Dvina Land: in search of identity

The problem is now becoming ever more relevant, firstly , because of insufficient of all the package of sources and literature, evidently, «Forgotten» and unused in both the period of Soviet civilization and during transformation processes of pole shifting since the end of the 20th century. Secondly , interdisciplinary approaches use of web-analytics and other methods create great opportunities for historical science and any reader, which was impossible to dream about. Electronic resources allow to publish not only dull scientific, sometimes even boring text, but also pictures, illustrations, maps in color, what enrich readers’ perception.

During preparation of an article we used general scientific methods of analysis and synthesis, historicism, consistency, interdisciplinary approaches and web-analytics. Following sources were used: historical and trucial charters of great dukes with Novgorod; clerical charters of great Moscow dukes; private charters of Veliky Novgorod; Acts of archeography expeditions (AAE, vol.1); Monuments to diplomatic relations between Muscovite state and England from 1584 to 1604 (RIO, vol. 38); archive documents of SAAR (State archive of Arkhangelsk region), f. 57; Complete set of Russian chronicles (Novgorod, Kholmogory, Dvinskoy letopisec, etc.); archeological artifacts. Study of object and subject of research is done taking into account preceding scientific publications of Demchuk G.V., Edovin A.G., Zorina A.A., Klyuchevskiy V.O., Krestinin V.V., Ovsyannikov O.V., Platonov S.F., Sadikov P.A., Sudarenkov V.V., Tihomirov M.N., Yanin V.L.

Problems of chronology and localization of the Dvina land

Deterministic dominance and the living base of the whole Dvina land in historical past was the Northern Dvina river. Without water, given by God to dozens of generations, Northern lands could have appeared to be inaccessible and undeveloped. Along rivers and lakes, with use of logways, water systems continued to develop areas of Russian North, Pechora, Yugra, Siberia, coasts of White and other areas; connection with center and north-west of Russia was provided.

Importance of the Dvina land is determined, first and foremost, by existing natural and cultural landscape, as well as by number of other factors of historical evolution.

Hydrologic system of the Northern Dvina with its affluents was connected during centuries through log-ways, channels, hydraulic structures, other rivers and lakes with other parts of Russia, had a gate through the White sea to three world oceans: Arctic, Pacific and Atlantic.

The richest natural resources of Dvina and other northern lands gave opportunities for colonization and their exploitation in the era of Veliky Novgorod, in the period of socioeconomic development of Russia as centralized state.

Human capital — is people, who from way back reclaimed coasts of northern rivers and the White sea, transport routes and natural resources, has always been reproduced in the Russian North, promoted development of shipbuilding, sea, river and timber industries, culture and participation in Arctic expeditions here.

Sea route from England to Persia through the White sea, trading route in the Volga and the Caspian sea composed the basis of Russian transport infrastructure in external and internal trading, had geopolitical meaning, promoted development of Russian economy. Arkhangelsk in the Northern Dvina river's offing became famous meeting place of Russian orthodox and west-european civilizations, the first Arctic sea port in Russia, which has not lost its significance.

Traditional culture of the Northerners, which included artifacts, buildings, tools and subjects of labour, culture, clothes, customs, people’s relations, their values and inward habit, some kind of conservatism during a long period of time was preserved in the Russian North.

All these in its civilizational aggregate and change of generations through time created the so-called natural and cultural environment, historical and modern landscape. «Russian natural landscape science can be considered as great evidence in science, especially its «natural» direction, oriented to exploitation of undeveloped land. Objectively it was brought along geographical features of Russia, its wast space, low density of population and unbroken (natural) landscapes», — underlined V.V. Sudarenkov, noticing magnitude of landscape as investigated, social, national

(ethnic) and historical spaces [1]. «Basins of Sukhona, Northern Dvina and its left afflux of the Vaga river were the richest and the most populated in the whole Russian North. This region equitably could be called the Dvina land», — appointed a famous historian M.N. Tihomirov [2, p. 229].

Dvina land, historically transforming in time and space, as multidisciplinary object of research could be determined systematically in different dimensions: landscape-natural, history-geographical, administrative-managerial, cultural, socio-economical, geopolitical and mythic. Sometimes pointed dimensions are concentrated together and it is important clearly to separate the key one among them.

Firstly , Dvina Land — is natural landscape (locality), environment, inside of which chief landscape components were formed and existed without people’s participation. The Northern Dvina with the square of 357 thousand sq. km and the length of 744 km. is the main such a component, and the length of all rivers in the basin of the Northern Dvina is 7693 kilometers. Natural landscape of the Northern Dvina basin, pouring in the White sea — is genetically single natural-territorial complex which has mostly alike geological fundament, type of relief, climate, and natural boundaries. The characteristic criterion here — is historical appearance of the river Northern Dvina itself, its affluents, on which coasts began to evolve life. Landscape was permanently changing, including the influence of man, and being under cultivation. How these territories could be called in future, they were, are, and will stay always the Dvina land according to its landscape-environmental geolocation. In this idea we can historically overview Dvina area in different epoch and times from the Paleolithic age to modern era, speak about changes in climate, landscape, different cultural-ethic waves of civilization, closely connecting evolution of Dvina land with wider history-geographical, geological and paleontological concepts since those times, when the Northern Dvina river flows, running into the White sea.

