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

Genesis: Historical research
Reference:

Tomsk Villages in the 1900s-1920s: Dynamics of Population and Size

Tatarnikova Anna Ivanovna

PhD in History

Senior Scientific Associate, Tobolsk Complex Scientific State of Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences

626152, Russia, Tyumen region, Tobolsk, Ak. Yu. str. Osipova, 15

tatob777@yandex.ru
Other publications by this author
 

 

DOI:

10.25136/2409-868X.2022.10.38988

EDN:

FILKHH

Received:

15-10-2022


Published:

22-10-2022


Abstract: The article gives a comparative description of the development of the rural settlement network of the Tomsk county/district in three time slices: for 1904, 1911 and 1926. The object of the study is a network of rural settlements of the named sub–region, the subject is their number, typical structure and size in terms of the number of yards and the number of inhabitants. The author uses historical-comparative, historical-typological and problem methods of research, as well as the method of graphical visualization of the statistical data obtained on the development of the Tomsk settlement network. The influence of political, socio-economic and other factors on the state of the network of rural settlements is traced. On the basis of a comparative analysis of the "Lists of Populated places", which have become the main source for studying rural settlements of the county/district under consideration, the dynamics of their number, number and population are investigated, qualitative changes in the structure of the settlement network are revealed. The conclusion is made about the gradual expansion of the scale of the rural settlement network in the Tomsk subregion, the reduction of the yard and the population of the Tomsk village by 1926, its unbundling. Attention is focused on structural changes in the settlement network caused by the new agrarian and resettlement policy of the state, as well as the economic and socio-cultural modernization of the country and its individual territories.


Keywords:

Tomsk county-district, network of rural settlements, localities, density of settlements, number of houses, crowded, typical structure, village, dynamics of development, transformation

This article is automatically translated.

IntroductionThe process of settlement and economic development of any territory occurs gradually and unevenly.

First, as a rule, colonization strongholds appear in new areas, then the framework of the settlement network is formed, after which a larger-scale settlement takes place, empty lands are involved in economic turnover.

One of the intensively colonized territories of Russia over the past centuries has been Siberia. Since becoming part of the Russian state, this region has experienced several stages of settlement associated with planned, government colonization, reference to the settlement and "free people" resettlement. By the end of the XIX –beginning of the XX centuries, areas of old agricultural settlement, where a developed settlement network had already formed, and areas that were just beginning to be developed by local residents and settlers, coexisted simultaneously in the Siberian expanses.

Among the territories of the old, mainly agrarian settlement, was the Tomsk county/district. Already in the XVII–XVIII centuries. his lands were colonized, which resulted in the creation of a network of settlements, which included settlements of both Russian and autochthonous populations.

In the research literature, the problems of settlement and development of the settlement network on the territory of the Tomsk county/district have been studied rather poorly. Thus, certain aspects of the pre-revolutionary history of the formation and functioning of the Tomsk village are considered in the works of V.N. Kurilov, S.V. Pospelova, G.S. Khorokhordin [3; 8; 12-14].  A monograph and a series of articles by O.V. Usoltseva [11] are devoted to the Soviet period of the development of a network of rural settlements in the Tomsk region. At the same time, the author examined the processes of transformation of the rural settlement network in the period from the 1940s to the 1980s.

The studies of M.A. Ovcharova, A.A. Plyasuli, B.A. Voronin, I.P. Chupina and others are of interest in the Siberian and Russian contexts. They touch upon such issues of the history of the development of Tomsk settlements as: the organization of agrarian resettlement and resettlement of peasants in the region in the 1920s-1940s; the forced formation of state farms in the first decades of Soviet power; the liquidation of "unpromising" villages and the appearance of abandoned settlements [5; 7; 2].

In foreign historiography, the issues of rural settlement development are considered as part of the study of the settlement process. At the same time, scientists study in more detail the impact of urbanization on the change in the pattern of settlement of different territories [16-18; 20], determine the role of socio-cultural transformations in the expansion of the settlement network [19], investigate the role of regional cities in the development of rural regions [15].

Thus, the 1920s-1930s turned out to be "overboard" of the attention of specialists in the field of historical geography – the time of a serious transformation of the network of settlements associated with changes in settlement policy in the first decades of Soviet power, the transition to a program of new agrarian transformations in the countryside, the acceleration of economic and socio-cultural modernization of the country and its constituent territories.

The purpose of this article is to characterize the dynamics of the Tomsk village development in the 1900s-1920s. At the same time, such indicators as the number of rural settlements of the county /district, their size, and typical structure are taken as the basis of the characteristics.

