Belarusian Smolensk Region

Ethnosocial Characteristics of the Population Formation in Bryansk Region

• admin • 25 min read • Артыкулы

S.V. Chernyshov

The uniqueness of the ethnic history of the Bryansk land lies in the fact that throughout all historical periods, various ethnic processes took place on its territory, with the population undergoing ethnic influences, assimilating one another, and creating its own local distinctive culture. This territory has always been a place where tribes and peoples—carriers of different cultures—intersected, as highlighted in recent scientific works on the history of the region’s settlement (1). The result of various influences was the formation of local traditions that reflected different stages of development of certain elements of the population’s culture over the centuries. By studying contemporary folk culture, we can observe, for example, elements of housing decor that embody some mythological representations of the Slavic tribes that inhabited Bryansk in ancient times; embroidery motifs that date back to pagan times, and more.

The settlement of the Slavs in the middle Podesennya, of which Bryansk land was a part, occurred in waves, and the movement of these waves is explained not only by the increase in the number of tribes and, accordingly, the need for subsistence through new territories but also by external reasons.

Powerful migration flows moving through the southern half of the East European Plain in the 2nd to 9th centuries repeatedly overwhelmed the ancient Slavic tribes, forcing them to leave their previous territories and seek more peaceful places. Having migrated in the late 2nd to the first half of the 3rd century AD from the lower reaches of the Vistula River to the northwestern Black Sea region, the Gothic tribes passed through areas long associated with the Veneds—those Slavic tribes that later became the basis for the formation of West Slavic peoples. Some of the Veneds, under pressure from the Goths, were forced to move north to the middle reaches of the Neman River, where they displaced the Krivichs. From the Neman River through the northwestern part of modern Belarus into the basin of the upper Dnieper—this is the likely path of the Krivichs, who appeared in the north of future Bryansk in the early 8th century. (2)

The settlement area of the Krivichs in Bryansk was limited to the basin of the Gabi and Snoop rivers. The movement of the Krivichs southward, both along the right and left banks of the Desna River, proceeded quite evenly and stopped approximately along the line of the interfluve of the Sesh and Belizna rivers (right tributaries of the Desna) and the left bank of the Vetma River (left tributary of the Desna).

Another wave of Slavic settlers could have appeared in the middle Podesennya in the late 4th to early 5th centuries AD when, due to the invasion of the Huns, some Slavic tribes from the forest-steppe zone of the Dnieper sought refuge in the forests of the Desna region. The invasions of the Avars in the late 6th to early 7th centuries caused a new migration of Slavic tribes from the forest-steppe areas to the north and northeast. Apparently, it was at this time that the south of Bryansk was occupied by part of the Northerners, the main mass of which settled somewhat further south. Finally, the last and most significant wave of Slavic settlers surged into the territory of the middle Podesennya, into the basin of the Iputi River and other adjacent areas in the 8th-9th centuries. These were the tribes of the Vyatichs and Radimichs. If the Krivichs arrived in Bryansk from the north, and the Northerners from the south, then the Radimichs and Vyatichs most likely came from the southwest. The area of the initial settlement of the Radimichs (Upper Podniestr) was outlined by V.V. Sedov based on hydronyms. (3)

The chronicles often mention the origin of the Radimichs and Vyatichs from the Lyakhs (Poles) (4), which is explained by the fact that these tribes once lived near the territory where the Polish state later emerged.

The kinship ties between the Radimichs and Vyatichs are quite probable. The Vyatichs assimilated the Baltic tribes living in the territory of the middle Podesennya, and in the interfluve of the Desna and Oka rivers, partly the Finno-Ugric tribes, which led to the emergence of physical traits in their appearance characteristic of the Finno-Ugric peoples of the Northern Volga region. The nature of the relationships between the Slavs and the indigenous population is defined by P.N. Tretyakov: “During the settlement of the Slavs… the local population largely remained on its old lands, living side by side with the incoming Slavs for centuries and gradually mixing with them.” (5) Russian chronicles mention the existence for a long time in the territory of Bryansk of the Baltic tribe of Golyad. With the help of toponyms derived from the name “Golyad,” two areas of settlement of this tribe can be distinguished: the interfluve of the Desna and Bolva rivers (the villages of Vzgolyazhye, Glyadnevo, Glazhenka, the village of Golyazhye—all in the territory of the Rogneddin, Dubrovsky, Dyatkovo, and Bryansk districts) and the territory bounded to the north by the Navlya River, to the south by the lower reaches of the Nerussa River and the Usazh River (the villages of Glashyevo, Gladskoe, Glodnevo, Glyadino, Golyne—on the territory of the Navlinsky, Brasovsky, Komarichsky, and Sevsky districts). Historians and linguists note the preservation of dialects of the Russian language among the population of this part of the region, combined with elements close to the language of the Golyad tribe (6). The Baltic-Golyad tribes may have been part of the ancient Russian plunder, brought by Russian princes from western lands and settled in the territory of the region, as were the Baltic tribes settled along the Moscow River (7). When determining the boundaries of the settlement of the Radimichs, Vyatichs, Northerners, and Krivichs in the Podesennya, it should be noted that they were not very stable due to the fact that the Slavs were still continuing to develop this territory. The tribal boundaries were also not long-lasting, as the process of forming a single ancient Russian ethnicity was still ongoing.