Picture 1. Skeleton of the Dvina barbs. URL:

Exposition of red clays of permian period on the coasts of the Northern Dvina provide evidence of, for example, those times, when here were tropics, and the age of founded interment (Sokolki and others) of theromorphs reptiles of permian period is determined in 270—250 million years [3]. Permian sediments in river Sukhona and the Upper Northern Dvina investigated and conducted diggings in Sokolki a famous Russian geologist, paleontologist Vladimir Prohorovich Amalitsky (1860—1917), who explored unique «Dvina» barbs, which bones were called as national treasure and form «North-

Dvina gallery» of paleontology.

Geological past of the Northern Dvina is investigated in work of L.L. Ilyina and A.K. Grahov [4]. Northern territories, the Arctic were populated by first primitive men, when there geologically didn’t exist even the Northern Dvina river itself, which is rather young and is not older than the peak of Valdai icing [5, p. 5]. That’s why materials of excavator archaeology of ancient paleolithic sites in Arctic, in the North possess evident scientific interest.

Secondly , Dvina land in Scandinavian and other sources, on maps was usually identified with mythic Bjarmeland, on which localization there are still different supposes, reflected in legends (Iceland sagas), on foreign maps and in literature. This mythic dimension of Dvina Land rouses artistic imagination, but the resource basis by that is rather limited and not always accessible. It failed to find any remains of Bjarmeland in Russian chronicles, and foreign sources, including sagas, are extremely contradictory. Myths of Dvina Land are founded in Russian chronicles. Lands in delta of the Northern Dvina were inhabited from war back, — Dvina chronicler tells us: «Жите-лие убо двинские вначале именовахуся заволоческая чудь, последи же, реки ради великия Двины, проименовахуся двиняне» ¹ («Inhabitants of the Dvina were firstly named Zavolo-cheskaya chud’, but later, in behalf of the Northern Dvina, they began to be called Dvinyane»). But discovery by archeologists of placement of primitive men dated back to times, when there was no mentions about «chud’». Colonization of Northern territories took place in Late Glacial Period, when warming was felt under foot, flora appeared, forests began to move to the North, in other words it appeared environmentally-climatic conditions, suitable for human being. Dvina Land, Be-lomorie North — were long ago the habitat of life-sustaining activity, archeological cultures, unknown for us, insufficiently investigated, unidentified to a full degree. Ancient reclamation of Solovetsky Islands in Belomorie, for example, began at the turn of Mesolithic and Neolithic eras in the middle of the Vth century BCE [6, p. 311].

Name «Dvinyane» is founded in Vologda-Perm chronicle at the beginning of the 14th century: «В лето 6832 (1324). Иде великий князь Юрьи Данилович с Ноугородцы на Заволочье, и взяша Устюг на щитъ и поидоша на Двину, и добиша ему челом Двиняне , и отъиде» («In summer 6832 (1324). Goes great duke Yurii Danilovich from Novgorod to Zavolochye, and occupying Ustyug they came to Dvina, and making their bow to Dvinyane , they left»)². Population of Dvi-

Арктика и Север. 2014. № 17 na land were called Dvinyane in letter of Grand Duke Johann Vasilyevich, contrary to kargopol’cy, onezhane, turchasovcy and pomorcy (16th century).

Thirdly , in source studies and native historiography Dvina Land is identified with Zavo-lochye, which are used as identical definitions, though they are not the same. In trucial chapters of the XII-XVth centuries is founded term «Zavolochye», but there is no mention of «Dvina Land». One of the first mentioning of Zavolochye dates back to 1264 in trucial chapter of Novgorod with Tver great duke Yaroslav Yaroslavovich³. Name «Dvina Land» is clearly identified in historical Dvina charter of great Duke Vasiliy Dmitrievich of 1398 ⁴. Definition «Zavolochye» and «Dvina Land» are written in clerical letters of the XVIth century independently. In «Dvina Chronicle», composed by by L.L. Titov, he uses such terms as «Dvina region», «Dvina Krai»⁵ .

Fourthly , living time of Zavolochye and Dvina Land demands for improvement. Chronological frames of Dvina Land in encyclopedias are pointed rather approximately and not so reasonably: as historical name in the 14—16th centuries territories in the basin of the Northern Dvina, in the 11—15th centuries — demesne of Novgorod, in 1397—1398 under the power of Moscow, since 1478 in centralized Russian state; up to the 15th century it was known under the name of Zavo-lochye. But these chronological frames not always correspond to reality. On the basis of artifacts, A.G. Edovin, A.A. Zorina, O.V. Ovsyannikov, V.L. Yanin and other scientists refer appearance of Slavic settlements in Zavolochye to the 10th century. Dvina Land, Dvina province, Dvina district really existed, transforming as administrative-territorial structures of government in Novgorod republic, Grand Duchy of Muscovy and in Russian State up to 1775.

