number: 62669

Bartsoff, Peter Jr.

Dates: Nov 30, 1960 – cancelled Sep 3, 1968 (horse); June 4, 1956 – cancelled Aug 30, 1968 (cattle)
Brand Description: bar over B 7 – H. r. th – C. r. h
Town: Raymond, Legend
Box Number: 92
File Number: 72617

Bartsoff, Peter Sr.

Dates: Mar 13, 1962 – cancelled Dec 31, 1970
Brand Description: B P over half diamond – C. l. r
Town: Vauxhall, Raymond
Box Number: 102
File Number: 37939

Cabatoff, Peter W.

Dates: May 3, 1965 – expired Dec 31, 1969
Brand Description: P anchor over 1/4 circle – C. l. h
Town: Medicine Hat
Box Number: 100
File Number: 89387

Chernenkoff, Fred

Dates: June 29, 1950 – last renewal date Dec 28, 1954 (both)
Brand Description: (reversed) F C over bar – C. r. h – H. t. th
Town: Beaver Mines
Box Number: 53
File Number: 85929

Chernoff, Bill

Dates: Mar 19, 1941 – ? (both)
Brand Description: 1/4 circle over B C – C. r. sh – H. r.th
Town: Lundbreck
Box Number: 17
File Number: 72933

Davidoff, John (1)

Dates: Jan 29, 1953 – transferred Dec 14, 1956 
Brand Description: 5 D (reversed) over bar – C. r. h
Town: Pincher Creek, Lundbreck
Box Number: 58
File Number: 74584

Davidoff, John (2)

Dates: ? – expired Dec 31, 1938
Brand Description: half diamond over M D – H. l. th
Town: Pincher Creek, Lundbreck
Box Number: 58
File Number: 74584

Davidoff, John (3)

Dates: Nov 24, 1952 – cancelled Oct 5, 1964
Brand Description: H 5 over half diamond – C. l. h
Town: Pincher Creek, Lundbreck
Box Number: 58
File Number: 74584

Davidoff, Mackifa

Dates: Jan 29, 1944 – cancelled Nov 13, 1948 (horse); Jan 28, 1944 – cancelled Oct 21, 1948 (cattle)
Brand Description: bar over D 1 – H. l. th – C. l. h
Town: Pincher Creek
Box Number: 21
File Number: 76878

Davidoff, Matvey N.

Dates: Jul 8, 1918 – expired Dec 31, 1933 (horse); Jul 8, 1918 – transferred Jan 29, 1953 (cattle)
Brand Description: 5 D (reversed) over bar – H. r. sh – C. r. h
Town: Cowley, Pincher Creek, Pincher Station
Box Number: 71
File Number: 66342

Davidoff, Nicholas N. (1)

Dates: Jul 30, 1951 – cancelled Dec 31, 1955
Brand Description: quarter circle over D F – C. r. h
Town: Pincher Creek, Pincher Station, Thrums
Box Number: 42
File Number: 87483

Davidoff, Nicholas N. (2)

Dates: Jan 3, 1929 – cancelled Sep 22, 1969 (cattle) Jan 3, 1929 – last renewal date Dec 31, 1953 (horse)
Brand Description: N 3 over half diamond – C. r. h – H. r. th
Town: Pincher Creek, Pincher Station, Thrums
Box Number: 42
File Number: 87483

Davidoff, Nick N.

Dates: Feb 19, 1920 – last renewal date Dec 7, 1944 (horse); Feb 19, 1920 – last renewal date Dec 31, 1948 (cattle)
Brand Description: bar over D lazy F – H. r. th – C. r. h
Town: Pincher Station
Box Number: 33
File Number: 56346

Davidoff, Vasilie Nikoleavitch & Bernice Dianna

Dates: Feb 1, 1968 – exp Dec 31, 1976
Brand Description: half diamond over V 7 – C. r. sh
Town: Pincher Creek
Box Number: 135
File Number: 72351

Deakoff, Mike

Dates: Mar 11, 1943 – Expired Dec 31, 1967 (cattle); Mar 11, 1943 – cancelled Sep 6, 1963 (horse)
Brand Description: M running bar D – C. l. r – H. l. th
Town: Lundbreck
Box Number: 87
File Number: 75760

Derhousoff (Hoover), Joe J.

Dates: Feb 23, 1956 – ?
Brand Description: J D over half diamond – C. l. h
Town: Throne, Coronation
Box Number: 57
File Number: 70804

Derhousoff (Hoover), Lawrence J.

Dates: Apr 6, 1956 – transferred 1956
Brand Description: half diamond over L D – C. l. h
Town: Throne
Box Number: 58
File Number: 70963

Doukhobor Fraternal Co. (c/o Peter Verigin)

Brand Book Dates: 1904-1910, 1915-1938
Brand Description: Stylized Cyrillic “D” symbol – C. r. r. – H. r. th.
Town: Yorkton, SK, Cowley

Ewashen, Alex J. Jr.

Dates: Mar 17, 1954 – cancelled Aug 19, 1974
Brand Description: A over E – C. l. sh
Town: Lundbreck, Creston, BC
Box Number: 126
File Number: 91108

Ewashen, Jacob

Dates: June 6, 1930 – transferred Nov 9, 1954 (cattle); Feb 28, 1934 – cancelled Dec 31, 1946 (horse)
Brand Description: bar over V S – C. r. h – H. r. sh
Town: Nanton, Cayley
Box Number: 65
File Number: 66530

Ewashen, Mike

Dates: Apr 9, 1943 – cancelled Nov 24, 1955
Brand Description: bar over M E – C. l. r
Town: Nanton
Box Number: 38
File Number: 75458

Ewashen, Nick J.

Dates: Feb 6, 1942 – cancelled Feb 8, 1967
Brand Description: bar over N E monogram – C. r. sh
Town: Nanton
Box Number: 81
File Number: 73783

Ewashen, Peter J.

Dates: Jun 1, 1945 – expired Dec 31, 1969
Brand Description: F running bar P – C. r.r
Town: Lundbreck
Box Number: 99
File Number: 79570

Ewashen, Walter James

Dates: Nov 22, 1954 – last renewal date Oct 6, 1958
Brand Description: bar over V S – C. r. h
Town: Nanton
Box Number: 65
File Number: 66530

Ewashin, George & John

Dates: May 27, 1944 – last renewal date Oct 27, 1952 (horse); May 27, 1944 – ? (cattle)
Brand Description: quarter circle over (reversed) G 3 – H. r. sh – C. r. sh
Town: Cowley
Box Number: 52
File Number: 77855

Faminoff, Joe

Dates: Nov 13, 1945 – ? (horse); Nov 27, 1945 – cancelled Oct 12, 1965 (cattle)
Brand Description: half diamond over (reversed) F 2 – H. r. th – C. r. h
Town: Cowley
Box Number: 77
File Number: 80172

Faminow, Bros & Sons (Sam, Mike, Steve)

Dates: Apr 29, 1938 – transferred Feb 10, 1943 (both)
Brand Description: F B over half diamond – C. l. h – H. l. th
Town: Lundbreck
Box Number: 65
File Number: 71379

Faminow, Fred P.

Dates: Nov 21, 1941 – cancelled Dec 31, 1949 (cattle); Nov 21, 1941 – cancelled Nov 13, 1943 (horse)
Brand Description: cross F – C. r. h – H. r. th
Town: Lundbreck
Box Number: 17
File Number: 73666

Faminow, Sam & Sons

Dates: Dec 31, 1942 – expired Dec 31, 1962 (horse); Dec 31, 1942 – transferred Aug 6, 1959 (cattle)
Brand Description: F B over half diamond – H. l. th – C. l. h
Town: Lundbreck
Box Number: 65
File Number: 71379

Fofonoff, John

Dates: (a) Apr 23, 1945 – cancelled Dec 31, 1949; (b) Apr 23, 1945 – expired Dec 31, 1957; (c) May 5, 1934 – expired Dec 31, 1938
Brand Description: half diamond over J F monogram; (a) H. l. th; (b) C. l.; (c) C. l. neck
Town: Queenstown, Vauxhall
Box Number: 61
File Number: 68895

Fofonoff, Paul

Dates: Apr 10, 1942 – cancelled Dec 31, 1946 (both)
Brand Description: J B over bar – H. r. sh – C. l. r
Town: Queenstown
Box Number: 37
File Number: 74176

Hlookoff, Mike

Dates: Apr 28, 1942 – last renewal date Dec 31, 1946
Brand Description: M H over bar – C. r. sh
Town: Blackie
Box Number: 37
File Number: 74202

Hlookoff, Nick

Brand Book Dates: 1954-1974
Brand Description: bar over N H – C. r. sh
Town: Mossleigh

Hlookoff, Walter & Mary

Brand Book Dates: 1978-1990
Brand Description: bar over N H – C. r. sh
Town: Mossleigh

Hlookoff, Walter

Brand Book Dates: 1998-2009
Brand Description: bar over N H – C. r. sh
Town: Mossleigh

Holoboff, Darbra L.

