The influence of modernization processes on the formation of a network of settlements in the Yamalo-Nenets National District in the 1920s and 1930s

Zagorodnyuk Nadezhda Ivanovna ORCID: 0000-0002-9071-6998 PhD in History Senior Scientific Associate, Tobolsk Complex Scientific Station of Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences 626152, Russia, Tyumenskaya oblast', g. Tobol'sk, ul. Ak. Yu. Osipova, 15 niz1957@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

In the modern world, the Arctic region retains its important strategic importance. Today, there are two opposite approaches to the settlement of the northern and Arctic territories. In the first case, priority is given to the shift method of development with a reduction in the permanent population, which can be traced to a greater extent in the experience of foreign countries ^[25]. In the second, the Arctic is considered as a "springboard for an innovative economic breakthrough", the purpose of which is to achieve sustainable development of territories and ensure national security ^{[17, pp. 98-99; 24, p. 159]}. This direction is being consistently developed by Russia. In accordance with the Strategy for the Development of the Arctic Zone of the Russian Federation and ensuring National Security for the period up to 2035, approved by the Decree of the President of Russia dated October 26, 2020, a program for the integrated development of supporting (strategically important) settlements has been developed. The List includes the agglomeration of Salekhard – Labytnangi, the cities of Novy Urengoy and Noyabrsk of the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug. The Government highly appreciated the role of settlements that served as strongholds for the development of Arctic territories in the historical past, in particular, Salekhard, which grew out of a prison created by legendary explorers.

The relevance of this study is due to public interest, the importance of the settlement network as an integral part of the development of the productive forces of the territory for understanding the reasons for the emergence of new settlements in the Yamalo-Nenets National District in the 1930s and the factors of their development, as well as insufficient knowledge of the problem.

The interest of politicians in the formation of the territories of the polar countries, demographic problems, and the historical past is shared by scientists. The study of the processes of transformation of the settlement network in the context of modernization of social development and its component – urbanization, is inevitably accompanied by methodological problems ^{[10; 14; 18; 19]}. An analysis of the works of domestic and foreign authors has shown that certain experience has been accumulated in solving demographic and settlement problems through both universal and private approaches, such as: demographic zoning, gender, geopolitical, qualitative, combined, intersectoral, descriptive-historical, statistical, network, systemic, socio-psychological, sociological, technical andeconomic, ecological and biological, and a number of others ^{[24; 26-28]}.

The issues of urbanization, colonization, and typology of settlements remain controversial. Thus, L. L. Rybakovsky came to the conclusion that "by the beginning of the twentieth century, the process of colonization of the Arctic was completed, natural demographic development and further development of the marginal territories" of Siberia and the Far East began ^{[16, pp. 42-43]}. Then the question arises: how to consider the process of special colonization of the 1930s and the following decade - as a "natural demographic development" or a continuation of the colonization process, but by force?

By the beginning of the twentieth century, a network of settlements with specific features had developed in the Arctic zone of Western Siberia under the influence of natural-geographical, economic, political, demographic, and socio-cultural factors. It underwent significant changes in the 1930s, under the influence of modernization processes.

In modern historiography, the issues of the number, social composition of the Yamal population, and migration processes in the first half of the 20th century are quite fully considered. ^{[2; 4; 8; 9; 12]}. The issues of the origin, typology, development of settlements, and the formation of a network of settlements in the Ostyako-Vogul and Yamalo-Nenets national districts were partially reflected in the works of V. V. Aksarin, N. I. Zagorodnyuk, and A. I. Tatarnikova. V. V. Aksarin, based on the materials of the All-Union Census of 1939 introduced into scientific circulation, conducted a quantitative analysis of the structure of settlements, which showed the predominance of yurts, villages, settlements in the settlement network, the presence of a small number of villages, as well as the size of villages of different types in the Ostyako-Vogul National District ^[1]. N. I. Zagorodnyuk considered the features of the formation of a special settlement network in the Yamalo-Nenets National District in the 1930s ^{[5; 6]}. A. I. Tatarnikova presents indicators of the economic and socio-cultural development of settlements in the national districts of Western Siberia in the mid-1930s. Conclusions are drawn about the dispersion of settlement in the polar tundra zone, the presence of territorial concentrations of rural settlements in the forest tundra zones and taiga along important transport arteries – rivers ^[23]. Thus, the history of the formation and development of the settlement network in the Yamalo-Nenets National District has not yet received a holistic comprehensive coverage in the research literature.

The purpose of the work is to trace the influence of modernization processes on the transformation of the settlement network on the example of the Yamalo-Nenets National District in the 1920s and 1930s.

The object of research in this publication is the rural settlement network of the Yamalo-Nenets National District, the subject is spatial distribution, changes in the number, typology, and size of settlements during the period under study.