It considered earlier that active intrusion of Slavic people to the territory of the Russian North began since turn of 11-12th centuries. Appearance of Novgorod people in northern territories a well-known historian dated back to, for example, first half of the 11th century, based on chronicles on campaign of Ulyba in 1032 against Zhelezniye Vorota. Earlier dating of Dvina Land is possible and based on archeological artifacts, because written and other sources have practically run out of steam. V.L. Yanin, for example, refers his «locks» in sacks for taxes to 10-12th centuries. According to researches of famous archeologist O.V. Ovsyannikov alien Slavic population entered the North in 10-13th centuries. A.G Edovin viewed Zavolochye as historically geographical defini- tion, which in 10—11th centuries meant lands in midstream of the Northern Dvina, where burial grounds were founded. In his thesis research (2001), A.G. Edovin pointed that about the existence here of slavic settlements in 10—11th centuries there give evidence multiplicity of funeral memorials, and consequently, great density of population. When in X—XIth centuries these were lands in midstream of the Northern Dvina, where burial grounds of those times were founded, by the 12th century they develop over the whole Podvinye, occupying zones of both slavic and Finno-Ugric settlement [7, p.15].

Historical geography of Zavolochye in X-XIIth century was knowledgeably and particularly investigated in thesis research of A.A. Zorina [8]. There is no point to repeat historiography in this profile. Among the authors are named: A.N. Nasonov, M.V. Bitov, T.A. Bernstamm, Y.S. Vasilyev, M.V. Vitov, A.K. Matveev, N.A. Makarov, V.V. Pimenov, E.A. Ryabinin, A.M. Spiridonov, V.A. Sheleg, V.L. Yanin and others. Among number of current publications we would like to mention the book of Arkhangelsk historian G.V. Demchuk «Land formation in Dvina county in the 17th century» [9]. It conceptually overviews the whole system of landownership from the point of view of legal status of taxation and labour lands, character of interaction of all participants of land relations. Work of G.V. Demchuk is based on deep and comprehensive study of sources of different types and applications. These are: 1) cadastral sources in the form of cadasters, census, payment, estimate and account books of the Dvina land, as well as sotnaya vypis’ (abstracts from cadasters, given to landowners, tradespeople and peasants for their right to own lands and which was basis for computation of taxes) of the Dvina and other counties for the 17—18th centuries; 2) legislative acts (Law Books, charters and tsar’s decrees); 3) economic documentation of volost churches and monasteries counties for different years of the 17—18th centuries (account and payment books, property registers, etc.); 4) materials of running registering in XVII-XVIII centuries; 5) individual act material of the 17-18th centuries, which included poryadniye zapisi (documents for various contracts in Ancient Rus); 6) chronicles. In six appendixes of his book, G.V. Demchuk it is published extracts from cadasters of Miron Velyaminov 1622—1624 and other documents from Russian national archive of ancient acts (RNAAA). Information scholarly apparatus (abbreviation list, index of names, geographical index) was carefully accomplished.

Among the historians there are expressed different views on localization of Zavolochye. Some think Zavolochye to be a vast territory between basins of Onega and Pechora rivers. Others think that it was just a basin of the Northern Dvina river, identifying it with Dvina land. V.O. Klyuchevsky in his lectures about Veliky Novgorod, for example, besides Novgorod pyatina (territorial entity, «fifth part of the land»), he also specified counties in the North-west — «Zavolochye or

Dvina land», in other words he identified them. These are, according to Klyuchevsky, lands situated out of voloko (part of dry land, situated between two basins, through which goods were deliveder), great dividing range, separating basins of Onega and Northern Dvina from the basin of Volga. From Dvina land to north-west was situated Pechera county on both banks of the same called river, and than across Ural Yugra county; on banks of the White sea - Tre county and Tersky brink. Even in XIth century inhabitants of Novgorod went to take taxes across the Dvina to Pechora and in the XIIth century to Tersky brink [10, pp. 57 — 58]. To widening of territories favored not only military-industrial but also peasant, monastery colonization of Northern territories. V.O. Klyuchevsky underlined priority of boyar (commercial) colonization over peasant and monastery (agricultural). Process of Novgorod colonization led to appearance on the banks of the Northern Dvina River of burial grounds (pogosty), understood as administrative districts, small districts, from which taxes were taken (podatnaya edinica), place of parish churches. Most of mentioned burial grounds in Obonezhye, on banks of the Northern Dvina River and its affluxes was localized with the help of researches made by Doctor of historical sciences A.N. Nasonov (1898 — 1965). One of the earliest mentions on burial grounds on Dvina in other placed dates back to 1137.

