Suchergebnisse

Until the mid-19th century, the Middle Volga and Trans-Volga region could be considered as a frontier of the Russian state. It was a specific border between Europe and Asia, an imperial periphery facing the southeast, the nomadic steppe world. Until the mid-18th century, the administrative system in the Middle Volga had primarily fulfilled military and fortification tasks. The permanent process of mass colonization was the most important feature of the region's history between the mid-17th century and the early 20th century; it was facilitated owing to a large amount of vacant land and favorable market conditions. Mass migration caused establishment of Russian farms and landownership in the region and a gradual replacement of nomadic pastoralism. By the mid-19th century, the policies of the Russian Empire in the Trans-Volga region had lost their military and foreign-policy functions, and the administrative system had been brought into line with the all-imperial standards. The region began to turn into an "inner periphery" of Russia which combined some features of the border region and those of the inlands of the Empire. After the abolition of serfdom in 1861, the Trans-Volga region acquired the status of the "Russian breadbasket", one of the main centers of grain production and supply of bread to the national and international markets. Construction of railways and the development of the Volga river shipping lines contributed to the intensive influx of people to the region, and to the plowing and cultivation of the virgin steppe lands. The main feature of the region's population was its ethnic and religious diversity, as well as historically conditioned interaction of the peoples of "forests and steppes". By the beginning of the 20th century, the "inner periphery" had acquired its recognizable historical and cultural image and become motherland for its diverse population. ; Авторский коллектив исходит из концепции, согласно которой вплоть до середины XIX в. средневолжский регион может быть охарактеризован как один из фронтиров Российского государства – специфическое пограничье Европы и Азии, окраинная территория, обращенная на юго-восток, к кочевому степному миру. До середины XVIII в. система управления в Среднем Поволжье выполняла прежде всего военные и фортификационные задачи. Важнейшей особенностью региона был процесс его массовой колонизации, осуществлявшейся с середины XVII и до самого начала ХХ в., чему способствовали наличие здесь значительного фонда свободных земель и благоприятная рыночная конъюнктура. Результатом переселенческого движения стало укоренение на основной территории региона русского крестьянского хозяйства и помещичьего землевладения, постепенное вытеснение кочевого скотоводства. К середине XIX в., когда имперская политика в Заволжье утратила военные и внешнеполитические функции, а система управления была унифицирована по общероссийскому образцу, средневолжский регион из фронтира вдоль юго-восточной границы начал превращаться в своеобразную «внутреннюю окраину» России, обладавшую чертами пограничья и одновременно внутренних территорий империи. В пореформенный период Заволжье обрело статус «российской житницы», одного из основных центров товарного зернового производства, поставщиков хлеба на внутренний и внешний рынки. Строительство железных дорог, развитие волжского пароходства способствовали интенсивному притоку населения, стремительной распашке степных земель. На рубеже XIX–ХХ вв. регион стал транзитным узлом, через который шло массовое переселение крестьян из центральных губерний России и Украины в Сибирь. Особенностью сельского населения региона, его отличием от других «внутренних районов» России являлась этноконфессиональная неоднородность и активное взаимовлияние народов «леса и степи», что имело глубокие исторические корни. К началу ХХ в. «внутренняя окраина» превратилась в особое историко-культурное пространство со своим узнаваемым обликом, в «общую родину» для своего многоликого населения.

The study of rare plants at the level of cenothic populations throughout the range greatly contributes to the identification of the features of their biology and ecology. We carried out the identification of the features of the age and spatial structure of the Adenophora lilifolia (L.) A. DC. cenothic populations in the ecological conditions of the steppe, foreststeppe zones of the Middle Volga (Samara region) and the Southern Urals (Republic of Bashkortostan), as well as the mountainous zone of the Southern Urals. Adenophora lilifolia is included in the Red Book of the Samara region (category 3 – a rare species).The study of A. lilifolia populations was carried out in different years on the territory of specially protected territories of different rank. In determining the structure of cenothic populations, standard techniques were used. The studied cenopopulations are located on the fringes of oak-lime, birch, less often maple-linden or aspen forests, sparse forests or forest potholes. The total density of individuals varies from 0.8 to 4.2 specimens/m2. The mean values of the generative fraction in the populations are 81.1 %, the prevalent fraction is 19.3 %. The basic ontogenetic spectrum of A. lilifolia is characterized as centered. Although the share of generative individuals in all cenopopulations is high, the distribution by ontogenetic groups in the two regions differs. The average values of demographic indices indicate a fairly high stability of the species populations. Of the 14 investigated cenopopulations of A. lilifolia, according to the "delta-omega" criterion, most are mature, in addition, transitional and maturing are identified. In general, the state of the populations in the Southern Urals is fairly prosperous. All studied populations in the Samara region have a high anthropogenic load, and the number of individuals in specific habitats is low.

