Who was the first to reach the Pacific Ocean? Russian entry into the Pacific Ocean

Russian entry into the Pacific Ocean

Second half of the 16th century. and especially its last quarter was marked by a number of geographical discoveries important for the future of Russia. Their main result was that by the beginning of the 17th century. the main part of the territory of Western Siberia became part of the Moscow state.

A huge role in this was played by Ermak’s campaigns (1581 -1585), which ushered in an era of faster and more intense Russian advance to the east of Siberia, which allowed our compatriots to gain a foothold in the entire northeast of Asia and reach the shores of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk in less than a century and the Pacific Ocean.

The history of the annexation of Siberia to Russia is, first of all, the history of heroic exploits and glorious deeds of Russian explorers, industrial and service people, it is the history of courage, bravery and perseverance of the Russian people.

Russian people paved new paths, built new cities, explored new lands, and presented all this to the Moscow state. The tsarist government was faced with a fact. He could only consolidate his power on the newly acquired lands and after that again take over and dispose of the same brave people, thanks to whom the new lands and the peoples inhabiting them were given “under the high sovereign’s hand.”

Among the thousands of Russians who, over the centuries, made their way and settled in new, distant spaces Russian state, many talented people stood out. enterprising people who, often without knowing it themselves, made geographical discoveries that advanced Russian geographical science. “He, this people, without the help of the state, captured and annexed vast Siberia to Moscow, with the hands of Ermak and the lower-ranking freemen, running away from the boyars. He, in the person of Dezhnev, Krasheninnikov, Khabarov and a host of other explorers, discovered new places and straits - at his own expense and at his own expense.”

The constant attention and sympathy of ordinary Russian people accompanied every departure of a detachment or ship on long voyages across the unexplored and harsh northern and eastern seas. Since ancient times, the Russian people have been famous as a seafaring people. The beginnings of Russian maritime culture go back to hoary antiquity, into the distance of centuries. Russian bourgeois and some foreign historians, apparently wanting to once again emphasize the greatness of Tsar Peter I, attribute the birth of the Russian fleet to his reign and completely discount the centuries-old maritime history, which in many ways outstripped the culture of Magellan’s campaigns and Western European shipbuilding. They tried in every way to bury the glorious achievements of Russian navigators and shipbuilders in archival dust. But “the Soviet people must firmly know that Peter I could not have built a large fleet for Russia with only Dutch craftsmen, without the rich experience of northern shipbuilders and sailors.”

About Russian ships of the 16th century. Much evidence has been preserved not only from Russian contemporaries, but also from foreigners who visited the Barents and White Seas. These ships were very diverse and were distinguished by good construction and excellent seaworthiness. Among them was a sea boat - a three-masted, flat-bottomed, double-skinned vessel with a displacement of 200 tons. There were other types of ships: an ordinary boat - two-masted, of smaller tonnage; kochmara, or koch, is a three-masted ship, similar to a boat, but smaller; ranshina - a vessel with specially made egg-shaped contours, adapted for navigation in ice; Shnyaka is a deckless two-masted vessel with sharp contours of the stern and bow.

A remarkable generation of Russian shipbuilders grew up building these ships. The experience of the North Sea and Arkhangelsk shipbuilders was subsequently passed on throughout all the seas of the state. Boats, as a rule, were built very quickly and without special equipment. But soon shipyards also appeared. By decree of Ivan the Terrible in 1548, large shipyards and a dry dock were built on the Solovetsky Islands.

Russian seafarers-Pomors knew their seas well - the White and Barents (Studenoe). They have repeatedly rescued foreign sailors from trouble who ventured on a voyage to China or India around Northern Asia. This was the case with the expedition of Hugh Willoughby and Richard Chancellor, who set out from Depford in England in May 1553. Russian Pomors rescued Chancellor's ship and brought him to Arkhangelsk. Two other ships of the expedition were lost.

Attempts to find a route to India around Northern Asia were repeated several times after Willoughby and Chancellor, but they all invariably ended with approximately the same results. Meanwhile, the Russian Pomors moved further and further along the northern coast of Europe and Asia to the northeast of the country.

The voyage of Russian navigators along the Great Northern Sea Route along its entire length began even before the 17th century. And in the first half of the 17th century. they appeared already east of Cape Chelyuskin. From the mouth of the Lena, Russian sailors sailed by sea to the mouth of the Yana and the mouth of the Kolyma. As a final result, all these numerous and persistent voyages of explorers led to the fact that in 1648. Semyon Ivanovich Dezhnev passed through the strait separating Asia from America, thereby making a geographical discovery that rightfully ranks among the great ones.

A significant role The Cossacks played a role in the development of domestic navigation, sailing on their high-speed plows along the Volga, Dnieper, and Don. From generation to generation they passed on the accumulated experience of sailing along rivers and seas over centuries. It is no coincidence that the pioneers of the development of Siberia and the Far East were the Cossacks and Pomors. Traveling, hiking, and sailing were commonplace things for them. For many, it was life itself. The uncontrollable movement of Russian people to the east and northeast of Siberia led to the fact that vast spaces, unexplored and uninhabited, were traversed and annexed to the Russian state in a very short historical period - a little more than half a century.

Immediately after Ermak’s campaigns, masses of Russian people poured into Siberia, seeking to develop and occupy new lands. The first Russian settlements appeared in Siberia, which at first were ordinary wooden fortresses, then entire cities often arose in their place.

Already in 1620, in Tobolsk it became known about a new people in the northeast of Siberia - the Yakuts. In 1627, to establish contact with the Yakuts and to explore the Lepa River, a party led by the Cossack foreman Vasily Bugr was sent from Yeniseisk, which reached the upper reaches of the Lepa the following year. In the same 1628, the Krasny Yar fort (now the city of Krasnoyarsk) was founded on the banks of the Yenisei River. In 1629, a royal decree was issued to divide Siberia into two regions - Tobolsk and Tyumen. In 1632, the Yenisei centurion Pyotr Beketov, having walked up the Angara and its tributary Ilim, dragged himself to the upper reaches of the Lena and descended along it to a place located 70 versts below the present city of Yakutsk. There he founded the Yakut fort, which later played important role in the further advance of the Russians to the Pacific Ocean and in campaigns along the northern shores of Asia.

Almost simultaneously with the Russians’ access to the Bering Sea (Dezhnev), a second, no less important event occurred - the discovery of the Okhotsk (Dama) Sea.

After its foundation in 1632 by centurion Pyotr Beketov, Lensky (Yakutsk) settlement became the center of industrial and service people flocking to Siberia from everywhere. On January 31, 1636, a small detachment of Tomsk Cossacks led by Ataman Kopylov, numbering 50 people, left Tomsk on the Lena. Their path lay through Yeniseisk to Upper Tunguska, the Kuta River and then to the Lena. From Lena, Kopylov went to Aldan and in 1638, near the confluence of the May River with Aldan, he built the Butal winter hut. The final goal of his campaign was, presumably, to reach the mysterious Lamyreka, which until that time had seemed like a huge river flowing parallel to the Lena. It was believed that, having reached the Lama River, one could climb along it to China.

Having spent the winter with considerable difficulties in the Butal winter hut, Ataman Kopylov in the summer of 1639 sent a detachment of Tomsk and Krasnoyarsk Cossacks, led by Ivan Yuryevich Moskvitin, to search for the Lama.

For this voyage, Moskvitin’s detachment built a plow, probably of considerable size, if it could accommodate more than thirty people at once. The further path of Moskvitin’s detachment is clearly visible from the “skask” of the Cossack Bad Ivanov Kolobov about his services in the Hive and the Hunt. “And they walked along the Aldan River down to the May River for eight days, and along the May River up the river they walked up to the portage for seven days, and from the May River along a small river to the straight portage in the shavings they walked for six days, and by portage they walked for a day and went out to the river at Ulya to the top Yes, they walked down that Ulya river in a plow for eight days, and on the same Ulya river, having made a boat, they sailed to the sea to the mouth of that Ulya river, where it fell into the sea, for five days. And here, at the mouth of the river, they set up a winter hut with a prison.”

So the first Russian people appeared on the shores of the Lama (Okhotsk) Sea in the summer of 1639. Having seen the world, they were amazed by the harsh grandeur of the Lama Sea that opened up to their eyes, which they had to explore and conquer. To the right of the mouth of the river, about ten miles away, one could see masses of cliffs piled on top of each other, plunging steeply to the sea. Then there were mountains, mountains and mountains. To the left of the mouth (to the north) the shore was so low that on the horizon it imperceptibly merged with the water. And it seemed that the sea was approaching the mountains located far from it. The shore here consisted entirely of debris. Closer to the water's edge, where the debris is exposed to the ebb and flow of the tides, it was densely compacted by the sea.

The Ulya River, having carried its waters through many miles through the untrodden and wild taiga, poured them into the sea, cutting a frequently changing bed and mouth in the sandy and woody shore. The fate of the mouth of the Ulya depended on how the sea behaved and what the flood of the river itself would be at a certain time. For many hundreds of years, its mouth, like that of many rivers in this coastal area, changed after every strong storm and flood.

Near the confluence of the river with the sea, along its left bank, there are large water meadows covered with high thick grass. It seemed that now a herd of purebred cows would appear from somewhere, accompanied by an old shepherd. But it was empty all around. Moskvitin chose the right bank of the river for construction, steep and covered with forest.

Having settled at the mouth of the Ulya, Moskvitin explored the coast north and south of the river. In the north he soon reached Okhota, in the south - Uda. Moskvitin’s detachment spent two years on the coast of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, collecting yasak from the population and engaging in fur fishing. “But from that prison they went by sea to the Okhota River for three days, and from Okhota to Uraku for one day... but they lived on those rivers and with passage for two years.”

M.I. Belov mentions that already during this campaign the Russians set up a fort on the Okhota River, which was soon destroyed (see M.I. Belov “New data on the services of Vladimir Atlasov and the first Russian campaigns to Kamchatka.” Chronicle of the North , vol. 2, M., 1957). During their campaigns to the south, Moskvitin’s companions heard from local residents about the rich Mamur River, on which people raise cattle and plow the land. They told local residents that they go to these people to exchange sables for bread, that these people live sedentary and rich, have gold, silver, expensive fabrics that they receive from other nations. They are called Daurs.