In Rule by duke Svyatoslav Ol’govich, dated «summer 6645», where were fixed charges to saint Sofya from judicial incomes of duke, the fixed sum of annual tithe was 100 hryvnas, independent from real incomes of duke, which must come to Novgorod Master (archbishop), it is determined order of gathering and norms of ducal rent for each burial ground6. In this document there is no practically direct mention of the term «Zavolochye», but just burial grounds are localized. In Tudorov burial ground — situated by Tudozero, not far from south-east coast of the Onega Lake; in Ivan’ burial ground — according to A.N. Nosov belongs to Ivanovsky burial ground, included in Kholmogory; in Rakula — along the Northern Dvina River, 58 km higher than Kholmogory; in Spir-kovka — in the district of the River Pid’ma offing in Svir’; at Vihtuya — according to A.N. Nosov at the River Pinega; in Pinesa — on the River Pinega; in Kegrel’ — in middle reach of the Pinega River; Em’ze offing — offing of the Emza River; Vag offing — offing of the Vag river; at Puita — River Puya, left afflux of the Vaga River; at Chudin — Chudskoy bank in 120 km from Vologda; according to A.N. Nasonov — in the region of Shenkursk; at Liguya — according to B.D. Grakov Lidul-fost; at Vavdit (Vivdit, Valdit) — in the district of Vadlo Lake; at Vel’ — Vel’sk at fall of Vel’ into Vaga; at Vekshenza — River Vekshenga, left afflux of the Suchona River; at Borku, in Toima — at the left coast of the Northern Dvina; at Pome — head of the River Sysola; at Toshma — Tot’ma or Shozh-ma; at Penenich — at the river Pinega; at Porogopustysh — by the river Onega; at Voloza in Mosha — at the Lake Mosha; at Yem’ — by inhabitants of Koreliya 7. Collectors of taxes (judicial tenth) — a duke «domazhirich» from territories of low Dvina and its affluxes (Pinega and others) was situated in Onega. In articles 6 and 7 is was mentioned (these additions could have appeared later) Ob-onezhsky ryad — lands along the rivers Svir’, Pashe, Syasy, Oyati, Olonke (Olonec), between Ladoga and Onega Lakes and others; as well as Bezhicky ryad near demesnes of Suzdal’ at the low Volga, burial grounds along the rivers Mologa and Osen’, Rybinsk by fall of Sheksna into Volga, etc.

One of the first written mentions of the concept «Zavolochye» (still other dates are unknown to us, though they could be) appeared only 1264 in Conventional letter of posadnik Mikhail, tysiats-kii of Kondrat, from all captains and seniors and from the Novgorod with Great Tver duke Yaroslav Yaroslavovich⁸, where made rules of their relations: to follow the same tax, as the father; not to deprive land no-fault; not to give letters without posadnik of county. Were listed following lands: Bezhiche, Gorodec, Melecha, Shipino, Egna, Vologda, Zavolochye , Koloperem, Tre, Perem, Yugra, Pechera; they were under Novgorod rule and were taken taxes [GVNP. №1]. North-eastern areas Zavolochye, Tre, Perem’, Yugra and Pechera were listed in two further letters of Novgorod 1266 and 1270 with the same duke Yaroslav Yaroslavovich ⁹.

Zavolochye was traditionally mentioned in the XIV-XVth centuries in Conventional letters of Novgorov with dukes: in 1304—1305, 1307—1308 with Tver grand duke Mikhail Yaroslavovich; in 1326—1327, 1371 with Tver gdand duke Alexander Mikhailovich; in 1435, 1456 (about peace in Yazheblicy) with Grand Duke of Moscow and all Russia Vasily Vasilyevich10. In Novgorod letter about peace dated back to August, 11, 1477 with Grand dukes of all Russia Joannes Vasilyevich and his son Joannes Joannovich «from Novgorod posadnik Timofey Ostafyevich, Novgorod tysiats-kii Vasiliy Maksimovich, from all the Veliky Novgorod and his posadniks: Ivan Lukinich, Yakov Aleksandrovich, Fefilat Zaharyinich, Luka Feodorovich, Ivan Valilyevich; from inhabitants: Luka Osta-fyevich, Aleksandr Klementyevich, Feodor Ievlich, Okinf Vasilyevich, Dmitry Mikhailovich», — there was mention of Zavolochye: «Torzhok, Bezhichy, Gorodez Palez, Shipina, Melecha, Egna, Zavo- lochye, Tigr, Perm, Pechera, Yugra11.

