History, Archeology and Ethnography of the Caucasus

Introduction

The history of the development and formation of the vast territory of the Volga Lowlands, which was annexed to Russia during the reign of Ivan the Terrible, remains largely unexplored to this day. Of particular interest are questions concerning the settlement of one of the peripheral territories of the Russian state in the XVII century – the Volga Delta. Astrakhan's geographical location, far from the central regions of the Moscovia, and the availability of free land and riverine areas have always attracted the Russian population, especially fugitive peasants.

The fishery industry in the region began during the Khazar Khanate period (VIII – X centuries) and continued to develop during the periods when the region was a part of the Golden Horde (XIII – XIV centuries) and the Astrakhan Khanate (XV century) [1, p. 226]. After Astrakhan joined the Russian state in the mid- XVI century, spontaneous colonization promoted the economic development not only of the Astrakhan region, but also the Volga Delta as a whole. Russian settlers learned how to catch fish using uchug traps from the locals [2, pp. 220–221; 1, p. 226]. Fishing grounds – uchugs consisted of fences ‘zaboyka’ (wooden structures that blocked the river where the fishery was conducted) and camps ‘stan’ (fishermen's settlements on the banks of rivers, where they lived and processed the fish caught in the fences) and where both fugitive peasants and free labourers settled.

At the end of the XVII century, uchugs became large fishery enterprises, fortified with palisades, with impressive farm and residential buildings, churches and militarised guards, even armed with artillery.

Despite the extensive literature available on the history of colonization of the Volga Delta and the development of fisheries in its territory [3–9], maps illustrating the location of fish traps — the earliest Russian settlements of the XVII century — have not been previously published, nor the reasons for cessation of activity at some fisheries have been established.

The objective of our study is a detailed review of the toponyms referring to uchugs – the first Russian settlements in the Volga Delta of the XVII century on E. Kaempfer' map ‘Hetsuydelykste gedeelte van de Vliet Wolga’ (Southern part of the Volga River), published in N. Witsen' book ‘Northern and Eastern Tartary’ (1697). This paper is a continuation of the authors' research of the above-mentioned source, in the course of which a comparative-historical analysis of hydronyms of the Delta part of Kaempfer's map was made and a historical and geographical reconstruction of the water route of the traveller's journey from Astrakhan to the Caspian Sea was carried out [10].

To achieve the goal of our study, we set the following tasks: 1) to consider and introduce into scientific turnover the translation of toponyms denoting uchugs on the Delta part of Kaempfer's map; 2) to compare the location of uchugs on the maps of E. Kaempfer (1683), A. Olearius (1637), the Trinity Monastery's uchugs drawings (II half of the XVII century); 3) to indicate the reasons for uchugs termination.

A number of recent publications [11-14] have been devoted to the problem of the Caspian Sea level fluctuations in historical retrospect and their impact on the fate of the local inhabitants. This work has its relevance on the background of the ongoing shallowing of the Volga Delta and the Caspian Sea, as it illustrates examples of the negative impact of natural and climatic factors on changes in the economic infrastructure for coastal residents.

Materials and methods

In order to solve the tasks, we provide translations of designations and interpretation of toponyms on E.  Kaempfer's map. To clarify the authenticity of E. Kaempfer's findings, we present extracts from European writers who travelled along the Volga-Caspian in the XVII century, such as Adam Olearius, secretary of the Schleswig-Holstein embassy (1637), [15], Jan Streiss, a Dutch carpenter from the ship ‘Eagle’ (1670) [16], and other Russian sources of the XVII – XIX centuries. We provide comparative characteristics of toponyms on E.  Kaempfer's and A. Olearius' maps and the drawing of the Trinity Monastery's uchugs, in which both preserved and out-of-use toponyms of the Volga Delta are presented.

By the time of E. Kaempfer's expedition (1683), there were only A. Olearius' maps about the Volga Delta [17], (Fig. 1), which mention the names of several rivers and settlements on the banks of the Volga. About the condition of Russian maps of the XVII century, A. Olearius noted that they were “completely wrong and did not allow to determine the way” [15, p. 361]. Another map was authored by J. Streiss [18], where only the Volga River and the city of Astrakhan are marked.

https://caucasushistory.ru/2618-6772/editor/downloadFile/17261/167294

Fig. 1 Fragment of A. Olearius' map of the Volga River (delta part) [17]. 1 – Astrakhan (Astrakhan); 2 – Juantzur (Ivanchug); 3 – Tatarski molobiza (Tatarski molobiza); 4 – Zaboyka – (Urustoba).

