Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Historical informatics
Reference:

Variational approach in modeling the rural historical settlement: a model of a two-level hierarchy of centers

Shpirko Sergey

Associate Professor, Moscow State Historical Archives Institute, Russian State University for the Humanities

119313, Russia, g. Moscow, ul. Leninskii Prospekt, 88 korpus 3, kv. 122

shpirkos@mail.ru
Other publications by this author
 

 

DOI:

10.7256/2585-7797.2022.3.38579

EDN:

ANNEIQ

Received:

07-08-2022


Published:

11-10-2022


Abstract: The subject of this study is the modeling of the spatial distribution of the medieval population. To take into account the conditions of heterogeneity of the territory in modeling, the author develops a variational approach proposed by S.M. Huseyn-Zadeh. The model is based on the idea of settlement, placement of the population on the territory as a process in which each of its participants is guided in their activities by achieving goals dictated by natural considerations, for example, maximum accessibility to their cultivated area, maximum proximity to the central settlement (center). Using the methods of calculus of variations and the concept of Pareto optimality within this approach makes it possible to identify and numerically describe the relationships between the optimal parameters of the system. In the previous paper, the author proposed a model of a one-level hierarchy of the placement of centers (central settlements). Additional analysis of historical material leads to the need to refine the model, namely, adding a hierarchy of centers to it. In this regard, this paper proposes a model of spatial placement with a two-level hierarchy of centers. The approbation of the proposed model is carried out on the material of the scribal books of the Shelonskaya Pyatina of the Novgorod land of the end of the XV century. The high degree of conformity of the obtained theoretical and empirical data allows us to consider mathematical modeling as an adequate and convenient auxiliary tool in studying the nature and dynamics of historical rural settlement systems. The possibilities of the proposed modeling also in terms of filling data gaps are demonstrated by the example of the task of reconstructing the approximate population of the Shelonskaya Pyatina of the considered time period.


Keywords:

mathematical modeling, scribe 's book, center placement system, calculus of variations, Pareto equilibrium, population density function, functional, linear regression, pogosts-places, hierarchy of centers

This article is automatically translated.

 Introduction

Historical settlement systems have long been the subject of study by historians.

In particular, scientists are trying to understand the nature of the medieval settlement structure, to give an approximate estimate of its population. As a rule, these tasks are solved within the framework of traditional research, through the involvement and analysis of historical sources. Only recently, methods from the exact sciences have been used to solve such issues. Thus, for the analysis of the spatial type of rural Russian settlement of the XV–XVII centuries, A.Ya. Degtyarev uses the method of the nearest neighborhood from geographical science [1]The probabilistic approach is used by O.N. Trapeznikova and A.A. Frolov to model the rural population of the Valdai Upland at the turn of the Middle Ages and Modern times [2]. It is based on the idea of the spontaneity and random nature of the settlement process in a territory with homogeneous natural and climatic conditions. Since such conditions cannot be guaranteed for large territories, this approach is limited to analyzing only microregions [3].To remove such a restriction, the author of this article develops a variational approach proposed by S.M. Huseyn-Zadeh [4].

It is based on the idea of settlement, placement of the population on the territory as a process aimed at achieving certain goals. Participants in the process are economic entities. For example, in the conditions of modeling rural settlement, these are yards, the number of which can be hundreds or thousands of units. And the goals are dictated by natural considerations of households, participants in the settlement process, for example: maximum accessibility to the cultivated area (arable land, fire), maximum proximity to the central settlement.

Note that these goals can be mutually opposite, as in this example. So, if the first goal is realized, the population will be evenly distributed throughout the territory (dispersion). If only the second goal is realized, on the contrary, it will concentrate at one point – the central settlement. If we combine both goals, then it is natural to assume that a compromise between them should result. In terms of historical geography, it takes the form of a "nest" the nature of settlement – the condensation of settlements around its center, followed by their dispersion along the periphery:

types_of_distributions

Fig.1 Types of spatial placement of settlements: nesting, random, ordered (source: [1, p. 33])

Within the framework of the variational approach, goals are formalized in the form of functionals F, that is, functions that depend on other functions as their arguments. The argument functions are, for example, population density p(x) at point x of the studied territory, the density of the centers q(x), the distance r(x) from point x to the nearest center. These functions can be set (varied) in an infinite number of ways, but the optimal relations between them are defined as the solution of the variational problem. This means that no matter how we vary the functions next to the fixed (desired) one, the linear part of the increment of the corresponding functional (its variation) does not change and remains equal to zero: ?F=0 [5].  To the reader familiar with the basics of mathematical analysis, it is clear that this is a complete analogy with the necessary condition of the extremum – the equality of the first derivative to zero.

Earlier, the author proposed a model of a one–level hierarchy of centers: a central settlement is a populated district [6,7]. That is, the entire territory under study is a system of disjoint zones, each of which contains a central settlement and "pulling" localities belong to it. Variational modeling reveals the power nature of the optimal relationships between the parameters of the settlement system. Thus, the following relationship is observed between the population N and the area S of the zone of influence: N ? S ?, where ? = 0.75. That is, the larger the area, the greater the number of people living in this territory.A less trivial conclusion can be drawn regarding the relationship between the population density p and the area of the territorial district:.

That is, the relationship between these parameters is reversed: territories with a high population density occupy smaller areas.If we translate the above model parameters to a logarithmic scale for convenience, then the relationship between them goes from power to linear:1_01

f2 and f3, where C is some constant.The theoretical results of the simulation are very well supported by real data.

As such, the material of scribal books on the Village Pyatina of the Novgorod land of the turn of the XV–XVI centuries, reconstructed by A.A. Frolov and N.V. Piotukh, was used [8]. The correlation coefficient calculated using the Statistica program (the strength of the connection) between both values is quite high (the significance level is over 0.95). And the linear regression coefficient (0.7308) differs from the theoretical one (0.75) by less than 0.02 units.

 

I. Two-level model of center placement

 In connection with the above-mentioned one of the tendencies of the system towards concentration, the following question arises: is there a concentration of settlements exclusively to their central settlements, or is it part of a more general movement towards other goals?