Thus, from the 10th to the mid-12th centuries, the region was populated by representatives of six ethnocultural groups, with the Podesennya being the main center of settlement for the Northerners. The northern part of the region was the most ethnoculturally diverse (8), where the tribes of Radimichs, Vyatichs, Krivichs, the Baltic tribes—Golyad, and partly Finno-Ugric tribes lived.

In terms of natural and economic conditions, the region combines different types of Polesie, steppe, forest-steppe, a strip of opolye, and forests on the left bank of the Desna River between the forest-steppe and the strip of opolye, as well as a number of transitional landscapes and floodplain lands. The most specific type of landscape is opolye—islands of forest-steppe vegetation and soils within the forest zone. The landscape diversity gave rise to various methods of land cultivation and a variety of plowing tools used in local agriculture. The boundary of the spread of the plow, various types of harrows (sled, non-sled, and curved) and cultivators passed through the Podesennya. It was precisely in the areas with the most fertile soils and the highest concentration of agricultural population—the opolye—that ancient medieval cities arose.

The 11th-12th centuries were marked by the establishment of principality in the region. The largest of these were Vshizhskoye, Bryanskoye, and Trubchevskoye. For a long time, the principalities were located on the outskirts of Slavic lands, bordering on the lands of nomadic peoples, absorbing elements of the culture of the steppe regions. The Polovtsian tribes also settled in the territory of the region. One of the possible places of settlement for the Polovtsian tribe was the territory of the city of Karachev and nearby settlements located in the floodplain of the Snezhyets River. This is indirectly confirmed by the analysis of the anthropological traits of the population of the area. The life of the principalities was interrupted by the Mongol conquest. Many cities were devastated or destroyed. However, the region itself did not suffer much, as the swamps and forests prevented the Tatar cavalry from advancing. Moreover, the population of the middle Podesennya even increased due to people fleeing from the Mongol invasion from the upper reaches of the Oka, Posemye, and lower Podesennya, which contributed to the significant rise of the Bryansk principality formed in the mid-13th century (9).

In the first half of the 14th century, the Bryansk region became the arena of acute political and military rivalry among various princes. In this struggle, the princes often sought help from the Tatars, which led to the devastation of the region.

The political instability in the Bryansk principality ended with the establishment of foreign domination: the power of the Lithuanian princes was established. In the 14th century, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania united Lithuanian and Russian lands. However, the life of people under the rule of Lithuanian feudal lords did not have a significant impact on the formation of the region’s culture. The Russian language was the state language alongside Lithuanian, while all documentation and legislation were conducted only in Russian. There was no infringement of the rights of the Russian population on ethnic or religious grounds.

The history of Bryansk in the second half of the 14th century is not rich in internal or external political events. Development proceeded relatively calmly, which facilitated the economic development of the population’s lands, the emergence of new cities and settlements.

In the 16th century, Bryansk was returned to the Russian state.

In the early 17th century, the Bryansk region entered the composition of the Severia land, which occupied a border southwestern position in the Russian state. The Time of Troubles in the 17th century directly affected Bryansk. Mass uprisings of peasants occurred in the Komarich volost. The peculiarity of this volost was that the peasants living there had never known serfdom. The very name of the volost indicates its special status. Since the mid-14th century, the volost had been under the authority of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The Lithuanian princes received revenues from this territory, which went into their own treasury—the chamber. After joining Russia, the Moscow princes kept this volost in their palace possession. (10)

In the second half of the 17th century, the Komarich volost included 68 villages and 160 settlements, hamlets, and small villages, where about 22 thousand male inhabitants lived. (11) In 1640, the government created a fortified district in the Komarich volost with the center in the city of Sevsk. Local peasants were turned into dragoons, performing state duties for the defense of the country. They retained their previous allotments. They were exempt from taxes and duties, trained in dragoon formation, and served. One dragoon with all necessary equipment was provided from each household. The number of such servicemen reached five and a half thousand. This duty lasted until the end of the 17th century.

