TERMINOLOGY OF LAND OWNERSHIP AND TYPES OF SETTLEMENTS IN THE OIKONYMY OF BELOZERYE

This article discusses the names of settlements in Belozerye, including designations of settlement types ((sic)), several terms with the suffix - ((sic), etc.), denoting places of former settlements, and some definitions characterising the ownership status of lands ((sic). In addition, the author examines the issue of the use of terms under consideration naming the types of settlements as a designation of the type of object in the official lists of settlements and in the speech of residents. The study refers to data from the lists of settlements of Olonets (1905) and Novgorod (1911-1912) provinces, and for the later period, to data from field collections of the Toponymic Expedition of the Ural University of the 1960s-2010s. The difference in the toponymic use of certain terms of land ownership is mainly explained by the peculiarities of the settlement of the territory and the existing types of land ownership (this is especially typical of the characterising names: (sic), etc.). The designations of settlement types turn out to be less dependent on the established land tenure practices and more susceptible to subsequent administrative regulation, although certain historical patterns can be traced here: the terms (sic) and (sic) mark the sites of archaeologically confirmed and documented medieval fortified settlements; the Novgorod toponymic models (sic) and (sic) make it possible to clarify the zone of Novgorod development of the territory and delimit it from the more eastern Rostov-Suzdal. The term (sic) is most widely represented on the territory of the former Novgorod pyatinas which inherited the Old Russian system of pogosts; the appearance of the term (sic) in Belozerye is clearly connected with the Stolypin reform, although it was known in other Great Russian territories before that time.