In other words, is it possible to have some hierarchy of goals in the system?  Further study of the materials of scribal books and historiography confirms the need to test this hypothesis, and, consequently, to modify the original model. Namely, we are talking about introducing intermediate centers into the model and thus considering the following hierarchy: the central settlement of the first level – the central settlement of the second level – a locality. 

f4_01

Fig.2 Two-level system of placement of centers on the territoryThis system is characterized by three parameters: density p(x)

placement of courtyards (settlements) at point x of the studied territory (area) D, density q 1(x) placement of the centers of the first level and density q 2(x) placement of second-level centers. Naturally, all these values vary from point to point, which is due to the heterogeneity of the territory.

Participants in the settlement process are guided in their actions by three natural considerations. Firstly, they try to place courtyards (villages) near their cultivated areas (zones of influence). Secondly, these settlements are located as close as possible to the central settlements of the 2nd level. And those, in turn, are as close as possible to the centers of the 1st level. The aspirations of each of the participants, taken into account together, are composed of three goals that characterize the system as a whole.

Let us now proceed to the formalization of all these concepts in terms of the calculus of variations. Denote by ?(x) the area of the zone of influence of the yard (settlement) near the point x in the studied territory D. Without limiting the generality of reasoning, we assume that the zones of influence of all settlements, including the centers of the first and second level, has the shape of a circle. It can be shown that all further conclusions can be extended to all other cases, for example, when the zones of influence have a rectangular shape. Denote by r(x) the radius of the zone of influence near the point x. Then ?(x) and r(x) are related by the formula of the area of the circle: , or . In turn, the area ?(x) can be expressed in terms of density p(x) as:f5. From here we get .The indicator of the first goal will be the total radius of the zones of influence of settlements.

Denote by dS a small element of the area near the point x. The radius of the zone of influence of the settlement located on the element dS near the point x is proportional to r(x). Then the total radius on this element is equal to r(x) dS, and on the entire studied territory – f6_02, where the integral is taken over the entire area D. Taking into account the formula connecting the radius and density, for the first functional we obtain the formula:f7_01. The indicator of the second goal is the total distance from settlements to their central settlements of the 2nd level.

Repeating the same reasoning as in the first case, we get the distance r 2(x) from x to the nearest center of the 2nd level proportional. Then the total distance from settlements near point x to its center of the 2nd level will be proportional. If we sum up this value over the entire domain D, we come to the formula for the second functional: .

Finally, as an indicator of the third goal, let's take the total distance from the centers of the 2nd level to their centers of the 1st level. Denote by r 1(x) the distance from the center of the 2nd level, located near the point x, to its center of the 1st level. By analogy with the previous case, this distance will be proportional. The role of density p(x) now q 2(x) is playing.Then the total distance from the centers of the 2nd level near the point x to its center of the 1st level will be proportional. As a result, the third functional is represented as: .

So, the functionals F 1, F 2, F 3 depend on the arguments of the functions p(x), q 1(x), q 2(x). Depending on the specific type of functions, these functionals take on certain values. In theory, it is necessary to select these functions so that when they are substituted as arguments, the value of the functional F 1 remains unchanged, and F 2 and F 3 take minimum values. It is clear that such a solution is not feasible, due to the multidirectional goals of the system. Therefore, within the framework of the proposed variational approach, they proceed to the problem of finding the optimal solution in the sense of Pareto [4]. Its essence lies in the fact that there is no other solution that would simultaneously give the best result for all functionals F 2, F 3, subject to the equality constraint for the functional F 1. In other words, a compromise is being sought as a solution that would take into account, to one degree or another, all the goals of the system. Formally, the resulting task is to find such functions p(x), q 1(x), q 2(x) so that the linear combination of functionals takes a minimum value, and the value of the functional F 1 is constant, where ?, ? are some positive constants.The Pareto optimum is sought from the equation , or .

Here ?F 2, ?F 3, ?F 1 are variations of the functionals corresponding to the variations ?q 2(x), ?p(x) functions q 2(x), p(x), and n is a constant. Applying the apparatus of calculus of variations, from here we come to a system of two equations:

Denote by ? 1(x) – the area of the zone of influence of the center of the 1st level near the point x, and after n 1(x) – its population size. Similarly, via ? 2(x) and n 2(x) let's denote the area and population of the zone of influence of the center of the 2nd level near the point x. We obtain formulas that relate the values of each pair to each other.

From equation (2) we have , where C is some constant.        (3).

Since ? 2(x)=1/q2(x), then from the last relation we obtain a power dependence, and the inverse, between the population density and the area of the zone of influence of the 2nd level: . That is, territorial districts with a high density of residence have a smaller area. The area and population of the zone of influence of the 1st level have a power dependence. Indeed, from the last relation and the formula n 2(x)=p(x)? 2(x) we have . When translated to a logarithmic scale, this dependence is transformed into a linear one with the same coefficient: , where A is some constant.

Similar conclusions, up to the exponent, can be made with respect to the values of the 1st level of the hierarchy. Namely, from equation (1) we have , where D is some constant. Hence, taking into account equation (3), we get: . Using similar reasoning as in the previous case, we get the dependence between the population density and the area of the zone of influence of the 1st level: Note, here is also a power dependence, but with a different exponent. Similar reasoning leads us to the conclusion that there is a power dependence between the population of the 1st level zone and its area: . Unlike the previous ratio with density, here is a direct relationship: the larger the area, the larger the population of the corresponding territorial district. Logarithm leads to a linear relationship between the parameters with a coefficient of 6/7: , where B is some constant.

The obtained theoretical results are tested on the example of a rural medieval settlement structure.

 

II.                Settlement structure of the Novgorod lands at the turn of the XV-XVI centuries. based on the materials of the scribe census of the Shelonskaya Pyatina After joining Moscow at the end of the XV century .

 

the entire Novgorod land for the convenience of the census and collection of taxes was divided into five pyatins. Almost simultaneously, there was a change of the ruling elite in this region. The possessions belonging to the Novgorod boyars and large monasteries were taken away by the Moscow Grand Duke. Some of them were distributed to Moscow serving people on estates, some were transferred to the disposal of the Novgorod Palace.

