On territorial border markers of the settlement of Russians of the Middle Tom River region in the beginning of the 18th — mid 20th centuries

S. Tikhonov
{"title":"On territorial border markers of the settlement of Russians of the Middle Tom River region in the beginning of the 18th — mid 20th centuries","authors":"S. Tikhonov","doi":"10.20874/2071-0437-2024-65-2-14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The concept of studying of ethnographic and archaeological complexes (EAC) involves the analysis of their individual components: population, villages, communication routes and others, including borders — both external and internal. The analysis of archaeological, historical, and ethnographic literature has shown that borders or borderlands can be traced in almost all populations at any stage of their development. However, while the borders between large associations, like states or ethnic groups with different cultures, have been addressed by experts, almost no attention is being given to local boundaries between smaller collectives, although there are written, cartographic and oral sources that can be used as a basis for such research. After considering the materials of various origins concerning the native villages of the Middle Tom region, it became possible to discuss the bounda-ries between them, and the boundaries of the administrative entities which encompassed them in the 18th century. At this time, residents of villages located 15–30 km north of the Kuznetsk fortress were moving to new unoccupied lands in the upper reaches of the river Inia and its upper tributaries, as well as to the left bank of Tom below the mouth of the Mungat River. According to the drawings of S.U. Remezov, there was a boundary between the Tomsk and Kuznetsk districts. The borderline rivers could be Unga-Promyshlennaya in the north and Osipovo-Mungat in the south. Possibly, there were small settlements of Tulbers. After the middle of the 19th century, an-other process of settlement of the Tom riverbank territories of its both sides began. By the 1930s, all its banks were inhabited, and the reserve of free lands came to end. Indigenous people began developing islands on the river or starting settlements within 15–20 km from the village. In the second third of the 20th century, new villages were developing in the remote territories away from Tom. Almost all of them were abandoned in the second half of the 20th century. The available information suggests that there were borderlands between the villages within single districts. Most often these were represented by watercourses — small rivers and streams, ridges — elon-gated hills located perpendicular to terraces, and sometimes lakes. These borders were well known to locals. It cannot be ruled out that river rapids and shoals could also have been used as borders. The analysis of the corre-lation of locations of the villages, river rifts and stretches suggests that, in the studied area of Tom, villages were located on the river stretches between the shoals. There is also information about the existence of boundaries between minor objects, though they require further research.","PeriodicalId":506530,"journal":{"name":"VESTNIK ARHEOLOGII, ANTROPOLOGII I ETNOGRAFII","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"VESTNIK ARHEOLOGII, ANTROPOLOGII I ETNOGRAFII","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20874/2071-0437-2024-65-2-14","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The concept of studying of ethnographic and archaeological complexes (EAC) involves the analysis of their individual components: population, villages, communication routes and others, including borders — both external and internal. The analysis of archaeological, historical, and ethnographic literature has shown that borders or borderlands can be traced in almost all populations at any stage of their development. However, while the borders between large associations, like states or ethnic groups with different cultures, have been addressed by experts, almost no attention is being given to local boundaries between smaller collectives, although there are written, cartographic and oral sources that can be used as a basis for such research. After considering the materials of various origins concerning the native villages of the Middle Tom region, it became possible to discuss the bounda-ries between them, and the boundaries of the administrative entities which encompassed them in the 18th century. At this time, residents of villages located 15–30 km north of the Kuznetsk fortress were moving to new unoccupied lands in the upper reaches of the river Inia and its upper tributaries, as well as to the left bank of Tom below the mouth of the Mungat River. According to the drawings of S.U. Remezov, there was a boundary between the Tomsk and Kuznetsk districts. The borderline rivers could be Unga-Promyshlennaya in the north and Osipovo-Mungat in the south. Possibly, there were small settlements of Tulbers. After the middle of the 19th century, an-other process of settlement of the Tom riverbank territories of its both sides began. By the 1930s, all its banks were inhabited, and the reserve of free lands came to end. Indigenous people began developing islands on the river or starting settlements within 15–20 km from the village. In the second third of the 20th century, new villages were developing in the remote territories away from Tom. Almost all of them were abandoned in the second half of the 20th century. The available information suggests that there were borderlands between the villages within single districts. Most often these were represented by watercourses — small rivers and streams, ridges — elon-gated hills located perpendicular to terraces, and sometimes lakes. These borders were well known to locals. It cannot be ruled out that river rapids and shoals could also have been used as borders. The analysis of the corre-lation of locations of the villages, river rifts and stretches suggests that, in the studied area of Tom, villages were located on the river stretches between the shoals. There is also information about the existence of boundaries between minor objects, though they require further research.
关于 18 世纪初至 20 世纪中叶俄罗斯人在汤河中游地区定居的领土边界标记
研究人种学和考古学综合体(EAC)的概念涉及对其各个组成部分的分析:人口、村落、交通路线及其他,包括边界--外部和内部的边界。对考古、历史和人种学文献的分析表明,几乎所有人口在其发展的任何阶段都可以追溯到边界或边疆。然而,尽管专家们已经研究了国家或具有不同文化的族群等大型联合体之间的边界,但几乎没有人关注较小集体之间的地方边界,尽管有书面、地图和口头资料可作为此类研究的基础。在研究了有关中汤姆地区原住民村落的各种来源的资料后,我们有可能讨论这些村落之间的边界,以及 18 世纪包含这些村落的行政实体的边界。此时,位于库兹涅茨克要塞以北 15-30 公里处的村庄居民正在向伊尼亚河上游及其上游支流以及蒙加特河河口以下的汤姆河左岸新的未被占用的土地迁移。根据 S.U. 雷梅佐夫的绘图,托木斯克区和库兹涅茨克区之间有一条边界线。边界线上的河流可能是北部的温加-普罗米什连纳亚河和南部的奥西波沃-蒙加特河。可能还有图尔柏人的小定居点。19 世纪中叶以后,汤姆河两岸地区开始了另一个定居过程。到 20 世纪 30 年代,所有河岸都有人居住,自由土地储备结束。原住民开始在河上开发岛屿,或在距离村庄 15-20 公里的地方建立定居点。20 世纪下半叶,新的村庄在远离汤姆的偏远地区发展起来。20 世纪下半叶,几乎所有这些村庄都被废弃。现有资料表明,在单个地区的村庄之间存在着边界地带。最常见的是水道--小河和小溪,山脊--与梯田垂直的小山,有时还有湖泊。当地人对这些边界非常熟悉。不排除河流的急流和浅滩也可能被用作边界。对村落位置、河流裂口和河段的相关性分析表明,在所研究的汤姆地区,村落位于浅滩之间的河段上。此外,还有关于小物体之间存在边界的信息,但这些信息还需要进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信