The main sources were the materials of the Circumpolar Census of 1926-1927^[21] and the All–Union Census of 1939, stored in the Russian State Archive of Economics - RGAE (funds 1562, 7971), as well as current statistics in the state archives of the Tyumen Region (f. 1785) and the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug (f. 3).

A set of statistical methods was used to analyze the revealed information. An integrated interdisciplinary approach allows not only to identify the historical and genetic features of individual documents, but also to give a certain assessment of their representativeness and information potential for specific historical research. The work uses historical-comparative, historical-typological research methods.

The territorial framework covers the Yamalo-Nenets National District within the boundaries of 1939, coinciding with the boundaries of the Obdorsky district of the Tobolsk District in 1926. During the period under study, this territory was subjected to several administrative and territorial changes. By 1939, the district consisted of six districts: Nadymsky, Priuralsky, Purovsky, Tazovsky, Shuryshkarsky, Yamal. The vast region, located in the natural climatic zones of the forest tundra, tundra and Arctic desert, is characterized by extreme human habitat conditions, represented the most remote, inaccessible, sparsely populated part of Western Siberia.

According to the Circumpolar Census of 1926-1927, 16,917 people lived in 152 settlements on the territory of the Obdorsky district, except for places of relative settlement of the nomadic population. The most populous at that time were the district center, the village of Obdorsk and the village of Muzhi, they had more than a thousand inhabitants ^{[21, pp. XXXV, XXXVIII]}.

Modernization of the region's economy required additional workers. Residents from neighboring regions were recruited to the district, but the main workforce was made up of special settlers. In 1935, there were six special settlements in the district (Obdorsk, Aksarka, Novy Port, Shuga, Nida, Tazovsky), but due to industrial necessity, exiles were also located in other settlements. During this period, according to the materials of the Yamal district party committee, 923 families, 4005 people lived in them ^{[12, p. 108; 22, p. 244]}; according to the NKVD in the Omsk region, 937 families (3582 people) [GATO. F. 1785. Op. 5. d. 125. L. 5] Over 10 years (1930-1939), the population in the district has more than doubled, two thirds of the total population growth was due to forced migration ^{[2, pp. 148-150]}.

On January 17, 1939, the population of the Yamalo-Nenets National District, compared with 1926, increased 2.7 times – 45,734 people [RGAE. F. 1562. Op. 336. D. 1505. L. 31] (according to other sources – 45,840 people [RGAE. F. 7971. Op. 16. D. 54. L. 84]), who lived in 222 settlements.

The density of the settlement network of the Obdorsky district in 1926 averaged one settlement per 3,371.1 square kilometers ^{[21, p. XXXV]}, in 1939, by districts, from 1,643 (Priuralsky) to 20,000 square kilometers (Nadymsky) per settlement ^[23].

During the period under study, the most common types of settlements were yurts, fishing sands, settlements, trading posts, villages.

Table 1

The main types of settlements and population dynamics (for 1926 and 1939)

(he counts. according to: ^{[21, pp. 104-123; RGAE. F. 1562. Op. 336. D. 1505. l. 31]})

The information given in Table 1 suggests an unstable typology of settlements. This is due to many reasons: the peculiarities of conducting censuses and other forms of population registration, the lack of a legal framework with clear criteria regarding rural types of settlements, errors related to the incompetence of civil servants and census takers, etc.

She sat down. The number of villages is relatively stable. According to the Circumpolar census, there were four villages in the Obdorsky district: Kushevat – 223 people, Men – 1343 people, Obdorsk – 1872 people, He – 321 people. However, in the materials of the Omsk Regional Department of National Economic Accounting of the USSR State Planning Committee on January 1, 1936, the district centers are designated as the villages of Nida, Shchuchye, Tarko-Sale, Yar-Sale and Halmer-Sede trading post ^{[15, p. 177]}. According to the census of 1939, in some documents, all six regional centers (Nyda, Aksarka, Tarko–Sale, Halmer-Sede, Muzhi, Yar-Sale) are villages [RGAE. F. 7971. Op. 16. D. 54. L. 84], in others, villages are designated settlements of Katravozh (270 people), Kushevat (242 people), Men (1711 people), Shuryshkars (291 people) and ... Khandi-Yakha with a population of 4 people [RGAE. F. 1562. Op. 336. D. 1505. L. 32, 33, 37, 39].