Brand Book Dates: 1984-2009
Brand Description:  D running bar lazy H – C. l. r
Town: Arrowwood

Holoboff, Elli

Brand Book Dates: 1937-1974
Brand Description: N L inverted – C. l. sh – H. l. th
Town: Shouldice

Holoboff, Fred

Dates: May 19, 1942 – ?
Brand Description: F H over quarter circle – C. l. sh
Town: Mossleigh
Box Number: 15
File Number: 74474

Holoboff, George

Dates: Mar 4, 1959 – ?
Brand Description: F H over bar – C. l. h
Town: Mossleigh
Box Number: 68
File Number: 55024

Holoboff, Jody

Brand Book Dates: 1998-2009
Brand Description:  T running bar K – C. l. r
Town: Barnwell

Holoboff, Joseph E.

Brand Book Dates: 1978-2009
Brand Description:  N L inverted – C. l. sh
Town: Shouldice, Arrowwood

Holoboff, Joseph J.

Brand Book Dates: 1984-2009
Brand Description:  J J H – C. l. r
Town: Arrowwood

Holoboff, Mike

Dates: May 3, 1945 – cancelled Dec 31, 1973
Brand Description: M H running bar – C. l. r
Town: Nanton
Box Number: 119
File Number: 79356

Holoboff, Pete

Dates: May 16, 1929 – cancelled Feb 1, 1970 (cattle); May 16, 1929 – cancelled Dec 31, 1949 (horse)
Brand Description: P H over bar – C. r. h – H. r. sh
Town: Nanton, Cayley
Box Number: 98
File Number: 65919

Holoboff, Peter

Brand Book Dates: 1968-1982
Brand Description: quarter circle over O lazy S – C. r. h
Town: Vauxhall

Holoboff, Tom J.

Brand Book Dates: 1984-1994
Brand Description:  T running bar K – C. l. r
Town: Calgary, Blackie

Holoboff, William

Brand Book Dates: 1966-1986
Brand Description: reversed B H over bar – C. r. h
Town: Herronton, Blackie, Innisfail

Holoboff, William W.

Dates: Apr 7, 1936 – ?
Brand Description: bar over B L – H. r. sh
Town: Vulcan
Box Number: 26
File Number: 70241

Hoobenoff, John

Dates: Nov 25, 1954 – ?
Brand Description: H P over bar – C. r. h
Town: Lundbreck
Box Number: 51
File Number: 64582

Hoobenoff, N. S.

Dates: Jul 8, 1942 – ? (both)
Brand Description: W H monogram over bar – H. r. sh – C. r. r
Town: Lundbreck
Box Number: 16
File Number: 74718

Kabatoff, Bill (1)

Dates: Jun 6, 1939 – last renewal date Dec 31, 1963 (cattle)
Brand Description: bar over B K – C. r. r
Town: Lundbreck, Cowley, Castlegar, BC
Box Number: 87
File Number: 71933

Kabatoff, Bill (2)

Dates: Dec 31, 1939 – ? (horse)
Brand Description: half diamond over B K – H. r. th
Town: Lundbreck, Cowley, Castlegar, BC
Box Number: 87
File Number: 71933

Kabatoff, Fred S.

Dates: Aug 20, 1943 – cancelled Nov 5, 1947 (both)
Brand Description: half diamond over F K – H. r. th – C. r. h
Town: Lundbreck
Box Number: 38
File Number: 76440

Kabatoff, Mike

Dates: Jul 12, 1934 – last renewal date Dec 31, 1942
Brand Description: quarter circle over M K – C. r. h
Town: Glenwood, Lundbreck
Box Number: 24
File Number: 69250

Kabatoff, Peter

Dates: May 13, 1943 – expired Dec 31, 1963
Brand Description: half diamond over P K – C. l. h
Town: Pincher Creek, Pincher Station, Lundbreck
Box Number: 69
File Number: 75832

Kalmakoff, Alex J. (1)

Dates: Apr 10, 1943 – cancelled Oct 16, 1946
Brand Description: A K monogram over quarter circle – C. r. h
Town: Gleichen, Kamloops, BC
Box Number: 38
File Number: 75589

Kalmakoff, Alex J. (2)

Dates: Oct 18, 1946 – last renewal date Dec 31, 1950
Brand Description: bar over A K monogram – C. r. r
Town: Gleichen, Kamloops, BC
Box Number: 38
File Number: 75589

Kalmakoff, Sam

Dates: Apr 29, 1942 – ? (both)
Brand Description: (reversed) K S over half diamond – H. r. th – C. r. h
Town: Cowley
Box Number: 7
File Number: 74207

Konkin, Alex

Dates: Jul 3, 1939 – ?
Brand Description: bar over A K – C. r. h
Town: Cowley
Box Number: 19
File Number: 71975

Konkin, Andrew

Dates: Nov 1, 1979 – cancelled Dec 31, 1983
Brand Description: lazy A over K – H. l. th
Town: Gibbons, Ardrossan
Box Number: 146
File Number: 11641

Konkin, Mabel

Dates: May 21, 1944 – ?
Brand Description: M K over half diamond – C. l. h
Town: Carseland
Box Number: 40
File Number: 82432

Konkin, William

Dates: May 28, 1943 – cancelled Feb 2, 1968
Brand Description: W K over half diamond – C. r. r
Town: Vauxhall
Box Number: 87
File Number: 76001

Kooznetsoff, Sam

Dates: Jul 20, 1950 – cancelled Feb 20, 1959
Brand Description: bar over S 2 – C. l. r
Town: Cowley
Box Number: 53
File Number: 85976

Kuftinoff, Nick

Dates: Mar 17, 1930 – last renewal date Dec 31, 1934 (both)
Brand Description: N K over half diamond – C. l. h – H. l. th
Town: Skiff
Box Number: 9a
File Number: 66315

Kuznetsoff, P.

Dates: Jul 26, 1955 – EXP Dec 31, 1959
Brand Description: running bar X S – C. l. r
Town: Bluffton
Box Number: 55
File Number: 69823

Maloff, Fred

Dates: Jan 14, 1952 – cancelled Oct 20, 1980
Brand Description: F V over half diamond – C. r.h
Town: Bearberry, Sundre
Box Number: 139
File Number: 87856

Maloff, George

Dates: Apr 12, 1943 – transferred Mar 14, 1945
Brand Description: (reversed) F M monogram over half diamond – C. l. h
Town: Crowfoot
Box Number: 15
File Number: 75478

Maloff, George & Son

Dates: Mar 18, 1940 – last renewal date Nov 2, 1944 (horse); Mar 18, 1940 – cancelled Dec 31, 1976 (cattle)
Brand Description: J M monogram over quarter circle – H. r. th – C. r. neck
Town: Cowley
Box Number: 134
File Number: 72268

Mushta, Anthony & Peter M. Saliken

Dates: Jun 29, 1942 – transferred Apr 12, 1947
Brand Description: N F monogram over bar – H. r. th – C. r. h
Town: Lundbreck
Box Number: 104
File Number: 74625

Oglaff, William

Dates: Jul 13, 1948 – ?
Brand Description: W O half diamond – C. r. r
Town: Arrowwood
Box Number: 41
File Number: 83824

Ozeroff, Paul

Dates: Dec 16, 1954 – cancelled Mar 28, 1974
Brand Description: bar over P O – C. l. sh
Town: Nanton
Box Number: 123
File Number: 65016

Parakin, John

Dates: Jul 3, 1964 – cancelled Sep 15, 1972
Brand Description: 7 P running bar – C. l. r
Town: Lundbreck
Box Number: 115
File Number: 93479

Parakin, Pete P.

Dates: Jun 4, 1943 – last renewal date Dec 16, 1954 (cattle); Jun 4, 1943 – expired Dec 31, 1951 (horse)
Brand Description: (reversed) P P over half diamond – C. r. sh – H. r. sh
Town: Lundbreck
Box Number: 52
File Number: 76048

Pereverziff, John

Dates: Apr 26, 1955 – expired Dec 31, 1959
Brand Description: running bar H P – C. r. r
Town: Lethbridge
Box Number: 55
File Number: 68418

Planidin, Mrs. Fanny

Brand Book Dates: 1937-1937
Brand Description: quarter circle over F P – H. l. sh. – C. l. r.
Town: Queenstown

Planidin, Paul P.

Brand Book Dates: 1966-1990
Brand Description: 3 P over half diamond – H. l. th. – C. l. r.
Town: Calgary

Planidin, S.D.

