A HISTORY OF RUSSIAN
ADMINISTRATIVE BOUNDARIES (XVIII - XX centuries).
Irina
Merzliakova,
Ph. D. Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow
E-mail: imerz@history.ihst.ru
Alexei
Karimov,
Ph.D., Institute for the History of Science and Technology, Russian Academy
of Sciences, Moscow
E-mail: krm@history.ihst.ru
Introduction
The history of administrative division now is not only
the matter of pure academic interest but is of some practical means. A wide
spectrum of data on nature, land use, population, economy, culture and social
life was gathered, processed and stored by the government with the affiliation
to the existing administrative division.
The demand for such data comes now out of a broad
scientific community [1]:
historians, political scientists, geographers, economists, ecologists,
geologists, linguists. Historians apply more and more spatial analysis, and
geographers - historical methods. Rapidly developing information technology
makes it easier to integrate both.
There were few attempts in Russia to integrate
spatially referenced historical data. The main obstacles for that were: (1) bad
compatibility of maps of various ages due to various scales, coordinate
systems, projections, mapping technology; (2) necessity to deal with numerous
and varied textual data, having nevertheless spatial reference; (3) high
flexibility of administrative boundaries itself.
Some specialists compiled datasets that included
history of administrative division for their narrow purposes. The dataset from
old herbarium records with administrative affiliation of more then 2000 plant
findings was built for the study of tree-plant refuges under last glaciation. It
helped to convert old placenames and administrative affiliation of findings
into the modern one (Kozharinov, 1995).
Some 25-20 years ago history of administrative
division was studied within a project [2]
of the Atlas of the History of the USSR with partial success. A lot of map
sources had been revealed (Kabuzan, 1981), but the project team had been unable
to overcome the problems mentioned above. Currently professor A.V. Postnikov
from the Institute for the History of Science in Moscow wrote a very detailed
book on the history of delimitation of the Southern boundary of the Russian
Empire at Pamir (Postnikov 1998, 2001) and now is working on a book on the
history of the Russian boundaries in Central Asia. Dr. N.N. Kamedchikov and
late professor A.A. Lutyi from the Institute of Geography in Moscow worked on
digitization of Soviet administrative division for population census of 1959
and 1989. There is information on GIS of Belorussian historical boundaries
project (Karchevskii K.A., 2000). Institute of History of Russia published a
map of Russian administrative division of XVII century [3]
(Administrative division…, 1996).
The purpose of our project is
to build historical GIS of the Russian administrative division and its changes
for the late XVIII – early XX centuries. This will provide a flexible framework
to organize and compare spatially referenced historical data for scholarly and
academic community.
It is now good time to reveal, study and expose
Russian archive maps and historical data. Even ten years ago the Russian old
maps were hardly available for researchers. Almost all of the archival maps
despite of their age and scale were classified. This was an obstacle for
research in various fields and badly influenced at the comparative study of the
Russian history, geography and cartography in the international context. The
reforms of the last ten years opened the archives and cartographic collections
for research, and we hope things will not go back.
Borders and power: brief overview. Stages of
administrative division
The administrative division and boundaries should be closely related to
the political power of the country, it's views on itself, it's subjects, aims
and functions. Making "good fences" is exactly how the state "is
seeing" (Scott, 1998) the country and the people, a discourse of power and
governance. In Russia there could be identified four main stages in the history
of administrative division (Plate
1).
Late medieval stage (XV - XVII century)
. The country was divided into administrative units of
the first level (uezd) that were divided into the second level units (volost').
At that time there were no fixed administrative boundaries neither on maps nor
as landmarks. There was a lot of empty lands and very small population. Thus
the most valuable subject of central power were people working on the land, not
the land itself. The central authorities periodically compiled lists [4]
of people and villages belonging to the same uezd and volost' Now
they are used by historians for reconstruction of medieval administrative
division [5].