The center of the Obdorsky district, then the Yamalo-Nenets National District was the village of Obdorsk. On June 20, 1933, it was transformed into the district settlement of Salekhard, which received city status on November 27, 1938. From 1926 to 1939, its population increased 6.8 times – from 1,872 people to 12,721 people. The growth of the city's population is associated with the construction of industrial enterprises, primarily a cannery, where the total number of permanent workers was: in 1931 – 216 people, in 1932 – 324 people, in 1933 – 384 people, in 1934 – 348 people ^{[13, p. 45]}. By the end of the 1930s, more than one and a half thousand exiles and their family members lived in the special settlement of the combine [GATO. F. 1785. Op. 5. d. 125. l. 5].

At a solemn meeting dedicated to the fifth anniversary of the Yamalo-Nenets District, they noted with satisfaction how the district center has transformed over the years: "The place occupied now by the cannery was a tundra until 1930... Around Salekhard, industrial buildings and a cannery working village, oil storage facilities, an airport, buildings of an agricultural plant, a vegetable experimental station and two radio stations grew..." [GAYANAO. F. 3. Op. 1. D. 13. L. 11]. By 1940, the population of the district center had grown to 13 thousand people, which amounted to 17.8 percent. of the total population of the district ^{[20, p. 32]}.

Settlements. During the period under study, the number of settlements increased significantly, primarily due to special settlements, from 9 to 29. In the 1930s, two large special settlements were created in the district – Aksarka and a New Port. 1,500 people were assigned to the first of them, and up to 1,000 people employed in the fisheries of the Region in the second ^{[13, pp. 7-8]}.

By the mid-1930s, an established network of special settlements had developed on the territory of the Yamal National District. In 1935, there were six special settlements with a population of 923 families, 4,005 people: Obdorsk (394 families, 1,699 people), Aksarka (215 families, 1,022 people), Novy Port (166 families, 675 people), Shuga and Nyda (93 families, 373 people), Tazovsky (Halmer-Sede) (55 families, 236 people) [GATO. F. 1785. Op. 5. d. 125. l. 5]. By the end of the 1930s, the population of special settlements had increased, with the exception of villages. Aksarki [RGAE. F. 1562. Op. 336. D. 1505. L. 31-39].

Special settlements differed from other types of settlements in their layout, standard dwellings, and infrastructure. The resolution of the Board of the People's Commissariat of the RSFSR dated April 1, 1930 "On the places of settlement of Kulak farms evicted from areas of continuous collectivization" recommended the creation of settlements in the amount of 20 to 100 yards, outside the area of continuous collectivization and, if possible, between these areas, so that the latter would have an ideological impact on the population of settlements. The land for farmland should be of the worst quality. It was recommended to build a village of 100 houses or more according to a standard project of the People's Commissariat of Agriculture; small, 20-25 houses each, to arrange along the banks and rivers 60 m from the shore, observing either the parallelism or the perpendicularity of the street to the shore. In large settlements, it was envisaged to build buildings for a school, a club, a hospital, an outpatient clinic or a paramedic station, a fire station, a canteen, a cemetery, a commandant's office, etc. ^{[5, p. 103]}.

The lack of building materials and the unsatisfactory supply of essential goods left impossible tasks in the field of construction and improvement of settlements. Barrack housing, cramped "corners" for families separated from neighbors by a curtain, lack of furniture – the reality of that time. Spontaneity in the planning of new settlements led to the fact that some of the settlements were eliminated. One example is the history of three villages called Gyda in the Tazovsky district. In 1932, a polar station was founded on the Gydan Peninsula by the expedition of the Northern Sea Route. Another settlement with the same name was built on the Black Cape, 10 km above the mouth of the Yuribey River. In three years, houses were built here and a school was opened. But it turned out that the place was chosen unsuccessfully: during the storm, the territory was flooded, so the buildings were dismantled and transported to Novaya Gyda ^{[6, p. 55]}.

Yurts. The places of residence of the indigenous population were in most cases "settlements in several wooden huts or chums scattered along the banks of the Ob River and its numerous tributaries, since the main occupation of the settled indigenous population was fishing" ^{[13, p. 8]}.

The compilers of the lists of settlements drew attention to the fact that under the name of some yurts, towns, groups of villages were united, located at a considerable distance from each other ^{[21, pp. IV-VI]}. In the 1939 census (Priuralsky district), we find the marks "yurt" and "yurts" [RGAE. F. 1562. Op. 336. D. 1505. L. 33-34].

Under the slogan of the struggle for the transfer of nomadic and semi–nomadic populations to a sedentary lifestyle, the Circumpolar Census also included points of relative settlement - summer camps where nomadic reindeer herders spent a significant period of time. The names of rivers, lakes or other geographical toponyms were assigned to the camps. The names were written based on the local pronunciation, so there were discrepancies and distortions. Winter yurts were also included in the 1939 census.

The appearance of settlements in the places of traditional nomadic routes of reindeer herders led to their change (reduction), the transfer of winter yurts closer to the transport network (haulage), as well as to the factors ^{[3, pp. 100, 107-108]}.