Brand Book Dates: 1947-1982
Brand Description: quarter circle over F P – H. l. sh. – C. l. r.
Town: Queenstown, Calgary

Podmaroff, Alex

Dates: May 21, 1945 – last renewal date Nov 5, 1964
Brand Description: A P over half diamond – C. l. r
Town: Calgary, Carstairs
Box Number: 94
File Number: 79416

Podmaroff, David

Brand Book Dates: 1990-2009
Brand Description: bar over W P – C. r. h.
Town: Calgary

Podmaroff, Marion I. (1)

Brand Book Dates: 1962-1994
Brand Description: bar over V Y – C. r. h
Town: Carseland, Calgary

Podmaroff, Marion I. (2)

Brand Book Dates: 1982-1996
Brand Description: bar over W P – C. r. h.
Town: Carseland, Calgary

Podmaroff, William

Brand Book Dates: 1947-1978
Brand Description: bar over W P – C. r. h.
Town: Carseland, Calgary

Podmoroff, Alec

Brand Book Dates: 1937-1937
Brand Description: P P over half diamond – C. l. h – H. l. th.
Town: Carseland

Podmoroff, Alec (Estate of)

Brand Book Dates: 1947-1978
Brand Description: P P over half diamond – C. l. h – H. l. th.
Town: High River, Mossleigh

Podmoroff, Alex

Brand Book Dates: 1954-1990
Brand Description: 7 A over bar – C. r. h.
Town: Hubalta, Calgary

Podmoroff, Danny

Brand Book Dates: 1982-1990
Brand Description: P P over half diamond – C. l. h – H. l. th.
Town: Olds

Podmoroff, Mike

Brand Book Dates: 1994-1994
Brand Description: P P over half diamond – C. l. h – H. l. th.
Town: Calgary

Podmoroff, Paul A.

Brand Book Dates: 1998-2009
Brand Description: P P over half diamond – C. l. h – H. l. th.
Town: Olds

Podmoroff, Terence

Brand Book Dates: 2003-2009
Brand Description: P P over half diamond – C. r. h – H. r. th.
Town: Exshaw

Ponomareff, Alexander

Dates: Apr 22, 1959 – ?
Brand Description: A S P – C. l. r
Town: Arrowwood
Box Number: 69
File Number: 71634

Potapoff, William P. (1)

Dates: May 11, 1933 – expired Dec 31, 1941
Brand Description: W P bar – C. l. r
Town: Cowley
Box Number: 20
File Number: 68273

Potapoff, William P. (2)

Dates: May 11, 1933 – expired Dec 31, 1941
Brand Description: bar over W P – H. l. sh
Town: Cowley
Box Number: 20
File Number: 68273

Salekin, Alex A.

Dates: Apr 2, 1942 – cancelled Oct 25, 1966 (cattle); Oct 10, 1944 – expired Dec 31, 1968 (horse)
Brand Description: quarter circle over S N – C. r. h – H. r. th
Town: Lundbreck
Box Number: 93
File Number: 74030

Saliken, Mike

Dates: Dec 31 1946 – last renewal date Oct 18, 1966 (horse); Dec 31, 1946 – transferred Dec 18, 1969 (cattle)
Brand Description: N F monogram over bar – H. r. th – C. r. h
Town: Lundbreck
Box Number: 104
File Number: 74625

Saliken, Peter M.

Dates: Dec 31 1946 – last renewal date Oct 18, 1966 (horse); Dec 31, 1946 – transferred Dec 18, 1969 (cattle)
Brand Description: N F monogram over bar – H. r. th – C. r. h
Town: Lundbreck
Box Number: 104
File Number: 74625

Samaroden, Mike

Brand Book Dates: 1962-1970
Brand Description:  S over S – C. l. h
Town: Mossleigh

Samaroden, Peter R.

Brand Book Dates: 1962-1982
Brand Description:  quarter circle over P 5 – C. r. r
Town: Mossleigh, Fort McMurray

Samaroden, Sam J.

Dates: Apr 15, 1939 – cancelled Nov 28, 1947 (horse); Apr 15, 1939 – transferred Jan 3, 1961 (cattle)
Brand Description: S over S – H. l. sh – C. l. h
Town: Mossleigh
Box Number: 108
File Number: 71809

Semenoff, Joe J.

Dates: Apr 14, 1938 – cancelled Dec 31, 1962 (cattle); Apr 14, 1938 – cancelled Dec 31, 1950 (horse)
Brand Description: J O over half diamond – C. r. h – H. l. sh
Town: Vulcan, Lundbreck
Box Number: 65
File Number: 71320

Semenoff, John

Dates: Jun 22, 1939 – ? (both)
Brand Description: half diamond over C inverted 7 – C. r. h – H. r. th
Town: Lundbreck
Box Number: 19
File Number: 71964

Semenoff, Pete

Dates: Feb 3, 1955 – cancelled Sep 11, 1959
Brand Description: D P over quarter circle – C. r. r
Town: Radisson, SK, Lundbreck  
Box Number: 54
File Number: 65538

Sherstabetoff, Nick

Dates: Nov 26, 1946 – last renewal date Oct 19, 1970
Brand Description: N S over quarter circle – C. l. h
Town: Mossleigh
Box Number: 124
File Number: 77591

Sherstabetoff, Peter (Estate of)

Brand Book Dates: 1954-2009
Brand Description:  half diamond over S H – C. r. r
Town: Mossleigh

Shkooratoff, Mike

Dates: Mar 14, 1940 – last renewal date Oct 27, 1952 (horse); Mar 14, 1940 – cancelled Dec 31, 1964 (cattle)
Brand Description: M S over bar – H. r. sh – C. r. sh
Town: Cowley
Box Number: 71
File Number: 72236

Shkooratoff, Paul

Dates: Oct 4, 1940 – expired Dec 31, 1952 (horse); Feb 24, 1947 – expired Dec 31, 1952 (cattle)
Brand Description: P S over quarter circle – H. l. th – C. l. h
Town: Fort Macleod
Box Number: 37
File Number: 72670

Shkuratoff, W.

Dates: Dec 20, 1948 – last renewal date Dec 31, 1952
Brand Description: S over W – C. r. h
Town: Milo
Box Number: 47
File Number: 84083

Shkurotoff, Nick

Dates: May 5, 1945 – ?
Brand Description: bar over H lazy E – C. l.r
Town: Lundbreck
Box Number: 22
File Number: 79486

Stoocknoff, Tom

Dates: May 27, 1935 – last renewal date Dec 30, 1939
Brand Description: T over lazy S – C. r.r
Town: Hesketh
Box Number: 26
File Number: 69800

Stoopnekoff, John

Dates: May 9, 1942 – last renewal date Dec 31, 1946
Brand Description: J S – C. r. neck
Town: Cowley
Box Number: 15
File Number: 74252

Sukeroff, Bill

Dates: Mar 24, 1950 – cancelled Sep 6, 1974
Brand Description: bar over (reversed) B S – C. l. r
Town: Vauxhall
Box Number: 126
File Number: 85383

Sukeroff, L.A.

Dates: May 8, 1952 – last renewal date Oct 17, 1956
Brand Description: half diamond over A L monogram – C. l. r
Town: Vauxhall
Box Number: 59
File Number: 88503

Sukovieff, Mike

Dates: Jun 15, 1959 – expired Dec 31, 1965
Brand Description: N B monogram over bar – H. l. th
Town: Conrich, Calgary
Box Number: 76
File Number: 78268

Tarasoff, Nick

Dates: Feb 27, 1945 – ?
Brand Description: N T over half diamond – C. l. sh
Town: Herronton
Box Number: 23
File Number: 78802

Tarasoff, Pete

Dates: Aug 4, 1953 – last renewal date Feb 1, 1963
Brand Description: bar over 7 X – C. l. h
Town: Herronton
Box Number: 89
File Number: 90570

Veregin, George J.

Dates: Jan 15, 1945 – transferred Jan 29, 1962
Brand Description: (reversed) G V over bar – C. l. r
Town: Nanton
Box Number: 76
File Number: 78602

Veregin, Peter

Dates: Jan 31, 1962 – cancelled Oct 7, 1965
Brand Description: (reversed) G V over bar – C. l. r
Town: Nanton
Box Number: 76
File Number: 78602

Veregin, William

Dates: Oct 19, 1939 – expired Dec 31, 1963 (both)
Brand Description: W V over bar – C. r. r – H. r. th
Town: Lundbreck
Box Number: 67
File Number: 46413

Vereschagin Bros.