Рис. 1 Фрагмент карты р. Волга А. Олеария (дельтовая часть) [17] 1 – Astrakhan (Астрахань); 2 – Juantzur (учуг Иванчуг);

3 – Tatarski molobiza (Татарский молобиза); 4 – забойка – (учуг Урустоба)

There is a drawing of the uchugs location from the Complaint Church Letters of the Astrakhan Trinity Monastery, dating back to the second half of the XVII century, with images of camps and fences allocated to the mentioned monastery (Fig. 2).1 This drawing, more similar to a scheme, is of great interest as it reflects the location of some camps (uchugs) on the river banks. The first detailed Russian map of the Volga Delta with illustrations of the delta channels and fences was compiled by S.M. Gmelin and published in 1777 [19], but it lacks the fisheries mentioned by E. Kaempfer.

The documents of the Astrakhan fishery office indicated the boundaries of fishing grounds and marked measurements of distances from Astrakhan to Uchugs [22], however, maps of fences have not been preserved2.

E. Kaempfer’ cartographic materials (1651 – 1716) are particularly valuable for studying the history of fishing and Russian colonisation of the Volga Delta in the XVII century. In 1683 Kaempfer as a secretary of the Swedish delegation travelled from Stockholm to Isfahan through Moscow and Astrakhan along the Volga to the Caspian Sea [22].

https://caucasushistory.ru/2618-6772/editor/downloadFile/17261/167295

Fig. 2 Drawing of the location of uchugs and fishing vatagas in the Volga Delta. 3

1 – Dolga (Volga); 2 – Astarakan (Astrakhan); 3 – Yadantyug (uchug Ivanchug); 4 – Idanchug (Stary Ivanchug river); 5 – Biryul channel (Biryul river); 6 – Biryul station (Uchug Byuryul); 7 – sea (Caspian Sea).

Рис. 2 Чертеж расположения учугов и промысловых ватаг в дельте Волги.

1 – Долга (Волга); 2 – Астаракань (г. Астрахань); 3 – Ядантюг (учуг Иванчуг); 4 – Иданчуг (р. Старый Иванчуг); 5 – Бирюльская протока (р. Бирюль); 6 – Бирюльский стан (учуг Бюрюль); 7 – море (Каспийское море)

It’s worth noticing that foreign authors in their publications paid little regard to E. Kaempfer's notes on Russia, or did not mention his name among the travellers who visited Russia in the XVII century. [23]. The explanation for this is the complexity of reading the traveller's documents written simultaneously in German and Latin [23, p. 5; 15], poor preservation of manuscripts [22, p. 9] and the loss of some documents [23; 24, p. 148].

At the beginning of the XXI century, two books were published in Russia from the notes of E. Kaempfer: F.P. Adelung concerning his stay, mainly in Moscow [26] and notes on Stepan Razin' uprising [26].

The Russian diary (1683) of E. Kaempfer with a description of his journey from Moscow down the Volga to Astrakhan was published in German editions in 1968 [27] and 2003 [21, p. 83]. The translators of the first edition E.L. Dubman, S.I. Dubinin and the translator of the second edition A.L. Khoroshkevich pointed out the author's translation mistakes in proper names and geographical locations [29, p. 311-312], as well as the absence of the Volga Delta descriptions in his diaries [29].

During his travells in Russia E. Kaempfer not only kept a diary, but also prepared maps of his travel routes, which are stored in the Manuscripts Department of the British Library in London, including 10 sheets depicting the Volga River. The only author who worked with these maps is M. Lazar [31], who published one sheet with a Volga River drawing depicting ‘the Astrakhan surroundings’ [25, p. 68] with barely legible inscriptions. M. Lazar specifies that E. Kaempfer took along with him on his journey Olearius's publication “Vermehrte Newe Beschreibung der Muscotuitischen und Persischen Reyse” (Schleswig, 1656 г.) [31, pp. 68, 71].