“Yes, the same Tungus talk about the Omut River, and that river is great, and along it live the Shamagiri Tungus, captive people, and those people meet with other people, from Natkany, and those people have their own language, not Tungus, they bark people have sables, and those people have silver and large copper bowls and they cook in those bowls, and the food comes from the same people and the kumachi, and those Natkans live with the Lama between the rivers in the arrow. And those goods come from another river, silver and copper and clothes and kumachi. The river is the Amur from the horse people, those people sow grain and wine in the Russian way with copper cubes and pipes, and in the same people there are roosters and pigs, and they weave crosses in the Russian way, and from those people they carry flour to Natkany along the Amur, in plows melt."

These stories, many times embellished and supplemented, became the property of the authorities and residents of Yakutsk and served as the impetus for the campaigns to the Amur that began somewhat later. It is with regret that we have to admit that few details have been preserved about the campaign of Moskvitin’s detachment. In its time, Moskvitin’s campaign and voyages had no equal. Committed earlier by Dezhnev, Moskvitin’s campaign opened the way to the shores of the Pacific Ocean. It was a gigantic impetus for the organization of mass expeditions to the Eastern Ocean, for the organization of navigation in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, for the discovery of new overseas lands, Kamchatka and the Kuril Islands. Only one century passed from Moskvitin’s campaign to the voyage of Gvozdev and Fedorov, and during this century the Russians discovered North America from the Pacific Ocean.

No less important in the history of the exploration of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk is the entry of the Cossack Andrei Gorely to its coast simultaneously with the campaign of Ivan Moskvitin, but from a different direction. Participating in the campaign of Mikhail Stadukhin, Andrei Gorely was sent by him in 1642 from his winter quarters on the Oymyakon River with “comrades, service people who were here ahead of them, with eighteen people and with him a Yakut man with twenty horses through the mountains to the Okhota River to the top."

Gorely safely and very quickly, despite enormous difficulties, reached the Okhota River. In terms of difficulty, Gorely’s path is much more difficult than Moskvitin’s campaign to the sea, since it lay all the time in the mountains and was accomplished not in plows, but “on horses.” But even in such conditions, “they went to that Hunt river from the Omokon river and walked back to Omokon for only five weeks... And after them, no servicemen were sent to that Hunt river.”

So the Hunt was opened simultaneously from two directions, and at the same time, from two sources, the Yakut authorities learned about the existence of this rich river and that. that it flows into the large Lama Sea. Four years later, the Cossack Pentecostal Semyon Andreev Shelkovnik was sent to the Okhota River with an official order to build a prison and to bring local residents “under the high sovereign’s hand.” But before his campaign, another important event took place in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk basin. This time, the path of the Cossacks, by order of the Yakut authorities, was directed south of the Lena, to the Amur River basin. Having heard a lot about the riches of the Amur region, the Yakut authorities decided to explore the Amur. For this purpose, the Yakut writing head Vasily Danilov Poyarkov was chosen.

Poyarkov's detachment of 130 people set off from Yakutsk on July 15, 1643. Having gone down the Lena to the mouth of the Aldan, he climbed it and reached the Stanovoy Ridge. Poyarkov crossed the ridge and entered the Zeya River basin. Meeting with local residents and establishing trade relations with them, and sometimes entering into battles, Poyarkov’s detachment safely descended along the Zeya to the Amur and along the river reached its mouth. Thus, Poyarkov and his team have the honor of discovering the Lower Amur and its estuary. Having overwintered at the mouth of the Amur, Poyarkov’s detachment in the summer of 1645, on the kochas built here, for the first time in history, went to the Sakhalin Bay, along it to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and, after three months of wandering by sea, reached the mouth of the Ulya River, where the Russian winter quarters had already been established. From here in 1646, after a three-year absence, Vasily Poyarkov and some of his companions returned to Yakutsk, leaving a detachment of 20 people led by Eremey Vasiliev to spend the winter at the mouth of the Ulya.

Poyarkov's campaign gave rise to a number of expeditions of industrial people, among which the activities of the famous Erofey Khabarov especially stood out.

The remarkable campaigns of Moskvitin, Gorely, Poyarkov, and then Stadukhin and Dezhnev, their access to the Pacific Ocean were, as it were, advanced reconnaissance and made it possible to begin the development of the Far Eastern lands in detail and systematically and pave the way for new discoveries.

RUSSIAN TRAVELERS AND PIONEERS of the 17th century. 7th grade

Basic questions of studying the material

1) Settlement of the lands of Siberia.

2) Semyon Dezhnev.

3) Hiking Far East.

4) Development of Siberia

Lesson type Learning new material

Lesson Resources Textbook, map

Basic concepts and terms

Prison. Colonization. Aboriginal. Amanat. Koch

Key dates

1648-1649 - S. Dezhnev’s campaigns.

1643-1646 - Vasily Poyarkov’s campaign to the Amur.

1649-1653 - campaigns of Erofey Khabarov

Personalities Semyon Dezhnev. Vasily Poyarkov. Erofey Khabarov. Vladimir Atlasov

Homework § 25 of the textbook. The task of the rubric “Thinking, comparing, reflecting.

Modules

lesson

Learning Objectives

for organization

educational process

Main activities

student (at the educational level

actions)

Assessment

educational

results

Motivational

target

What significance did the campaigns of Russian travelers and explorers, carried out in the 17th century, have for the future of Russia?

Assess the consequences historical event,process

Conversation

Orientation

(updating/

repetitions)

Consider a map of modern Russia. Is it always her territory?

was that huge? What lands were annexed to Russia and developed by the beginning of the 17th century?

Extract information from the map in the context of studying the topic

Working with the map.

Conversation

Content-

operating

Explain the meaning of the term pioneer. What goals did the pioneers pursue? What united them? What economic interests encouraged people to explore new territories, Siberia? Using the map, trace the travel routes of Dezhnev, Poyarkov and Khabarov. Determine the achievements of travelers based on the criteria you choose.

Complete the sentences:

1) The first Russian to reach the Pacific Ocean was...

2) The first campaign of Yakut servicemen and “hunting people” to the Amur

headed...

3) I visited the Amur twice...

4) In 1643 he went to Lake Baikal... Which modern cities were founded by the pioneers of the 17th century?

Determine the meaning of the term, the goals of people’s activities.

Determine cause-and-effect relationships of events and processes. Identify historical sites on the map.

Reveal the results of people's activities

Conversation.

Working with the map

Control and evaluation

(including reflective)

Plot the expeditions of explorers and travelers on a contour map. Which of these routes was longer? Which one do you think was more difficult? Explain the criteria you used to evaluate the route's difficulty. List the pros and cons of the interaction of local tribes with Russian settlers and the results of colonization. Come up with your own tasks on the topic of the lesson.

Assess the consequences of a historical event or process.

Express an informed opinion.

Evaluate assignments written

classmates

Working with the map.

Conversation.

Creative task

Additional material

The territory of Russia in the 17th century. expanded not only due to the inclusion of Left Bank Ukraine, but also due to the inclusion of new lands of Siberia, the development of which began in the 16th century. In the 17th century The Russian advance into Siberia acquired even greater proportions.

Siberia attracted people with its fur riches, new lands, and minerals. The composition of the settlers was quite varied: Cossacks, service people, often sent to Siberia “by sovereign decree”; the peasantry, who hoped to get rid of oppression in the new lands; fishermen. The state was interested in developing rich lands that promised replenishment of the treasury. Therefore, the government encouraged settlement with loans and tax benefits, often turning a blind eye to the departure of former serfs to Siberia.

Advancement in the 17th century to Eastern Siberia was carried out in two directions. One route lay along the northern seas. Developing the lands, the Russians reached the northeastern tip of the continent. In 1648, a CossackSemyon Dezhnev with his comrades on small ships he discovered the strait separating Asia from North America. Another route to the east went along the southern borders of Siberia. In 1643-1646. An expedition went along the Amur to the Sea of ​​OkhotskVasily Poyarkova , and in 1649-1653. made his trip to Dauria and the AmurErofey Khabarov . Thus, during the 17th century. The territory of Russia expanded to the shores of the Pacific Ocean and the Kuril Islands.

Russian pioneers of Siberia

Semyon Dezhnev (1605-1673) - made a major geographical discovery: in 1648 he sailed along the Chukotka Peninsula and discovered the strait separating Asia from North America.

Vasily Poyarkov - in 1643-1646. at the head of a detachment of Cossacks, he walked from Yakutsk along the Lena and Aldan rivers, went along the Amur to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, and then returned to Yakutsk.

Erofei Khabarov (1610-1667) - in 1649-1650 carried out a campaign in Dauria, developed the lands along the Amur River and compiled their maps (drawings).

Vladimir Atlasov - in 1696-1697 organized an expedition to Kamchatka, as a result of which it was annexed to Russia.

EASTERN DIRECTION OF FOREIGN POLICY

Development of Siberia

1) Annexation of Western Siberia (conquest Khanate of Siberia at the end of the 16th century)

2) Penetration of explorers and industrialists, as well as representatives of the tsarist government, into Siberia

3)Foundation of settlements and fortresses:

- Yenisei (1618)

- Krasnoyarsk (1628)

- Ilimsky (1630) forts - Yakutsky (1632)

- Irkutsk (1652)

- Seleginsky (1665)

- Creation of the Siberian order. Division of Siberia into 19 districts, which were ruled by voivodes appointed from Moscow (1637)

In 1971-1973, 1988 V.A. Turaev conducted field research along most of the route of the Moskvit Cossacks. This made it possible to reconstruct the route of Moskvitin’s expedition to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk.

Russia has made a truly enormous contribution to the history of geographical discoveries and exploration of the globe. The geographical horizons of Europeans, based on the ancient geographical tradition, expanded from century to century, but “it was left to the Moscow state to lift the veil that hid the northern Asian lands from the eyes of Europe” (Alekseev M.P.). Russian explorers and sailors of the 17th and first half of the 18th centuries. can rightfully be called the first researchers of Siberia and the Far East, who for the first time turned to the study of the geography, nature and population of these lands.

Ermak's campaign in 1581-1582. laid the foundation for the active resettlement movement of Russians from the Urals to the east “meeting the sun”, to the Pacific Ocean. A special role in this process was played by the Yakutsk fort (Yakutsk), founded by Pyotr Beketov on the river. Lene (since 1642 it became the center of administrative control of the Yakut district).