Dates: Apr 24, 1945 – last renewal date Dec 31, 1953
Brand Description: half diamond over V B – C. l. h
Town: Michichi
Box Number: 49
File Number: 79246

Vishloff, John

Dates: Mar 26, 1942 – ?
Brand Description: J V over quarter circle – C. r. sh
Town: Burmis
Box Number: 15
File Number: 74017

Voykin, Bill

Dates: Sep 24, 1934 – expired Dec 31, 1950
Brand Description: half diamond over B V – C. r. h
Town: Cowley, Lundbreck
Box Number: 36
File Number: 69308

Voykin, Fred

Dates: May 23, 1947 – expired Dec 31, 1955
Brand Description: half diamond over F V – C. r. h
Town: Lundbreck, Macleod
Box Number: 44
File Number: 82436

Zaytsoff, Bill

Dates: Jan 28, 1928 – last renewal date Nov 2, 1944 (horse); Jan 28, 1928 – expired Dec 31, 1932 (cattle)
Brand Description: B Z over bar – H. r. th – C. r. h
Town: Queenstown
Box Number: 12
File Number: 55135

Understanding Livestock Brands

Traditionally, branding involved capturing and securing an animal by roping it, laying it over on the ground, tying its legs together, and searing the animal’s flesh with a hot iron to produce a scar – the brand. Modern ranch practice has moved toward use of chutes where animals can be run into a confined area and safely secured while the brand is applied. Today branding is more often done with chemicals, tattooing, paint or tagging.

In Alberta, registered cattle brands could be used in one of six positions on an animal: the shoulder (sh), rib (r), or hip (h) on either the left or right side. Registered horse brands could be used in one of six positions on the animal: the jaw (j), shoulder (sh) or thigh (th) on either the left or right side.

Doukhobors using oxen to break land for Canadian Wheatlands near Bowell, Alberta, ca. 1911-1914. Glenbow Archives NA-587-2.

A brand may consist of a character (letter or numeral), symbol (such as a slash, circle, half circle, cross or bar) or any combination thereof. Characters may appear upright, reversed (called ‘crazy’) or turned 90 degrees (called ‘lazy’). Each character or symbol may be distinct from another or else connected (touching), combined (partially overlaid), or hanging (touching, but arranged top to bottom). The possible combinations are endless. Usually a brand signified something unique to its owner – for instance his or her initials.

Note a brand is usually read from left to right, from top to bottom, and finally, from outside to inside where it has a character that encloses another. For instance, the livestock brand “F-P” would be read and defined as “F running bar P”.

For More Information

For more information about Doukhobor stockmen in Alberta and their brands, visit the Stockmen’s Memorial Foundation Library and Archives website. Established by the Stockmen’s Memorial Foundation in 1980, the Library and Archives is located in Cochrane, Alberta and houses a vast collection of historical and business information relating to the livestock industry, cowboys and western culture.

The cancelled brand files held at the Stockmen’s Memorial Foundation Library and Archives are the original files of brand requests from ranchers, farmers and businesses for a brand for horses, cattle, foxes, sheep and poultry from 1888 to 1980. This information is especially of interest to those tracing family history. Each file contains at least one sheet with information regarding the location of the owner’s grazing lands and the possible choices of brands. Many files will have lengthy correspondence relating to the brands.

The Stockmen’s Memorial Foundation Library and Archives also has the largest collection of Alberta Brand Books. Brand Books recorded all horse and cattle brands registered in the province for a specified period of years. A typical Brand Book will usually have an image of the brand, the location of the brand on the animal, and the type of animal that was branded, as well as the owner of the brand. The Brand Books contain both cancelled and currently active brands.

Origin of the CCUB Trust Fund

by Larry A. Ewashen

In 1938, the once-flourishing Christian Community of Universal Brotherhood was foreclosed upon, its over $4,000,000 in assets sold at fire sale prices to satisfy a $300,00 debt.  The remaining balance, held in trust by the Government of Saskatchewan for the Doukhobors of Canada, came to be known as the CCUB Trust Fund. Administered by a statutory board appointed regionally by recognized Doukhobor Societies, the CCUB Trust Fund is today used to fund Doukhobor cultural and heritage activities and projects. The following article by Larry A. Ewashen, Curator of the Doukhobor Museum in Castlegar, British Columbia and currently a member of the CCUB  Trust Fund Board, oulines the history of the fund, its management and applications. Reproduced with permission.

Although many contemporary Doukhobor societies have received funding from the CCUB Trust Fund, not everyone is aware of the origins of this funding organization. Since being appointed to the board by the British Columbia Attorney General, this question has come up from time to time on different occasions. I hope that the following will help to clarify some of the questions.

Simply put, the CCUB Trust Fund, is the remnant of the once flourishing Christian Community of Universal Brotherhood. Incorporated in 1917, and brought to its knees in 1938 through foreclosure action, some of the resources of this one time exceptional communal enterprise remained as a legacy to the remaining Doukhobor societies up until the present day.

After the devastating foreclosure action by Sun Life Assurance, the Canadian Imperial Bank and Crown Life over the outstanding $300,000 interest, the British Columbia Provincial Government negotiated a settlement with the Trust companies by paying $280,000 on the debt, and thus becoming owners of the entire CCUB holdings.

Peter Lordly Verigin (centre) with crowd of Community (CCUB) Doukhobors, c. 1920’s. Photo courtesy Simon Fraser University Doukhobor Collection.

Previous to the BC Government take over, the receivers announced to the CCUB governing Doukhobors that they intended to liquidate certain resources to recoup their financial outlay.

This liquidation continued until most of the Doukhobor resources such as lumber and any other items in stock were sold off at fire sale prices, and the basic industries such as the jam factory were totally depleted so there was no chance of the Doukhobors reviving their CCUB company in a meaningful fashion. After the Receivers had completed their work, the Government of BC took over and a second condition emerged, allowing the Doukhobors to remain in the villages as tenants in the properties they had once owned.

After the government recouped their $280,000. there was a balance left which was deposited into a holding account in Regina Saskatchewan, and was supervised by the Government of Saskatchewan under the terms of the bankruptcy procedures.

When the communal homesteads were cancelled in 1906 – 7 in Saskatchewan over the issue of naturalization and communal living, the government of the day graciously reserved 15 acres for each resident over eighteen years of age on the periphery of each village. Of course, this was not sufficient for a family to survive on, and those Doukhobors who had left for British Columbia, had given up their ownership rights. These reserves dwindled as they were purchased by the new occupiers of the property after the Doukhobors vacated, in some cases by the Independent Doukhobor who stayed, and in other cases by other new owners who wanted to complete their holdings, particularly when the reserves bordered their land. In 1918, former Dominion lands were sold or reverted to the province. The proceeds of the these sales were also added to an account supervised by the Saskatchewan government.

Up until the time of the bankruptcy procedures against the CCUB. this fund was referred to as The Credit Surplus Fund and was held in trust by Toronto General Trust, later one the receivers in the case. The majority of the CCUB holdings were in British Columbia. There was a smaller operation in Alberta and some land, flour mill and farming operation around Verigin and Kylemore. These properties were all part of the foreclosure of the CCUB

After the costly bankruptcy procedures which lasted from 1938 to 1945, the sum of $142,111.07 remained, and this was held in trust by the Toronto General Trust. in Regina, one of the foreclosing agents. This money, then, was combined with the money from the proceeds of the 15 acres lots.

In time, this account grew to the sum of $222,000. plus an accrued interest. This sum was held in trust by the Canada Permanent Trust Company on behalf of the bankruptcy court and in 1979-80, was deposited with the Minister of Finance of Saskatchewan, concurrent with the creation of The Doukhobors of Canada C.C.U.B. Trust Fund Act by the Saskatchewan government. This money then, belonged to the legal heirs of the CCUB or its creditors. The question arose as to who were the legal heirs? Since it was surplus, presumably, the creditors were paid off. However, there were cases of people who had lent money to the corporation who were not paid, but had not made a claim at the time of the dissolution. They had forfeited and claims of reimbursement.

Various suggestions came forth as to how this money should be disposed of – it was accumulating interest at 3 1/2 %, and if no action was taken, it could be transferred into the provincial treasury. The legal heirs appeared to be all Doukhobors who had at one time belonged to the CCUB or had had their homesteads cancelled in Saskatchewan. At the last hearing of the Commission on the problem of the disposition of former CCUB lands, which were sold to Doukhobors and private citizens, the attorney suggested the monies should be converted into a general welfare fund for all Doukhobors.

It should be noted that the Government of British Columbia profited exorbitantly from this transaction, since they had taken over 71,600 acres for $280,000. and sold all of these properties 20 years later at appreciated prices. Other former possessions such as schools were absorbed by local school boards, the famous suspension bridge built in 1913 was taken over by the Department of Highways and continued to serve the public, again without compensation to the Doukhobor toilers.

The question then arose as to what form this general welfare fund could take. A Doukhobor Institute was proposed, a Seniors’ Rest Home, a Chair of Doukhobor studies at a university. No further action was taken.