Used in Novgorod letters names «Zavolochye, Tre, Perm, Yugra, Pechera» mean dependent on Veliky Novgorov volost’ (volost’ — power), situated in remoted north-eastern territories. Novgorod inhabitants called their lands «Land of saint Sophia». The word «volost’» in Old Russian had number of meanings: «power, law», «region, country under one common power» and «private ownership». Volost’ — is a small territorial entity under the same power. Inside Dvina land, according to some sources, — as considers G.V. Demchuk, — in the 14 — 15th centuries the term «volost’» was not used as administrative-territorial or tax-payment unity. Institution of volost’ was later introduced by Moscow dukes [9, p. 112].

On content and structure of Dvina settlements we can learn from charters and letters of dukes, lists of Dvina lands, other published acts (AAE), where are mentioned tenths of generations, situated both in upper and lower Northern Dvina river, basins of rivers Vaga, Emca, Onega, Pinega, Mezen ¹². Letter of grand duke Andrey Aleksandrovich about Dvina with informa-tion about heels and carts for for three grand duke gangs, going to tradings, dates back to 1294—1304 [GVNP № 83]. In Novgorod letter of 1328 — 1341 are mentioned Dvina posadnik in Khol-mogory and Dvina boyars: «From grand duke, from Ivan, from posadnik Danil, from tysiatskii Avram and from the whole Novgorod to Dvina posadnik in Kholmogory and to Dvina boyars. Ordered Mikhail to go to the sea with twenty people». This letter, aimed to resolve a conflict and regulate relationship between Mikhail and Mikifor, notices «Kegrolsky and Volock burial grounds» [GVNP. № 85].

The most important source is considered to be Dvina charters of Grand duke Vasily Dmitrievich of 1397, where, firstly, the name «Dvina land» is mentioned, but not «to the Dvina»: «It is I, Grand duke of all Russia Vasily Dmitrievich, who granted Dvina land to my Dvina boyars, as well as to sotskiy and all the rabbles»; «in Dvina land». Secondly, Dvina settlements are mentioned, existing since the end of the 14th century, when Mikhailo-Arkhangelsk monastery was founded, which gave birth to Arkhangelsk. Among Dvina settlements were pointed: Orlenzy, Matigory, Kol-mogory, Kurostrovo, Chuhchelema, Ukhtostrovo, Kur’ji, Knazhostrov, Lisichostrov, Konechniye dvory, Krivoye, Rakula, Navolok, Chelmakhta, Emca, Kal’ji, Kiriegor, Toimy Nizhniye; settlements on the bank of the White sea: Nenoksa, Una, Umba; and also trade route to Ustyug, Vologda and Kostroma [GVNP. № 88]. In charter of Novgorod veche (town’s meeting in medieval Russia) to or- phans of Terpilov burial ground of about 1411 it was mentioned name «Dvina sloboda» (settlement) or «dvina inhabitant slobodchanin» [GVNP. № 89].

According to letters of internal governance, personal letters of Veliky Novgorod (Dvina, Va-ga, Obonezhje) we have an opportunity to analyze localization of tenth of burial grounds, grounds, agricultural lands, rivers, islands, fishings, churches, ancestral lands of Mikhailo-Arkhangelsk, Nikolayevsk, Chuhchemsky¹³, Solovetsky monasteries, personal names of Dvina inhabitants [GVNP. №123 — 278, 279 — 282, 283 — 330]. In these chronicles is shown various life activities of Dvina land, when and what was sold, bought, presented to monasteries and heritors. Names of Dvina settlements (countries, villages, burial grounds, monastery settlements), personal names of Dvina inhabitants at the end of the XIV-XV centuries are mentioned in ecclesiastical, merchants’, personal and heritable letters. According to one of merchants’ letters of the end of the 14th century, he-gumen Luka from Mikhail monastery with starosta and all conventual community, for example, bought from Gavrila Nosov land «left to Kurje». For half a settlement they gave seven rubles, one hundred squirrels for one ruble, and borders they determined in Top pass [GVNP. № 124]. According to merchants’ letter of the first quarter of the 15th century Grigory Vasilyevich bought from Grigory Semyonovich village Doroninskoye: yard, court, lands, stubbles, priterebs (tilled fields), agricultural lands, everything what had Grigory Semyonovich, for 30 forties (30 х 40 = 1200) of squirrels and half of cow [GVNP.№133]. Mikhailo Ofromeevich bought from priest Ortemiy settlement in Malaya Kehta for 9 forties (360) of squirrels and half of calf with all lands, stubbles and fisheries… [GVNP. №134]. Yakov Dmitrievich in 1445 signed away to Mikhail-Arkhangelsk monastery his property in Nenoksa, Knyazhostrov and river Syus’ma [GVNP. № 148]. In 1445 he bought from Osey and Grigory Baishiny part of Baishina settlement with agricultural lands [GVNP. № 149]. Schemamonk Grigory Ivanovich in ecclesiastical letter of the middle of the 15th century confirmed sale of his village at Lukino to Nikolayevsk Chuhchenemsky monastery [GVNP. № 155]. Given by Ivan Mikhailovich with wife Fedosya to Nikita Fedorovich and his daughter Evdokiya «village of the land Onashinskaya in Kurgonem’, as well as two pants, fur and corbeille girl Fenya», — dates back to XVth century [GVNP. № 254]. Samson Porfiryevich bought in the XVth century from Stepan Andreevich village «on Yemichi» and land on island Maliy [GVNP. № 264].