Petrine stage. (beginning of XVIII
century - 1775). During almost the whole century the
Petrine state was "building" spatial boundaries that were to
represent the hierarchy of power, or, using modern Russian political slang
"vertical of power". Mapping came hand in hand with the introduction
of the new political approach, "cartography of power" (Harley,
1988).The Petrine surveyors did not simply chart boundaries, they set them in
practice. At that time not only people became the subject of the state, but the
whole geographical space and all things it included as forests and minerals
(Karimov, 1999). The Petrine Generalnii Reglament [General Regulations
–A.K.] in the chapter devoted to maps and plans stated the main purpose of
mapping: “In order that each college [ministry - A. K.] should have an
authentic inventory and information concerning the condition of the state and
of the provinces belonging to it, it is necessary that there should be general
and particular maps or charts in every college“ (cited by D. Shaw, 1996). At
that times of changes the still unclear primary conceptual models and
expectations of the central administration had been laid upon the diversity of
the real life and tested over people. The four-level division had been
introduced: gubernia, province, uezd and volost’.
Stage of stability (1775 - 1917). In
1775 Catherine the Great among other reforms introduced the reform of
administrative division and boundaries. This reform summarized the long period
of changes. The surveyors of late XVIII - early XIX centuries were to adjust
boundary lines in accordance with the lines of rivers and lakes, and to
"round" the wedged borders. From one hand, it was the adaptation of
the conceptual political models to the variety of nature and historic life,
from the other - the adjustment and clarification of the very models of
governance and regional administration. At that time the administrative
boundaries really became to mean something practical. It was also an attempt to
divide the country to the regions with equal population. 41 gubernia
were introduced each consisting of uezd and volost'. This
administrative division the same as the whole procedure of territorial
governing in general remained untouched until 1917. During the next 130 years
only a few new gubernia had been founded.
Modern stage. 1917 - till now. After
the revolution of 1917 the administrative division changed often and rapidly
according to the policy of central government. The national autonomies were
introduced in 1920 - 1924 on all levels [6].
Except for short period the three-level division existed: oblast' (level
of gubernia), raion (level of uezd) and sel'sovet - rural
council (level of volost'). In 1927 - 1929 when the Stalinist team was establishing
political control over the country, gubernia were aggregated into okrugs
and four-level division was introduced. In the years of World War II the okrugs
had been dismissed. Under Khrushev a frame of big economic regions [7]
came to existence in 1957, but oblast returned back after his dismissal
in 1964.
In general, administrative division, boundaries
and "fences" remain to be the discourse of state, power,
"discipline and punish", speaking in terms of Foukault.
Surveys, maps, archives
Petrine stage. (beginning of XVIII
century - 1775). First programs of broad large-scale
mapping of the country had been started in 1720th by theSenate
decree ‘on the dispatch of St. Petersburg [Naval-A.K.] Academy pupils for
mapmaking’ (Alexandrovskaia, 1989). We should not forget that the Petrine
surveyors not only mapped, but “designed” internal administrative boundaries,
laid imagined lines not only on maps, but also across the real space of the
country. During the first decades mapping of the country was supervised by
Senate ober-secretary Kirilov and Geographic Department of Academy of Sciences.
Up to 1727 Kirilov received field charts and maps from surveyors dispatched to
all parts of the country. Kirilov was the author of the first atlas of the
country and it’s separate parts, published at 1734 and named after him (Plate 2).
After the foundation of Geographic Department of Russian Academy of Sciences
(1735) it became the center of surveying and mapmaking. In 1745 the new Atlas
was published known as Big Academic Atlas.
Both of these Atlases cover all the
country (with Siberia and North Kazakhstan) and show administrative division
(gubernia and province level). Besides the Atlases there remained numerous maps
and charts that served as the sources for them, as well as many maps of Petrine
surveyors that were not used. The approximate number of map sources of Petrine
surveyors that could be used in the project is about three hundred, but
detailed research should reveal new archive sources. Besides there were
compiled several regional Atlases, for example, Nerchinsk Atlas covering the
territory of the South-East Siberia.
The sources for it had been
manuscript maps of separate parts of the country (scales from 1:420000 to
1:840000). The main task of surveying at that time was the fast overview of the
big regions of the country. Thus, the standard of map accuracy was
intentionally reduced [8],
but the main objects such as rivers, cities and villages, big forests and
marshes could be located on the maps. A lot of objects had been mapped from
remote basis. Sometimes the villages of the uezd are simply listed on
the margins. But the surveyors paid special attention and accuracy in mapping
of the administrative boundaries and the line along (Melnikova, 1954,
Postnikov, 1989). Most of the maps had been done in the projection of De l’Isle
or Mercator projection (Postnikov, 1989, p. 44). In general, boundaries on the
Petrine maps could be re-drawn and digitized with the good quality.