A committee from Verigin approached the provincial government with the suggestion that the funds be allocated towards heritage purposes of the Doukhobors. The result was the committee receiving $107,000. to begin forming the National Doukhobor Heritage Village in 1980, although this sum was not from this fund.

In June of 1980, the Doukhobors of Canada CCUB Trust Fund was enacted by the Government of Saskatchewan following an Order-in-Council. The intent of the fund was to further the culture and heritage of the Doukhobors in Canada. Monies left, the principle sum of $267,500 was invested in perpetuity and the interest earnings were to be shared by applying Doukhobor organizations from the three western provinces.

A formula designated a board of nine persons, consisting of three delegates from Saskatchewan, three from British Columbia, one from Alberta and one person nominated by the Attorney General of British Columbia and one of Saskatchewan. The three members each from British Columbia and Saskatchewan were to be nominated by recognized Doukhobor societies. ‘Each member holds office for a term of three years or until his successor is appointed . . . no member may be appointed for more than two consecutive terms.’

The present distribution formulae is 45% to British Columbia, 45% to Saskatchewan, and 10% to Alberta, although it is worth noting that the majority of the capital came from the CCUB residual fund of British Columbia. This formula is not rigid, and is subject to change, depending on the relative groups and societies in relation to each other.

A recent development has occurred wherein the Attorney General of Alberta no longer wishes to be involved in sanctioning the Alberta appointment, and the Alberta delegate is now simply appointed by the Doukhobor societies.

This may happen in British Columbia as well although a recent conversation with Greg Cran from the Attorney General’s Department, an original member of the negotiations, did not indicate that he was aware of any proposed changes. If this should happen, presumably the delegates will be selected as they have been in the past through a meeting and nomination system, perhaps facilitated by the Council of Doukhobors in Canada or a special meeting involving the ‘recognized Doukhobor Societies’.

It is possible that this may have to be in effect for next year’s selection of delegates stepping down.

The key section is 16[1] which reads: ‘The board shall provide for the making of grants to recognized non-profit organizations which are dedicated to establishing and maintaining the heritage and culture of the Doukhobors of Canada.’ On this basis, any legitimate Doukhobor Society, seeking to encourage and maintain Doukhobor culture and heritage, is welcome to present a submission for funding.

For further information on the CCUB Trust Fund and for free online copies of The Doukhobors of Canada C.C.U.B. Trust Fund Act, visit the Saskatchewan Queen’s Printer Website.

The Colony: Anastasia’s Village, Shouldice, Alberta

by William Anatooskin

After the death of Peter “Lordly” Verigin in 1924, his companion Anastasia F. Holuboff (1885-1965) was acknowledged by several hundred Doukhobors as his successor. The majority of Community Doukhobors, however, proclaimed Verigin’s son leader. Disappointed, Anastasia and her followers broke away from the Community and in 1926 moved to the Shouldice district of Alberta where they established a break-away communal settlement. The following article by former resident William Anatooskin recounts life in the Lordly Christian Community of Universal Brotherhood, also known as “The Colony”.  Reproduced by permission from his upcoming book on the Anutooshkin Family History, it contains a detailed listing of the families who lived there, along with the relative location of each household.  

The Colony

Anastasia Holoboff moved from Brilliant, British Columbia in 1926 and purchased the following property, located two miles west of Shouldice and five miles east of Arrowwood, just south of the CPR railway. A large water tank stood beside the tracks. This was used to fill the steam engines that traveled the railway, hauling grain from various small towns. Grain elevators were built so that the farmers could bring their grain to be later transferred into the rail cars. The CPR ( Canadian Pacific Railway) built the rail line in 1928. The word “Anastasia” was painted on the tank because Anastasia Holoboff declared herself the leader of the Doukhobors in this village. Anastasia convinced more than 160 followers to move to the Colony.

Anastasia’s village, Shouldice district, Alberta, 1938.  Glenbow Archives PA-3563-3.

The village’s main occupation was grain-growing, and some income was earned by raising and selling garden produce. The first 3 years were followed by the poor crops of the 1930’s, when many men had to work outside the commune to supplement their incomes. Twenty Eight homes were built and its 160 inhabitants lived and worked here as part of the community to share in the earnings derived from the land. The village encompassed approximately 1,120 acres.

A wide dirt road was built from one end to the other, approximately 40 feet wide and 1/2 mile long to service both sides of the dwellings. There were 15 homes on the east side and 13 homes on the west side of the main road. Each home was allotted 1/2 an acre to build on and grow their personal gardens.

A large barn was built about 1/4 mile west and at the north end of the village to be used for milking the cows, a milk room and housed horses that were raised to pull equipment required to plow, seed and harvest the crops.  The upper level in the barn was used to store hay for feed through the winter months. In the middle of the community a blacksmith shop was built, fired by coal to make repairs to various equipment the community purchased.

A one room school was built on the north-east corner of the property that taught grades from 1 to 8 by one teacher, and the desks sat 2 persons, side by side, and there was no concern when a boy and girl sat together.

A cemetery was developed just to the north and some distance from the school and was maintained communally.

A large community prayer home was built at the south-east corner of the village in 1929, next door to Anastasia’s residence.

This large barn served the whole community at Anastasia’s village.  Photo by Jonathan J. Kalmakoff.

East Side Families

The names of the families that occupied the homes, are listed, starting on the east side and from south to north of the village.

1. Anastasia Holoboff and Fedosia Verigin
Anastasia was the leader of the Doukhobor commune. Fedosia was her house keeper. Anastasia’s mother was a Verigin, cousin to Lukian & Fedosia. Fedosia was a sister to Lukian.

2. Marfa Konkin (lived together with Wasil Terichow). 

Marfa was originally married to a Vereschagin in Veregin, Sask. She later reverted back to her maiden name (Marfa Konkin).

3. Wasya and Mavroonia Verigin.
Margaret Anutooshkin’s parents. She married Peter J. Anutooshkin. Wasya was a son of Lukasha, brother to Lukian Verigin and nephew to Peter (Lordly) Verigin. Wasya was a cousin to Mary Faminow’s grandfather.

4. Ivan (John) and Nastia Verigin and Wasya Verigin

Wasya (Ivan’s father) was a brother to Peter W. (Lordly) Verigin. Ivan was a nephew to Peter W. (Lordly) Verigin and a cousin to Mary Faminow’s grandfather.

5. Andrei and Doonia Anutooshkin

Anutooshkins, the original residents, eventually passed away. Later, John Bonderoff & Annette (nee Tamelin) took over the home. Andrei was a twin to Peter – sons of Anuta & Gregori (George Semenoff).

6. Wasya and Nastia Samorodin
They had no children. Wasya was an uncle to Seoma (Sam).

7. Aleksei (Alex) and Anna Wishlow
Aleksei (Alex) was a brother to Lisoonia Konkin (below). Anna was the daughter of Lukian & Doonya Verigin, and a sister to Fred (below).

8. Michael and Hanya Deakoff

Also their son Michael and daughter Pearl (Paranya). Michael’s parents also lived with them. Michael’s mother was a relative of the Anutooshkin family.

9. Koozma and Nastia Konkin
Parents of Wasili (below) Nastia was a sister to Wasya Zibin, Aunt Polly Anutooshkin’s grandfather.

10. Peter and Polya Verigin
Peter was a brother to Ivan (above) and a nephew to Peter (Lordly) Verigin. His father was Wasya.

11. Wasya and Anuta Anutooshkin
Wasya was a brother to Vanya, Mary Faminow’s grandfather.

12. Fedya (Fred) and Polya Anutooshkin
Parents of Mary, Gaston Pozdinioff’s wife. Polya was originally married to a Planedin (deceased).

13. Joseph and Hanya Pereverzoff
Hanya was a daughter of Polya (above), from her first marriage; thus a half-sister to Mary Pozdnikoff.

14. Larion & Polya (Polly) Verigin
Larion was a brother to Peter and Ivan (above) and a nephew to Peter (Lordly) Verigin. His father was Wasya.

15. Ivan and Vasoonia (Vasilisa) Zarchukoff

Also, Vanya and Nastyoosha Anutooshkin, parents of Vasoonia. Vasoonia was a sister to Ivan John Anutooshkin), Mary Faminow’s father. Vanya and Nastyoosha were parents of Vasoonia and Mary Faminow’s grandparents.

Ruins of The Colony  today.  Much of the village structure is still visible.  Photo by Jonathan J. Kalmakoff.

West Side Families

16. Feodor & Loosha Holoboff

Holoboffs were the original residents.  Later, Lukian & Doonya (deceased) Verigin; then Lukian re-married Marya Verigin. Lukian’s father, Lukasha was a nephew of Peter W. (Lordly) Verigin. Lukian was a cousin to Anastasia Holoboff’s mother. Lukian & Doonya Verigin moved into the home. They were parents of Anna Wishlow & Fred Verigin. Marya Verigin was a sister to Anastasia Holoboff & Varva (Vera) Verigin was Fred Verigin’s wife.