In the 1630s-1640s, a stream of migrants from Ukraine, which was under Polish rule, flowed into the Severia region due to the exacerbation of ethnic and religious contradictions. Sometimes groups of immigrants from Ukraine reached several thousand people. The migration flow intensified during years of crop failures in Poland. Most migrants settled in the vicinity of the city of Sevsk. In addition, in the vicinity of Sevsk, the government conducted land distribution to random people “by device” (by selection). These were ordinary soldiers of the Russian army, who received land allotments for their service, but not in private ownership like the landowners, but collectively. For example, there was land for the settlements where gunners lived, land for soldiers, and so on. All of them cultivated the land they received and did not use hired labor.

A special position was occupied by the territory in the west of the region. This part in the 17th century was part of Ukraine. Here, the polkovosotennaya system of administrative management combined with state authorities—magistrates and town halls. The territory was part of the Starodub regiment, divided into 10 hundreds. The structure of the population of the region was complex in terms of social classes. The urban elite consisted of Cossack elders, who preferred to live in cities and held positions in regimental and hundred offices, followed by members of magistrates and town halls, merchants engaged in Russian-Ukrainian and foreign trade, as well as the higher clergy, who owned real estate in cities. The second social group consisted of townspeople of average wealth (craftsmen, merchants of small goods, plowmen, various tradesmen), the majority of Cossacks, who had land plots in cities and towns and engaged in crafts, industries, and trade; the third group consisted of the urban lower class—working people of industries (Cossack and townspeople), day laborers, hired workers, apprentices, landless peasants, and beggars.

Cities that had charters under Magdeburg law received special status. Magdeburg law provided certain tax privileges and primarily applied to townspeople, who made up about half of the city’s population. It was not granted to Cossacks, who also engaged in crafts, industries, and trade, i.e., types of productive activity that were privileges of the townspeople and were under the jurisdiction of the magistrate. This often created sharp conflict situations in cities.

Particular attention should be paid to the Old Believers, who still live in the region today. Information about the appearance of the first schismatics here dates back to the late 17th century. During the reign of Tsarina Sophia and later Peter I, there was a mass flight of Old Believers to the borderlands of the Russian state, including the territory of Starodub. The leadership of the Starodub regiment encouraged the settlement of the region. Schismatics settled on the lands, receiving certain privileges (exemption from taxes for several years). Thus, about 30 Old Believer settlements appeared in Bryansk, 13 of which had received the status of towns by the early 18th century, and three (Zybkoye, Klintsy, Zlynka) became cities. The Old Believers developed handicrafts, which is explained by a number of objective prerequisites. It was particularly important that the Old Believers in their new place of residence did not know forms of serf dependence. This facilitated the resolution of entrepreneurial tasks and ensured merchant enterprises with free labor. Additionally, it should be noted that places for settlements were allocated on areas poorly suited for agriculture (poor soils, forests, swamps).

The availability of raw materials for industrial activities (iron ores, glass sands, clay, timber), proximity to a poorly guarded state border, contributed to the establishment of economic and trade relations with neighboring and other foreign countries.

As ethnographers’ studies have shown, as a result of the isolation of the Old Believers’ way of life, they preserved genuinely folk forms of traditional culture.

In the 18th century, industrial development of the region’s minerals began. Mines were built—shafts around which new settlements formed. The main occupation of the peasants was work in these developments. Thus, in 1672, the Unecha mine was built, laying the foundation for the settlement (now a district center).

The formation of the material and spiritual culture of the population was also influenced by where, in which settlement they lived. Depending on the socio-economic variety of a particular settlement, local cultural traits characteristic of a certain area were formed. It is also necessary to consider the size of the settlement (the number of households), its social status, and the form of land ownership.

