Ufa Archaeological Herald

Studying archaeological microdistricts is certainly a topic for an archaeological research that makes scientists rely on excavation findings trying to understand how the history of the area unfolded and what the ancient or Medieval people culture looked like. A more comprehensive reconstruction is achieved using written, ethnographic, geographic and other sources that can enhance the study's veracity. However, there is one aspect to the archaeological microdistricts history. This is its formation. The author uses cartographic data, oral stories and limited archaeological evidence to show how Russian peasant arrived at the new pristine place in the early 1700^s, how they formed a network of villages, each believed to be an archaeological microdistrict. This does not contradict with the existing definition of an archaeological microdistrict as a cluster of monuments inside an outlined territory. It shows how two settlements (one comprised with two nearly unrelated parts) situ- ated next one to another 2 km apart merge into one big settlement and keep stretching and budding with a range of small village parts. From the archaeological point of view, every part like this can be interpreted as an inde- pendent complex as it is separated from the original settlement and lays 200 or more meters away. Throughout its lifetime, Ostrog-Krapivino complex was forming periphery around it. This territory was farmed lands with temporary structures. As the complex grew, these lands were agglomerated and farming moved to other sites.

archaeological microdistrict, system of settlement of Russians and aborigines, Western Siberia, peasant colonization

• Archaeological microdistricts..., 1994, Archaeological microdistricts of Western Siberia: abstracts of the All-Russian Scientific Conference. OmGU, Omsk, 177 p. (In Russ.)
• Archaeological microdistricts..., 1998, Archaeological microdistricts of Western Siberia: materials of the scientific conference. OmGU, Omsk, 88 p. (In Russ.)
• Archaeological microdistricts..., 2004, Archaeological microdistricts of Western Siberia: materials of the scientific conference. Omsk, 114 p. (In Russ.)
• Archaeological microdistricts..., 2009, Archaeological microdistricts of Western Siberia: materials of the scientific conference. Apelsin, Omsk, 168 p. (In Russ.)
• Bolshanik, P.V., Zhuk, A.V., Matyushchenko, V.I., Tataurov, S.F., Tataurova, L.V., Tikhonov, S.S., Tolpeko, I.V., 2001, Nizhnetarsky archaeological microdistrict. Nauka, Novosibirsk, 256 p. (In Russ.)
• Volkov, E.N., 2007, The complex of archaeological sites Ingalskaya dolina. Nauka, Novosibirsk, 224 p. (In Russ.)
• We live..., 2004. We live by the Krapivinsky fate: essays on the history of the Krapivinsky district. TSERIS, Novosibirsk, 480 p. (In Russ.)
• Kulemzin, A.M., Borodkin, Y.M., 1989, Archaeological map of the Kemerovo region. Kemerovo Publishing House, Kemerovo, 158 p. (In Russ.)
• Potanin, G.N., 2005, “About the working class in the near taiga. From essays on Siberia”, G.N. Potanin. Selected works: in 3 volumes, vol. II. Socio-political works, ECO, Pavlodar, pp. 36–48. (In Russ.)
• Ruslanov, E.V., 2003, Archaeological microdistricts of the Southern Urals: theory and practice of scientific study. IIYaL UFIC RAN, Ufa, 260 p. (In Russ.)
• Tataurov, S.F., Tataurova, L.V., Tikhonov, S.S., Sherstobitova, O.S., Garkusha, M.A., 2011, Archaeological microdistricts of Western Siberia: theory and practice of research. Nauka, Omsk, 196 p. (In Russ.)
• Tikhonov, S.S., 2011, “On the possibility of studying ethnographic-archaeological complexes of Russians in the middle reaches of the Tom”, International Scientific Congress “Ethnic History and Culture of the Turkic Peoples of Eurasia”, Izdatel-Poligrafist, Omsk, pp. 409–413. (In Russ.) (In Russ.)
• Tikhonov, S.S., 2013,” Ethnographer and archaeological complexes of Russian tire a little and the possibility of their study (based on the middle reaches of river Tom in Kemerovo region)”, Bulletin of the Kuzbass State Technical University, no. 3 (97), pp. 133–136. (In Russ.)
• Tikhonov, S.S., 2018, “Study of the Archaeological Microregions: The Basic Provisions of the Concept of V.I. Matushchenko”, Herald of Omsk University. Series “Historical Studies”, no. 3 (19), pp. 23–30. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25513/2312-1300.2018.3.23-30
• Tikhonov S.S., 2019, “30 Years of Research of Archaeological Microregions (The Current State of the Concept in Domestic Science)”, Herald of Omsk University. Series “Historical Studies”, no. 4 (24), pp. 224–230. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24147/2312-1300.2019.4.224-230
• Tikhonov, S.S., 2024, “On territorial border markers of the settlement of Russians of the Middle Tom River region in the beginning of the 18^th – mid 20^th centuries”, Vestnik Arheologii, Antropologii i Etnografii, no. 2 (65), pp. 167–174. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20874/2071-0437-2024-65-2-14
• Troitskaya, T.N., Sumin, A.V., Adamov, A.A., 2012, Antiquities of Kudryashovsky Forest: Krokhalevka-13 – a Complex of Archaeological Sites. Yarus, Novosibirsk, 76 p. (In Russ.)
• Shirin, Yu.V., 1995, “Archaeological work on Tom and Chulym in 1940”, Proceedings of the Tomsk State United Historical and Architectural Museum, TGU, Tomsk, pp. 57–64. (In Russ.)
• Shirin, Yu.V., 2004, “Gorodok settlement and its surroundings in ancient times”, Kuznetsk antiquity, iss. 6, Kuzneckaya krepost, Novokuznetsk, pp. 69–112. (In Russ.)
• Shirin, Yu.V., 2017, “About Place and Conditions of Appearing of Mungat Burg”, Herald of Omsk University. Series “Historical Studies”, no. 3 (15), pp. 71–76. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25513/2312-1300.2017 .3.71-76