The first complete description of the Shelonskaya Pyatina was compiled in 7006 (1498/1499) by Matvey Ivanovich Valuev. The census covered all categories of land, including palace lands, and established a new, monthly salary of land.

 

 

 

Fig.3 Novgorod pyatins at the end of the XV–beginning of the XVI century. (source: [9, p. 33])

The scribal books of the Shelonskaya Pyatina were introduced into scientific circulation by K.A. Nevolin in 1853 [10]. The publication of their text began in the NPK series (Novgorod Scribal Books), the fourth volume of which was published in 1886 under the editorship of A.I. Timofeev [11]. The volume contains three manuscripts from the repository of the Moscow State Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MGAMID), including the scribe book by M.I. Valuev. As modern researchers managed to find out, they were brought to Moscow from Novgorod by royal decree back in 1688 [12, p.76]. Now these manuscripts are stored in the fund 137 of the Russian State Archive of Ancient Acts (RGADA) "Boyar and city books".

The scribe book of M.I. Valuev (the first in order in the publication) begins with the preface: "The books of Novogrotsky Sholonsky pyatiny by Matthew Ivanovich Valuev of summer 7000 sixth. And in them are written suburbs and volosts and rows and churchyards and villages and villages of the Grand Duke, and for boyars and for boyar children, for landlords and svoezemtsov, and Kupetsky villages, and vladychni and manastyr villages and villages, in ploughs, according to Novogorodsky. And there are three obzhi in sokha."

The description of pyatina goes by counties and census districts, which almost always coincide with the churchyards-districts. The division of the lands of each census district into categories (rent, "for estates", "svoezemtsovye", monastic, as well as "vopchago" possessions) is carried out very strictly and consistently.

At the same time, the compilers of the scribe's book use even more "old books", the creation of which researchers attribute back to the times of Novgorod independence. "Old letter" it consists only of data on the number of villages, courtyards, people and household in individual volosts (possessions) and from a detailed enumeration of monetary and natural duties that peasants carried in favor of the former landowners-Novgorodians.

In the new letter, the number of "people" is significantly greater than in the "old" one. Most researchers explain this fact not by natural population growth, but by a new principle of counting "people". Namely, if in the "old" if the bill went to the households, then in the "new" – by the heads of families (several families could live in one yard).

 This book, unlike similar descriptions of the Village and Votskaya pyatinas, has come down to us in a very sad state: the description of only 24 census districts (out of 71) has been completely preserved. However, quite soon several more manuscripts of the scribal books of the Shelonskaya Pyatina were discovered in the archives. In 1905, the fifth volume of the NPC prepared by S.K. Bogoyavlensky was published, which was called by the publisher himself a "continuation and supplement" of the fourth volume [13]. The sources of the publication were the same MGAMID (at the expense of newly discovered manuscripts of scribal books). In addition, after the discovery of the materials of the Novgorod Palace Order in the Moscow Archive of the Ministry of Justice, in the manuscripts of which late copies of scribal books of the XVI century were found, which were also included in the fifth volume. Now these manuscripts are part of the fund 1209 "Local order, Patrimonial Board and Patrimonial Department" RGADA.

First in order (columns 1-70) as part of the fifth volume, a monument is published, which the publisher himself calls an "abridged" book. This is a 7006 payment book, as indicated by the mention of the payment term. She, reporting very little geographical information, gives a complete list of all land holdings in pyatina with an indication of their size in inches (units of area for land tax in Novgorod land in the XV–XVI centuries.) and the names of landowners and former owners-Novgorodians and allows you to fill in, at least in part, those gaps that occur in the description complete.

The monument next in order (columns 71-286) as part of the fifth volume is a scribe's book of vowels, church, local and foreign lands 7006 letters of M.I. Valuev. It is a previously unpublished part of the same code of M.I. Valuev, published in the fourth volume of the NPC.

The scribal books of the palace volosts were preserved only in a copy of the middle of the XVIII century . From the composition of this manuscript, the publisher identifies five monuments composed at different times. The first monument (columns 287-314) is the scribe book of the palace lands of M.I. Valuev's letter of 7006 (1498/1499). The date in the table of contents of this book is different – 7009, that is, 1500/1501. But, according to researchers, it rather means the date of sending to Novgorod the list that became the protograph for subsequent copies [14, p. 18].

The third published monument (columns 332-406) includes two scribal books of the palace lands: the book of the letter of M.I. Valuev 7006, which is a continuation of the first monument (columns 332-387), and the book of G. N. Volosaty 7032 (1523/1524).

The fourth monument in a row contains the title: "The books of the palace of Shelonsky Pyatina were written by Matvey Ivanovich Valuev in the year 7007 of those volosts that he attributed to the Novo Palace." Apparently, having completed in 7006 (1497/1498) the description of all categories of lands in Pyatin, M.I. Valuev in the following year, 7007 (1498/1499), was instructed to re-describe the lands given to the Novgorod Palace and establish other norms of payments from the land. As A.M. Andriyashev writes, this census was made unsuccessfully, excessive taxes were imposed on the population. This caused the need to re-pay taxes, which was reflected in subsequent scribal books [15].

The process of finding new excerpts from M.I. Valuev's scribe book continues even after the publications of the Archeographic Commission. Separate sheets with a description of the settlement of the city of Rus and the Surrounding area were discovered by A.A. Zimin and published in 1959 [16]. More recently, K.V. Baranov discovered and published 6 more sheets as part of the collection of manuscripts of the fund 1209 RGADA: one of them is a fragment of the description of the Rusa posad, and the rest belong to separate estates of the Shelonskaya Pyatina.

From written sources of the XV–XVI centuries. (especially from the scribal descriptions of Pyatin) it follows that the churchyards-districts were the primary cells of the system of state taxation and administrative division of the Novgorod land at that time. The oldest evidence of churchyards contains the "Charter of Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich on tithes, courts and church people", which "I have given to all cities, and to churchyards, and to freedoms where peasants are" [17, pp.18-20]Then this term referred to settlements where the local population brought tribute for their prince. So, in the news of the "Tale of Bygone Years" about Princess Olga, it is reported: "in the summer of 6455, Ida Olga Novugorodu. And lay down the duties and tributes according to Myst, and the taxes and tribute according to the Pocket; and her traps are all over the earth, and signs and places and posts. And her sleigh has been standing in Pleskovo up to this day, and along the Dnieper there is a preponderance and along the Desna, and there is a village of her Olzhichi up to this day. Having dressed up, return to your son in Kiev and stay with him in love" [18, p.25].As the country becomes Christianized, churchyards also become centers of spiritual life.