N. Witsen served E. Kaempfer' descriptions and route map as the main source for his map “Hetsuydelykste gedeelte van de Vliet Wolga” (Southern part of the Volga River), later included in the second expanded edition of N. Witsen' book ‘Noord en Oost Tartarye’ (Northern and Eastern Tartaria) [31]. E. Kaempfer was in correspondence with Witsen in 1693 – 1694 and shared with him the information collected about Russia, in particular, about the Lower Volga [27, p. 7]. For the first time in Russia, this map from this book was published by E.V. Gusarova [32]. In N. Witsen' book ‘Northern and Eastern Tartaria’ published in Russian in 2010, translations of toponyms and hydronyms to this map are not given [33, p. 754].

М. Lazar reports that on his journey by waterways E. Kaempfer obtained topographical information by interviewing ship crews and local residents, but language barriers were the reason for many illegible place names [30, p. 68]. On the map presented in Witsen' book, several toponyms and symbols in the lower part of the map are already written in the Dutch language4.

The comparative-historical method with a detailed analysis of E. Kaempfer' map and cartographic method were used to visualise the location of XVII century fisheries in the Volga Delta. The application of the cartographic method with the written sources is the main component of this study.

We also used materials previously published by the authors devoted to comparative-historical analysis of the delta part hydronyms on the Kaempfer's map [10]. We've revealed similarity of some hydronyms in the western delta part with the Olearius map (1647) and the present-day ones.

Thus, the systematisation of the material in terms of temporal and spatial aspects allows us to substantiate the accumulated records on the settlement of some areas of the Volga Delta and confirm the regularity of the settlement in the fishing grounds.

Results and discussion

В работе рассматривается участок карты от Astrakan5 (г. Астрахань6) (рис. 4/1) до De Kaspische Zee (Каспийского моря) (рис. 4/16). Описания топонимов приводятся в направлении с севера на юг.

In our attempt to translate the toponyms on E. Kampfer' map, we have established that many points noted by the author are Russian homonyms written in Dutch letters, which significantly facilitated the authors' interpretation of these toponyms. In this work, we present translations of purely Dutch words, while for Russian toponyms written in Dutch letters, we provide their Russian pronunciation and interpretation. For the first time, the authors offer decipherment of Russian toponyms and hydronyms written in XVII century in cursive script on the drawing of uchugs belonging to the Trinity Monastery (second half of the XVII century)7. For comparison we present the location of toponyms on E. Kampfer's map with their positions on A. Olearius' map (Fig. 1) and the plan of the Trinity Monastery' uchugs (Fig. 2).

The first toponym on this section of the map is located on the right bank of the Volga River (Fig. 3/1) and bears the name Bugar kara ustga (Bugar kara ustga) (Fig. 3/2), which can be identified as Bugar, meaning "hill, knoll" in Russian, kara means "black" in Turkic languages, thus translating to Black Knoll. Next to it, a hill is depicted, representing one of the Baer knolls (natural elevations), repeatedly shown on the map (Fig. 3/3). Nearby, there is an inscription Een Heuvel van de grootste op dese vlakten (Fig. 3/6), which translates from Dutch as "big hill on these plains." To translate the toponym Ustga (ustga), let's refer to the list of markings on E. Kampfer's map, where the similar-sounding Dutch word Utsiuga (utsyuga) is designated as een visscherij (Fig. 3/13), which translates from Dutch as "place of fishing." According to our opinion, the word ustga is a reduction of the word Utsiuga. In turn, the word ‘utsyuga’ ("place of fishing") sounds like the Russian word ‘utchug’ ("fish trap, fence"). On E. Kampfer's map, the word Utsiuga (uchug) is indicated on riverbanks with a sign resembling a flower opposite toponyms denoting fish traps (Fig. 3/2, 4, 5, 7, 9). At three toponyms (Fig. 3/4, 7, 9), a light bracket blocking the river is depicted. In the list of symbols, the sign shaped like a "flower" is marked with the Dutch word Een Pagger (Fig. 3/12), which translates into Russian as "fence, enclosure," in our case, "fish fence." H. Barrow, an English negotiator traveling along the Volga in 1580, was the first European to mention the term ‘utchug,’ noting that "utchug is the name of a dam in the Tatar language" [34, p. 268]. The construction of the fish trap consisted of a solid palisade of logs driven into the bottom across the river to block the passage of large fish. Traps called "utchuzhny izby" (fish-trapping huts) were arranged inside the structure, where sturgeon species swimming upstream to spawn would become trapped, allowing fishermen to catch them with spears, load them onto boats, and transport ashore, where they would then cut up and prepare the fish at stations [19]. Therefore, the toponym Bugar kara ustga literally means "Black Hill Fish Trap." However, establishing its exact location and identifying the river on whose shores it was situated proves impossible.