A detachment of servicemen (50 people) was brought from Tomsk to Yakutsk by Ataman Dmitry Epifanovich Kopylov. From Yakutsk he took him to the river. Aldan and further on the river. Maya. At the mouth of the river Mayi in May 1638, the detachment first met with the aborigines of the Far Eastern lands, the Evens of the Okhotsk coast, who told them about the most convenient route from Aldan to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk.

On July 28, 1638, 100 km from the mouth of the Maya (up the Aldan) in the land of the Evenks of the “Buta” clan, the Cossacks set up the Butalsky fort. (Only in 1989 was it possible to establish that this fort is located next to the modern village of Kutanga). A little later, from the Evenk shaman Tomkoni, the Russians learned about the existence in the south of a large, rich river “Chirkol” (we were talking about the Amur). In its lower reaches, in the land of the Natks, that is, the Lower Amur Nanais, there was a “silver mountain,” obviously the city of Odzhal. This was the earliest information about the Amur region, about its arable land and silver ore.

Due to the acute shortage of silver in Russia, Kopylov decided to send his assistant Ivan Yuryevich Moskvitin on reconnaissance. A detachment of 31 people went on a campaign in the spring of 1639. The Even guides showed the Muscovites the easiest crossing through the Dzhugzhdur ridge (Stanovoy ridge) along a tributary of the river. Mayi r. Nudymi on the tributary of the river. Ulya, flowing into the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. This way, in August 1639, the Russians reached the shores of the Pacific Ocean. At the same time, they founded the first Russian settlement in the Far East and on the shores of the Pacific Ocean, the Ust-Ulinsky winter quarters, and began the first collection of yasak from the aborigines of the Far East.

From the accompanying Evens, the Cossacks learned that the Chirkol river is also called “Omur” (a name that arose from the distorted “Momur”, which came from the Nanai “Mongmu”, “Mongou” “big river”, “strong water”). This is how the name “Cupid” appeared, which became widely known throughout the world from the end of the 17th century.

On October 1, 1639, on the day of the Intercession of the Most Holy Theotokos, 20 Muscovites set off on a river boat along the sea to the north and already on October 4, 1639, they were the first Russians to reach the river. Hunting, which later played a particularly important role in the history of Russian Pacific navigation.

Near the Ust-Ulyinsky winter quarters at a special raft, which can be called the true cradle of the Russian Pacific Fleet; they are for the winter of 1639-1640. were able to build two large sea kochas "along eight fathoms" about 17 m long. On them the Muscovites decided in 1640 to enter the lower reaches of the Amur along the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. The participants of the sea voyage had the opportunity to be the first Russians to visit the river. Udo, go past the Shantar Islands, and then reach the “islands of the Gilyat horde,” the largest of which was Sakhalin. Having reached the area of ​​the mouth of the Amur, the Muscovites were convinced that their path to the Amur should pass by a relatively large settlement of the Nivkhs, and they did not dare to go further because of their “scarcity of people.” During the voyage in the summer of 1640 and on the way back, the Cossacks collected valuable information about the Amur and its tributaries, as well as about the tribes who lived there: the Daurs, Nanais, Nivkhs and the Sakhalin Ainu.

Having reached the Pacific coast, Ivan Yuryevich Moskvitin and his squad completed great march Russian explorers "Meet the Sun", started by Ermak.

Currently, three main sources are known about the campaign of I.Yu. Moskvitina. The earliest of them, “Painting of rivers and names of people on which rivers people live, Tungus clans according to the inquiry of the Tomsk city of service people Ivashka Moskvitin and Family Petrov, interpreter Tunguskov, and his comrades” was compiled in Yakutsk in 1641, immediately after his return Muscovites from the campaign. This is a kind of hiking diary, which lists the rivers that the Cossacks had a chance to visit or about which they heard from local residents. It also contains information about the indigenous peoples, their settlement, numbers, economic activities and customs, and some details of the life of the Cossacks themselves during the campaign.

Moskvitin's expedition (1639-1641) was important historical meaning. As a result, the Russians reached the Pacific coast for the first time, learned about the rivers Amur, Ulya, Okhota, Uda, and about the “islands of the Gilat Horde”; the beginning of Russian Pacific navigation and the development of the Far Eastern lands was laid.

The subsequent Russian geographical discoveries in the 17th and first half of the 18th centuries. in the East became a continuation of the geographical discoveries of Western European countries in the 15th and early 16th centuries. in the West.

In 1979, at the mouth of the river. A monument was erected in Hives to commemorate the first Russian exit to Pacific Ocean. The names of 14 participants in the great campaign were given on it. Currently, thanks to painstaking research in the archives of B.P. Polevoy, the names of 25 of its 31 participants became known.

In 1971-1973, 1988 V.A. Turaev conducted field research along most of the route of the Moskvit Cossacks. This made it possible to reconstruct the route of Moskvitin’s expedition to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, explain many discrepancies in the documents and, on this basis, clarify existing ideas about this page of Russian and world geographical discoveries.

CHERNAVSKAYA Valentina Nikolaevna, Candidate of Historical Sciences, senior researcher in the sector of problems of the history of the Far East of the pre-October period of the Institute of History and Archeology of the Peoples of the Far East, Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

CHERNAVSKAYA Valentina Nikolaevna

In 1989 in Vladivostok (September 15), in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk (October 17), in the village. Kutana Aldan district of the YASSR (November 1) and in Leningrad (November 20) anniversary meetings were held dedicated to the 350th anniversary of the first Russian access to the Pacific Ocean, the discovery by Russians of the lands and small peoples of the Far East, and the beginning of Russian Pacific navigation. All these events are connected with the historical campaign of Ivan Yuryev Moskvitin, in which 20 Tomsk residents and 11 Krasnoyarsk residents took part. It was during this campaign that the Russians first became acquainted with the way of life of the Okhotsk Evens and Evenks, and then the Nivkhs (“sedentary Gilyaks”), Nanais (“Natki”, “Onatyrki”, etc.) and so on first became known to our explorers. even the Sakhalin Ainu (“bearded”).

Unfortunately, the history of the campaign of I. Yu. Moskvitin (1639-1641) is still often covered in print big mistakes. This happens because the authors of articles in local publications uncritically repeat what they were able to extract from the books of the famous popularizer of the history of geographical discoveries A. A. Alekseev, who himself personally studied archival documents of the 17th century. did not study and has a rather unique idea of ​​​​the ethnic history of the Russian Far East. Therefore, this article sets itself the task, firstly, on the basis of historical and ethnographic data, to significantly clarify the history of I. Yu. Moskvitin’s campaign, and secondly, to refute a number of false versions that are still repeated in our press.

In the early spring of 1638, after wintering on Aldan at the mouth of the river. Tompo (“Tomki” in the words of Tomsk residents), a large detachment of the Tomsk ataman Dmitry Kopylov began to climb up the Aldan in the hope of finding “new ignorant peoples.” In the lower reaches of the river. The May Cossacks came across a group of Evens who had migrated there “because of the stone from Lama”1, that is, because of the Dzhugdzhur ridge from the Sea of ​​Okhotsk (Tungus lama means “sea”). This was the very first meeting of the Russians with the aborigines of the Okhotsk coast2. Since the Evens, taken by the Russians as amanats (hostages), said that they came from the “lama,” the Russians began to call them “lamunks,” “lamutki,” and finally simply “lamuts.” It was then that the Russians learned from the Evens of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk about the most convenient route “to the big Okiyan Sea”3. But since at that time the Cossacks sought to subjugate the Tungus of the nearest regions, Kopylov chose to continue his advance up the Aldan. Soon the Cossacks reached the lands of the Evenki clan Buta (plural: butal) and there on July 28, 1638 they founded their new settlement - Butalsky fort.

In the Central State In the archive of ancient acts, I managed to find a document that indicated that the Butal fort was founded “at the mouth of the Yanda River”5. Since there was no such river on publicly available maps, in the spring of 1989 I asked V. Ya. Salnikov (Orel), the leader of a tourist group that decided to explore the path of I. Yu. Moskvitin, to try to find the river on the spot. Yandu. Thanks to a survey of aborigines, Salnikov was able to establish that the “Yanda River” (on maps - “Janda”) flows into Aldan near the village. Kutana. Thus, only in 1989 was the true location of the historical Butalsky prison established, from which I. Yu. Moskvitin’s historical campaign to the shores of the Pacific Ocean began in May 1639.

The main reason for organizing I. Yu. Moskvitin’s campaign is now being interpreted in a new way.

In August 1638, in the Butalsky prison, the Russians first heard from the Evenki shaman Tomkoni (from the Lalagir clan) about the existence in the far south, beyond the ridge, of a large, rich river “Chirkol”6. Obviously, we were talking about r. Amur: even L.I. Shrenk noted that in the old days Amur together with Shilka was often called “Shirkor, Shilkir and sometimes Silkar, Sirkal” 7. Tomkoni told the Russians: “There is a river near the sea called Chirkol, and on that river Chirkol there is a mountain , and in it there is silver ore, and around that ore there live in a horde of many people, but they live in their own houses, they have courtyards, but they don’t have any cities and there are no other fortresses, but from that ore they smelt silver. And those sedentary people in all the villages have arable land and horses, and a lot of all kinds of animals.” 8. This was also confirmed by the Evenk Gulikan. This is how the very first news about the Amur 9 reached the Russians. And, naturally, they keenly interested Dmitry Kopylov. At that time, Russia was in dire need of silver, and in the Lena region there was a great shortage of grain. The absence of military fortifications on Chirkol allowed us to hope for a relatively easy occupation of this area. Therefore, Kopylov decided on his own to send a detachment led by the experienced Tomsk Cossack I. Yu. Moskvitin to check out the silver ore on Chirkol. Since the Evenks claimed that the mountain was located “near the sea,” Kopylov was convinced that the Muscovites should go there on sea vessels. This is how the idea of ​​sending the very first group of Russians consisting of 20 Tomsk residents and 11 fugitive Krasnoyarsk Cossacks to the “Sea-Okiyan” arose.

Thus, from the very beginning, the entry of I. Yu. Moskvitin’s detachment to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk was by no means an end in itself, but only a way to reach the Chirkola River from the sea.

In May 1639, the Cossacks descended on a large Ustkut plank down the Aldan to the mouth of the Maya in 8 days. Such a long journey along Aldan should not surprise us now. As the geographer of the school in Kutana L.D. Abramova told me, the distance from the mouth of the Yanda to the mouth of the Maya is 265, and not 100 km, as previously thought. And Aldan was not yet completely free of ice.