The phrase "Tomsk village" is used in the work as a collective and is applied to the entire set of rural settlements of the characterized administrative-territorial unit.

The chronological scope of the work is limited to the 1900s-1920s, which, on the one hand, is explained by the peculiarities of the source base of the study, which contains information about the state of the Tomsk settlement network in three time slices (1904, 1911, 1926), on the other – the appearance in the designated period of new trends in the development of this network, reflected in its typical structure, number and size.

The territorial boundaries of the study include the Tomsk Uyezd/district, which was part of the province of the same name until 1925, and then, after its abolition, to the Siberian Territory, which existed from 1925 to 1930. It is important to note that the boundaries of the Tomsk District changed during the designated period. After the economic zoning carried out in 1925, six districts of the former Mariinsky and five districts of Narymsky counties were included in the district. In order to objectively study the Tomsk network of rural settlements when characterizing its condition in 1926, the author took into account the settlements of only those nineteen districts that were part of the Tomsk district earlier, in the pre-revolutionary period (together with the Narym region).

The main source for studying the dynamics of the number and size of the rural settlement network of the Tomsk County/district were the "Lists of populated places" published by the central statistical authorities both in the pre-revolutionary and early Soviet periods. The information presented in the "Lists" about the types of settlements, the number of courtyards and the number of inhabitants in them help to recreate the picture of rural settlement in the subregion, to trace the development of the settlement network in historical dynamics, to determine the influence of political, administrative and socio-economic factors on the state of the network.

 

The main partBy the beginning of the 1900s, Tomsk County was an area of old agricultural and commercial development, the area of which was 248,036 square miles (together with the Narym region).

In 1910, 627,907 people lived in the county, of which 440,980 people (70.2%) lived in rural areas [4; p. 3]

The harsh natural and climatic conditions of the northern part of Tomsk County, the predominance of swamp-taiga, unsuitable for habitation lands, their inaccessibility and remoteness from the more developed southern territories of the region had a significant impact on the unevenness of the current settlement system. Thus, the population density in the county in 1910 was 2.5 people per square mile. At the same time, in the northern volosts of the Narym Region, which occupied 79% of the entire territory of the county (196,536 square miles), there were only 20,762 inhabitants (0.1 people per square mile) [1; p. 224]. In the remaining Tomsk volosts located to the south, 420 218 people lived (8.1 people per square mile).

The uneven population of different districts of Tomsk County affected the density of the rural settlement network. So, by 1926, out of 3289 settlements in the district, 819 were located in the areas of the former Narym Region (24.9% of the entire settlement network). Thus, in the Narym part of the district, 240 square versts per locality accounted for, while in other districts – 20.8 square versts.

The analysis of the "Lists" of rural settlements for 1904, 1911 and 1926 showed a positive trend in the number of settlements of the county/district in the period under review (see Table 1).

Table 1

Number of rural settlements of various types in Tomsk County/district (1904-1926)

Type of settlement

onethousandninehundredfour

onethousandninehundredeleven

onethousandninehundredtwentysix

abs.

%

abs.

%

abs.

%

Village

87

9,4

90

6,6

127

3,9

Village

404

43,9

462

33,8

698

21,2

Village

94

10,2

376

27,5

436

13,3

Farmstead

1

0,1

46

3,4

1184

36,0

Squatting

27

2,9

13

0,9

381

11,6

Settlement

23

2,5

23

1,7

87

2,6

Settlements

9

1,0

23

1,7

Mill

5

0,5

2

0,1

25

0,8

Yurts

230

25,0

179

13,1

219

6,6

Villages near the railway (station, siding, booth, barracks checkpoint)

6

0,7

3

0,2

55

 

1,7

Villages of other types

35

3,8

150

11,0

77

2,3

Total921

100

1367

100

3289

100

Calculated by: [6; 9; 10].

 

The data in Table 1 show that for twenty-two years (from 1904 to 1926), the number of rural settlements in the Tomsk District increased 3.6 times. At the same time, the settlement network grew most intensively in the 1910s and 1920s.

The analysis of the obtained data on the network of rural settlements allows us to conclude about the structural shifts in the typology of settlements that have occurred over a quarter of a century. There is a noticeable decrease in the share of villages with the status of villages, villages and yurts in the settlement network of the characterized administrative-territorial unit. At the same time, there is an obvious tendency to increase the share of farms, locks and "railway" villages (stations, sidings, barracks, booths) in the total number of settlements of the county/district.