17. Seoma (Sam) & Hanya Samorodin

Samorodins were the original residents. Later, John J. & Avdotia Anutooshkin, parents of Peter, John, Mary & Michael, moved there. Avdotia was the daughter of Mike & Mary Osachoff.

18. Havroosha & Nastyoosha Sherbakoff
Havroosha’ sister was Hrunoosha Verigin (below). Their daughter Nastia, married a Holoboff.

19. Hrisha & Hrunoosha Verigin.
Hrisha was a brother to Peter (Lordly) Verigin and an uncle to Mary Faminow’s grandfather. Hrunoosha was a sister to Havroosha Sherbakoff.

20. Osachoff

Osachoffs were the original residents, moved away. Wasili & Marya Terichow took over this home. Marya was the daughter of Marfa Konkin.

21. Michael & Hanya Kinakin
Michael was a brother to Polya Sookochoff (below).

22. Lukeria Sookochoff

She was a Holoboff, mother to Peter Sookochoff and an aunt to Anastasia Holoboff (leader of the Doukhobors).

23. Peter & Polya Sookochoff

Sookochoffs were the original residents. Peter was the son of Lukeria (above). Feodor (Fred) & Varvara (Vera) Verigin moved in. Fred was the son of Lukian and Doonya Verigin and brother to Anna Wishlow. Varvara (Vera) Verigin is a sister to Anastasia Holoboff & Marya Verigin.

24. Wasili & Marya (Mary) Tamelin.
Wasya & Masha (Mary) Zibin also lived here in a small cottage beside the Tamelin’s. The Tamelin’s were parents of Aunt Polly & in-laws of Uncle John Anatooshkin (name change). Wasya and Marya Zibin were parents to Marya Tamelin. Wasya was a brother to Nastia Konkin (above).

25. Alyosha & Marfoonia Anutooshkin.
Alyosha was a brother to Mary Faminow’s grandfather, Vanya. Marfoonia was possibly a Zibin.

26. Gregori & Aksenia Bonderoff.
Gregory was possibly a Zibin.

27. Wasili & Lisoonia Konkin
Wasili was the son of Koozma & Nastia Konkin (above). Lisoonia is a sister to Aleksei (Alex) Wishlow (above).

28. Peter & Margaret Anutooshkin

Also William, Peter & Paul, (Lucy was born in Mission, B.C. at a later date). Peter was the son of John J. & Avdotia Anutooshkin. Margaret was the daughter of Wasya & Mavroonia Verigin and the niece of Lukian Verigin. Margaret’s grandfather Lukasha Verigin, was a brother of Peter (Lordly) Verigin.

The village prayer home.  The structure is still standing.  Photo by Jonathan J. Kalmakoff.

Exodus of Families from the Colony

The Depression and especially the exodus that followed – when many of its members took advantage of new opportunities for successful independent farming – severely affected the Community. By the mid 1940’s, the communal way of life among the Alberta Doukhobors had all but disappeared. In fact, even in the late 1920’s, independent Doukhobor families had begun moving into the area of British Columbia and Saskatchewan and it was not long before their numbers equaled those of the Community members.

By the late 1930’s, following land shortages and successive crop failures, Anastasia’s communal settlement dwindled, family by family, until the Colony was eventually abandoned in 1945.

In 1943, Peter J. Anutooshkin was transferred from Curry Barracks in Calgary (a large army base during the war), to the shipyards in Vancouver, British Columbia to work on building ships for the war effort. In 1944, he contacted his wife Margaret and told her to sell everything and prepare to move to B.C. During the Easter holidays in 1944, Margaret and sons, William, Peter and Paul took a train to Mission City, British Columbia.

Mike Anatooshkin went to work in Calgary during 1943 where he worked delivering milk and blocks of ice in a horse-drawn wagon to various families. Mike later followed his brother Peter and moved to New Westminster in 1943 where he went to work at the Boeings Aircraft manufacturing plant in Queensborough, South of New Westminster.

John Anatooshkin and his family, were the last to move to Mission City in 1946.

Their mother Avdotia went to live with her daughter in Lundbreck, Alberta for a short time and then later also moved to Mission City.

Anastasia’s original house (and attached bath house) today.  Photo by Jonathan J. Kalmakoff.

The Origin of the Freedomite Movement

by William A. Soukeroff

The Freedomite (Svobodniki or Sons of Freedom) Doukhobors began as a small, radical movement to reinvigorate the faith, restore traditional Doukhobor values and protest the sale of land, education, citizenship and registration of vital statistics. They would achieve infamy through civil disobedience, nude marches and burnings. Reproduced from Vestnik (April 8, 11 and 15, 1959), the following article by William A. Soukeroff examines the history and influences of the Freedomite movement. It was written as an attempt to educate the Canadian public about the Freedomites at a time characterized by sensationalistic, one-sided and misrepresentative news coverage of the movement. Translated by Steve Lapshinoff.

I

The problem of the Freedomites of British Columbia is an important link with the forceful abduction of their children and their plans of migration to the “Motherland”. It has attracted the attention of the Canadian public. Many sincerely sympathize with their plight, would like to understand them and help them, and to lessen the burden of their bitter fate. But to the many who are unfamiliar with the history of the Doukhobor movement and the conception of the Freedomites amongst them, the problem does not seem to fall into any sort of logic.

It appears to me that no logical solution to this problem can be found, not knowing how the Freedomite movement was conceived among the Doukhobors, from whence came their views on life, misled if you will. This question cannot be resolved superficially.

The religious Doukhobor sect has been in existence for over 200 years. It had periods of calm and of revivals. When they were not bothered by the authorities, the Doukhobors lived quietly and peacefully, but the moment that the authorities began to press them, there would be spurts of uprising amongst them. This is the way it was in the Transcaucasia. The refusal of military service by the Doukhobors and later the persecution of them by the government brought out the uprisings.

Religious movements often go to the extremes and fall under the absolute influence of the strongest individual in its’ midst. These extremes often surface through ideas and aspirations to adhere steadfastly to given goals, not withstanding any agreements, laws or rights of other people. With these beliefs, the Doukhobors migrated to Canada.

There was a split among the Doukhobors within the very first years in Canada. It seems that a community proclaiming universal Brotherhood would be the more united but life and ideas, like words and deeds often do not go hand in hand.

Part of the Doukhobors became attracted to private ownership in Canada and immediately began to obtain separate lots of land and to live individually. The larger part (of Doukhobors) strived to live in accordance with their religious beliefs – communally. Doukhobors always had leaders. They listened to their teachings and were guided by their advice. Peter Vasilyevich Verigin was in exile in Siberia and was unable to migrate to Canada with the Doukhobors. After a few years in Canada without a leader, many became “Free thinkers” and introduced new ideas into the Doukhobor midst.

In the material sense, during the first years in Canada, the Doukhobors encountered severe hardships as a natural occurrence. An insignificant number of respected elders did not want to accept this reality, insisting that Doukhobors pay more attention to their spiritual rather than material, i.e. strive toward spiritual attainment rather than worry about material comfort.

In 1901 Doukhobors received a book “Letters of the Doukhobor leader Peter V. Verigin”, released under the editorship of Vladimir Bonch-Bruevich, his introductory article and with a forward by V. and A. Tchertkov.

These “Letters”, gave the Doukhobors the opportunity to get more acquainted with the philosophies and outlook of their leader. While in exile Peter V. held wide communications with many friends and sympathizers of the Doukhobors, and most importantly with people closely associated with Lev Nickolaevich Tolstoy. In these letters, Peter V. often emphasized that his expressed views appear as “Fantasies” or “Theories”. It could be said with confidence that he did not in any way think that these “Theories” and “Fantasies” would be accepted by the Doukhobors as precepts in their life. As in one of his letters of this collection (letter # 17) dated November 41h, 1896, from the village of Obdorsk to Nickolai Trofimovich Ezumchenko, he wrote the following:

I would like to see education as well as any written communication of course, dropped altogether as a trial period for a couple of years. This is, as yet only a thought, a product of fantasy. For example, our society’s old age views of education are reprehensible, and we have very few educated people amongst us. The few, if any, are self-taught. We maintain that education destroys the inclination to greet people, also, schools corrupt the morals of children, and thirdly all things through which education is actualized are obtained through great hardships, therefore, to participate in the subjugation of people in any form must be avoided.

In spite of the fact that this was not written to the Doukhobors but to an outsider, the opinion of his “theory” later manifested in the Freedomite way of life. From this is seen, that many views of the Freedomites have direct connection to these same philosophies.