https://caucasushistory.ru/2618-6772/editor/downloadFile/17261/167297

The place name on the left bank of the Volga River, Tsjagaan Utsiuga den Monastir des Metropolitans in Astrakan, translates from Dutch as "Chagan Utsiuga Monastery of the Metropolitan of Astrakhan" (Fig. 3/4). This toponym corresponds to the Chagan utsuuga, located on the strait of the same name [21, p. 116]8. This fishery, known since the early XVII century, belonged to the Astrakhan Metropolis [8, pp. 74-75]. On the map, next to the fishing ground, there is a symbol in the form of a rectangle with a cross at its top, marked in the list of symbols with the Dutch word Een Klooster, which translates as ‘monastery’ (Fig. 3/11). There was indeed a church dedicated to the Great Martyr Catherine, built in the XVII century [35, p. 110]. The name of this uchug comes from the Turkic word chegen – a pile, a long log – the main detail in the construction of the walls on uchugs [3, p. 125]. It is likely that the river on which the uchug was located was subsequently named after this fence.

Further downriver, on the left bank of an unnamed river, marked with a bracket sign, there is a toponym named Ivaantsjug Monasten Utsjuga des Klosters Trotzkiin Astrakan, which translates from Dutch as "Ivanchug monastery uchug of the Trinity Monastery in Astrakhan" (Fig. 3/5). On A. Olearius' map, this fishery is called Juantzur (Yantzur) (Fig. 2/2), on the plan of fish fences of the Trinity Monastery, it is referred to as Yadanchug (Fig. 2/3), located on Ivanchuzhny Channel (Fig. 2/4)9. Originally, this uchug bore the name Yamany, meaning "bad barricade" in Tatar, but later it was renamed Ivanchug in Russian style. From the time of the capture of Astrakhan until 1575, the fish trap was leased to Tatars, and after 1575, it was transferred to the Trinity Monastery [36, p. 85]. In this case, the river on which the fish trap was located subsequently took its name from this uchug.

The next toponym downstream is Birui Utsiuga Zudarska (Biruy utsyuga zudarska) (Fig. 3/7). The first two words are defined as the Biruil uchug, and the word "zudarska" may mean "state," since this enterprise was located within the Palace Administration [8, p. 76]. This fence, known in the XVII century as the Biruil fish trap, was situated on the banks of the eponymous channel [37, p. 68].

Next comes the point Isba tatarska (Tatar house) (Fig. 3/8) – an unknown Tatar settlement in the Volga Delta. In records and on A. Olearius' map, this toponym is mentioned under the name Tatarski molobiza (Tatar Molobiza), "...known among Russians as the Tatar shrine... " (Fig. 1/3) [15, p. 358].

Another point on the map — Uruslof Utsiuga Zudarska (Fig. 3/9)—which we have determined as the state-owned fish trap ‘Urustoba’, located under palace administration on the Uruslovo Pleso channel [8, p. 76].

The next toponym, Serga utsuga (Serga Utsyuga) (Fig. 3/10), has been identified as the Basarga fishing ground. This fishery, owned by the Archbishop of Astrakhan, was located on the river with the same name [38; 21, p. 118].