A temple is being built in them, where the surrounding population regularly converges on church services and holidays.

We read about churchyards as centers of local legal proceedings in the Novgorod birch bark certificates. Thus, letter No. 154 (XIV–mid-XV century.) informs about the interrogation of a witness (named Omant) by the ruler and the summons (announcement of the summons of the accused to court in Novgorod) on the spot: "The question of the ruler of Omant. Rostyagalesfipe (Filipe) with Ivan Stoick…Dale Filipe Stoic 3 rubles in silver and 7 hryvnia kun and a horse. And the Stoic is led away in viri and with the posadnik and with the sochki (sotskiye). And then it was a long day. And that was lost in the churchyard at the auction" [19, p.33].

The use of this word in other meanings, for example, a certain community of people, should be distinguished from a churchyard-settlement. Thus, S.B. Veselovsky also wrote that "initially, not the territory was assigned to the churchyard, but the subject and the subject population, and only later the territory occupied by this population acquired the certainty of a subject and judicial district" [20, p.15].

In this regard, we will give an example that allows us to attribute one of the stages of the evolution of the term "churchyard" by the period, at least, no later than the middle of the XIII century. We are talking about the text of the Novgorod birch bark charter No. 211 (layer 1268-1281), which informs about the purchase by some feudal lord from the community-churchyard of the right to use mowing in the village of Voiegieh and reconstructed by A.A. Zaliznyak in the form: "For the village of Voiegieho, there were about 5 hryvnia in total (total). From otskos and from between daho sarati (to plow) the churchyard. 2 hryvnia was carried ..." [21, C.235–236].

The beginning of work on mapping and observing the nature of the boundaries of churchyards and pyatinas according to the Novgorod scribal books was laid in the works of K.A. Nevolin. At the beginning of the XX century. this direction of research was continued in the works of A.M. Andriyashev. The localization of the settlements of the Shelonskaya Pyatina carried out by him with a high degree of accuracy made it possible to draw a number of important qualitative conclusions about the nature of the settlement system of the Novgorod land of the era of scribal books [15]. According to A.M. Andriyashev, the borders of churchyards (districts) in rare cases coincided with the flow of large rivers, but willingly passed through vast swamps and forests, being a natural obstacle to the communication of residents among themselves.  These territorial districts were formed gradually and organically in the course of economic development of the area, not allowing through the stripes of the lands that make up them. At the same time, the size of churchyards depended on their proximity to cities and trade routes. A more dense and centralized population required the creation of more administrative units. In Shelonskaya Pyatina, the closer to Novgorod, Lake Ilmen and the lower reaches of the Shelona River, the smaller the churchyards-districts are in size. On the contrary, as they move away from the centers of economic life, their sizes increase, exceeding one thousand square kilometers in area for Sumer, Belsky, Dremyatsky and other remote districts.

The fifth division of the country, according to the general opinion of researchers, was an innovation and came simultaneously with the establishment of the Moscow government and its orders in the Novgorod land. Unlike churchyards, the borders of the pyatins passed along large rivers and reservoirs. For the Shelonskaya Pyatina, these are the rivers Lovat and Meadows flowing into the Ilmen and the Gulf of Finland, respectively. Sometimes these boundaries were drawn regardless of the churchyard division (see the following figure):

 

Fig.4 Map of churchyards-districts of the Shelonskaya Pyatina of the turn of the XV–XVI centuries. (built by means of QGIS on the map from [15]). Districts are highlighted in a separate color, some of which belonged to other five regions (green – to the Votskaya, purple – to the Village).

Scribal books of the XV–XVI centuries, along with other written sources, allow us to roughly recreate the economic system of the Novgorod lands of that transitional era. In his brief description, necessary for understanding further modeling, the author of this work follows the conclusions of A.I. Nikitin, a well-known historian of that period [22].

In the era preceding the Moscow conquest, the vast majority of the lands of Veliky Novgorod were in the hands of private owners, primarily boyars and monasteries. Their possessions consisted of a mass of plots scattered throughout the Novgorod land. Neighboring villages were reduced into one whole – volosts and volosts. In some of them, a special (large) owner's yard was arranged, which was a place for both storage and management.

The owners themselves, living permanently in the main city, entrusted local management to their trusted persons – keepers, (or poselsky, if we are talking about the possessions of monasteries). These latter were usually placed in estates of the largest size, from where they were in charge of the district subordinate to them, going around individual villages. The functions of the keepers included the distribution of free land plots to the peasants for use and the collection of duties imposed by the owners from them.

At the same time, the land was surrendered to the peasants not under the conditions of payment of a certain rent, but a certain share of the product – polovya, polovnichestvo (that is, half of the total income). In addition to the half, a small income was also collected – a constant levy in favor of the owner with other products of the peasant economy (bread, meat, cheese, eggs), which meant the expense of receiving owners in the villages. Finally, the third type of extortion – the housekeeper's income – repeated the owner's income, only to a much lesser extent.