The increase in the number of farms and settlements, which were mainly small villages (1-5 yards), indicates the spread of farmstead land use, especially among immigrants.  By 1926, 36% of peasant land use was occupied by farms in the Tomsk District, although as early as 1904 the share of villages of this type was negligible 0.1% here [9]. Zaimki were most often found in the northern districts of the district. In 1926, out of 381 villages with the status of zaimka, 102 were in the Parabelsky district, 160 – in the Chainsky, located in the forest-taiga part of the subregion [9].

The construction and commissioning of the Trans-Siberian Railway led to the appearance of new types of settlements in the 1890s (stations, sidings, barracks, semi-barracks, roadblocks). During the first quarter of the XX century. the number of such villages in the district increased 9.2 times.

Settlements that had settlement status in the 1900s and 1910s had disappeared from the typical structure of rural settlements of the district by 1926. Some of them received the status of a village, others ceased to exist.

A reflection of the state policy to encourage the resettlement movement to Siberia was a fourfold increase in the share of resettlement settlements in the network of settlements of Tomsk County in the period from 1904 to 1911. In seven years, 282 new settlements were formed in the county [6; 10]. In subsequent years, there was a decline in the migration flow to the region, as a result, from 1911 to 1926, only 60 new villages with the named status appeared on the territory of the county [10; 9].

The study of the typology of Tomsk settlements by three time slices gives grounds to characterize the rural settlement network as dynamic, and, at the same time, complexly structured. So, in addition to settlements of common types (village, village, settlement, farmstead, zaimka, yurt), in the typical structure of the settlement network in 1904 there were villages with a rare status of a site, camp, frontier. A small number of settlements of the listed types allowed them to be included in the column "villages with a different status" (see Table 1). By 1911, this column included settlements of such types as a winter quarters, a camp, a plot. By 1926, camps, winter quarters, settlements, borders disappeared from the typical structure of the settlement network, but villages with the status of a state farm, farms, communes appeared. This became possible due to the change in the agrarian policy of the Soviet state, the essence of which was the reorientation of the peasant from communal-farmstead land use to collective-farm-state farm. In the following decades, the result of such a policy will be the settlement of farms, settlements, small villages into collective farms, as a result of which the typical structure of the rural settlement network will be replenished with communes, agricultural artels, state farms, while farms, settlements, single-family settlements as types of settlements will disappear.

The period of the 1910s-1920s was marked by changes in the size of Tomsk settlements. According to the data obtained on the average size of settlements of various types in terms of the number of courtyards and the number of inhabitants presented in Table 2, almost all types of Tomsk settlements, with the exception of villages and yurts, will be subject to the process of unbundling.

Table 2

The average size of settlements of different types by the number of yards and the number of inhabitants in Tomsk county/district (1911-1926)

 

Type of settlement

onethousandninehundredeleven

onethousandninehundredtwentysix

yards

residents

yards

residents

Village

140

845

175

817

Village

63

369

58

303

Village

44

264

37

164

Farmstead

15

66

11

58

Squatting

6

36

5

23

Settlement

13

97

9

51

Settlements

22

137

Mill

3

17

2

8

Yurts

8

41

22

106

Villages near the railway (station, siding, booth, barracks checkpoint)

 

40

 

153

 

17

 

68

Villages of other types

30

237

18

69

Total

47282

32

151

Calculated by: [6; 9; 10].

 

The average size of the Tomsk village decreased in fifteen years (1911-1926) from 47 to 32 households, from 282 to 151 inhabitants [10; 9].

The ambiguity of changes in the indicators of the size of settlements with the status of a village is noted. Simultaneously with the enlargement of villages by the number of yards, there is a reduction in the number of their inhabitants. In other words, in villages, as in settlements of other types, the population of the peasant household decreases. Similar processes were characteristic of villages of the "foreign" type, which had the status of yurts.

One of the reasons for the unbundling of Tomsk villages was the spread of individual land use in the period under review, the continuation of the practice of evicting peasants to farms, which began during the Stolypin agrarian reform. Confirmation of this can be considered a sharply increased number of farms in the Tomsk district by 1926 and an increase in their share in the total number of settlements for a quarter of a century by more than a third.

The demographic factor played a certain role in reducing the size of rural settlements: there was a decrease in the average size of a peasant household from 6 people in 1911 to 4.7 people in 1926 [10; 9].

In general, the decrease in the population of the peasant yard was caused by a combination of interrelated reasons: urbanization accelerated during the NEP period, demographic losses during the First World War and the Civil War, the popularity of the farm system of farming, increased family divisions.

 

ConclusionThe state of the rural settlement network of the Tomsk Uyezd/district in the first quarter of the XX century was subjected to changes caused by a change in the course of the state in conducting agrarian and resettlement policy, as well as economic and socio-cultural modernization in the Siberian Region and in the country as a whole.