The fate of the fishing grounds in the Volga Delta marked on E. Kaempfer's map has developed in different ways. In the XVI century, with the sea level (−31 – −30.0 m abs.) [36] and in the XVII century, with the sea level (maximum −25.0 m abs.) [39], the hydrological situation was favourable for the development of fisheries even in the estuary area. However, between the 1740s and the early XIX century, the level of the Caspian Sea rose, remaining at −23.5 m above sea level for 70 years [14, p. 155]. The records of the Astrakhan Fish Office for 1742 contain information that fishing ceased on Biryul, Urustoba and Basarga uchugs due to the rise in sea level, the flooding of their buildings and the filling of their fishing nets with sand [21, pp. 116-118]. It should also be taken into account that the installation of a ‘palisade’ of logs across the river slows down the water flow, contributing to the silting up and shallowing of the riverbed at this location.

Nowadays, E. Kampfer's map is the only surviving map of the XVI–XVIII centuries depicting the western part of the Volga Delta with placement and naming of certain uchugs along with their property ownership.

Fisheries were the only Russian settlements in the Volga Delta. On the Volga-Caspian route, trading vessels could stop only at fish traps for rest, where they might receive assistance in repairing their ships, getting off shoals in the estuary area, defending against attacks by robbers or pirates, and replenishing provisions [16].

Terminology related to the names of fish traps almost always has Turkic origins. Fisheries such as Birul', Urustoba, Basarga received their names from rivers with Turkic designations, whereas Chagan and Ivanchug ucgugs gave their names to the rivers upon which they were built. This fact confirms the version that these fisheries existed already in the XVI century and belonged to the Astrakhan Khan and the Tatar aristocracy until the 1570s [2, pp. 220–221].

The hydrological situation in the Volga River Delta during the XVII century was favorable for the functioning of fisheries. The rise in the level of the Caspian Sea between the 40s XVIII and early XIX century altered the hydrological regime in the Volga Delta, particularly in the estuarine area, leading to flooding of some uchugs, filling up of certain channels, and consequently making it impossible to catch fish using fences. Fishery workers had to relocate from abandoned fish traps to other areas.

A series of place names on the studied map represent distorted pronunciations of Russian toponyms, which can be explained by mistakes made by the author who drew information from various sources that often contradicted each other.

E. Kampfer’s map surpasses A. Olearius’ map and the chart of Troitsky Monastery fish uchugs both in cumulative detail and accuracy of depicting geographic realities of the Volga Delta, reflecting a greater number of fishing grounds on a scale closer to reality. Even the delta map by S.M. Gmelin published one hundred years later (1777) failed to outperform it [21].

As a result of analyzing the delta section of E. Kampfer' map, inscriptions were translated from Dutch into Russian, and names of Russian geographical toponyms written with Dutch letters were fully identified.

Finally, this makes it possible to commence research aimed at determining the location of the first Russian settlements of the XVII century in the western part of the delta.

Conclusions

In the presented work the authors managed to fulfil the objectives. The research on detailed analysis concerning the delta part of E. Kaempfer's map, one of the earliest cartographic documents of the XVII century, which records the places of uchugs – the first Russian settlements, some of which still exist today, has been carried out.

The translation of the toponyms denoting fisheries in the delta part on E. Kaempfer' map was performed, and their names were determined to be identical to the names of the rivers on the banks of which they were located.

The coincidences in the location of uchugs on E. Kaempfer's (1683) and A. Olearius' (1637) maps and the drawing of the Trinity Monastery (II half of the XVII c.) have been ascertained.

The main reasons for the termination of Uchugs' activity were the rise in the level of the Caspian Sea, which occurred in the period from the 40s of the XVIII century to the beginning of the XIX century, which changed the hydrological situation in the region, resulting in the flooding of several Uchugs and filling of the channels on which they were located.

The results of the research into toponyms of the Volga Delta according to the map of E. Kaempfer expand our knowledge of historical and geographical realities of the XVII century, forming new perspectives for research in cartography, history and cultural geography of the Volga Delta and its lower reaches.

Acknowledgements: The authors are grateful to the reviewers for their constructive, critical analysis and valuable comments. The work was carried out within the framework of the financial support by RNF grant № 25–27–00357 "Climatological and hydrological events during the Early Middle Ages (VI–X cc.) on the territory of the Volga River Delta".

Благодарность: Авторы благодарят рецензентов за конструктивную критику и ценные рекомендации. Работа выполнена при финансовой поддержке гранта РНФ 25–27–00357 «Климато-гидрологические события в период Раннего Средневековья (VI–X вв.) на территории дельты р.  Волги».