 The Moscow conquest was marked not only by the mass seizure of boyar and monastery lands and the eviction of their owners, but also by the radical breakdown of the local economic structure. All the seized lands were transferred to the Grand ducal fund (the so-called palace and toll lands were made up), from which the Grand Duke endowed his servants with estates). At the same time, unlike the previous era, these lands did not go to the landlords as private, but as temporary property for the duration of service. As for the peasant population, in addition to the previous dues and duties, the landlords and dues volosts paid state (obezhnaya) tribute.  The following are excerpts from the description of a landowner's estate from the scribe book of Shelonskaya Pyatina in 1495 [11, columns 7-9]:

"In Paozerye zho, for Ondrej for Fedorovich, the villages of Lukinsky Isakovo Fedotina, the village of Yurovichi: dv. in the big man his Petrushka Lyatchko; and Christian: dv. Fomka Zinovov, dv. Ontonko Ivanov, dv. Ileyka Ivanov, Ondreev man's arable land 4 boxes of hay 60 kopen, obzha; and khrestyanskaya arable land 18 boxes; hay one and a half hundred kopen, 4 obzhi. D. Terebushino: dv. Ivashko Trofimov, dv. Smeshko Mitrofanov, arable land 8 boxes, hay 40 kopen, one and a half obzh. D. Pelesha: dv. Mikulka Mikheev and Ovsevko Kuzmin, 6 boxes of arable land, 50 kopecks of hay, obzha. D. Ilovo: dv. Vasko Orefin, 2 boxes of arable land, 50 kopecks of hay, half an obzha..."

The above fragment describes the villages inherited by the landowner, Andrei Fedorovich, from the former owner, the Novgorodian Luka Isakovich Fedotin. As we can see, peasant plowing prevailed, although there was also a small boyar: in the village of Yurovichi there is a large owner's yard, a yard man Petrushka Lyatchko lives in it, plows the land and mows hay exclusively for his landowner.  Then there is a description of two more such boyars: one went to Andrey Fedorovich from Ivan Vazgunov, the other from Fyodor Yuryev. 

The description of the estate concludes with a summary indicating the old (under the former boyars) and the new landowner's income:

"And all according to the old letter for Ondrej villages 6 in all three boyars, and yards 10, and people 11 people, and the run 11. And the old income went from those villages to Luke and Ivan and Fedor with three rounds of money and for bread 5 hryvnia, and with seven rounds of bread, and with burn a third of the bread. And 3 yards arrived, and 5 people, and 2 passengers, and the village was gone. And according to the new letter, there are 5 villages behind Ondrey in all three boyars, and 13 courtyards, and 16 people, and 23 run-around, and 4 ploughs with a third. And from those obezh Ondreev, a person plows obzhu, and from two hundred obzhi income emlet money 2 hryvnia Novgorodsky and 4 dengi, and from bread a third. And the housekeeper's income is 5 boxes of rye and oats without a quarter, 5 shoulder blades of boran, 9 cheeses, 50 eggs… Yes, hay is mowed for Ondrey on the Lukinsky fires for a Veryazhoy 500 kopecks."

As follows from the scribal books, the main type of peasant settlement of that time was a village with from one to four courtyards. Of the parts that made up the peasant estate, first of all, we will call the courtyard (with a yard and a cage enclosing the property) and the vegetable garden. The root layer of arable land followed immediately behind the yard, which is why it was called "backyard". Also, as part of the estate, there were also arable lands away from the yards (called "leshiye", that is, in the forests) and lands newly cleared for arable land (the so-called "priterebs").

Having received the estates, the new owners completely moved into them, started a boyar smell and tried to give their possessions some organization. According to A.I. Nikitsky, this organization consisted in rounding up its lands in order to achieve predominance in a well-known district and eliminate harm from the mixing of possessions. This goal could be achieved in several ways, for example, by bartering (exchange) with the owners of neighboring plots. In the case of the desolation of peasant yards and villages, it could also be the settlement of their yard people in them. Finally, in order to increase their own incomes, landlords started peasant plots where agriculture did not play a primary role. Subsequent scribal books are full of the presence of all kinds of repairs – the beginnings of villages that either had no arable land at all, or clearly in insufficient quantity. The following are excerpts from the description of one such landowner's possession, taken from the census book of the Shelonskaya Pyatina in 1539 [11, columns 292-297]."The churchyard of Mikhailovskaya on the Polona River, which happened from the time of St. George's Monastery, and in it the church of the Most holy Theotokos.

For Fedor for Ivanov Lazarev's son in the churchyard of the yard. big, yard. Fedor himself. And there are no weak people: dv. pop Fyodor Ortemyev, deacon of the church Ivanko Mikulin, dv. proskurnitsa Marfa. And his people: dv. Prokop Fomin, dv. Tarasko melnik, dv. Nekrasko Rubin, dv. Kubas Litvin, dv. Makar Surovtsov. Yes, on the church land, the Bobyl courtyards are: Grishka Babin, Luchka Ortyushin, Petrushka, Mitka without arable land, so they give two altyns to the priest to the church, boyar and servant and peasant arable land in one field 40 peddlers, and in two fields, hay 500 kopen, 3 obzhy. And the lands on the yard on the river on the Strip are melnitsa and the latrine field is raked, 3 boxes of arable land, 30 kopen of hay."

In this passage we see a description of the central settlement of the Mikhailovsky churchyard-district –the churchyard of the same name-the place of Mikhailovsky on the Polonoi River. More than 40 years have passed since the compilation of the scribal books by M.I. Valuev, but even for the second census (1539), the volosts and volosts of the former Novgorod owners remain the economic unit of description. In this case, it is the former land of the Yuriev Monastery, one of the largest and oldest in Veliky Novgorod, located on the estate of Fyodor Ivanovich Lazarev. In the churchyard there is a church of the Intercession of the Holy Virgin and houses of church servants are located: a priest, a deacon and a prosvirnitsa.

In addition to the parish center, the churchyard is also the focus of the landlord administration. There is a large owner's yard on it, in which the landowner himself lives, and the yards of his people are located. Among them is the miller's yard, which is in charge of the landowner's mill on the river. The landowner's lands are also used by the priest who is attached to the estate. These "servants" of the land differed from the land cultivated by landlords on the landowner, in that the income from them did not go to the benefit of the landowner. In most cases, the servants cultivated the land given to them by their own efforts, but sometimes, like landowners, they surrounded themselves with their own people. So, on church land we see bobylsky yards (family-free), who paid the land tax to the priest.

Then there is a part with a description of landowner villages, similar to the above example of the estate of Andrei Fedorovich in Paozerye. Of interest is the following part with a description of the landlord 's repairs:

"... Yes, Fyodor Lazarev put repairs on the forest after pisma novo, and those repairs were given as an appendage to Nechai and Tretyak by Kostyantinov's children Valov and his brother; and Nechai and Tretyak the Oxen and their brothers left those repairs because they were thin and at odds. Poch. Shevelov: dv. Shevel Ivanov, there are 2 boxes of arable land in one field, and 10 kopecks of hay in two fields. Perished; dv. Kuzemka Ondreev, the arable land in one field is half-2 boxes, and in two fields, hay is 20 kopecks ...".