The maps and corresponding field
documents are stored in Moscow at Russian State Archive or Ancient Documents
(RGADA), Russian State Archive for Military History (RGVIA) and in Petersburg
at Russian State Historical Archive (RGIA) and Dept. of manuscripts of Library
of Academy of Sciences (BAN). A valuable collection of contemporary maps of
Russia collected by De l’Isle is stored at the French National Library [9].
Every map survey was followed by the gathering
of detailed statistical data on population, waterways, forests, local tribes,
trade etc. On the most general level they had been used by Kirilov who compiled
the statistical overview of the country, first published at 1831 (Kirilov,
1977), but a lot of various detailed geographic data still remains unused. In
1837 and 1851 the broad and detailed statistical data was gathered by
questionnaires sent from Academy. Besides this data there are statistical
surveys that could be attached to the maps of administrative division: several
censuses of peasant population, statistics of army recruits, forest statistics
etc. Most of the documents of statistical surveys are stored at RGADA, RGVIA,
Naval Archive, RGIA, Archive of Academy of Sciences in Petersburg.
Stage of stability (1775 - 1917).
A lot of valuable large-scale map
surveys were carried out by land registry mapmakers and military surveyors.
At the last quarter of XVIII century
there were printed two edition of an atlas [10]
depicting the new framework of gubernia and uezd division. Notorious
are the decorations of the maps being a kind of political message of Petersburg
government on how it sees the regions of the Empire.
These atlases had been based on the
countrywide land surveys [11]
done by the Russian land registry. Up to the second decade of XIX century
European Russia was covered by the detailed large-scale survey (Plate 3).
It's narrow task was to compile a registry of land property, but the maps and
plans done had been it full sense topographic, showing arable, meadow and
forest lands, marshes, settlements, roads, administrative division of all
levels etc. - the standard content of topographic maps. Land surveys could be a
valuable source for the history of administrative division of late XVIII -
early XIX century.
In total there were done hundreds of
thousand of large-scale (1:8400) plans, several hundred of uezd atlases
(1:33600 - 1:84000) and about a hundred of maps of gubernia (1:420000 -
1:840000). All the General bordering documents - maps, indexes, tabular
statistics are manuscript.
General Bordering Survey was accompanied by the
very detailed statistical surveys on the level of every village and land
parcel. It included tabular data linked to the land parcel on the land use,
population, usual crops and harvest, list of wild birds, animals inside the
parcel, data on rivers, lakes and springs, often - about freshwater fish
species. 90 percent of the pre-revolutionary statistical data was gathered and
updated at that time. This period should be considered to be the most promising
for such kind of project as we are going to develop.
The documents of the General Bordering Survey are
stored in Moscow at RGADA, RGVIA, in Petersburg at RGIA, Dept. of Manuscripts
of the Russian National Library and many Archives of the oblast'. Normally
maps and atlases are kept separately from corresponding statistics, but at the
same archive.
XIX century is not a
new stage in full sense. The general framework of administrative division did
not change since 1775. In Belorussia, Ukraine, Crimea and at the Central Asian
frontier administrative division of these areas became more subdivided. This
process was fastened by the abolition of serfdom in 1864 when a lot of peasants
settled the south Russian steppe. But at that time initiative on surveying and
mapmaking descends from Land Registry to the General Staff. Military topographers
charted lots of accurate and detailed maps and plans that deserve special
paragraph [12].
The main sources for study of administrative division
of that period are the military surveys carried out by the Russian General
Staff. Military topographers were anxious to update the maps of the previous
century and to create more accurate and detailed maps. Since 1830 The General
Staff maps show relief. There were done numerous surveys, among them - A
Hundred-Listed Map of the Russian Empire, 1801 (1:840000), F.F. Shubert
"Special map of European Russia", 1821-1839 (1:840000), topographic
drawings of Siberia, 1820th - 1830th, Survey of the
Western Russia, 1845-1863, 1:126000, A.I. Mende survey of internal Russian gubernia,
1847-1866, scales from 1:42000 to 1:816000, I.A. Strelbitsky Special Map, 1865
- 1917 [13]
and many others (Postnikov, 1989). European Russia was the polygon of most of
the surveys, but a lot of them took place at Central Asia, Pamir, Siberia,
Kazakhstan. Obviously, administrative borders are shown on most of these maps.