All in all in letters of Veliky Novgorod and Pskov [Moscow-Leningrad, 1949] to Dvina are concerned 156 private letters no. 123—278; to Vaga — 4 зno. 279 — 282; to Obonezhye — 37 no. 283 — 330. In such a way, greatest mass of merchants’, ecclesiastical, personal and other types of letters was preserved right about Dvinyane (inhabitant of Dvina), about their properties, presents, buy and sells of lands, fisheries, villages, settlements and stubbles. More often among all merchants’ letters are founded (60,9% from 156 of all Dvina letters).

Highly important historical significance have lists of Dvina lands. In reality - they are legitimized register of properties of all the Dvina land and its owners by the end of the XVth century. A.A. Shahmatov in his work noticed, that «Dvina land constituted unity: probably contrary to some Pomor settlements, based and inhabited by half-free migrants of Novgorod boyars and their or-phans» [11, p. 47]. In lists of Dvina land 1462 — 1471 are introduced placenames of districts, lands, rivers, burial grounds and settlements: Verhnyaya Toima, Sel’tso, Zaostrovje, Osinovo pole, Emezky burial ground, settlement in Emca, Pinega river’s offing, Vaimuga, Matigory, Knyazhostrov, Mehren’ga, Solombala, river Solga and others. In Belomorye are listed lands to the winter coast from Dvina offing to Onega offing, Nenoksa, Una and Unba; to the summer coast from Dvina river offing to Mezen offing, included in Dvina land.

All lands on Dvina belonged to grand duke of Moscow, and to the «winter coast from Dvina offing to Onega offing, all are lands of Grand Duke», as well as Una, Nenoksa, Korela Varsuiskaya and Umba. To the summer coast from Dvina offing by the sea to Mezen offing, and in Pinega. Together with it, other owners of lands along rivers Vaga, Kului and Vel’, as well as some small rivers and places are noticed. For instance, Morzhov mountain, Shastoozero, Emetskiy town, river Siya — it belonged to Konstantin Vladimirovich Rostovsky. It was written 18 lists from judicial records about Dvina lands, among which 10 lists on lands, 3 lists against them, 5 lists on abbrochments. In the third list it were pointed areas, given to Novgorod Grand duke Vasiliy in Pinega and Mezen’.

One of ancient Arkhangelsk settlements — Solombala is founded in the list of Dvina lands in 1471 together with other settlements, by that names «Solombala» and «Solonbal’» are met at once. Before, in the beginning of the 15th century Solombala was mentioned in ryadnaya (seizure of trousseau with act of its disposal) of Valiliy Fyodorov with Novgorov posadnik Ivan Danilovich about bought of Andreev land in Solombala (Yakovcev and Karpcev islands), Izhma, Lod’ma and Una [GVNP. № 130]. «Solombala village» is mentioned in three documents of Arkhangelsk region Regional archive of 1519 and 152314. This vkladnaya of Afanasiy Nikitin to Arkhangel-Mikhail mo- nastery for Solombala village, bought from Pavlovy, dates back May, 17, 152315. Solombala, in fact, with its island territories and small village really in 15—16th centuries was territorial part of Arkhangelsk together with Mikhail-Arkhangel monastery. By all that, Solombala settlement was officially included into Arkhangelsk (connected to the city) just by the order of Aleksandr form February, 18, 1863. According to one of variants, name «Solombala» comes from Karelian word «solen-ba» and translating into Russian mean boggy, marshy and dirty island. There is also one beautiful myth about staying there of Peter the Great, who, in honor of floating of the first military native ship, organized the «ball on straw», with which he ordered to line mud. From here is the name of this area — Solombala (ball on straw). In reality, on May 18, 1694 Peter the First after the essential attendance of Kegostrov church went right to Solombala shipyard. On May the 20th, 1694 tsar himself undercut staging of built in Solombala shipyard in 1693—1694 of 24-gun military sailingship «Saint Paul», and later arranged a great banquet on it with cannonade [12, p. 58]. Myth on organization of a ball on straw is not proved out, but inhabitants of Solombala could rightly consider themselves to be first inhabitants of Arkhangelsk. Really, Solombala is older than Arkhangelsk military fortress, built 1583—1584. This is doubtless historical fact, confirmed by archeological researches. And myths themselves are necessary to attract tourists form other Russian cities and foreign countries, for creation of positive image of Solombala right here and now.