The number of boxes given in this passage indicates the amount of grain being sown, which is insufficient for conducting a full-fledged economy without additional assistance. The use of the expression "and in two-man" allows us to conclude that the three-field system of agriculture was reproduced even in such "embryonic" areas.

The final results of the description allow us to assess the extent of the expansion of the cultural area within the estate over 40 years: "And there are only 20 repairs, and there are 24 yards in them, and there are 25 people in them, there are 62 boxes of arable land in one field, and there are two fields, there are only 251 piles of hay, and 11 fields are marked in them, and 4 ploughs without a third; and the income from them is not shol, they are sitting on a lot".III. Numerical experiments

 

Based on the above, as a model of the settlement structure of the Shelonskaya Pyatina of the turn of the XV–XVI centuries, this article proposes to use a system of 2-level hierarchy: churchyard-district – volostka – yard.

The original data are the preserved data on the number of households and yards in 24 churchyards-districts of the Shelonskaya Pyatina, collected by A.M. Andriyashev (see Appendix 1). 

Recall that one of the theoretical results of the proposed model is a linear relationship between the logarithm of the number of yards and the logarithm of the area of the churchyard-district (zone of influence of the 1st level) with a coefficient of 6/7. Verification of the correspondence of this theoretical result to empirical data was carried out using a package of statistical programs Statistica:

Fig.5 Scattering diagram for the logarithm of the number of yards (ln dvor) and the logarithm of the area of the churchyard (ln obj)

Fig.6 Correlation coefficient for the logarithm of the number of yards (ln dvor) and the logarithm of the area of the churchyard (ln obj)

 As follows from Fig.5 and Fig.6, the hypothesis of a linear relationship between the above-mentioned features (ln dvor and ln obj) is confirmed with a significance level of over 0.95. The coefficient of linear regression between them is 0.8476, differing from the theoretical one (6/7) by 0.0095, which even slightly improves the previous result with the model of a single-level hierarchy [6,7]. The correlation coefficient between the features is 0.93. That is, changes in the dependent attribute are explained by changes in the independent by about 87% (coefficient of determination).

Based on the proposed model, the next step can be taken – to start the task of data replenishment. As already mentioned, only 24 of the 71 churchyards-districts of the Shelonskaya Pyatina have data on the total number of yards. Substituting into the linear regression equation as a variable the total number of visits to the remaining churchyards-districts, we get the corresponding number of their yards. The results of this reconstruction are given in Appendix 2 (column "number of yards").

From estimating the total number of yards, you can proceed to the next step – reconstruction of the total population of Pyatina. It would seem that you can get this figure by multiplying the total number of yards by the average number of families (father, mother and children). However, not one family could live in the yard, but two, and even three (for example, two brothers with families lead a common, undivided household under one roof). This fact is eloquently indicated by the number of "people" (that is, family men), which does not coincide with the number of households (see Appendix 2). So, for the Shelonskaya pyatina, according to the new letter, there were 1.5 "people" per yard.

 Later and more complete documents (the census book of the Old Russian churchyards of 1669 and the household lists of the patrimony in the Poshekhonsky patrimony of Bestuzhev-Ryumin for 1731) allowed researchers to establish how many families there were in each yard and what the sizes of the yards and families were. The analysis of these figures led A.L. Shapiro to find some regularity and build a corresponding table that correlates the number of "people" marked with scribal books in the yard and the number of people in the yard (including women). So, for the Shelonskaya Pyatina, this conversion factor is equal to 6.25 (see Appendix 3). Multiplying it by the reconstructed total number of yards (14249 units), we come to an approximate estimate of the rural population of the churchyard, equal to 90 thousand people (the reconstructed number of the Vshelgsky churchyard is added to this figure based on the area occupied by it in square kilometers, and not the number of obezh, for which there are no data from scribal books). Interestingly, this figure is very close to A.L. Shapiro's own reconstruction (93 thousand 773 people) of the rural population of the Shelonskaya Pyatina at the turn of the XV–XVI centuries, differing from the latter by no more than 4% [23, p. 124].

 

ConclusionThe high degree of conformity of the obtained theoretical and empirical data allows us to consider mathematical modeling as an adequate and convenient auxiliary tool for studying the nature and dynamics of historical rural settlement systems.

So, for the North-West of Russia at the turn of the XV–XVI centuries, we can state the predominance of the "nest" type, which consisted of a combination of two multidirectional trends.

 The first of them was the desire of the population for the most convenient access to the controlled area, which led to its uniform distribution throughout the territory.

The second, on the contrary, led to the concentration of the population around its centers. Moreover, such concentration was hierarchical in nature. Firstly, the surrounding population settled near their central settlements (centers of the 2nd level). As such, there were owner villages in which the landowner's manager lived and management and control over the dependent population was concentrated.

The centers of the 2nd level, in turn, concentrated around the central settlements of a higher hierarchy (centers of the 1st level). As such, there were churchyards-settlements that were the centers of parish life and state administration.

Further, in the situation of the absence of some documentary sources, the proposed approach can also be used in the task of filling in the missing data, which was demonstrated by the example of the reconstruction of the rural population of Shelonskaya Pyatina.

 

 

Appendix 1Territorial districts of the Shelonskaya Pyatina.