The military maps are stored mainly in Moscow at RGVIA
and RGADA. The total number of maps done by military topographers could hardly
be evaluated, but no doubt it is above several hundred thousand. Most of them
despite of the age had been classified before 1992. The classified maps were
unavailable for researches except for very valuable reasons. These maps were
stored in a special remote archive in Siberia. In 1990th these maps
were returned to RGVIA and are now available.
Similar to the land surveys of XVIII century, military
mapping was followed by statistical surveys. Military topographers gathered
detailed information on population, houses, crops, harvest, land use, horses. A.I.
Mende survey of internal gubernia is the most notable. The program was
done so that the maps and tabular data should be comparable with the data of
the General Bordering survey. Mende surveyors gathered statistics on
population, land use, crops, harvest, wild birds and animals, freshwater fish
etc (Plate 4).
Besides military statistics huge volumes of tabular
data had been gathered, updated and periodically published by local
administration [14]
of gubernia in 1864 - 1918. At those parts of the country where zemstvo
was not established, statistical surveys were carried out and updated by the
statistical committee under the governor. These surveys include information on
many aspects from population and land use to education, health and criminal
statistics. All this data is linked to the corresponding level of
administrative division - gubernia, uezd, volost' and separate villages.
Most of this information was published and available in main libraries,
unpublished is stored in RGIA and oblast archives.. Zemstvo statistics
will be a significant addition to the proposed information system.
Modern stage. 1917 - till now.
All the administrative changes of the Soviet period are refereed to the
corresponding Acts of the supreme powers. There are guide books on
administrative division for each year and detailed special maps showing
administrative reforms of the high and medium level. This data could be
directly used in GIS, redrawn, digitized and processed.
The great amount of official
statistics gathered by the Central Statistical Agency and statistical surveys
of oblast could be overlaid on spatial data. Most reliable is the
information before 1930. Selected data of the federal, oblast and
raion levels since 1970th is available in electronic form. Current
official statistics could be obtained in electronic form from about 1990th.
Special division
There were several types of special division besides administrative gubernia
and uezd. Since 1864 the country was divided into court districts.
A group of gubernia was a subject of one district court. There was
diocese division set by the Orthodox Church. There existed also military
districts subordinated to Governor general, and some other types. Special
court, military and other units usually included several gubernia or even did
not correspond to the framework of administrative division. This was a form of
"division of powers" in geographical space (Plate 5).
GIS: approaches and plans
We plan to design our historical GIS in order to achieve the following
results: (1) reconstruct administrative division at any hierarchical level for
the requested time period; (2) reconstruct temporal dynamic of administrative
borders for local units; (3) check the administrative affiliation of an area or
village, (4) view the temporal dynamics of name changes for settlement or local
unit; (5) in perspective allow researchers to input new information, extract
data and use them for their own purposes with the most common GIS software (and
through Web interface).
We are going to proceed though the following chronologically independent
steps:
1.Build the basic layer by digitizing data for 1914;
2.Compile Database “Map Bibliography", search for supplementary
sources in order to find out the most accurate and informative ones for the
reconstruction of the administrative division changes within the period between
1914 and 1775;
3.Design geodataset “Administrative boundaries” using Oracle 7.3 to
describe transparently all types of administrative changes;
4.Compile Metadatabase on statistical sources, organized by
administrative units;
5.Build the database “Settlements” reflecting changes in names, status,
presence of two or more names at once, various spellings to be a supplemental
resource for verification of boundaries;
6.Publish the results in the Web as searchable information system with
cartographic interface.
Basic layer
Taking as basis administrative division of Russia in 1914 we consider it
to be the most accurate and completed for the whole territory of Russia. At the
same time this date corresponds to the last stable year before
post-revolutionary fundamental changes (Plate 6).