Rural settlements were diverse. In the second half of the 18th century, the most common type of rural settlement in the region, as in general in Russian lands, was the village. This word as a designation for a peasant settlement appeared in the 14th century and meant a collection of households, estates, arable land, and other lands. Until the 16th century, villages in Bryansk were small in terms of households. In the 18th century, the consolidation of villages was facilitated by the transition from household taxation to poll taxation. In these conditions, newly formed young families left the parental home and built their own house. At the same time, communal ties were not disrupted. The peasant commune regulated land ownership among households, the use of forests, and pastures for livestock, which remained common. The commune strictly monitored compliance with accepted norms: in ethics, behavior, land use, housing construction, its location, decoration, adherence to rituals, customs, and much more.

Variations of the village were the pochinki. These were new settlements that were initially exempt from taxes. The reason for the appearance of pochinki was the lack of land around old settlements. Before becoming a permanent settlement, a pochinka was a place where people moved only temporarily for seasonal work.

Relatively large populated areas were the selya. By the 10th century, these were large settlements. Since the 15th-16th centuries, the name “selo” (village) was fixed for those settlements that were centers of estates, unlike the village, which did not have noble households within it. In the zone of state land ownership, the selo became the administrative center of the volost. In Bryansk in the 18th century, the selya were significantly larger than the villages in terms of the number of households. A church was usually built in the selo if it became a parish. Various public institutions were located in the selya: communal houses, estate administrations (if the selo was the center of the volost), hospitals, almshouses, schools. Enterprises for processing agricultural raw materials were also established there, the products of which were sold in markets. The selya were centers of market relations. Rural trade attracted residents from nearby villages.

In the 18th century, slobodas continued to exist, which previously had different functions. By this time, they had become agricultural and industrial settlements.

The legal status of a particular settlement had an impact on its life, external appearance, economic orientation of its residents’ occupations, and their well-being. Settlements could be palace (owned by the royal court—until the 18th century), monastic, private (princely, boyar estates, land owned by landowners).

Palace settlements were located in the eastern part of Bryansk and were part of the Komarich volost. These settlements belonged to the royal house, and their population continued to bear military duty. However, by the 18th century, the region ceased to be borderland, and the need for military service disappeared. Therefore, most palace settlements were granted to private individuals by Paul I; and the palace settlements in the 19th century were subordinated to the Department of Estates.

In the 1760s, a new category of land appeared, known as economic lands. They were formed as a result of the secularization of church and monastic property and the transformation of their holdings into state ones. Such a reform was carried out during the reign of Catherine II in 1764. Under this reform, the lands of the Sevsk Spaso-Preobrazhensky, Bryansk Svyensky Assumption, and Borshchevsky Nikolayevsky monasteries, etc., entered the state land fund. These lands were placed under the management of a specially organized Economy Commission. Therefore, both the lands and the peasants living on them became known as economic; in the 19th century, they merged with the category of state peasants.

The next smallest category of the population consisted of former servicemen “by device” (by selection), from which in the 18th century a special layer of residents called “odnodvorts” was formed, occupying an intermediate position between small landowners and state peasants. They were joined by the postmen.

In the early 18th century, the odnodvorts were classified as state peasants. D.K. Zelinin believed that for a long time, the odnodvorts maintained their separateness from the peasants and constituted a special ethnographic group of the population (12). L.N. Chizhikova, on the contrary, believes that the peculiarities in the spiritual and material culture of the odnodvorts cannot serve as evidence of the presence of a specific ethnographic type, as there is no unity among the odnodvorts themselves, and the features of their culture are characteristic of many categories of southern Russian peasantry (13).

Thus, throughout the 16th to 19th centuries, the population of Bryansk was not homogeneous in terms of class, confessional, and social relations. Such differentiation could not help but affect many aspects of its culture.

Ethnographers distinguish separate ethnographic groups within the population of the southern Russian region. One of them is the Poles—residents of Polesie. The composition of the population of Polesie is very complex. According to historians, descendants of the ancient population of the pre-Mongolian period may have survived in this territory, preserving their culture, language, and customs (14).

The history of the settlement of the region and its border position contributed to the preservation in the culture of the Poles of both the main southern Russian features and Belarusian-Ukrainian components.