Introduction. The Lower Volga region attracts the attention of specialists because the ancient cultures of this region had a great influence on neighboring regions. This also applies to the Neolithic era, when the inhabitants of this territory had the oldest ceramic production and cattle breeding. A number of questions remain open, as new sources are required. One of them is the site of Priozernaya in the southern part of the Lower Volga region. Methods and materials. Planographic and stratigraphic methods are used to identify the nature of the monument. According to the results of the technical and technological analysis, the ceramics are made of silt. The results of the typological method reveal flat-bottomed vessels ornamented with receding incisions in a geometric style. Stone tools are represented by scrapers, spikes, and knives. Spears and spearheads are made of bones. According to the results of archeozoological analysis, tur, kulan, saiga, tarpan, etc. are represented. According to the results of radiocarbon analysis, dates are obtained. It is 6700–6600 years BP for animal bones and ceramics. Results. The results of the spatial analysis reveal the presence of remnants of dwelling structures. The manufacturing technology and typology of ceramics and stone tools allow us to attribute the monument to the Tentexor type of the late stage of the Neolithic of the Northern Caspian. The results of the faunal analysis confirm the presence of only wild animal species. The hypothesis about the appearance of a producing economy in this region at the late stage of the Neolithic has not been confirmed. Only the dog belongs to the domesticated animals. According to the results of radiocarbon analysis, the site functioned in the second quarter of the 6th millennium BC. The monument is a short-lived hunting camp. The pattern application techniques and the nature of ornamental compositions allow us to detect similarities with the ceramics of the Caspian culture. This suggests assuming the participation of the local Neolithic population in the genesis of the bearers of the Eneolithic tradition. Authors contribution. T.Yu. Grechkina wrote sections about planographic and stratigraphic methods. A.A. Vybornov described ceramic and stone tools. The results are written together.

Introduction. The author of the article considers the cultural and morphological differentiation of the population of the Middle Bronze Age in the Lower Volga region and adjacent territories. Methods and materials. The researcher has analyzed 18 male craniological series, which were compiled from published and new materials. The authors contribution is more than 230 skulls. The comparative analysis has been carried out by the canonical method to solve the problem. The Mahalanobis proximity distance matrix has been processed by cluster analysis to visualize the results as a dendrogram. Analysis. The results of the comparative analysis reveal a significant morphological similarity of the population of the Lower Volga region catacomb circle cultures who did not practice the deformation custom, except for a burial ground series of the Volga-Don variant. First of all this similarity can be explained by the commonality of the genetic substrate. A series of skulls with traces of artificial deformation has a certain similarity, the distribution of intergroup variability can be associated not only with the modeling effect of the deforming structure on the craniological patterns, but also the genetic relationship of this group of populations. Results. The series of the Volga-Don variant is more similar to the Poltavka culture series in the Lower Volga region, which confirms the hypothesis made by some scientists about the evolutionary nature of the development of cultural elements from the earlier Poltavka to the later Volga-Don ones. This group has some similarities with the late Ymna population of the Lower Volga region. As for the population of the PostCatacomb time (Krivolukskaya and Lola cultures), they differ from the rest of the population by a longer and narrower skull, which is apparently related to the foreign cultural component that took part in the origin of these populations.

Contents: Part I: Russia's relations with key regions of the world. Russia and the West - Andrei Zagorski: Moscow seeks to renegotiate relations with the West (7-10); Sabine Fischer: The EU and Russia: stumbling from summit to summit (15-17); Andrew Monaghan: Prospects for developing NATO - Russia relations (19-21). Russia and Central Asia - Aleksei Malashenko: Russia and Turkmenistan (25-28); Alisher Ilkhamov: Russia lures Uzbekistan as its strategic satellite in Central Asia (31-34); Martha Brill Olcott: The Kazakh-Russian relationship (37-40). Russia and Asia - Gilbert Rozman: Russia's resurgence in Northeast Asia: views from the region (45-48); Oksana Antonenko: Russia, Central Asia and the Shanghai Co-operation Organization (49-53). Nuclear proliferation - Adam N. Stulberg: Russia's nonproliferation tightrope (65-68). Maritime border conflicts - Vlad M. Kaczynski: US-Russian Bering Sea marine border dispute: conflict over strategic assets, fisheries and energy resources (75-78); Vlad M. Kaczynski: The Kuril Islands dispute between Russia and Japan: perspectives of three ocean powers (79-82); Geir Honneland: Norway and Russia in the Barents Sea - cooperation and conflict in fisheries management (82-85). Part II: pressing issues: WTO accession - Peter Rutland: Russia and the WTO: one step forward, one step back (89-91); Natalya Volchkova: Russia and the WTO: a Russian view (92-95); Documentation: World Trade Organization: principal objectives and functions, accession procedure (95); Documentation: Economic effects of Russian WTO accession (96-103).

Issues in the sphere of education are the pressing ones not only today. For historical reasons, any social upheaval in the country has an impact on the public education. The century-old events are not an exception. The system of agrarian education in Soviet Russia encountered great difficulties at the time of the dismantlement of NEP and during the village modernization. In connection with the new tasks facing agriculture, the small network of educational establishments, their disparity, low student take-in capacity, poor financial position and low professional level of graduates could not meet the needs of the People's Commissariat of Agriculture. Absence of necessary assistance and control from the superior authorities over many educational establishments, particularly over many mid-ranking and low-ranking institutions, adversely affected their activity. The State paid special attention to young peasants and tried to increase the proportion of that social group among the applicants. But the peasants' financial hardship, shortage of time for studies, weak education proficiency, lack of the scholarship allowances and of accommodation in many educational institutions hampered the implementation of the task. To overcome the situation, it was required to restructure – in cooperation with all those involved – the existing system of agrarian staff training.