General characteristics according to the new letter

 (source: [15])nn

churchyard

number of rounds

number of yards

the logarithm of the number of rounds

logarithm of the number of yards

1

Ofremovskaya

363

154

5,89

5,04

2

Resurrection

142,5

83

4,96

4,42

3

Dretonian

328

235

5,79

5,46

4

Buryazhsky

285

248

5,65

5,51

5

Korostynskaya

301

266

5,71

5,58

6

Zaveryazhye 1

31,5

35

3,45

3,56

7

Paozerye

424,5

406

6,05

6,01

8

Kositsky

146

133

4,98

4,89

9

Golinsky

80,5

121

4,39

4,80

10

Mikhailovskaya 1

63,5

71

4,15

4,26

11

Frolovskaya

199

152

5,29

5,02

12

Tursky

162,5

148

5,09

5,00

13

Ilemenskaya

404

357

6,00

5,88

14

Borotenskoy

195

165

5,27

5,11

15

Kotorsky

619,5

565

6,43

6,34

16

Yasenskaya

345

321

5,84

5,77

17

Opotskaya

248,5

262

5,52

5,57

18

Berezskoy

259,5

234

5,56

5,46

19

Pavskoy

168

154

5,12

5,04

20

Dubrovenskaya

261

224

5,56

5,41

21

Ruchaysky and Tchaikovsky

242

217

5,49

5,38

22

Logoveshchskoy

246,5

181

5,51

5,20

23

Shchirskaya

204,5

181

5,32

5,20

24

Khmer

220,5

202

5,40

5,31

 

 

Appendix 2Territorial districts of the Shelonskaya Pyatina.

Reconstruction of the population at the turn of the XV–XVI centuries. (source: [15])nn

References
1. Degtyarev, A.Ya. (1980). Russian village in the XV–XVII centuries. Essays on the history of rural settlement. Leningrad: Leningrad University Press.
2. Trapeznikova, O.N., Frolov, A.A. (2017). Mathematical modeling and geo-ecological assessment of the rural settlement of the Valdai Upland and its transformation at the turn of the Middle Ages and the New Age. News of the Russian Geographical Society, 149(4), 46–61.
3. Shpirko, S.V. (2021). Probabilistic Approach to Modeling Systems of Historical Settlement: Traditional View. Historical Informatics, 4, 79–86.
4. Gusein-Zade, S.M. (1990) Models of the distribution of the population and settlements: dissertation of Doctor of Phys.-Math. Sciences: 01.01.09/ Gusein-Zade Sabir Medzhidovich. Moscow.
5. Elsgolts, L.E. (2008). Variational calculus. Moscow: URSS.
6. Shpirko, S.V. (2018). On the variational approach to modeling the medieval distribution of the population (on the example of the Derevskaya Pyatina of the Novgorod land at the end of the 15th century). Historical Informatics, 4, 22–38.
7. Shpirko, S.V. (2020). On one variational model of the historical system of rural settlement (on the example of the Derevskaya Pyatina of the Novgorod Land) // Historical journal: scientific research, 2, 49–62.
8. Frolov, A.A., Piotukh, N.V. (2008). Historical Atlas of the Derevskaya Pyatina of the Novgorod Land. Volume I. Moscow-St. Petersburg: Alliance-Archeo.
9. Kolmogorov, A.N., Bassalygo, L.A. (1994). Novgorod land tenure of the 15th century. Commentary on the scribe books of the Shelonskaya Pyatina. Moscow: Phys.-Math. Literature.
10. Nevolin, K.A. (1853). On pyatinas and pogosts of Novgorod in the 16th century. St. Petersburg: Typography of the Imperial Academy of Sciences.
11. Novgorod scribe books, published by the Archaeographic Commission. The census books of the Shelonskaya Pyatina. I. 1498. II. 1539. III. 1552–1553. (1886). Vol. IV. St. Petersburg: Typography of the Ministry of the Interior.
12. Frolov, A.A. (2017). Novgorod scribe books. Sources and methods of research. Moscow-St. Petersburg: Alliance-Archeo.
13. Novgorod scribe books, published by the Imperial Archaeographic Commission. The census books of the Shelonskaya Pyatina. I. About 1498. II. 1498. III. 1499–1551. IV. 1571. V. 1576. (1905). Vol. V. St. Petersburg: Senate typography.
14. Scribe books of the Novgorod Land. Vol.1: Novgorod scribe books of the 1490s. and otpisnye and otkaznye books of suburban grasslands of the Novgorod Palace of the 1530s. (1999). Moscow: Ancient Storage: Archaeographic.
15. Andriyashev, A.M. Materials on the historical geography of the Novgorod land. Shelonskaya Pyatina according to scribe books 1498–1576. (1914). Moscow: Publishing house Imp. Society of Russian history and antiquities.
16. Zimin, A.A. (1959). Two excerpts from the Novgorod scribe book. Historical archive, 1, 166–159.
17. Old Russian princely charters of the XI–XV centuries. (1976). Moscow: Nauka.
18. Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles, published by the Highest Order of the Archaeographic Commission. Volume I. Laurentian and Trinity Chronicles. (1846). St. Petersburg: Edition of the Archaeographic Commission.
19. Artsikhovsky, A.V. and Borkovsky, V.I. (1958). Novgorod letters on birch bark (from excavations in 1955). Moscow: Publishing house Acad. Sciences of the USSR.
20. Veselovsky, S.B. (1936). Village and thorp in North-Eastern Russia XIV–XVI centuries. Moscow-Leningrad: State social-econ. publishing house.
21. Yanin, V.L. and Zaliznyak, A.A. (1986). Novgorod letters on birch bark (from the excavations of 1977–1983). Commentary and index to birch bark writings (from the excavations of 1951–1953). Moscow: Nauka.
22. Nikitin, A.I. (2014). The history of the economic life of Veliky Novgorod. Moscow: Nauka.
23. Agrarian history of the North-West of Russia. The second half of the 15th–beginning of the 16th century. (1971). Leningrad: Nauka.

Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

Issues related to the study of settlement systems in different epochs are quite often considered in historical literature and arouse great interest among readers. Recently, mathematical modeling and information technologies have been increasingly used to solve settlement problems. The reviewed article refers specifically to this range of works. It examines the settlement structure of the Novgorod lands of the XV–XVI centuries. Within the framework of the article, the author models the settlement processes he studies based on a variational approach. The obtained theoretical modeling results are verified on the basis of existing historical reconstructions and differ slightly from them. The relevance of the article, in addition to the already noted general interest in the issues of settlement systems, is determined by the opening possibilities of mathematization of a number of historical research procedures, which is important not only for verifying the results obtained by traditional tools, but also for generating fundamentally new knowledge. From this point of view, there is also no doubt about the scientific novelty of the study. The article is competently constructed from the point of view of the logic of the presentation of the material and is well structured, which makes it easier to read even for a reader who does not have mathematical training. In the introduction, the problem is posed, a brief historiographical description of its consideration is given, and the methodology and methodology of the study are substantiated. In the first section, a two-level model of the placement of settlement centers is presented, and the necessary mathematical apparatus is presented. In the second section, the author of the article, based on historical sources (scribal books), gives a general description of the settlement of the Novgorod lands at the turn of the XIV–XV centuries. At the same time, the presentation is well illustrated with cartographic material. The next section is devoted to the actual settlement modeling and population calculations. In conclusion, the general results of the study are summarized, which, on the one hand, indicate an increase in historical knowledge, on the other, reflect good consistency with the results obtained by traditional historical methods. The article is supplemented with useful and very informative appendices. Despite the use of mathematical apparatus, the materials of the article are understandable and accessible to any reader. The work is written in a scientific style that does not cause difficulties when reading. The bibliography is quite extensive and allows the interested reader to get to know the historiographical and methodological context of the research quite closely. The paper does not focus on controversial issues, however, it is possible to predict the future discussion of the author's conclusions by interested specialists. Summing up, it can be noted that there were no comments on the scientific side of the reviewed article: the work fully corresponds to the format of the journal and contains a presentation of new scientific results. However, it is not possible to recommend it for immediate publication due to some carelessness in the design. It is recommended to finalize the article in the following areas. 1. Careful proofreading of the text is necessary for grammatical errors, there are few of them, but they are present. 2. It is recommended, in accordance with the general design culture, to indicate the years and centuries in the format as is customary (G. and G.; V. and V.). 3. The use of dashes in the text should be unified: there are often no spaces between the word and the dash in the text. 4. In the bibliography, each position should be ended with a dot, not a semicolon. 5. It is better to place the drawings not on the left edge of the page, but in the center. 6. There should be no spaces between the quotes and the word that is taken in them, there are places in the text where the quotes separate and move to the next line. The same applies to other punctuation marks (dot, comma, etc.), as well as to footnotes, which also should not move to the next line. The comments made may seem petty, however, their elimination will positively affect the overall impression of the design of the article and the magazine as a whole. After the defects in the design are eliminated, the article can be published. Comments of the editor-in-chief dated 08/18/2022: "The author has fully taken into account the comments of the reviewers and corrected the article. The revised article is recommended for publication"

churchyard

square

(sq.km)

number of rounds

number of yards

number of "people"

population size

1

Ofremovskaya

1374

363

154

 

963

2

Kolomenskoye

379

143,5

133

 

831

3

Resurrection

324

142,5

83

 

519

4

Dretonian

582

328

235

 

1469

5

Losskoy

616

139,5

130

 

811

6

Snezhsky

181

149,5

138

 

860

7

Slavyatinskaya

471

161,1

147

 

917

8

Dolzhinskaya

575

154,5

142

 

885

9

Chertitskaya

287

61

64

 

402

10

Buryazhsky

251

285

248

 

1550

11

Korostynskaya

295

301

266

 

1663

12

Zaveryazhye 1

230

31,5

35

 

219

13

Paozerye

266

424,5

406

 

2538

14

Sabelskaya

223

100

98

 

612

15

Kositsky

154

146

133

 

831

16

Sutotsky

370

168,5

152

 

952

17

Golinsky

132

80,5

121

 

756

18

Bear

561

252,5

215

 

1341

19

Peredolskaya

187

279,5

234

 

1462

20

Strupinskaya

83

161

147

 

916

21

Lyubynskaya

356

100

98

 

612

22

Svinoretskoy

138

99

97

 

607

23

Musetskoy

107

82,5

83

 

520

24

Dovoretskaya

251

155

142

 

887

25

Cherenchitskaya

117

131,5

123

 

772

26

Petrovskaya

312

375,5

300

 

1878

27

Ramyshevskoy1

107

93

92

 

575

28

Retenskaya

122

85,5

86

 

536

29

Sknyatinskaya

151

110,5

107

 

666

30

Mikhailovskaya 1

340

63,5

71

 

444

31

Frolovskaya

287

199

152

223

950

32

Tursky

371

162,5

148

215

925

33

Lubinskaya

190

104,5

102

 

635

34

Vshelgskoy

175

 

 

-

35

Ilemenskaya

447

404

357

493

2231

36

Borotenskoy

385

195

165

 

1031

37

Kotorskaya

732

619,5

565

870

3531

38

Petrovskaya

197

476

367

 

2296

39

Degozhskaya

1183

515

393

 

2454

40

Christmas

198

169

153

 

954

41

Belsky

383

171,5

155

 

966

42

Pazherevatskaya

464

550

415

 

2595

43

Nikolskaya

302

519

395

 

2471

44

Irradiation

105

154,5

142

 

885

45

Vyshegorodsky

100

126,5

119

 

747

46

Yasenskaya

382

345

321

 

2006

47

Zhedritskaya

192

296,5

246

 

1537

48

Bolchinskaya

114

110,5

107

 

666

49

Karachunskaya

345

353,5

285

 

1784

50

Bogoroditskaya

338

320,5

263

 

1642

51

Smolinskaya

190

140,5

131

 

816

52

Bogoroditskaya 2

87

 

 

-

53

Mikhailovskaya

211

68,5

71

 

444

54

Opotskaya

274

248,5

262

373

1638

55

Berezskoy

196

259,5

234

 

1463

56

Pavskoy

267

168

154

226

963

57

Dubrovenskaya

425

261

224

367

1400

58

Ruchaysky and Tchaikovsky

807

242

217

338

1356

59

Logoveshchskoy

395

246,5

181

284

1131

60

Shchirskaya

595

204,5

181

268

1131

61

Khmer

262

220,5

202

263

1263

62

Bystreevskaya

603

286,5

239

 

1493

63

Dremyatskaya

1655

619,5

556

870

3475

64

Belsky

1568

470

363

 

2271

65

Lositskaya

545

395

314

 

1960

66

Lyadskoy

656

297,5

247

 

1542

67

Pribuzhskaya

392