Since the 19th century, and especially by the early 20th century, assimilation processes intensified in the region. In the 1860s-90s, about 1.4 million Ukrainians and around 1 million Belarusians “Russified” in Russia (15). Similar processes were observed in the Bryansk region. Many Ukrainians and Belarusians began to consider the Russian language their native language. Assimilation processes contributed to an increase in the proportion of Russians among the region’s inhabitants, although their natural growth rates were lower than those of other peoples. According to the 1920 census (16), the percentage of Russians among the population of the future Bryansk region was highest in rural areas than in urban: rural—70-99%, urban—41-94%. Among cities, the low percentage was in Starodub (41.6%), Novozybkov (61.2%), Klintsy (68.8%), and Pochep (65.54%)—these cities were located on the border with Ukraine; the highest was in Trubchevsk (95.21%), Sevsk (93.96%), and Karachev (94.27%). According to the same census, the highest percentage of Ukrainians was in Starodub (19%), while among rural residents of the district, it was about 40%, in the Novozybkov district (in the city—0.8%, rural population—about 52%). In the western areas, thus, the share of the Ukrainian population was significantly higher than in the eastern areas, where it did not exceed 1%.

According to the 1959 census, Russians in the territory of Bryansk region constituted 97%, Ukrainians 1.1%, and Belarusians 0.5%. The migration processes that took place during the 1930s-50s were also reflected in the national composition of the Bryansk population: representatives of peoples previously not mentioned in statistical materials appeared—Georgians, Kurds, Gypsies, Latvians, and others. Many of them consider the Russian language their native (17). During these years, there was significant migration of the population, especially from villages to cities.

Since the 1920s, the external appearance of settlements began to change. According to the design plans of Soviet architects, a technical and cultural center began to be highlighted in them, layouts changed, cult buildings and ancient structures were destroyed, and along with them, often, household decor perished.

The Great Patriotic War also inflicted significant damage. Hostilities took place twice on the territory of the region: in 1941 and during the liberation of Bryansk in 1943. The wooden housing stock was severely damaged. Many settlements, after the end of hostilities, could not restore their former significance. Thus, the former volost center of the village of Foshnya (until 1920), which had more than a thousand households by 1941, now has no more than a dozen households. Moreover, one cannot ignore the two migration flows: evacuation at the beginning of the war and return after liberation.

The reduction in the number of settlements was also facilitated by the policy of consolidating settlements and reducing the number of “unpromising” villages in the 1960s-70s. Thus, in the Bryansk region, from 1964 to 1970 alone, 562 settlements ceased to exist out of more than three and a half thousand (18).

The statistical data considered show that the ethnic picture of the region is very complex, constantly developing, and becoming more complicated—which imposes a certain imprint on the formation of traditional culture.

In this work, when determining the causes that influenced the formation of the population of the Bryansk region, the data from the 1989 census are not used, as these data reflect the consequences of changes resulting from the Chernobyl disaster. The southwestern districts of the region fell into the zone of radiation contamination. Many settlements ceased to exist, and the population was resettled to the northern and eastern districts of the region. In this zone, there were also losses of human resources and the loss of cultural heritage.

Based on the history of Bryansk and the paths of its population development, considering the local material culture, one can highlight the influence of the following factors:

  1. Ethnic factor: The region is located at the border of three Slavic peoples, and its population has always experienced the influence of folk Ukrainian and Belarusian cultures. Over the centuries, assimilation processes have taken place. The Russian population assimilated groups of Ukrainians and Belarusians, and in ancient times, Baltic and, partially, Finno-Ugric tribes dissolved in the Slavic mass. As a result of these processes, a folk culture was created that included elements not only of Russian but also of Ukrainian and Belarusian cultures. It is also possible that more ancient cultural traditions reflecting the worldview of the Slavic tribes that inhabited the region in the distant past have been preserved.

  2. Confessional factor: The main religion in the region is Orthodoxy. The contribution made by Old Believers, belonging to one of the branches of the Orthodox religion, to the formation of the region’s culture is particularly notable. The isolation of the communities allowed for the preservation of lifestyle features characteristic of the 17th-18th centuries. Among the residents of Bryansk, there are also representatives of other confessions: Catholics, Protestants, and Jews. However, their numbers are very small. In the religious beliefs of any people, archaic forms of pagan beliefs are preserved. The residents of Bryansk are no exception in this regard.