Letter of Veliky Novgorod to Dvina land on taking an oath (lipping the cross) of Novgorod to number of lands, which are becoming the property of duke Ivan IV dates back to August — December 15, 1471. All posadniks, tysiatskiis, boyars, people, merchants, bondmen, the whole Veliky Novgorod and Varoslavl veche were in point of fact given to Gran dukes of all Russia «to Pinega, and to Kegrola, and to Chakola, and to Perm, and to Mezen, and to Beliye gory, and to Nemyuga, and to Pineshka, and to Viya, and to Sura» [GVNP. № 98].

Certain structure of Zavolochye and Dvina land is determined also on the basis of analysis of ecclesiastical letters of Moscow grand dukes of the 14—16th centuries. From 11 studied by me bequests of grand Moscow dukes since 1339 to 1572 only in two of them are mentioned five fifths of Veliky Novgorod, as well as Zavolochye and Dvina land. In bequests of grand dukes Ivan Danilovich Kalita (about 1339), Dmitry Ivanovich (April, 13 — May, 16, 1389), Vasily II Vasilyevich (Temniy) (May, 3rd, 1461—March, 27th, 1462) Zavolochye and Dvina land are not mentioned. After joining of properties of Veliky Novgorod to Grand Duchy of Muscovy in 1478, Grand duke Ivan the third Vasilyevich by ecclesiastical letter, made by him in June, 16th of 1504, signed away to his son Vasily not only his ancestral lands (Grand Duchy of Moscovy), but also Veliky Novgorod with five fifths, with burial grounds, and all taxes; also «all Zavolotskaya land, Onega, Kargopol, all Poonezhye, Dvina, and Vaga, and Kokshenga, and Veliky Pogost, and Kholmogory, and all Dvina and Zavolotskaya land»; «and in Zavolotskaya land Rostov, Pinega and Kegrola, and Chakola, Perm, Mezen, Nemjuga, Beliye gory, Pineshka, Viya, Toima, Kirji gory, Emskaya gora on Vasa and Antonov passage, Korbola island, Shogogora, Karchella, Sura, Lyavlya and everything, which belonged to these lands». In ecclesiastical letter of tsar Ivan Vasilyevich (June—August, 1572) it is practically duplicated the same text: «I bless my son Ivan with Grand Duchy of Novgorod, with five fifths; «Zavolotskaya zemlya: Onega and Kargopol, and all Poonezhye, and Dvina, and Vaga, and Kokshenga, and Veliky pogost, and Kholmogory, and the whole Dvina Land, how it was by me» 16. Zavolotska land included the same settlements, which were mentioned earlier in 1504 by Ivan the Fourth. Definitions Zavolochye and Dvina Land are written in letters of the 16th century independently.

After annexation of Veliky Novgorod to Moskovy Duchy in 1478 Dvina land was divided into three lands: Dvinskaya, Vazhskaya and Onezhskaya . Dvina land is mentioned in charter of tsar Fyodor Ivanovich to English merchants from January, 1st, 1586¹⁷, in letter from February, 12, 1587 about Arkhangelsk faubourg. Tsar Fyodor makes a trading in Arkhangelsk, where must be concentrated all the trade from the whole Pomorie, «from their ancestral lands Dvina lands and from Kola [13, p. 55]. Kholmogory, which in the 15—16th centuries were considered to be administrative and trading-handicraft center of the Dvina land, lost its historical significance in 1702, when administrative and military center was transferred from Kholmogory to Arkhangelsk.

By the end of the 16th — beginning of the 17th centuries Dvina, Kevrol, Kola, Mezen and Pustozero uezdes were excluded from Dvina land. Dvina uezd in point of administrative relations seized lower course of the Northern Dvina river and southern coast of the Kola peninsula. In the 16th century to Dvina uezd belonged Umba and Varzuga districts (volosti), situated on the bank of the White Sea. In 1565 Dvina uezd was taken away in oprichnina (political and administrative apparatus established by ivan IV), but in 1577 «Kargopol and Dvina merged together» [14, p. 127].

In the 20s of the 17th century in Dvina land there lived about 31,6 thousand people, ground mass of whom were peasants, engaged in agriculture [9, p. 5]. Land possession was presented by: а) state labors; б) lease taxation lands of three types — chernososhniye (personally independent), servage and monastic. Chernososhniye lands prevailed in the Russian North land possession struc- ture of the 16—17th centuries. According to the first concept peasant was interim bearer, user of land, but the owner was state. According to another point of view, peasant was owner of land with the right to rule, personally independent and paid taxes in profit of state. Observed sources allowed G.V. Demchuk to make a conclusion, that in Dvina county chernososhny peasant was the owner of his taxation land, given during the process of mobilization land, but not right of its disposal and invested labor [9, pp. 108—115].

Owners of servage lands was state, and peasants and other servage people, including volost — were just owners-farmers. Labor-rent were rent, which size, in spite of permanent growth, was much less than taxation. the law « land of Gand duke, by my ownership » belonged to servage lands, which in the XVIth century were servage-taxation (ducal).