In the same letter Peter Vasilyevich continues:

In my theory or understanding, in essence the order of composition should be: to drop physical labour one by one and go out to teach peace and charity which coincides with temperance. Bread is already plentiful; all that is necessary is to be less greedy. The soil, already depleted by man, would rest and replenish itself. I do not even foresee human suffering should they subject to such a theory, because by eating in moderation there would be enough (food) for a hundred years. Humanity is omnivorous, and unfortunately eats for pleasure rather than need. In a hundred years the earth would have enough time to completely recover and go back to its’ original state. And humanity would attain spiritual growth along with a natural earthly paradise, (which Adam and Eye had lost).

Further in this letter he directly states:

If people want to become Christians they should gradually cease physical labour and preach the Gospel (that is Christ).

In this letter Peter Vasilyevich brings forth arguments, which the Freedomites later attempted to fully apply to their way of life:

… That the Apostles and Christ wore clothing and ate bread is natural because both were plentiful and it should be said that Christ and Apostles could not suddenly go naked. I speak of their achievements. I propose that people would gradually get used to physical nakedness – spiritual nakedness is much more sad. Having worn out his clothing and having eaten up one’s bread, mankind would come to the condition of which I spoke earlier. I am told that all people cannot live as Christ and the Apostles did, bit I will say that this must not sway us, for I believe that all can.

These very deliberations which Peter Vasilyevich himself called “products of fantasy” became the foundation for a small group of the elderly, who sought to make manifest this fantasy into reality, and who came to the point of asceticism.

From there “theories” it can be supposed emanates the relentless struggle of the Freedomites against education, with their preaching of the New Testament and their “experiments” in practicing nudity which evoked extreme feelings of prejudice against them from the Canadian public.

The largest trek of the Freedomites (up to 3,000 people), to spread the Gospel, took place in 1902 in Saskatchewan under the slogan of “we are in search of Christ the bridegroom”. In this manner, almost immediately, from the very first years of the settlement of the Doukhobors in Canada, the Freedomites attracted attention of all the Canadian public and the government. The trek was stopped by the police in 1902. The participants were returned home and spared desertion and freezing. In November of 1902 Peter Vasilyevich Verigin arrived in Canada from Siberia. He placated the disturbed Doukhobors and advised them to begin rebuilding their lives.

The trek of 1902.

The community began to get involved with livestock and all other community inventory and life was restored to order. But in several villages the older people began to doubt and to deliberate “Petushka” (this is what they called their leader) is totally violating Christian teachings. After all he himself professed that animals are our lesser brethren, and one cannot oppress them. We preach full freedom to all life, but what sort of freedom is it for horses when they are harnessed? This is not a Christian act.” etc….

Yet the believers in the leader will always find justification for his act saying, “Petushka is only fooling the Englishmen with his doings and is only avoiding harassment from the government but he is not a betrayer of Christianity. We will not worry about this.  Let him do his job and we will do ours. This is only a test from God.”

The whole Freedomite movement, right up to the death of Peter Vasilyevich numbered not more than 200, striving to live the simplest life and subjecting themselves to self-denial and testing their endurance for the accomplishment of the goal of self perfection.

The community with Verigin at its’ head always rejected the Freedomites, and as a result they lived out of the community most of the time. At the time, their eccentricities did not bother the surrounding communities and they had little conflict with the authorities.

In 1921 and 1922, suddenly school buildings burst into flames. Eleven schools were burned. The Doukhobor community was against schools for a long time, but later accepted them on the condition that children will attend schools only to the age of 12. From that time the situation between the Doukhobors and the authorities intensified. The orthodox blamed the Freedomites for the burning of schools, although there were no individuals directly accused. The authorities were unable to find the guilty. In 1924 Peter Vasilyevich was killed by an explosion in a railway coach, by which he was travelling. The Doukhobors are deeply convinced that he was murdered by a bomb by outside evildoers, but this crime was never solved.

The Doukhobors ceased to allow their children to school in protest of this act. The authorities used repressive measures against the Doukhobors for this step, confiscating their belongings, etc. At this time a delegation from the community traveled to Russia to invite Peter Petrovich Verigin, the son of Peter Vasilyevich to come to Canada to head the Doukhobors.

II

With great impatience the Doukhobors awaited the arrival of a leader. In the end, in the year of 1927, P. P. Verigin arrived in Canada.  Immediately in the Doukhobor midst there was a feeling of rejuvenation.

Upon his arrival, the Freedomite movement broadened in character. (In his first speech, P. P. Verigin appealed to the Doukhobors to unite and ordered the Freedomites to drop their fanaticism.) In his second speech, concerning the movement of the three groups, the Orthodox, the farmers Independents, and the Freedomites. He named the Freedomites, “the Named Doukhobors”.  “Freedomites, he said, are called good for nothing, insane, etc. etc., but that is harsh and not true. For Christ, they are none other than the ringing of a bell awakening us. The Freedomites are our Doukhobor scouts; these are the true servants of Christ. Amidst the Freedomites, there are certain individuals, (just as in other groups) who, with their unreasonable actions, strive to blacken these glorious workers, who are on God’s path. I am appealing to them and asking these liars who work with the spirit of Satan, to leave the ranks of these pure Freedomites.” He finished his speech with the following: “The Named Doukhobors, consisting of three indivisible but different levels of growth and emanation: firstly – Freedomites “Scouts”, secondly -center Community, and third – the rear, these are the so-called Independents.”

The bringing forth of the Freedomites to the first place by P. P. Verigin, gave a start to an even bigger growth of the Freedomite movement. However, the 1930’s economic crisis also contributed to the growth of this movement. The crisis had a hard impact on the community. Many of the community members had to go outside the community in order to find work to pay the debt for the community lands. During the crisis year’s jobs could not be found. The Canadian workers traveled from one end of the country to another on freight cars, but could not find jobs anywhere. Under these circumstances the community could not function for very long.  The directors of the community started court proceedings against their own non-paying members. Some members were removed from the community for not paying dues. In the end, the (court) authorities refused to forcefully remove the community members from their land. Many community members proclaimed the slogan of “Land is God’s gift. It should not be an object of trade,” and declared themselves the Sons of Freedom. Yet in the early 1930’s there appeared placards on the community lands, with a similar slogan.  The Freedomites went from village to village and proclaimed, “(We will) forget the taxes and interests. We will put schools out of our minds.”

In the end, after long discussions with the authorities, an agreement was reached that the community would allot a separate region of land where all the non-payers (Freedomites) must settle. This was done. The Freedomites were allotted an area, now known to all as “Krestova”. Many former orthodox made their way to this Krestova, considered as the Freedomite center yet then, and looked upon by all as a leper colony.

Krestova became a haven to many independents as well, from Saskatchewan and Alberta, ruined by the depression.

In 1932, the community began to forcefully oust some 200 members, orthodox – almost half the population of the village of Glade.  Being evicted, instead of going to Krestova, they left all their belongings along the side of the road and marched to Brilliant, the center of the Christian Communities. Other Freedomites began to join their trek, as well as Doukhobors having nothing in common with Freedomites except the wish to help the protest of the ousted members from their homes, which they had built themselves. The protesters never reached Brilliant. The police blocked the road and requested that they return home. But they had been forcibly evicted from their homes and did not want to go to Krestova. In protest, taking an example from the Freedomites, they disrobed.

Freedomite camp near Nelson, British Columbia, 1929.

Thrums, where the marchers were stopped, became the center of public attention. The police arrested the nude and took them to the Nelson jail. But sympathizers of the evicted, arriving in Thrums and seeing the police also disrobed. They were then loaded onto police buses. Near Nelson appeared an encampment of tents, where the protesters were temporarily kept.

Among several hundred Doukhobor protests grew spontaneously against accumulated grievances, deprivations and disagreements of existing order.

In the end the B.C. Government allotted Piers Island, located in the Pacific Ocean near Vancouver, where close to 900 people were sentenced to 3 years for nudism.

At this time Peter P. Verigin was sentenced to 3 years of imprisonment in Saskatchewan and newspaper harassment began against all Doukhobors demanding Verigin’s deportation from Canada. While these two circumstances had nothing in common, the arrest of Verigin had an impact on the Doukhobors in Piers Island: through their imprisonment they tried to share the fate of their leader. The Freedomite children were forcibly taken away from their parents and placed in foster homes around the Vancouver area. Several infants died of neglect. Then a Special Commission of people sympathetic with the Doukhobors was formed, who decided to take the children from the foster homes and place them with Doukhobor families. In our settlement, families including ours took several children to our homes. The children were frightened and didn’t know where their parents were or why they were forced to live among strangers. This had a psychological effect on them.