We have to compose this layer from Strelbitskii map, topographic surveys
in Siberia and military-topographic surveys in Central Asia for the beginning
of XX century. All data will be digitized into ArcInfo 8 down to the volost
level. As a result we will have about 6-10 thousand polygons. Geometry for
earlier time periods down to 1775 will be input and kept in form of changes to
the basic layer.
Problems
The main types of problems we have to deal with relate
to the data handling and data interpretation.
The first one deals with necessity to use different
methods for data input in order to achieve compatibility of various sources. Distinction
should be made between data produced in different epochs.
The maps of XIX century could be digitized directly (Plate 7).They have scales from 1:84 000 to 1:420 000 that allow to generalize
them to the scale 1:1 000 000 keeping accuracy at acceptable level. The last
scale is chosen as a basic for the whole product in order to comply our
materials with already prepared layers in the Institute of Geography (group of
N.N. Kamedchikov) and agree our efforts with the international community.
Speaking about very big and diverse materials in
general, we like to emphasize that the accuracy, technology and instruments of
the military surveys is comparable with the modern maps. There was a special
program of astrogeodetic measurements to back up the topographic surveys, and
most of the geodetic data had been published. Even the Bonne projection the XIX
century surveyors used is supported by the Workstation version of Arc/Info GIS!
All the instructions and data necessary for digitizing and recalculation is
easily available from the printed survey instructions. There exist even the
evaluations of the accuracy and standard errors of many of such astrogeodetic
measurements and map surveys [15].
Digitization of maps from the end of XVIII
century is possible to a great extent. Large scale parcel plans of the General
Bordering Survey are done without projection. But uezd atlases, gubernia plans
and overview small scale maps for the whole country are done in Mercator
projection. The accuracy of these maps is much higher than the Petrine surveys.
More objects were mapped by triangulation and measurements, among them - roads,
administrative borders, rivers and borders of land property. The triangulation
network had been much more tight and the number of astrogeodetic points was
higher. The geometric characteristics of this land survey and the ways to
overlay them onto the modern maps had been studied by Gedymin (1960) and his
conclusions make us secure about the possibility of using these maps with the
modern GIS.
Maps produced before 1775 could not be
adequately input in electronic form. Although they have detailed scales (1:420
000 – 1: 840 000) and projections with known parameters (Mercator or De l’Isle [16]),
the technology of surveys was not accurate and standard error in comparison to
modern maps was great. For some territories survey was exploratory. It is
reasonable to redraw boundaries from that maps on the modern topographic basis
and then digitize.
The problems of data interpretation
appeared because surveys of the large territories lasted for many years (the
General Bordering Survey started in Moscow gubernia in 1766 and ended in 1822
in the South of the European part). We can talk about the synchronic "slice"
for single gubernia but not for the whole European Russia. It is important that
mapping and geographic exploration followed the expansion of the Russian frontier
since XVI up to the end of XIX century (Plate 8)[17]
. Some of the annexed regions of Central Asia were mapped in a very large scale
to back up military actions or delimitation disputes (Postnikov, 2001) or their
potential value for future colonization as it was at the Far East and Siberia.
Some - with small resources and scarce population - were mapped in small scale.
In general there is an noticeable predominance of cartographic materials for
the European part in comparison to Siberia and Asia and there could be several
scale gaps, when only small scale materials is available.
For early surveys and for the territories of
Siberia the essence of the bordering was to distinguish the administrative
affiliation of villages and cities. It means that the accuracy of delineation
does not require precise digitization of boundary line from the maps. For that
kind of maps we should verify boundaries by the database Settlements, which is
now in started. Additionally we plan to use hydrographic layer, which is
very useful to locate boundaries and settlements. It is being compiled by the
local dealer of ESRI, Inc.
Additionally we are going to use indirect information
to fill gaps. It is the Full Edition of Laws of the Russian Empire, fixing
establishment and dismissal of gubernii; Official List of settlements fixing
placenames, settlement and their affiliation. Data will be extracted also from
annual reports of Governor, being kept in oblast archive.
The way to solve the problem of data
interpretation could be the flexible database design allowing to keep data
intervals (fields “from”-“to”), versions of boundaries or multiple entries for
the same object (derived from different sources). It is very close to the
approach practiced by the developers of China historical GIS (L.W. Crissman,
2000).
