Abstract: This article addresses the issue of the documentary reconstruction of the genealogy of the notable Soviet and Russian archaeologist Leonid Romanovich Kyzlasov (1924–2007), whose centenary was celebrated in the Republic of Khakassia in 2024. The Kyzlasov clan, known as “тағ-харға” (tag-hargha), was incorporated into the Dalnekargin ulus of the Steppe Duma of various tribes in the 19th century; however, in the 18th century, they resided in the Mountain Shoria region within the Kuznetsk District of the Tobolsk Province. Despite the existence of oral traditions regarding the origin of the Khakas-Shor Kyzlasov family, scientific verification of genealogical information based on historical sources—such as church metric books, census data, name lists, and marriage searches—has remained lacking. The research focuses on the biological genealogy of L. R. Kyzlasov, specifically its matrilineal reconstruction. The source base comprises collections from the State Archive of Krasnoyarsk Krai, the National Archive of the Republic of Khakassia, the archive of the city of Minusinsk, and the Khakass National Local History Museum named after L. R. Kyzlasov. For the first time, unique archival documents related to the genealogy of the Kyzlasovs are introduced into academic discourse, including a metric record of the birth/baptism of A. N. Kyzlasov from the Askizskaya Petropavlovskaya Church in 1860, marriage records of V. D. Gurnitsky and E. N. Tinikova in 1902, N. I. Tinikov and N. P. Ilyishenko in 1882, and P. I. Ilyashenko and M. K. Potapova in 1860, as well as a record of the birth/baptism of K. V. Gurnitskaya from the Sinyavinskaya Bogoyavlenskaya Church in 1903. As a result of reconstructing the female ancestral lines, L. R. Kyzlasov's genealogy has been enriched with new surnames, including Tinikov, Ilyishenko, Potapov, and Oreshkov. Further study of the Kyzlasov lineage will involve comprehensive genetic-genealogical verification through Y-chromosome DNA testing of modern male representatives of the family.

Keywords: church register, Kyzlasovs, genealogy, marriage register, Tinikovs, seok, Mountain Shoria, Kuznetsk district, Y‑haplogroup, the Khakas‑Shor heritage

Abstract: The subject of this study is the evolution of the descriptions of the Russian population in the Saratov province as documented in historical, statistical, and ethnographic sources from the 19th to the early 20th century. The aim of the work is to identify changes in the bases for classification and units of observation during the transition from local historical accounts to large-scale state statistical campaigns. The analysis includes works by A. F. Leopoldov, publications from the provincial statistical committee, studies by A. N. Minkh, zemstvo surveys, diocesan statistics, and data from the First General Census of 1897. It is demonstrated that the concepts “Russians,” “Great Russians,” “Little Russians,” “Orthodox,” and “parishioners” referred to overlapping but distinct populations. The goal is to trace how the change in sources modified not only the methods of description but also the very composition of the observed population, transforming one territory into several different statistical entities. The methodology is based on a comparative-historical analysis and source criticism. The comparison is conducted across four parameters: the creators of the information, the problem being addressed, the units of observation, and the features being recorded. The scientific novelty lies in showing that the zemstvo, diocesan administration, and census each constructed three different objects: economic households, confessional parishes, and individual speakers of the native language. The case of the Serdobsky District reveals that the change in the unit of observation from the region to the household and card reallocated visible differences within the Russian population. The position of the Russian majority is depicted as the unmarked norm, which gave way to legal and economic characteristics. The conclusion drawn is that the standardization of accounting improved data comparability; however, it reduced historical context, necessitating a comprehensive use of heterogeneous sources. The results of this study are applicable in historical demography, regional historiography, and ethnography. It is argued that identical names concealed different inclusion criteria, and therefore, the aggregates cannot be summated without a critical examination of categories and territories.

Keywords: Russian population, Saratov province, ethnic classification, zemstvo statistics, diocesan statistics, population census, unit of observation, historical demography, regional historiography, statistical categories

Abstract: This article examines the relationship between the reform of church landed estates implemented by Peter I between 1701 and 1725 and the construction of the Russian state. It details the financial pressures stemming from the Northern War and the political considerations that motivated the state to weaken ecclesiastical authority. Furthermore, the paper analyzes the practical measures enacted by the government, including the restoration of the Monastery Order, the census of landed estates, the categorization of revenues into "specified" and "unspecified," the regulation of monastic life, the establishment of staff structures, and the expansion of taxation. Special attention is given to how estates previously managed independently by the Church, along with their populations and revenues, were integrated into a unified administrative and financial system of the state. This topic is explored within the context of state-building, examining the interplay between administrative centralization, fiscal extraction, the delegation of social functions, and the restructuring of church-state relations. The study draws on archival documents from the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts (fonds 237, 9 and 160) and employs institutional and source analysis, the historical-genetic method and the method of data comparison. Its novelty lies in examining the reform from the standpoint of state building: the administration of estates, the flow of revenues and the transfer of social functions are analysed as a single institutional process, while the gap between central design and local practice is treated as the limit of the state’s administrative capacity. The main conclusion is that the reform changed chiefly the way church estates were administered and the direction of their revenues, but did not alter their ultimate ownership: the state collected taxes while the Church retained economic management. Church circles did not respond uniformly: bishops, monasteries and the parish clergy reacted in different ways, and the reform unfolded through interaction between the state and these various actors. Despite the restoration of a central institution and a series of decrees, a unified system of local administration was not created: dual subordination, the flight of church peasants and accumulating arrears forced the state to concede economic management while retaining only tax collection. The census techniques, staff tables and salary system left by the reform prepared the administrative preconditions for the secularization of 1764.

Keywords: Peter I, church estates, Monastery Prikaz, state building, church–state relations, administration of church estates, Russian Orthodox Church, Synod, state governance, church economy