Already while sailing up the Maya, the Muscovites accidentally learned that among the “leaders” (guides) of the Evens and Evenks accompanying them there were two women who had previously been captured in the south near the Silver Mountain. It was from them that the Russians first learned the second name of the Chirkol river - “Omur”, “Amur”, which, thanks to the Muscovites, subsequently became known not only in Russia, but throughout the world10. From other Tungus, the Muscovites learned that the silver mountain, located on the Amur “near the sea,” stood in the land of the “Natks” (or “Anatyrks”), that is, clearly the Lower Amur Nanai.

It is interesting to note that 3 years later, the Russians heard similar news about the silver mountain in the land of the “Natts” from the Evens in the upper reaches of the Yana and Indigirka, but there the Evens coming from the south called the big river “Neroga”11. Back in 1950, N. N. Stepanov rightly identified Neroga with Amur 12. Most likely, the name “Neroga” (or “Nurga”, “Nurgu”, “Nuruga”, etc.) came from the name “Nurgan”, as in XV-XVII centuries called the region of the lower Amur13.

According to N.N. Stepanov, the story about the silver mountain was fantastic14. In fact, we were undoubtedly talking about the real Lower Amur Mountain Odzhal, which in the old days was called “Silver”15. The name “Odzhal” comes from the Tungusic family odzhal (odzyal, or, in Arsenyev, uzala)16.

The main task of I. Yu. Moskvitin’s campaign was to collect information about the Lower Amur silver mountain Odzhal. To achieve this goal, they had to first go to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, and then penetrate from the sea to the Lower Amur.

In the literature it is often stated that Muscovites are supposedly from the river. Mayi turned onto the river. Yudoma (in the past, everyone who went this way to the Okhota River did this). But, as we were able to establish from archival documents, the Yudoma route from the river. Mayi became known to the Russians only 10 years later. And in 1639, the “leaders” - Evens and Evenks - led the Muscovites a different way - not to the right tributary of the Maya, Yudoma, but to the left - Nudymi (“Nyudmi”). I note that the historian I.E. Fisher, who visited the river. Maillet, back in the middle of the 18th century, warned readers of his book not to confuse Nudymi (“Nyudmi”) with Yudoma17.

To hike up the shallow Nudymi, it was necessary to build two shallow-seated “budarkas” (kayaks). They were transported through Dzhugdzhur to the Volochanka River, which flows into the river. Siksha, and already along it they were able to reach the river. Ulya, flowing into the Sea of ​​Okhotsk18. On "budarki" we went only to the waterfall on the river. Hive, which was bypassed by the shore, after which a large “boat” was built for further navigation. Ethnographer V. A. Turaev, who visited the Nudym pass through Dzhugdzhur, noted: “The height of the pass here hardly reached a hundred meters, and the gentle, surprisingly even and smooth approaches to it both from Nudym and Ulya negated this height "19. It turned out that the Muscovites did not experience any particular difficulties when crossing the Dzhugdzhur ridge.

Unfortunately, the exact date of the first Russian entry into the Pacific Ocean has not yet been established. However, a comparison of various historical data, and primarily information about the beginning of the collection of yasak on Ulye among the Evens and Evenks, made it possible to find out that the Muscovites were able to reach the shores of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk in August 1639.20

For more than 10 years now, at the mouth of the Ulya there has been a monument dedicated to this important event in the history of our homeland. On the monument there is an inscription: “To the Cossack Ivan Moskvitin and his comrades: Dorofey Trofimov, Ivan Burlak, Prokopiy Ikonnik, Stepan Varlamov, Alfer Nemchin, Ivan Onisimov, Timofey Ovdokimov, Ivan Remez, Eremey Epifanov, Denisov “Penka”, Vasily Ivanov, Druzhin Ivan ovu, There are grateful descendants to Semyon Petrov, the first Russian who set foot on the shores of the Pacific Ocean in 1639."21 This list was borrowed from my 1959 publication22 with the unjustified omission of the names of Afanasy Ivanov and Bad Ivanov Kolobov. But since then, from documents it has been possible to establish more a number of names of participants in the campaign. This is - Ivan Ivanov, Pavel Ivanov, “Pyatunka” Ivanov, Nikita Ermolaev, Sergei Kornilov, Kirill Osipov, Daniil Fedosov, Klim Olekseev, Potap Kondratyev and the deceased Pyotr Salamatov 23. Consequently, out of 31 participants in the historical campaign, we now know 25 names.

The trip to the sea took place in difficult conditions: “When they went to the Lama, they fed on wood, grass and roots,” noted Moskvitin24. Therefore, as soon as the Muscovites learned about the existence of a river rich in fish. Hunting, they decided to go there. Moskvitin himself led 19 people north on a river boat. We set out “from the winter quarters to the Intercession of the Virgin Mary,” that is, October 1 (11), 1639. We reached Okhota three days later, that is, October 4 (14), and the next day we found ourselves in Urak25. Here the first Amanats were taken from the local “Shelgans” (Even clan), who were taken to Ulya. The version that at that time the Muscovites allegedly even reached the river. Taui, is refuted by documents27.

Seeing the “few people” of the Russians, the Evens from Okhota and Urak decided, “taking with them 600 people,” to go to Ulya in order to free their “springs”28. Already in November they managed to make their first attack on the Muscovites. Firearms allowed him to be repelled. The second attack followed in the spring - April 3 (13), 1640. Then “Prince Kovyr of the Gorbikan land came, and with him nine hundred people”29. This time the Evens helped out their “springs”. But the Muscovites managed to capture seven other amanats. Among them was Toyon, who reported that “from them to the right, towards the summer side on the sea, the Tyngus live on the islands, the Gilyaks are sessile, and they have fed bears.” This is how the Russians first learned about the existence of settled Nivkh-Gilyaks.

And the question arises: what islands are we talking about here? Some historians claim that it is about the Shantar Islands. But for ethnographers it is obvious: there have never been sedentary (“sedentary”) Nivkhs on Shantar. The Nivkhs came here occasionally - only during winter hunting and when they traded furs with their southern neighbors. However, in the middle of the 17th century. Due to the Manchu-Chinese war and the war with the Sakhalin Ainu, such trade was completely stopped. In 1653, opposite Shantar on the river. Tugur was given the Russian Tugur prison. Its founder, I. A. Nagiba, rightly pointed out that at that time the fort was surrounded only by Tugur Evenks, and the nearest settlements of the “Gilyaks” (Nivkhs) were not on Shantar, but far to the east. The only exception was a small “settlement” on the mainland in the Uchaldy Bay (the bay of the Usalgin River) 32. B. O. Dolgikh, undoubtedly the best Soviet expert on the ethnic history of the Far East of the 17th century, reliably established that in the middle of the 17th century ( as in the 19th-20th centuries)33 the extreme western “border” village of the sedentary Nivkhs (“sedentary Gilyaks”) on the Okhotsk coast was the “Kolinsky ulus”, i.e. the village of Kol (or Kul) in the Sakhalin Bay34. These data leave no doubt that in the middle of the 17th century. The islands located south of the Nivkh village of Kol were called the islands of “sedentary Gilyaks,” which is confirmed to some extent by the map of Siberia by Isbrant Eades, issued in Amsterdam in 1704 by a good expert on Russian documents of the 17th century. Nicholas Witsen35. On this map, opposite Tugur, the Shantar Islands are depicted and, far from them, a chain of islands at the very mouth of the Amur River (on the map here there is the inscription “RoriIi giliaki” - “Gilyak peoples”). Undoubtedly, these are the Muscovite “islands of the Gilat Horde.” The first, smallest island of the “sedentary Gilyaks” is about. Langr (Baidukova), and the largest is about. Sakhalin. All these islands were well known to the Evens of Okhotsk, who often sailed to the mouth of the Amur and to Sakhalin on their bahts. And it is not surprising that in these places, as shown by the research of Soviet archaeologists (A.P. Okladnikov, R.S. Vasilievsky, etc.), there was a single Okhotsk culture.

Thus, it became obvious that the earliest information about Sakhalin and the neighboring small islands, as well as about their inhabitants - the sedentary Nivkhs, was received by the Russians from the Okhotsk Evens at the mouth of the Ulya in the spring of 1640.

Since the islands of the “sedentary Gilyaks” (sedentary Nivkhs) were located on the way to the mouth of the Amur, the Muscovites decided to take Even informants as “leaders” on their southern voyage in 1640.

For more than two centuries (until 1951), historians believed that the Muscovites further than the river. The fish didn't swim. They got this impression thanks to the use of the only then known document about the campaign of the Muscovites - “Paintings of rivers, names of people” 36. But in 1951-1952. the unexpected happened: the most interesting “skask” of a participant in the campaign of I. Yu. Moskvitin - the Cossack Bad Ivanov Kolobov, recorded on the Lena portage at the beginning of 1646, was published twice (unfortunately, with unjustified notes).37 To the general surprise of researchers, it said : “...they didn’t reach the Onatyrks (i.e., the Amur Nanai), but the Gilyaks who live on the islands passed by...otherwise they saw the Amur mouth through a cat”38.

Some researchers (A.I. Andreev, M.I. Belov, S.V. Obruchev, etc.) believed in the reliability of this message, others began to object. Thus, I.M. Zabelin carelessly stated: “This, of course, is a mistake”39.

A different version was put forward by N.N. Stepanov. In 1958, he suggested that in N. I. Kolobov’s “skask” we are talking about the voyage of the Okhotsk Evens, and not the Muscovites 40. N. N. Stepanov’s version in 1971 was supported by D. M. Lebedev 41, who in 1958 admitted that it was the Muscovites who saw the mouth of the Amur “through the cat.” In 1984, the idea of ​​N.N. Stepanov [without reference to its author] was picked up by the Sakhalin historian M.S. Vysokov43. But neither D. M. Lebedev nor M. S. Vysokov knew that back in October 1959, at a meeting of the Geographical Society of the USSR, N. N. Stepanov publicly renounced his version. Why?

The fact is that in 1958, for the first time in print, the remarkable discovery of the Moscow historian P. T. Yakovleva was reported - the “questioning speeches” of I. Yu. Moskvitin, recorded in Tomsk on September 28, 164544. When getting acquainted with the text of this most valuable document, it became obvious that the Muscovites themselves certainly went to the area of ​​the mouth of the Amur and to the “islands of the Gilat Horde”.45 Consequently, N.I. Kolobov’s story was completely reliable. It was after the publication of the full text of I. Yu. Moskvitin’s “questioning speeches” that many doubters changed their minds. So, on March 8, 1964, B. O. Dolgikh wrote to the author of these lines: “This is an excellent document, and I now believe that Moskvitin reached the mouth of the Amur.”