Trading posts. The trading posts created by cooperative societies and state organizations were a place of commodity exchange for the indigenous population, providing them with food. Since the mid-1920s, these are the centers of the economic life of the region, cooperatives were formed here, later – production partnerships, artels and collective farms. In the 1930s, the trading posts began to perform political and educational functions.

In 1926, there were eight trading posts on the territory of the district. Until 1932, the trading network of the district was in the hands of the integrated cooperation and Uralpushnina, since 1932 new organizations have appeared – Komsomol, Rybtrest production. Since 1932, in addition to stationary ones, traveling trading posts have been created, the number of both has been constantly growing: in 1932 there were 68 stationary outlets and 16 traveling ones, the following year – 102 and 29 outlets, respectively. By the end of the study period, the number of retail outlets in the district amounted to 216 ^{[13, p. 17]}, the number of settlement factories increased from eight to 44, i.e. 5.5 times. The largest in 1939 were Aksarka-staraya (626 people), Kutui-Yugan (Kutop-Yugan) (190 people).

The rapid growth in the number of trading posts went against the qualitative characteristics: "... The deep points of the district, in particular, the west coast of Yamal, the Gydoyam tundra, remain undeveloped," it was noted in the report of the Yamalo–Nenets National District Executive Committee of the Soviets on work for 1931-1934. - ...Most retail outlets are placed in completely unsuitable premises, do not have enough warehouses for storing goods. The premises are very small, since in the conditions of working with a nomadic population, it is necessary to provide the nationals with the opportunity not only to hand over raw materials and purchase goods, but also to have a cultural rest. The entire trading network is located along the banks of rivers and the Gulf of Ob, which is its main disadvantage, since the deep points of the tundra, having no fixed point, are serviced only by traveling factors..." ^{[20, p. 66]}.

By the end of the thirties, the only settlement disappeared, the first villages appeared in the Nadymsky, Priuralsky and Shuryshkarsky districts.

Due to the development of the fishing industry, the types of settlements have changed, the inhabitants of which were engaged in fishing and St. John's wort. Sands – fishing areas – have been transformed into fishing settlements (Nadymsky district), fish sites (Tazovsky, Yamal).

The beginning of the St. John's wort fishery in the territory of the district was laid by the Trust in 1931. A special expedition was equipped to the middle part of the Gulf of Ob – Cape Kamenny and Cape Trekhbugorny. The object of extraction was a beluga whale (a species of toothed whales) ^{[13, pp. 28-29]}. In the Tazovsky and Yamal districts, the St. John's wort sites of Napalkovo and Nizhny Marseilles were opened.

Since 1925, the Salekhard Sawmill has been providing the fishing industry with containers. The necessary timber was imported by rafting from the Khanty-Mansiysk National District, at a distance of up to 1 thousand km. At the same time, there were forests in the Urals and Tazovsky and other areas, the development of which began in the mid-1930s. In the 1939 census, three settlements were recorded – forest sites.

All of the above gives us the opportunity to draw the following conclusions:

- The settlement network of the Yamalo-Nenets National District in the 1920s and 1930s was distinguished by its small number. A sparsely populated, small-scale settlement system has developed here;

- during the study period, there was an increase in the population of the Yamalo-Nenets National District, but demographic characteristics are not the only criterion for rural urbanization; migration flows were forced;

- there was one city – the district center on the territory of the district, there were no trends towards an increase in the number of urban settlements during the study period;

- industrial construction contributed to the formation of non-agricultural settlements in the form of working settlements; the use of forced labor led to an accelerated restructuring of the settlement system, characterized by an increase in the number of settlements;

- by the end of the 1930s, settlements of the traditional (agrarian) stage of settlement (villages, trading posts, yurts, etc.) prevailed over new, non-agricultural settlements;

- first of all, the infrastructure of the district and district centers was formed, in other settlements only the problem of providing housing and production facilities for the workforce was solved;

- the territory of the district was a zone of focal settlement, a serious obstacle to strengthening the settlement network was the lack of roads and transport infrastructure.

It is impossible not to agree with the point of view of M. G. Meerovich: It was a forced urbanization based on the artificial growth of the pseudo-urban population due to the forced relocation of dispossessed peasants to the old cities, as well as the forced relocation of large contingents of labor resources to industrially developed territories ^{[11, p. 117]}.

According to V.A. Isupov, the main features of Stalin's pseudo-urbanization ("quasi-urbanization") were: accelerated growth of the urban population, intensive migration of villagers to cities, a sharp disparity between the population and the degree of development of social infrastructure, the formation of a network of marginalized settlements, a delay in the formation of an urban lifestyle ^{[7, p. 468]}, which is clearly visible in the development of the studied region during the specified period.