On completion of 3 years imprisonment, on Piers Island, they returned to their homes (if they had any) – but the majority settled in Krestova. On this manner, people of different outlooks and beliefs were gathered in Krestova. Not surprising then, that media, sociologists and other learned people can’t find one goal or one philosophy among the Freedomites. Many do not understand why the Freedomites reject English Schools, as they see many adequately educated amongst them. By their rejection, they reveal their struggles and protests not only against schools but also against all wrongs in accordance with their beliefs of contemporary living.

As I indicated above, the Economic crisis of the 1930’s had a ponderous effect on the community. At that time, on top of the economic crisis, the community also suffered a loss as a result of the burning of community property. Orthodox, as well as surrounding communities blamed the Freedomites for the burnings, and as a result, there developed extremely acute antagonism. The community was right to defend their interests as they felt that their possessions were threatened. This led to a growth in numbers of “Non-payers” of community dues, who joined the Freedomites. As a result, in 1936-38, the community lost all their properties because of non-payment of dues. With their land lost, their community possessions sold by the courts for next to nothing, brought out not only the dissatisfaction amongst the remaining Orthodox, but was also the reason for the expansion among the ranks of the Freedomites. Many of the Orthodox realized that the Freedomites were correct in their struggle against the laws of private ownership of land, decided to join their ranks.

The Second World War also brought out turmoil among the Freedomites. Notwithstanding the fact that the Doukhobors were legally exempt from military service, the military authorities distributed call-up papers to the young Doukhobors for medical examinations. During talks with Doukhobor representatives, the military authorities indicated that these call-ups were a mere formality, and that no Doukhobor would be forced to serve in the army. Different groups settled this matter with the authorities in their own way. In British Columbia this matter was left without consequences, but in Saskatchewan several young Doukhobors took substitute labour.

Then in connection with the war, the country put into effect the registration of the populace of Canada. Many Doukhobors, not only the Freedomites refused to register considering this to be subject to military laws of the country. Almost all the Freedomites refused to register and were again imprisoned. Therefore, Freedomites according to religious convictions, always protested against all government measures contrary to their beliefs.

III

Analysing the question of the Freedomite movement, one cannot refute the fact that the disturbance in their midst, their protests and strife, their disagreements with the set order of present day living comes from deep, even through distracted convictions of inherent Russian sectarianism.

Sectarianism in my opinion, portrays the condition of a person newly awakened from a long spiritual sleep and not yet fully alert to his surroundings. Consequently, sectarianism often had the appearance of deformity.

Although I do not share Freedomite views upon the persistent struggle against education and assimilation, I do however believe that the movement of the Freedomites cannot be judged superficially and cannot be resolved in a forceful manner. The Canadian government cannot understand the persistence of the Freedomites. To the government, every person living in Canada must firstly be a good citizen and it looks upon him as its’ subject. Concerning the convictions and beliefs of the citizen, for this there are known existing laws and all beliefs and convictions of the people, must fit into this category on the same level of convictions of all the citizens.

The government cannot seem to take into consideration this spirit that was instilled into the Doukhobors over several generations. This open, free, fleetingly turbulent spirit that does not bow to anyone and with which all great warriors and reformers of humanity distinguished themselves.

The Canadian government and the Doukhobors are two opposite poles. For the Freedomites the Canadian government represents all Kings, Princes, Kaisers, Pharaohs, Emperors, Roman Popes, Archbishops, Patriarchs, wars and military generals. Among the Freedomites you will find Diagnoses and Pythagoras’s, Jan Husses, Luthers and other reformers and philosophers, also among them are Razins and Pugachevs.

From this kind of element, a separate group was formed called the Sons of Freedom and it was not without reason they were called “radicals”. Because many Doukhobors, upon migration to Canada, began to disagree under the influence of Canadian “freedom”, the group gathered in strength. The struggle against evil is a thorny path. In the Transcaucasus, the Doukhobors overcame great trials and tribulations and upon migration to Canada, many decided to “rest”. This “rest”, was the cause of dissension. Many, not only “rested”, but also were enticed by a more luxurious way of life. They accepted Canadian citizenship, accepted and purchased individual lots of land separate from the community. They bought automobiles, luxury furniture and began to accumulate money. But among the Doukhobors, there were people who did not succumb to this enticement, fought against it and became objects of persecution even from their own brethren. These are the kind of people the Freedomites were.

No matter how we judge them or disagree on methods of battle or their understandings, we all must acknowledge that the Freedomites did not sell out to the dollar system, nor succumb to the temptations of private ownership and did not stray from their beliefs.

Many Doukhobors would call Freedomites rebels, do not know what they want themselves. Let this be so. But Doukhobors who renounced the Orthodox Church and consequently military service were also rebels. There was also a division among the Doukhobors, yet in the Transcaucasus with their struggle against military service, some of the Doukhobors were also called “rebels”, and “traitors”. If the Freedomites did not practice nudism, one would not be able to distinguish them from Doukhobors of past generations who fought against churches and militarism. It is true that in the past, Doukhobor struggle had a specific and clear goal that which was shared by many elders of that time. The Freedomites now protest against the Canadian system in general and continue in their struggle against government schools and against assimilation with this system and to many this struggle seems foreign and incomprehensible.

What astonishes many is this persistence to follow their convictions and under no circumstances stray from them.

The government is at fault in that it tries with any means including the application of force to convert these people into its citizens.

Many people, wanting to decipher the Freedomite problem, attribute their persistence to fantasy or political propaganda and do not want to acknowledge the fact that the Freedomites can think for themselves, that these simple people are capable of having some sort of ideas or principals.

Freedomite house burning, 1950s.

The Commission on Doukhobor affairs, attempting to settle the conflict between the Freedomites and the government, invited a representative of the American, Quakers, Emmett Gulley, to Canada. Confident that this representative of an influential, religious organization related in spirit to the Doukhobors will influence them. But the outlook and methods of this representative appeared unacceptable to the Freedomites and he was unable to reconcile them with Canadian realities.

Many propose that the Freedomites need a strong spiritual leader, one who can influence them and persuade them to a different way of thinking. But this leader will have to share their views; otherwise they will not acknowledge him. Aside from this, it seems to me that the Freedomites are gradually beginning to drift away from leadership. Their independent decision to begin planning a move to the Soviet Union is witness to this. In the Freedomite midst, there have been discussions of migration to the motherland for quite some time. One of their leaders, a certain Displaced Person, Stephan Sorokin attempted to dissuade them from migrating, and even went as far as slandering against the Soviet Union. In the end, he too was convinced that the idea of returning to the Motherland, among the Freedomites was not simply by chance, not a fleeting vision, but a totally normal and even unavoidable inclination of people, torn from their own people, tradition, and from their birth place, and finally, he gave his agreement.

Speaking of Freedomite intentions to migrate to the motherland raises the question of how they will accept Soviet authority. In the condition of being unable to answer this question authoritatively, I can however only say that the Freedomites are faced with a choice: either to renounce their conviction here in Canada and to change to a superficial, formal way of performing their rituals, and to reconcile with that against which they struggle, as was done by the majority of Doukhobors; or reconcile and rebuild their lives in a new place, the Soviet Russia. Verification to this is the fact that the Freedomites cannot find an empire anywhere that would allow complete freedom; such as they understand it for man. After all, they could have found it possible to assimilate with the Russian people and to build a decent way of life, depicting their world outlook. The Freedomite delegation, having visited the Soviet Union in connection with the business of migrating there, could find nothing contradictory to their ideology, in Soviet culture or way of life. The basis of their ideology fully coincides with the ideas of Socialism and more important is abolition of private property in the Soviet Union. Their slogan of “Land should not be an object of trade” is protected by law and fully practised in life, in the Soviet Union. Let the Freedomites form their convictions about private ownership through Christian teaching. The fact remains, that in the Soviet Union they can live in agreement with this conviction, and not break the law of taught socialism, which exists in their former motherland.

To the Canadian authorities, the migration of the Freedomites comes as a convenience to rid themselves of these obstinate and restless people, who will not succumb to assimilation.

On the basis of all the above said, the reader may form the impression that I am defending the Freedomites and their method of fighting. This is definitely not the issue. It is possible for one not share these or other convictions, but one should attempt to understand them. If the Freedomites refuse to act against their conscience, against their convictions, if they renounce being a Doukhobor through word, but defend the right to live in harmony through their beliefs, for this they will answer themselves. I consider it unjust to judge people on the surface and say that the Freedomites are willful because of some whim or that they want to spite the Canadian government. It is doubtful that such people exist who would, on a whim, or from a desire to spite, would agree to suffer such hardships that the Freedomites suffer, to the extent of losing their children. Some attribute the Freedomites to excessive fanaticism. It could be said that no religion is free from fanaticism. Religious fanatics are not only those who profess the New Testament in word only. But if all churchgoers and in general all religious people professing Christianity began to do that which the New Testament teaches, they would all be considered fanatics.