But it remained unclear why there was an obvious contradiction between the three final documents of I. Yu. Moskvitin’s campaign: why does “Painting of Rivers, Names of People” say nothing about the voyage of the Moskvitins to the area of ​​the mouth of the Amur and do not even mention the Gilyaks, while the other two documents is this explained in detail?

Only recently a simple explanation for this has been found. It turned out that the intense rivalry between the Lena and Yakut Cossacks was to blame. The Yakut authorities gave a very cold welcome to the uninvited Tomsk residents who arrived in Yakutsk in 1637. They didn’t even want to provide them with a “Tungus interpreter.” He had to be taken by force46. Numerous complaints from the Yakut authorities against the Tomsk Cossacks were sent to the Siberian Prikaz47. And when the Moskvitins returned to Yakutsk, the first Yakut governor P.P. Golovin, who had just arrived there, took away all the furs collected in yasak (11 or 12 forty sables) 48 and demanded that Moskvitin submit “a list of his entire course”49.

Since the Muscovites hoped to return once again to the area of ​​the mouth of the Amur, in the “painting” they presented in Yakutsk they obviously deliberately kept silent about both the Gilyaks and the mouth of the Amur, but mentioned the extremely difficult path from Uda to “Chin” (Zee)50. The fact that “Painting of rivers, names of people” was made in Yakutsk is evidenced by its introductory phrase: “Where they go to the Lama from the Yakut prison”51 (hereinafter, italics in quotes are mine - B.P.).

And in Tomsk, Moskvitin paid special attention to the sea route to the mouth of the Amur and proposed sending about a thousand people this way 52.

So it became clear why I. Yu. Moskvitin in July 1641 in Yakutsk clearly deliberately kept silent about the sea route to the mouth of the Amur, and about the Gilyaks living there.

Naturally, the question arose: to what specific place in the area of ​​the mouth of the Amur were the Muscovites themselves able to reach? Three details provided by the Muscovites themselves will help you find the correct answer. 1. They reached a place where they saw the mouth of the Amur through some kind of “cat”. 2. On the approach to this place they had to pass by the islands of the “sedentary Gilyaks,” that is, the sedentary Nivkhs. 3. On their kochkas, on the way to the mouth of the Amur, they reached a place where there was such a large concentration of Gilyak-Nivkhs that, due to their “desolation” (or, more precisely, “scarcity of people”), they were forced to turn back, abandoning their intention to go to the mouth of the Amur to the silver mountain in the land of the “Natts”, or “Onatyrks”.

In the past, I admitted that by “cat” the Muscovites could mean Petrovskaya Spit and that they mistook the northern entrance to the Amur Estuary for the mouth of the Amur. However, the islands of the sedentary Nivkhs were undoubtedly located south of the Petrovskaya Spit. The Nivkhs, who were located directly in the area of ​​the mouth of the Amur, could then most likely become an insurmountable obstacle for the Muscovites. As I. A. Nagiba testified, it was there in the middle of the 17th century. there were especially many Nivkh boats 53. Therefore, it seems to me that the Muscovites were most likely able to actually visit the real mouth of the Amur, especially since it was in this area that there was a “cat” in the past. D. Afanasyev, describing Nikolaevsk-on-Amur in 1864 and characterizing the Konstantinovsky Peninsula at the mouth of the Amur and the adjacent bay, wrote: “The bottom of the bay to the east is limited by an alluvial debris (small cobblestone) oblique, locally called a cat.” 54.

Undoubtedly, while sailing to this place, the Muscovites saw the Sakhalin coast. Surveyor I.F. Panfilov, who has repeatedly worked in the Sakhalin Gulf, claims that in clear weather the mountainous part of the Sakhalin Schmidt Peninsula is visible already on the way to the Amur Estuary. The Sakhalin coast is even more clearly visible at the entrance to the Amur Estuary. Finally, when sailing along the Amur Estuary, Fr. also often “mirages” in the distance. Sakhalin 55.

I admit that the Muscovites themselves could even land on the shores of Sakhalin. This is supported by a careful analysis of the following important message from N.I. Kolobov: after the Even (informant) at the mouth of the Ulya told the Muscovites about the Gilyaks living on the islands, he also spoke about the massacre that the “bearded people” staged against the Gilyaks allegedly on mouth of the Uda. Kolobov claimed that the Muscovites themselves “at that massacre where those bearded men beat the Gilyaks, there were trials in what they came in, they burned single-wood plows, and then they immediately found the bottom of a cynin vessel”56.

“Single-tree plows” are very typical of the Ainu. They also had “tsynin vessels” (porcelain or earthenware), and “aziams” (robes) and hatchets mentioned in the same message by Kolobov. All this leaves no doubt that we were talking about the Sakhalin Ainu. But let's face it, on the river. There was no way this event could have happened, since neither the Nivkhs, nor even the South Sakhalin “bearded” Ainu could reach such a distant river. Data from Ainu and Nivkh folklore fully confirm that in the 17th century. The Ainu-Nivkh wars were fought repeatedly, mainly on the territory of Sakhalin. It is known that the biggest battle took place in the 17th century. in the Sakhalin Gulf of Uanda, the name of which in translation means “battle” 57. It is possible that the person who wrote down Kolobov’s story on the Lena portage could have mistaken the name “Uanda” for “Udy”.

Thus, there is no doubt that it was the Muscovites who were the Russian discoverers of the “islands of the Gilat Horde.” But it is very significant that later, in the 17th century, the name “Gilyatsky Island” was assigned to only one, the largest island of the “sedentary Gilyaks” - Sakhalin. Thus, participants in V.D. Poyarkov’s campaign on November 9, 1645 reported in Yakutsk: “...and from the mouth of the Amur to the island of Gilyatskovo the ice freezes, freezes completely”58. And the fact that the Russians called the Nivkhs “Gilyaks” (from the “Gileko” of the Okhotsk Evens, and not from the ethnonyms “Gilemi” or “Tsilimi”, used on the Amur), clearly indicates that the very name “Gilyatskaya Island” clearly arose back on the Okhotsk coast and owes its appearance in the Russian vocabulary to the Muscovites. It became known to the Poyarkovites because Semyon Petrov Chistoy, the interpreter of I. Yu. Moskvitin, took part in V.D. Poyarkov’s campaign (as it turned out only in 1977!). Information from Muscovites about Sakhalin, a large island inhabited by Gilyaks, also reached the participants in the embassy of N. G. Spafari (1675-1678). In his description of Sakhalin there is information about the Gilyaks who “keep fed bears”60; undoubtedly, they came from the Muscovites. Another message from N. G. Spafariy is also very characteristic: “And when the Cossacks were at the mouth of the Amur, the Gilyaks, the people who live on the sea, told the Cossacks that from the mouth of the Amur along the seashore you can go on the seventh day to the stone city... But the Cossacks, for lack of people, did not dare to go." 61. This news also clearly came from the Muscovites: after all, when they actually “were at the mouth of the Amur,” they heard from one Tungus (but not a Gilyak!) that from the mouth of the Amur on the seventh day you can get to the silver mountain and the fortress located near it 62 And as we already know, the Muscovites themselves did not dare to go there because of their “desolation.”

From N. G. Spafari, the first Russian name for Sakhalin - “Gilyat Island” came to the Dutch scientist N. Witsen, who in one case called it “Giliat Island”63. “Gilyat” is the genitive case of the ethnonym Gilyak, first introduced into circulation by the Muscovites.

All these facts once again confirm the correctness of the conclusion that it was the Muscovites who were the Russian discoverers of Sakhalin. And this discovery was made three years before the Dutchman M. G. de Vries, who visited the Sakhalin bays of Aniva and Terpeniya in 1643 and mistook Sakhalin for the northern tip of the island. Iezo (Hokkaido)64.

Let us note that the desire of the Muscovites to come to the area of ​​the mouth of the Amur and to the “islands of the Gilat Horde,” and then from there to reach the Lower Amur Silver Mountain, became even stronger during the return voyage of 1640 across the Sea of ​​Okhotsk.

Somewhere near the river. Tugur Muscovites managed to capture some Evenk, from whom the interpreter Semyon Petrov Chistoy was able to collect new, very rich information about the Urals and Sakhalin. According to Ivan Moskvitin, this Evenk claimed that at the mouth of the Amur “sedentary people live in villages, in three villages there are three hundred people, and their name is Natki, and their mansions, he says, are huts and courtyards, like Russian people, and bread for them they bring it from above by the Omur River, but they don’t have any fortresses near those villages, but the fighting is from lances and spears, and the iron on them is kuyaks and pansyrs, and those kuyaks and pansyrs make them themselves”65.

Obviously, real information about the Amur Gilyaks-Nivkhs and Nanais (“their name is Natki”) is mixed together here. Further, the same Evenk confirmed that in the Amur region there is a silver mountain, which is guarded by “guards... with bows and spears”66.

At the same time, according to N.I. Kolobov, the Muscovites received new information from the Tungus about “bearded people”: “And those Tungus said that it was not far from them by sea to those bearded people”67. Without a doubt, this message could only relate to the South Sakhalin bearded Ainu living on the seashore.

It is noteworthy that a quarter of a century later, it was in the Tugur region that the Russians heard from the local Evenks a story about the “Kuvs”, and not about those Sakhalin Ainu b8. It is also very significant that in the distant past, in the southwest of the Okhotsk coast, Sakhalin was also known under a name of clearly Ainu origin - “Yankur”b9, which translated from Ainu means “distant people” (in Bacheler’s dictionary: “ua-un- guru"70). Finally, the same one, captured near the river. Tugur Evenk once again confirmed to the Muscovites that during their voyage in the area of ​​the mouth of the Amur they saw the “islands of the Gilyat Horde.” Ivan Moskvitin reported: “And that Tungus told them that they were here, where the Gilat horde was, from which islands they returned”71. Already from this phrase it is clear that the “islands of the Gilat Horde” meant islands located somewhere east of Tugur, not far from the mouth of the Amur.

Obviously, during the return voyage, the Muscovites again passed by the Shantar Islands, the discovery of which was not reported, since they were not inhabited.