  3. Social factor: The territory of the region has historically developed through complex paths. Three areas can be distinguished, the development of which differs significantly from one another: the southeastern—since the 17th century, it was part of the Severia land, which was on the border of the Russian state, then the region entered the composition of the Komarich volost. Its territory from the 19th century was predominantly composed of state and palace lands. In the northern part of the region, one can note the predominance of landowner farms in the 18th-19th centuries. In the western part, even in the 16th-17th centuries, there was a combination of the polkovosotennaya system of administrative management with state authorities—magistrates and town halls. The region had a complex class structure of the population. The types of rural settlements were also diverse: selya, villages, slobodas, pochinki, and others. The socio-economic status of a settlement influenced its life. In earlier times, in the 17th-18th centuries, there were also palace settlements (from the 19th century—ducal), church and monastic (from the 18th century—economic), and landowner (landlord and from the end of the 18th century estates of various departments). A special category in the 18th century consisted of lands owned by people “by device,” from which a special layer—odnodvorts—was formed.

The historical materials presented above testify to the complex history of the formation of the region’s population. Cultural traditions developed here, preserving elements that arose in different eras. Along with all-Russian traits, local variants characteristic of Ukraine and Belarus emerged in this culture, differing from one another in some peculiarities.

NOTES

  1. For example: Desna Antiquities. Bryansk. 1995. Padin V.A. The Role of the Bryansk Region in the Origin of the Slavs of Podesennya. // Bryansk Local History. Issue 5. Bryansk, 1973; Krasheninnikov V.V. A View Through the Centuries. Tula, 1990; Sedov V.V. Eastern Slavs in the 6th-13th Centuries. M., 1982; Archaeological Map of Russia. Bryansk Region. M., 1993.

  2. Krasheninnikov V.V. Op. cit. Tula. 1990. P. 12.

  3. Sedov V.V. Op. cit. P. 143-182; Sedov V.V. The Initial Stage of Slavic Settlement in the Area of the Dnieper Balts. // Balto-Slavic Studies 1980. M., 1981. P. 45-52; Sedov V.V. Slavs in Antiquity. M., 1994. P. 303, 306-309.

  4. Krasheninnikov V.V. Op. cit. P. 9-23.

  5. Tretyakov P.N. In the Footsteps of Ancient Slavic Tribes. L., 1982.

  6. Lakomtseva M.N. On the Reconstruction of the Phonological Systems of the Languages of Golyad and Dnieper-Dvina Balts. // Balto-Slavic Studies 1980. M., 1981. P. 52-61; Balto-Slavic Studies 1981. M., 1982. P. 88-97.

  7. Popov A.I. The Names of the Peoples of the USSR. L. 1973. P. 94-95.

  8. Shinakov E.A. From the Sling to the Sramasaks: On the Path to the State of the Rurikids. Bryansk. 1995. P. 27-58.

  9. Tikhomirov M.N. Russia in the 16th Century. M., 1962. P. 407-412.

  10. Dubrovsky A.M., Ivanin A.A. The Sevsky District in the Second Half of the 18th Century: Settlements, Land Ownership, Peasants, and Farmers. Lokot. 1994. P. 3-7.; Efremov G.V. The Native Land of Komarich. Bryansk. 2001. P. 18-21.

  11. Novoselsky L.V. Palace Peasants of the Komarich Volost in the Second Half of the 17th Century. // Issues of the History of Agriculture, Peasantry, and the Revolutionary Movement in Russia. M., 1961. P. 65.

  12. Zelinin D.K. Great Russian Dialects with Non-Organic and Non-Transition Softening of Back-Nasal Consonants in Connection with the Trends of Later Great Russian Colonization. St. Petersburg, 1913. P. 42-52.

  13. Chizhikova L.N. Ethnocultural History of the Southern Russian Population. // EO. 1998. N5. P. 40.

  14. Chizhikova L.N. Op. cit. P. 36.

  15. Bruk S.I., Kabuzan V.M. The Dynamics of the Number and Settlement of the Russian Ethnos (1678-1917). // SE. 1982. N4. P. 9-12.

  16. Bryansk Province in Figures. Brief Statistical Reference. Oryol. 1924. P. 32-35. State Archive of Bryansk Region (hereinafter referred to as GABO). F. 102., Op. 1, D. 56.

  17. GABO. F. 2419. Op. 2, D. 805. GABO. F. 2419. Op. 1, D. 1438.

  18. GABO. F. 1620. Op. 2, D. 52; Administrative-Territorial Division of Bryansk Region from 1916 to 1970. Vol. 2, Bryansk. 1972. P. 290-320.

S.V. Chernyshov. Ethnosocial Characteristics of the Population Formation in Bryansk Region // The State and Problems of the Development of Humanitarian Science in the Central Region of Russia. Bryansk. 2003. P. 51-61.