The massive influx of immigrants from European Russia, which peaked during the years of P.A. Stolypin's agrarian reform, led to a significant expansion of the Tomsk settlement network, which resulted in an increase in the number of rural settlements from 921 in 1904 to 3289 in 1926 (3.6 times!).

At the same time, the density (density) The settlement network in the sub-region under consideration increased as it moved from north to south, from extremely sparse to relatively dense (especially in the suburban area of Tomsk). 

The natural and geographical factor had a significant impact on the size of the Tomsk village. If in the northern Kargasoksky, Alexandrovsky, Kolpashevsky districts the average settlement numbered 17, 24 and 28 yards, respectively, then in the Yurginsky and Sudzhensky districts located to the south, the average size of settlements was 36 and 44 yards.

During the period under review, significant structural shifts occurred in the typology of the rural settlement network of the Tomsk County/district. Camps, winter quarters, borders, settlements disappeared, state farms, artels, farms, communes appeared in their place. By 1926, the most common type of settlements were farms. For a quarter of a century, the share of railway locks and villages (stations, sidings, barracks and semi-barracks, checkpoints) has increased. The number and share of resettlement settlements in the structure of the settlement network changed in waves: until 1911, these indicators grew, later they decreased.

Simultaneously with the expansion of the Tomsk settlement network, the process of unbundling its constituent units took place. In the period from 1911 to 1926, the indicators of the number of households and the number of people of different types of settlements decreased. The positive dynamics in the yard was inherent only in villages and yurts, their average value in the specified period increased from 140 to 175 and from 8 to 22 yards, respectively. Villages of other types showed negative dynamics in the number of yards. All types of rural settlements were characterized by a decrease in the number of inhabitants, as well as a decrease in the population of the peasant household from 6 to 4.7 people.

The described trends in the development of the Tomsk village in the first quarter of the XX century, which resulted from political and socio-economic changes in the country, will continue in the following decades and will lead to serious shifts in both quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the rural settlement system in the region.

References
1. Bobrova A.I., Rykun M.P., Tuchkov A.G., Chernova I.V. Narym Ob region in the II millennium AD (X–XX centuries). Tomsk: Tomsk State pedagogical university, 2016. 278 p.
2. Voronin B.A., CHupina I.P., Voronina Ya.V. The Russian village: problems of abandonment of rural settlements // Agrarian Bulletin of the Urals. 2019. No. 7 (186). Pp. 88-91.
3. Kurilov V.N. The settlement of Russian old-timers of Western Siberia in the middle of the XIX century. Novosibirsk: PrePress Studio, 2005. 220 p.
4. Review of Tomsk province in 1910. Tomsk : Printing house of the Provincial Administration, 1912. 55, [90] p.
5. Ovcharova M.A Agrarian migrations of the late 1920s–1940s to Western Siberia: causes, conditions, settlements // Historical Courier. 2019. No. 4(6). Pp. 51-63.
6. Memorial book of Tomsk Gubernia for 1904 Tomsk: Tomsk Provincial statistical committee, 1904. 268 p.
7. Plyasulya A.A. Forced state farm construction in Western Siberia (1928-1931) // Historical Courier. 2022. No. 4 (24). Pp. 111-122.
8. Pospelova S.V. Settlement of the territory of the Asinovsky district in 1895-1917. // Asinovskaya Land: materials of the II local history readings "Native land – Prichulymye". Asino, 1996. Pp. 31-35.
9. List of populated places of the Siberian Territory. Vol. 2: Districts of North-Eastern Siberia. Novosibirsk: Sibkraizdat, 1929. 952 p.
10. List of settlements of Tomsk province in 1911 Tomsk: Tomsk Provincial statistical committee, 1911. 576 p.
11. Usol'ceva O.V. Rural settlement network of the Tomsk region (1940s-1980s). Tomsk: Publishing house "DEMOS", 2018. 268 p.
12. Horohordin G.S. Reflection of socio-economic development of rural settlements of Tomsk county on cartographic materials of the second half of the XIX – first quarter of the XX century // Interexpo GEO-Siberia. 2021. Vol. 5. Pp. 71-76.
13. Horohordin G.S. The use of cartographic materials of the late XIX – early XX centuries in characterizing the process of development of the rural settlement network of the Tomsk district of the Tomsk province // Bulletin of the Tomsk State University. History. 2021. No. 70. Pp. 144-151.
14. Horohordin G.S. The development of the land transport system of the rural settlement network of the Tomsk district-county in the second half of the XIX – first quarter of the XX century. // News of the Altai State University. 2021. No. 6 (122). Pp. 56-61.
15. Bjarnason T., Stockdale A., Shuttleworth I., Eimermann M., Shucksmith M. At the intersection of urbanisation and counterurbanisation in rural space: Microurbanisation in Northern Iceland // Journal of Rural Studies. 2021. Vol. 87. Pp. 404–414. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.09.009
16. Kubeš J., Ouředníček M. Functional types of suburban settlements around two differently sized Czech cities // Cities. 2022. Vol. 127. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264275122001810
17. Li L., Li X., Hai B., Wang X., Xu J. Evolution of rural settlement in an inland nonmetropolitan region of China at a time of rapid urbanisation: The case of Gongyi // Journal of Rural Studies. 2020. Vol. 79. Pp. 45–56. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.08.003
18. Li H., Song W. Evolution of rural settlements in the Tongzhou District of Beijing under the new-type urbanization policies // Habitat International. 2020. Vol. 101. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2020.102198
19. Li Y., Ye Yu, Fang X., Zheng X., Zhao Z. Settlement expansion influenced by socio-cultural changes in western Hunan mountainous areas of China during the eighteenth century // Journal of Historical Geography. 2022. 8 September. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhg.2022.07.010
20. Lu Y., Song W., Lyu Q. Assessing the effects of the new-type urbanization policy on rural settlement evolution using a multi-agent model // Habitat International. 2022. Vol. 127. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2022.102622