Returning back, the Muscovites spent the winter at the mouth of the Aldoma. There they received from one Evenk “three silver circles, and they wear them on their dresses.” Naturally, Moskvitin began to ask where they were taken from. “And that Tungus said that the silver is from that mountain where the smelters smelt”73 and added that to this area “trade ships go from the sea to the Omur River, but which state and with what goods, that Tungus does not know”74 .

Considering all this information to be very important, Moskvitin decided not to return to Ulya after the winter, but to quickly go up the Aldoma to the pass over Dzhugdzhur in the spring. From there he went to the upper reaches of the Northern Uy, along which he descended to the river. Maya. From the mouth of the Maya, where by that time a new Russian winter quarter had arisen, he, without entering the Butalsky fort, went straight to Yakutsk, where he arrived on the 20th of July 1641.75 It was then that the Yakut governor P.P. Golovin and took away from the Muscovites all the “sable treasury” they had collected and kept part of the returning Cossacks in his service. Thus, Tomsk residents Ivan Onisimov, Alfer Nemchin and Dorofey Trofimov were sent to Zhigani for further travel with Maxim Telitsin to the Arctic76. Ivan Moskvitin himself with a small group of Tomsk residents went from Yakutsk to Tomsk. Already on August 6, 1641, a group of participants in Moskvitin’s campaign passed through the customs of the Lena portage.

Thus, using new archival documents and ethnographic data, it was possible to very significantly clarify the true history of I. Yu. Moskvitin’s campaign, which from 1970 until the present day (1990) has been distorted in various works by A. I. Alekseev. So that such a reproach is not perceived as unfounded, let me remind you of a brief history of the very free stories of A. I. Alekseev about the campaign of I. Yu. Moskvitin, starting with his Magadan book “Brave Sons of Russia.”

Even then, in 1970, A.I. Alekseev described Moskvitin’s campaign this way: “Through mountains and dense forests, along rivers and lakes, Ivan Yuryev Moskvitin came out to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk in 1639 with a group of Tomsk Cossacks. Moskvitin's path lay along the Aldan, Mae and Yudoma rivers, then through the high coastal ridge of Dzhugjur and from there along the Ulye River down to the sea. Having established a new winter quarters at the mouth of this river, Moskvitin and his comrades in the same year made hikes and voyages along the shores of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk both to the north - to the Taui Bay, and to the south - to the Uda River, and according to some information, even further south.

Here, local residents - Nivkhs, Ulchi, Golds, Duchers, Natkas and others - told Moskvitin’s companions about the big river where rich people live. These people live sedentary lives, keep cattle, plow the land, trade bread for sables, have a lot of gold, silver, and expensive fabrics. These people are called Daurs.”77

After everything we have stated, it is not difficult to see how many errors there were in these two paragraphs. We already know that Moskvitin did not walk along Yudoma and did not swim “to the Taui Bay.” Not only Tomsk Cossacks took part in the campaign, but also fugitive Krasnoyarsk Cossacks, who made up more than a third of the participants in the campaign. Let me add: the Muscovites did not walk on any lakes at all, and Dzhugdzhur at the place of their crossing was not high. The Muscovites did not go south of the mouth of the Uda, but went east. And this was no longer in 1639, but in the summer of 1640.

“Nivkhs, Ulchis, Golds, Duchers, Natks” did not tell the Muscovites anything, since they did not talk to them at all. The Muscovites were simply afraid to come into contact with the Nivkhs, and the other peoples mentioned by A.I. Alekseev could not possibly meet the Muscovites, since they had never lived on the Okhotsk coast. In addition, Alekseev clearly did not know that both Golds and Natoks were called “Duchers” (Duchers),78 and therefore “Duchers” cannot in any way be attributed to a special people - all these three ethnonyms belonged to the ancestors of modern Nanai. As for the Ulchi mentioned by Alekseev, the receipt of information about them by the Muscovites would be a truly scientific sensation, since in the messages of both the Moskvitians and the Poyarkovites it has not yet been possible to find any information relating to the Ulchi. Some believe that the Ulchi formed as a separate nation only at the end of the 17th century, when they were depopulated due to military operations in the middle of the 17th century. area on the Amur, not far from the mouth of the Amguni, Tungus groups that had left the Okhotsk coast moved, quickly becoming close to the Nivkhs and partly to the Nanais. As for the Daurs, the Muscovites knew about their existence back in Aldan. But Alekseev did not mention at all about the main informants of the Muscovites - Evens and Evenks.

And with such a strange idea about the campaign of I. Yu. Moskvitin, A. I. Alekseev in 1971 decided to speak in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk at historical readings with the statement that the Moskvitin Cossack N. I. Kolosov was not at the mouth of the Amur at all and at the shores of Sakhalin and it’s as if the Muscovites didn’t have any 17-meter-high nomads.

It is not difficult to understand how this erroneous statement by Alekseev arose. Firstly, he was clearly captivated by the old ideas that the Muscovites only reached the river. Ouds. Secondly, he did not know about the arbitrary denominations in the publication of N. I. Kolobov’s “skask” in 1951 and 1952, which is why a very important phrase was dropped from the text of the document that during the Even attack in April 1640 “In those days, not everyone was in the prison, only half, and the other half, fifteen people, made two kochas.” This phrase was first restored by N. N. Stepanov in 1958.79 A. I. Alekseev also did not know about my publication in Tomsk of I. Yu. Moskvitin’s “questioning speeches,” which quite clearly said: “And in the spring we went to the sea on Holy Week, and in winter the ships were made eight fathoms long. And by sea they went with the leaders near the shore to the Gilat horde to the islands”80. Eight fathoms - about 17 meters. Obviously, on such large kochas it was really possible to make a fairly long voyage.

It is not surprising that none of the serious researchers supported this speech of A.I. Alekseev.

Nevertheless, he continued to persist. In 1973, in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, his article was published about the Sakhalin agronomist M. S. Mitsul, which began with the following paragraph: “The history of the discovery, research, study and ultimately the development by Russian people of the edge of the earth and the Far Eastern pearl - Sakhalin begins in the 17th century . from the visit of Sakhalin by participants in V.D. Poyarkov’s campaign (1644-1645), participants in I.A. Nagiba’s voyage during the time of E.P. Khabarov and O. Stepanov”81.

This paragraph is also characteristic in its own way. It again distorts the truth. Firstly, the role of the Muscovites in the history of the discovery of Sakhalin is deliberately hushed up. Secondly, the visit of Sakhalin by V.D. Poyarkov and I.A. Nagiba is announced completely arbitrarily.

Back in 1955, while studying the original “questioning speeches” of the first Poyarkovites who returned to Yakutsk, I discovered on the back of one sheet the following entry made on November 9, 1645: “... the Gilyaks said: there is a de at the mouth of the Amur River in the bay island, and on the same island there are twenty-four uluses, and those Gilyaks live, and in the ulus de Yurt there are one hundred and fifty..."82. It is quite obvious that we are talking about Sakhalin here. If the Poyarkovites themselves had visited Sakhalin, they would not have needed to refer to information from the Amur Gilyaks (Nivkhs).

From the text of the same document it is clear that in winter the Poyarkovites did not make an attempt to get to Sakhalin, and in the spring they were no longer able to reach Sakhalin, and they did not have the appropriate vessels for such a voyage. For a hike along the shore to the river. They adapted their river planks to the hive - they sewed “nashvy” (additional sides) on them. And on such unreliable ships they could only sail along the coast. They said so: “And from the mouth of the Amur the rivers traveled by sea to the Ulya River for twelve weeks. Because they walked for a long time because they went around every lip. But directly from the mouth of the Amur to the Ulya River there will be sailing weather for about ten days.”83. The last important conclusion was drawn by the Poyarkovites from the experience of the Muscovites who sailed in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk on sea boats. Thus, contrary to the statements of A.I. Alekseev, the Poyarkovites themselves, unfortunately, did not manage to visit Sakhalin.

Alekseev’s statement regarding the group of I. A. Nagiba is also erroneous. Nagiba himself reported: “... and at the mouth of the Amur river there are Gilyatsky uluses of yurts of 200 or more, and from the lip of the stone and beyond the lip they see islands and on those islands they see many yurts, only Ivashko and his comrades on those islands themselves haven’t been” 84. Said quite clearly!

Continuing to very persistently seek new arguments in favor of his point of view, Alekseev in subsequent years tried to prove that the Muscovites in 1640 allegedly did not have enough time to reach the mouth of the Amur.

For this reason, he began to claim that the Muscovites in 1640 sailed north, to the river. Hunt85. As we have already shown, such a voyage actually took place back in October 1639. Further, Alekseev reported that the Muscovites managed to build on the river in 1640. Ude Udsky fort86. But the documents clearly show that the Muscovites did not create any Uda fortress. The Udsky fortress was first erected almost 40 years later - no earlier than 167987.

But, perhaps, A. I. Alekseev most arbitrarily outlined the history of I. Yu. Moskvitin’s campaign in the book “Coast Line,” published in Magadan in 1987. Already on the first pages of this book, Alekseev tries to prove that the Russians long before Moskvitin’s campaign had some idea of ​​the region of the Russian Far East and its “coastline”. He writes: “It is important that the Russian people, even before the campaign of I. Yu. Moskvitin, not to mention the campaigns of V. D. Poyarkov and Y. P. Khabarov, as well as the voyages of S. Dezhnev and F. Alekseev, the river network of Eastern Siberia and the Far East, as well as the general contours of the coastline of northeast Asia were so well known that this information even found its way into the press" 88.

But there is no “pre-Moscowite” information “in the press” of the 17th century. It never happened. Alekseev is simply misleading the reader. He quotes the “Book of the Big Drawing”, which says: “From the Lena and along the Olekma River to the Tugirsky fort 7 weeks, and from the Tugirsky fort through the Urka River down to the Asmugu River and to the Daursky Lapkaev city 10 days, and from the mouth of the Shingalu River down the passage to the Nikanian kingdom." Commenting on this text, Alekseev mistook “Shingal” for Amur, although it is obvious that we are talking about the river. Sungari. He also did not understand that “Asmug” is a distorted “Cupid”. Having lost sight of the fact that the Russian Tugir fort was founded only in the second half of the 40s of the 17th century. Alekseev announced that all this was written back... in 1627! But every serious researcher can easily verify that the quoted paragraph was borrowed from the addition to the “Book of the Big Drawing”, written only in 1673.89 And we can say with absolute certainty that the first ideas about the coastline of the Far East were obtained only as a result of the campaign of I Yu. Moskvitina.