Monastic lands were in corporate property of frank pledge. Ancient ancestral lands and their population were under the jurisdiction of responsible taxpayer — monastery. Taking cher-nososhniye lands after penmen in 1587, monastery became the part of volost. Taxation innovation of the end of the 16th century put land ownership of monasteries on double control — state (system of fisk (Receipt of the Exchequer) and volost (joint guaranty for tax) [15].

Dvina uezd in 1708 went into the again created by decree of Peter the Great Arkhangelo-gorodsk province and existed for more than seventy years.

According to senate decree from May, 29th, 1719 about arrangements of provinces, Ark-hangelogorodsk province was divided into 4 provinces, including Dvina with center in Arkhangelsk, Velikoustyug with center in Veliky Ustyug, Vologda with center in Vologda and Galich with center in Galich.

Dvina province included 6 uezdes: Vaga, Dvina, Kevrol, Kola, Mezen and Pustozero. It was huge territory from banks of rivers Northern Dvina, Vaga, Mezen, to the coasts of the White, the Barents and the Kara seas. Evidently, such a territory with the name «Dvina province» was one of the greatest in the history of Dvina lands transformations at the administrative-territorial and history-geographical level since Novgorod republic times: Dvina land (10—16th centuries), Dvina uezd 16th century — 1780, Dvina province (1719 — 1775). Represented in three maps of 1745 Dvina County (North-West, South, North-East) occupied great part of existed in those years Dvina province (1719 — 1775), as administrative-territorial entity.

Picture 2. Dvina uezd, 1745.

URL:

It is interesting to know that «Dvina province» appeared in the foreign map earlier, even in the 16th century. On the map of Moskovy created by baron Sigmund von Gerberstein in 1546, there were such names as Novogardia, DWINA PROVINCIA, Piniga, Mesen; it was bed of the Northern Dvina River without name. In later published «Notes of Moskovy» it was added another map, engraved in the tree by Y. Gastaldo, but the name DWINA PROVINCIA was preserved, as well as in other later copies of this map.

Picture 3. Map of Moskovy by S. Gerberstein, 16th century

Division into provinces was annihilated on November, 7th, 1775 by the decree of Ekaterina II «Constitutions for control All-Russian empire governments», according to which provinces liquidated (in number of governments inside of them were marked regions), vicegerencies were founded, division of counties was changed and other changes according to new administrative-territorial division of Russian State were conducted.

In 1780 instead of Arkhangelogorodsk government it was established Vologda vicegerency, which included Arkhangelsk, Veloustuyg and Vologda regions. in March, 26th, 1784 by decree of Ekaterina II Arkhangelsk region transformed into Arkhangelsk vicegerency, which included 7 uezdes: Arkhangelsk, Kola, Mezen, Pinega, Onega, Kholmogory and Shenkursk. Dvina uezd stopped finally to exist under former name since 1780, transforming and given its lands to other uezdes. From its northern volosty (districts) was created Arkhangelsk uezd (1780—1917). From southern volosty (districts) in 1780 Kholmogory uezd was created (1780—1917).

By the end of Ekaterina II reign, Russia was divided into 50 vicegerencies and governments and one region18. In 1796 Arkhangelsk vicegerency again transformed into Arkhangelsk government. From the territorially greatest Mezen uezd in 1891 Pechora district with the center in Ust-

Cilma was excluded. In 1899 center of Kola district was transferred to city-harbor Aleksand-rovsk, and the district itself was renamed in Aleksandrovskiy, which was part of Arkhangelsk government till 1921, then it began to be called Murmansk government with the center in Murmansk.

In such a way, the study undertaken by us allows to:

• a)    Determine Dvina land as natural landscape, which includes basin of the Northern Dvina river with all its affluxes, which age is over millions of years BCE, as history-geographical, socio-economic, territorial-administrative, cultural and mental concept.

• b)    Localize Dvina land and Zavolochye as sometimes identical history-geographical concepts, but together with it, not identified in the full way in both structure of places and settlements, and owners of land property.

• c)    Show transformation of administrative-territorial space of life and government of Dvina land, Dvina county and Dvina province as part of existing in national history State formations: Novgorod republic, Grand Duchy of Muscovy and Russian State.

• d)    Determine chronological lifetime of Dvina land in different administrative-territorial images: Dvina land (11 — 16th centuries), Dvina uezd (16th century — 1780), Dvina province (1719 — 1785), using not only written testimonials, but also dating of artifacts of the 10— 11th centuries, found and studied by archeologists.

Nowadays «Dvina land», «Dvina province» and «Dvina county» are studied as history-geographical, socio-economic and culture-mental definitions in Russian history. They are remembered in memory, culture, literature of modern Russian society. Such concepts as «Belomorie» and «Pomorie», which are not considered to be identical with Dvina land, problems of modern Pomor-study, views of Russian historians on Pomorie and Pomors, functioning of Solovetsky administrative-patrimony district in 1591—1764, Committee for help of Russian North Pomors and other problems require further study.