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.

Review of the article "Tomsk village in the 1900s-1920s: dynamics of population and size" The subject of the study is rural settlements of the Tomsk county /district in the early twentieth century. The work uses the collective term "Tomsk village". The methodology of the research is based on such methodological principles as the dialectical-materialistic method of cognition and substantiation of the phenomena of social life, including the scientific principles of system analysis, objectivity in the study of problems of social development, the principles of historicism and science. Historical-situational and historical-retrospective methods are also used. According to them, each historical phenomenon under study is considered in inextricable connection with a specific situation (by identifying the interaction of motives, intentions and actions of various social groups of the population) and in historical retrospect. The author also applied the statistical method as the main one in identifying quantitative characteristics in comparison. The relevance of the topic is obvious. Throughout the XVII- XX centuries, Russia developed the Siberian region and the process of its settlement took place in stages. The study of the stages of development of a new region, the adaptation of the Russian population in the region, the interaction of migrants and the local population and many other issues are of interest and these issues do not lose their relevance. But some issues have not received proper coverage to date, including the life of the Tomsk peasantry, especially in the crucial 1920s, when the village (village) faced a number of serious challenges changing the prevailing way of life and everyday life. The study of these processes and events that took place in different regions contributes to understanding the patterns and features of the development of our country in the early 20th century (1900- 1920s), which are of particular interest. The scientific novelty of the work lies in the fact that for the first time in the reviewed work an attempt was made to study the dynamics of the development of rural settlements in the 1900s–1920s, their types and numbers. The author sets a goal and, as he himself notes, for the first time such indicators as the number of rural settlements of the county/district, their size, and typical structure are taken as the basis for the characteristics. The novelty of the research is also seen in the objectives of the study. Style, structure, content. The style of the article is academic, at the same time, the article is written in a language that is understandable to a wide range of specialists. The article is well structured and consists of an introduction, the main part and a conclusion. The undoubted advantage of the article is that in the introduction the author gave a good historiographical review of the literature on the topic under study, which gives a deeper understanding of the author's work as a whole. The author is well versed in the issue under study, as can be seen from the bibliography of the work, which consists of 20 positions, including 6 works in English. Appeal to opponents is presented in the analysis of the material collected by the author, excellent command of the material and in-depth analysis of sources, literature and the topic under study in general, Conclusions, and the interest of the readership. The author's conclusions are objective and deserve serious attention. The author notes that "the state of the rural settlement network of the Tomsk uyezd/district in the first quarter of the 20th century was subjected to changes caused by a change in the course of the state in conducting agrarian and resettlement policies, as well as economic and socio-cultural modernization in the Siberian Territory and in the country as a whole." Noting that the increase in the number of inhabitants of the Tomsk village occurred during the years of the Stolypin reform, the author states that in the 1920s, during the period of Soviet agrarian policy, the typology of settlements changed, some grew and others shrank, as well as the population in settlements changed. The article will undoubtedly arouse the interest of specialists and it will also be interesting to a wide range of readers interested in the history of Russia, as well as the history and life of the Russian, Siberian village. The article is recommended for publication.