The reasons for organizing the campaign itself by I. Yu. Moskvitin in the book of A. I. Alekseev in 1987 are also presented completely arbitrarily. Alekseev claims that Moskvitin was sent from Aldan “to find the Lama River, which seemed to flow parallel to the Lena and flow into the sea to the east of it... It was thought that, having reached the Lama River (it was believed that its sources were in Chinese territory ), you can climb it and reach China”90.

But we already know that this version has nothing to do with reality. About no r. Neither Moskvitin nor his boss Kopylov ever wrote to Lama, who allegedly flows parallel to Lena. Their plans never included infiltrating China. This is clearly an improvisation by A.I. Alekseev himself. If they had an interest in “Lama”, then only in the “ocean sea” - the Sea of ​​Okhotsk.

In his 1987 book, Alekseev decided to once again criticize my views. This time he began with a statement that there was supposedly no information about the Sakhalin Ainu in the Moskvit documents91. News about the “bearded Daurs,” to whom “not far by sea,” he assured, had nothing to do with the Ainu. But Alekseev loses sight of the following: back in 1958, N. N. Stepanov quite rightly wrote that in the message of the Cossack N. I. Kolobov about the “bearded Daurs” the stories of the Tungus about the Daurs and Ainu were “merged together,” because the real Daurs it was impossible to call them “bearded”, since the Daurian Mongoloids “did not have developed hair”92. And information about them was partially obtained in the area where the Sakhalin Ainu were known and called “Kuvs”. The Daurs never lived on the sea coast and were not sea hunters and fishermen.

In his work in 1987, A.I. Alekseev first admitted that Muscovites could have mistaken the Petrovskaya Spit for a “cat” on the approaches to the northern entrance to the Amur Estuary. Thus, he was forced to accept my previous basic position that the Muscovites were able to visit the area of ​​the Amur mouth in 1640. But if the northern entrance to the Amur Estuary was mistaken for the mouth of the Amur, this means that the Muscovites saw not only the mainland coast, but also the coast of Sakhalin. However, Alekseev does not want to admit this: after all, then the inconsistency of his attempts to prove that the Muscovites were not the discoverers of Sakhalin will become obvious. Finding himself in such a delicate situation, Alekseev resorted to a new trick: he announced that the Muscovites had mistaken the calm Bay of Happiness... for the mouth of the Amur!93

Alekseev is equally zealously trying to prove that in the area of ​​the mouth of the Amur in the 17th century. there was no “cat” and that “to notice... and determine” the mouth of the Amur “was simply impossible then”!94 Afanasyev’s message that in the past it was at the mouth of the Amur “there was a spit of debris... in local “cat”, he simply ignores.

The attempt of A.I. Alekseev to resettle the “monatyrs” to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk is very curious. Cossack Kolobov rightly pointed out that on the Amur below the Daurs there lived “sedentary antarks, not reaching the mouth of the Mura.” Since the Muscovites were unable to enter the mouth of the Amur from the sea, Kolobov noted that “those onatyrks did not reach.” Alekseev tried to put a different meaning into these quite clear messages. He writes: “...if we mean the mouth of the Amur by “the mouth of the Mura”, it turns out that these people lived not far from the Gilyaks on the coast of the Sakhalin Bay on its mainland.” But the Nanai never lived there, only the “Gilyaks” (Nivkhs) He needed this fantasy to immediately put forward two new “hypotheses.” “Why not assume,” writes A. I. Alekseev, “that in the given story the scene of action has been somewhat shifted and not accept anatarks (anataroks or sedentary onats) for the inhabitants of the valley of the Nangtara River (Nantara or Lantara), which flows into the Sea of ​​Okhotsk south of the Gulf of Ayan - just on the path of the Muscovites? It is likely that this is so. Why not assume that the Shantar Islands (Shantara) are related to the name Anatyrkov."96 Of course, everything can be assumed. But do such hypotheses have anything in common with science?

They ask me: why am I only now criticizing A.I. Alekseev? In my public speeches, starting from 1971, I have repeatedly criticized many of the arbitrary judgments of A. I. Alekseev. But my articles have not yet been published in the press: I was told that such criticism “could undermine the authority of a certified author.” Such “non-resistance to evil” only led to negative results. In October 1989, at a conference in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, a report by A. I. Alekseev was read out, in which he again repeated his old conjectures and even tried to “develop” them. Thus, he boldly asserted that the “Lama Sea” got its name from the “Lama River” (obviously not knowing that the word “Lama” means “sea”!) and that the Nivkhs allegedly lived ... “from Uda to the Bay of Happiness " Just as confidently, he counted the late E. P. Orlova and M. I. Belov among his like-minded people. Alekseev wrote that they “at first accepted N. I. Kolobov’s tale as truth,” and then allegedly mentioned that “according to the latest research Moskvitin reached the Uda River.” But Orlova never touched on this issue in print, and M.I. Belov wrote the exact opposite: “Kolobov’s testimony that together with Moskvitin they were near the mouth of the Amur and even saw him from behind the coastal strip (cat) is significant complement our information about this historical campaign.” And then Belov reproached the “newest researcher” N.N. Stepanov for the fact that in 1943 he erroneously stated: “Moskvitin only reached the mouth of the Uda.”97 Isn’t it obvious that such manipulation in the interpretation of a clear text in science is completely unacceptable. That is why it became necessary to show in this article the inconsistency of many arbitrary statements of A. I. Alekseev. Restoring the historical truth about the campaign of I. Yu. Moskvitin, I at the same time sought to show how useful ethnographic data is for historians of geographical discoveries. I have no doubt that if they are used wisely, they will help researchers solve other issues that concern historians.

Notes

1 Central State archive of ancient acts (hereinafter - TSGADA). Siberian order (hereinafter SP). Stb. 261. L 62.

2 V.A. Tugolukov mistakenly believed that the Russians first met the Evens in the upper reaches of the Indigirka (see: Issues of History. 1971. No. 3. P. 214).

3 Discoveries of Russian explorers and polar sailors of the 17th century. in northeast Asia (hereinafter referred to as ORZPM). M., 1951. P. 139.

4 CGADA. SP. Stb. 368. L. 183-184.

5 Ibid. See also: Stb. 261. L. 62.

6 Polevoy B.P. New document about the first Russian campaign in the Pacific Ocean (“Spread speeches” by I.Yu. Moskvitin and D.E. Kopylov, recorded in Tomsk on September 28, 1645) // Tr. Tomsk, region local historian of the museum. T.VI. Vol. 2. (1963). P. 27.

7 Shrenk L. About non-residents of the Amur region. St. Petersburg, 1883. T. I. P. 150.

8 Polevoy B.P. Decree. slave. pp. 30-31.

9 It is widely believed that back in the 20s of the 17th century. The Amur became known to the Russians under the name "Karatal". But this is a mistake: “Karatal” was then called Telgir-Muren, a tributary of the river. Selenga. Maxim Perfilyev collected the first information about the Amur (“Shilka”) on Vitim only in the summer of 1639.

10 For more details, see: Polevoy B.P. Amur - “the Moscow word.” The most ancient Russian news about the great river // Amur - the river of exploits. 2nd ed. Khabarovsk, 1971. pp. 178-192.

12 Stepanov N.N. First information about the Amur and gold // Sov. ethnography. 1950. No. 1. P. 178-182.

13 Popov P. About the Tyrsky monument // Zap. East dept. archaeographic island. 1906. pp. 15-17; Shiratori K. The Santan in Totatsukiko (Travels in East Tartary) // Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko (The Oriental Library, Tokio). 1951. N° 13. P. 30-31.

14 Stepanov N. N. Decree. slave. P. 179.

15 See: Sov. archeology. 1960. No. 3. P. 331; Edelshtein Ya. S. Root deposit of gold and silver in Mount Serebryannaya on the river. Amur (near the village of Malmyzh) // Gold industry and mining in general. Tomsk, 1905. T. XIV. No. 8. pp. 264-265.

16 Vasilevich G. M. Evenki. Historical and ethnographic essays (XVII - early XX centuries). M., 1969. pp. 286-287.

17 Fisher I.E. Siberian history from the very discovery of Siberia to the conquest of this land by Russian weapons. St. Petersburg, 1774. P. 379.

18 ORZPM. P. 139. Information about the river. “Sikshe” (Sekchi) see: TsGADA. Yakut official hut (hereinafter referred to as YAPI). Op. 1. Stb. 48. L. 82; Stb. 102. L. 15.

19 Turaev V. Walking to meet the sun // Far Eastern travels and adventures. Vol. 5. Khabarovsk, 1974. pp. 362-363.

20 For more details, see: Polevoy B.P. On clarifying the date of the first Russian entry into the Pacific Ocean // Countries and Peoples of the East (hereinafter referred to as START). Vol. XX (1979). pp. 93-96.

21 See photo in magazine. "Around the world". 1983. No. 10. P. 52.

22 Polevoy B P. Discoverers of Sakhalin. Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, 1959. P. 21.

23 TSHADA. YAPI. Op. 3. 1641. Stb. 39. L. 1-2; Op. 4. Book. 25. L. 68-72.

24 Stepanov N. N. The first Russian expedition on the Okhotsk coast in the 17th century // Izv. All-Union geogr. islands (hereinafter - Izv. VGO). 1958. No. 5. P. 44. Ivan Burlak added: “... I ate all kinds of nasty reptiles” (TSGADA. YAPI. Op. 3. 1650. Stb. 55. L. 101).

25 Polevoy B.P. New document... P. 28.

26 For more details, see: Vasilevich G. M. Decree. slave. P. 285.

27 The Muscovites reported “Toue” only from the words of the Evens. See: Stepanov N.N. The first Russian expedition... P. 441.

28 Polevoy B.P. New document... P. 28.

29 Ibid. P. 29.

30 ORZPM. P. 140.

31 Manizer G. Anthropological data on the Gilyaks // Yearbook of the Russian Anthropological Society at Petrograd University. 1916. T. VI. S. 3.

32 Leningrad branch of the Archive of the USSR Academy of Sciences (hereinafter - LO AAN USSR) F. 21.Op. 4. Book. 31. L. 23.