Database structure
The concept of the Database supposes a set of relational tables, being
built in Oracle 7. This will allow to process complex queries along time and
spatial axes. There is only a draft of the database, which by our opinion
reflects specificity of data we posses and are going to work with. The main
principle is that we distinguish several types of objects within our system:
·
Geometrically referenced objects of two types:
polygons and points;
·
Virtual objects equal to the administrative
units of various (three to four) levels, which are represented in usually used
statistical records.
The smallest spatial entity will be artificial
polygon with unique historical sequence of administrative affiliation. In each
moment of time it is a part of some existing administrative unit. The point
objects represent settlements.
The virtual objects correspond to administrative
units until they have the same name. We presume that the change of the name
means that the new administrative object appeared. This reflect the real
situation, when then the renaming means usually radical administrative
reorganization.
Most of the statistics collected during the
XVIII-XIX centuries relates to the single settlement, and only generalized
statistics to uezd and volost’. Thus attributes will be incorporated into the
database “Settlements” and include the following draft list of parameters:
population number, number of households, some agricultural statistics.
We can suppose that the structure of our
database after we start to fill it with information may gradually change. In
any case it should transparently reflect all types of administrative changes
having occurred during the discussed period.
Types of administrative changes
Analysis of already collected material shows several
types of changes in administrative division, occurred in the observed period:
Changes of the boundary geometry
are of two subtypes:
·
as a result of combining of two or more units or
their separation;
·
as a result of conversion of some settlements or
parcels of lands to the neighboring administrative unit
In the periods of administrative reforms up to
90% of administrative units had been changed per decade. In quiet times local
adjustments were no more than 1-5% per each year. It is hardly imaginable that
any boundary changed two or more times a year. Agricultural statistics related
to administrative unit was gathered once a year in accordance with the
agricultural cycle.
Changes of the placenames
of administrative units and settlements usually meant serious reorganization of
a unit, but were less serious for settlements. Before 1917 many settlements had
multiple names: folk and official ones. Sometimes folk names were unquotable
and according to a special surveyors' instruction of 1770th few
letters of such names were to be changed to make them sound better. Both local
and official names were fixed in uezd Bordering Atlas and land use
statistical records. After 1917 we have only official name and very often it is
different to the pre-revolutionary. The changes in names were reasoned mainly
politically.
Changes of administrative status were rare
and meant transformations of the hierarchy status of administrative unit. This
may occur due to increase (decrease) of population, political factors. For
example, after the forced resettlement of highland Pamir Tajiks to the plains
the status of highland districts reduced.
In comparison to the China’s administrative system
there were no coding system up to modern days.
What is already done
By the moment we started to build database of
settlements for the beginning of the XX century which will be additional
helping material for verification of boundaries. Now we are at pre-project phase and
by today we have already:
·
compiled small database of bibliographic
descriptions of maps from Russian archives and libraries with their Codes,
which is presented in the Internet and could be searched. It is a prototype of
bibliographic information service linked to our information system in future. In
coming future we plan to establish the Z39.50 compliant distributed
bibliographic database;
·
preparing data for digitization for the year
1914;
·
start to record metainformation on statistical
datasets according Dublin core standard.
Conclusion
·
The scientific community really needs the
information system integrating data on the history administrative division as a
framework for their own studies,
·
There is a lot of old cartographic materials in
various archives that will make a good basis for the GIS of Russian administrative
boundaries, most of them available for researchers now,
·
The accuracy of the old maps either corresponds
to the modern maps, or the data could be converted with the help of modern
information technology and methods worked out by local researcher,
·
Historical GIS should be done as an open system,
thus becoming a framework of projects and initiatives and developing as a
collaborative resource.
The work on the GIS of the administrative boundaries is now in starting
phase. Timetable, volume and content of the system will depend on the small
indirect funding that we already receive from our institutions and potential
grants we are going to apply for. We would appreciated any opportunities of
collaborative projects, open to any recommendation and ready to make our data
compliant with the data of our potential partners.
Bibliography
·
Administrative division of the Russian state at
the end of XVII century. Map. In Motherland [Rodina]. Moscow, 1996, Vol.
9.
·
Alexandrovskaia O.A. (1989). Emergence of
Russian geography in XVIII century. [Stanovlenie geograficheskoi nauki v
Rossii XVIII veka]. Moscow, ‘Nauka’.
·
Baransky N.N. (1926) Economic geography of the
Soviet Union. Overview of the GOSPLAN regions. [Economicheskaia geografiia
Sovetskogo Soiuza. Obzor po oblastiam Gosplana]. Moscow – Leningrad.
·
Crissman L.W. (2000). Draft database design and
geocoding system, http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~chgis/work/design/chinastdb_1210.doc
·
Gedymin A.V. (1960) Experience of use of the
General Bordering Survey documents in geographical research. In Voprosy
geografii., vol. 50.
·
Got’e J.V. (1906). Map of old administrative
division of the Zamoskovny krai in about 1650. Located at: Russian State
Library, Map Dept. Index: Ko7/VII-16 Ko12/I-27,28. Published as annex to his
books Zamoskovny krai v XVII veke. Moscow, 1906 and Materialy po
istoricheskoi geografii Moskovskoi Rusi. Moscow, 1906.
·
Harley J.B. Maps, knowledge and power. In The
iconography of landscape. Essays in symbolic representation, design and use of
past environments. Ed. By D. Cosgrove. Cambridge University Press. Pp. 277
- 312.
·
Kabuzan V.M. (1981) Review of the sources on
historical geography of Russian administrative division at 1720 – 1770. In: Historical
geography of XVIIIth century Russia. [Istoricheskaia geografiia Rossii XVIII
veka] vol. 2., Moscow
·
Karchevskii K.A., V.L. Nosevich, Yu.P. Rud’ko
(2000). “Electronnyi atlas-spravochnik “Gubernia” in Proceedings of the
conference “new information resources and technologies in historical study and
education”, Moscow region, 6-9 April 2000
·
Karimov A.E. (1999) Russian Cadastral Surveys
Before and After Peter the Great. in The Cartographic Journal, The
British Cartographic Society. 36, 2. December 1999. pp. 125 - 132.
·
Kirilov I.K. (1977) The flourishing condition of
the Russian State. [Tsvetushee sostoianie Vserossiiskogo Gosudarstva.] Moscow.
·
Kozharinov, A.V., O.V. Morozova (1995). Methodology
of areals studies and Database “AREAL” in Computer Databases in botanic
research, St.Petersburg, pp. 23 – 24.
·
Melnikova T.N. (1954) On the mathematical basis
of the Russian maps of XVIII century. In Geograficheskii sbornik. Moscow
– Leningrad. Vol. 3., pp. 117 – 130.
·
Postnikov A.V. (2001) Encounter at the roof of
the world: politicians, spies and geographers in the struggle for Pamir. [Skhvatka
na krushe mira: politiki, razvedchiki i geografy v borbe za Pamir]. Moscow
·
Postnikov A.V. (1998) Cartography and boundary
making on the Pamir (Eighteen and Nineteen centuries). Terrae Incognitae. Vol.
30. Pp. 72-93.
·
Postnikov A.V. (1989). Large-scale mapping
development in Russia. [Razvitie krupnomashtabnoi kartografii v Rossii].
Moscow.
·
Scott James C (1998). Seeing like a state : how
certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven. Yale
University Press.
·
Shaw Denis J. B. (1996) Geographical practice
and its significance in Peter the Great’s Russia. In Journal of Historical
Geography, 22, 2 pp. 160-176.
· Urness Carol (1990). Rybakov on Delisle Map of 1706. In New perspectives on Muscovite history : selected papers from the Fourth World Congress for Soviet and East Congress for Soviet and East European Studies. Harrogate, 1990 / edited by Lindsey. New York : St. Martin's Press, 1993. Pp. 24 - 34.
[14]
In 1864 it was established elected self-government in most of the Russian gubernia
- zemstvo
[15] Professor A.V. Postnikov proved military surveys of XIX – beginning of XX centuries to satisfy the modern requirements to the map accuracy. Being a member of the Foreign Ministry Commission for checking of the Soviet – Chinese boundary in 1980th he worked out special methods of using old maps and field observations for that purpose.