33 Manizer G. Decree. slave. S. 3.

34 Dolgikh B. O. Clan and tribal composition of the peoples of Siberia in the 17th century. // Tr. Institute of Ethnography of the USSR Academy of Sciences. T. LV. M., 1960. S. 600-601.

35 Bagrow L. A History of Russian Gartography up to 1800. Wolfe Island (Canada, Ont.). 1975.P. 75.

36 Stepanov N. N. The first Russian expedition... P. 440-441.

37 ORZPM. pp. 139-141; Russian sailors in the Arctic and Pacific oceans. L.: M., 1952. P. 50-55.

38 ORZPM. P. 140.

39 Zabelin I.M. Meetings that never happened. 2nd ed. M., 1966. P. 36.

40 Stepanov N. N. The first Russian expedition... P. 448-449.

41 Lebedev D. M., Isakov V. A. Russian geographical discoveries and research from ancient times to 1917. M., 1971. P. 106.

42 Lebedev D. M. Explorers on the shores of the Pacific Ocean // Earth and People. Geographical calendar for 1959. M., 1958. P. 239.

43 Vysokov M S Soviet historiography of the discovery and exploration of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands. Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, 1984. pp. 8-9.

44 Yakovleva G1. T. The first Russian-Chinese treaty of 1689. M., 1958. P. 17-20; Polevoy B.P. New document... P. 21-37.

45 Polevoy B.P. New document... P. 29.

46 In one of the documents of the Yakut prison it is said: “... from the Lensky prison interpreter he is Dmitry (Kopylov), Semeyka was taken strongly and now he, Semeyka (Petrov Chistoy), is from him, Dmitry, as an interpreter.” See: Leningrad Archive. dept. Institute of History of the USSR. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Yakut acts. Cardboard 1.Stb. I. L. 996.

47 Zabelin I.M. Decree. slave. pp. 26-27; DAI. T. 2. pp. 232-233.

43 ORZPM. P. 141; Polevoy B.P. New document... P. 28.

49 Polevoy B.P. New document... P. 30.

50 Stepanov N.N. The first Russian expedition... P. 440; For more details, see: Polevoy B.P. On the history of the first Russian exit to the Pacific Ocean. New information about “River Painting” by I. Yu. Moskvitin // Izv. VGO.1988, No. 3. P. 274-278.

51 Stepanov N. N. The first Russian expedition... P. 441.

52 Polevoy B.P. New document... P. 35.

53 LO AAN USSR. F..21. Op. 4. Book. 31. L. 22.

54 Afanasyev D. Nikolaevsk-on-Amur // Marine collection. 1864. No. 12. Neof. dept. P. 91.

55 Sapozhnikova G. In the Amur Estuary // Amur Life. On February 23, 1917, the fugitive Guriy Vasiliev reported in 1826: “While sailing along the Amur Bay, a large island was always visible 60 versts from the mainland to the east.” (See: Tikhmenev P.A. Historical review of the formation of the Russian-American Company. Part II. St. Petersburg, 1863. P. 43).

56 ORZPM. P. 140; Stepanov N. N. The first Russian expedition... P. 447.

57 Braslavets Yu. M. History in the names on the map of the Sakhalin region. Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, 1983. P. 113.

58 Polevoy B. P. Forgotten information... P. 548.

59 Polevoy B.P. On the history of the first Russian entry into the Pacific Ocean. P. 277.

60 Titov A. A. Siberia in the 17th century. M., 1890. P. 110-111; Polevoy B.P. Discoverers of Sakhalin. P. 35.

61 Arsenyev Yu. V. On the origin of the Legend of the Great Amur River // Izv. RGS. 1882. No. 4.S. 252.

62 Polevoy B.P. New document... P. 29.

63 Witsen N. Noord en Oost Tartarye. Amsterdam, 1962. Biz. 36.

64 Polevoy B P. Discoverers of Sakhalin... P. 20.

64 Polevoy B.P. New document... P. 29.

66 Ibid.

67 ORZPM. P. 140.

68 Colonial policy of the Moscow state in Yakutia in the 17th century. Sat. arch. doc. L., 1936.S. 148.

69 Middendorf A.F. Travel to the North and East of Siberia. St. Petersburg, 1860. Part 1. P. 102.

70 Batchelor 1. An Ainu-English-Japanese Dictionary. Tokyo, 1926. P. 552.

71 Polevoy B.P. New document... P. 29.

72 Ibid. P. 30.

73 Ibid.

74 Ibid.

75 Ibid. P. 32.

76 Polevoy B.P. Kurbat Ivanov - the first cartographer of Lena, Baikal and the Okhotsk coast (1640-1645) / /Izv. VGO. 1960. No. 1. P. 50.

77 Alekseev A.I. Brave sons of Russia, Magadan, 1970. P. 15.

78 Polevoy B.P. Ducherskaya problem (According to Russian documents of the 17th century) // Sov. ethnography. 1979. No. 3. P. 47-59.

79 Stepanov N. N. The first Russian expedition... P. 447.

80 Polevoy B.P. New document... P. 29.

81 Alekseev A.I. On the origins of agriculture on Sakhalin // History and culture of the peoples of the Far East. Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, 1973. P. 218.

82 Polevoy B.P. Forgotten information... P. 550-551.

83 Ibid. P. 551.

84 LO AAN USSR. F. 21. Op. 4. Book. 31. L. 22.

85 See introductory article to the collection: Russian expeditions to study the northern part of the Pacific Ocean in the first half of the 18th century. M., 1984. P. 8.

86 Alekseev A.I. Development of the Far East and Russian America by Russian people until the end of the 19th century. M., 1982. P. 36.

87 Safronov F. G. Pacific windows of Russia. Khabarovsk, 1988. P. 122.

88 Alekseev A.I. Coastal Line, Magadan, 1987. P. 19.

80 Book Big Drawing. M.; L., 1950. P. 188.

90 Alekseev A.I. Coastal line. P. 21.

91 Ibid. P. 22.

92 Stepanov I. N. The first Russian expedition... P. 450.

93 Alekseev A.I. Coastal line. P. 24.

94 Ibid.

95 Ibid.

96 Ibid.

97 Russian sailors in the Arctic and Pacific oceans. Sat. doc. / Comp. Belov M. I. L.; M., 1952.S. 54 (it was this text that A.I. Alekseev referred to).

Without Russian discoverers, the world map would be completely different. Our compatriots - travelers and sailors - made discoveries that enriched world science. About the eight most noticeable ones - in our material.

Bellingshausen's first Antarctic expedition

In 1819, the navigator, captain of the 2nd rank, Thaddeus Bellingshausen led the first round-the-world Antarctic expedition. The purpose of the voyage was to explore the waters of the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans, as well as to prove or disprove the existence of the sixth continent - Antarctica. Having equipped two sloops - "Mirny" and "Vostok" (under the command), Bellingshausen's detachment went to sea.

The expedition lasted 751 days and wrote many bright pages in the history of geographical discoveries. The main one was made on January 28, 1820.

By the way, attempts to open the white continent had been made before, but did not bring the desired success: a little luck was missing, and perhaps Russian perseverance.

Thus, the navigator James Cook, summing up the results of his second voyage around the world, wrote: “I went around the ocean of the southern hemisphere in high latitudes and rejected the possibility of the existence of a continent, which, if it could be discovered, would only be near the pole in places inaccessible to navigation.”

During Bellingshausen's Antarctic expedition, more than 20 islands were discovered and mapped, sketches of Antarctic species and the animals living there were made, and the navigator himself went down in history as a great discoverer.

“The name of Bellingshausen can be directly placed alongside the names of Columbus and Magellan, with the names of those people who did not retreat in the face of difficulties and imaginary impossibilities created by their predecessors, with the names of people who followed their own independent path, and therefore were destroyers of barriers to discovery, which designate epochs,” wrote the German geographer August Petermann.

Discoveries of Semenov Tien-Shansky

Central Asia in early XIX century was one of the least studied areas of the globe. An undeniable contribution to the study of the “unknown land” - as geographers called Central Asia - was made by Pyotr Semenov.

In 1856, the researcher’s main dream came true - he went on an expedition to the Tien Shan.

“My work on Asian geography led me to a thorough acquaintance with everything that was known about inner Asia. I was especially attracted to the most central of the Asian mountain ranges - the Tien Shan, which had not yet been touched by a European traveler and was known only from scanty Chinese sources.

Semenov's research in Central Asia lasted two years. During this time, the sources of the Chu, Syr Darya and Sary-Jaz rivers, the peaks of Khan Tengri and others were mapped.

The traveler established the location of the Tien Shan ridges, the height of the snow line in this area and discovered the huge Tien Shan glaciers.

In 1906, by decree of the emperor, for the merits of the discoverer, the prefix began to be added to his surname - Tien Shan.

Asia Przhevalsky

In the 70−80s. XIX century Nikolai Przhevalsky led four expeditions to Central Asia. This little-studied area has always attracted the researcher, and traveling to Central Asia has been his long-time dream.

Over the years of research, mountain systems have been studied Kun-Lun , ridges of Northern Tibet, sources of the Yellow River and Yangtze, basins Kuku-nora and Lob-nora.

Przhevalsky was the second person after Marco Polo to reach lakes-swamps Lob-nora!

In addition, the traveler discovered dozens of species of plants and animals that are named after him.

“Happy fate made it possible to make a feasible exploration of the least known and most inaccessible countries of inner Asia,” Nikolai Przhevalsky wrote in his diary.

Kruzenshtern's circumnavigation

The names of Ivan Kruzenshtern and Yuri Lisyansky became known after the first Russian round-the-world expedition.

For three years, from 1803 to 1806. - that’s how long the first circumnavigation of the world lasted - the ships “Nadezhda” and “Neva”, having passed through the Atlantic Ocean, rounded Cape Horn, and then through the waters of the Pacific Ocean reached Kamchatka, the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin. The expedition clarified the map of the Pacific Ocean and collected information about the nature and inhabitants of Kamchatka and the Kuril Islands.

During the voyage, Russian sailors crossed the equator for the first time. This event was celebrated, according to tradition, with the participation of Neptune.

The sailor, dressed as the lord of the seas, asked Krusenstern why he came here with his ships, because the Russian flag had not been seen in these places before. To which the expedition commander replied: “For the glory of science and our fatherland!”

Nevelsky Expedition

Admiral Gennady Nevelskoy is rightfully considered one of the outstanding navigators of the 19th century. In 1849, on the transport ship “Baikal”, he went on an expedition to the Far East.

The Amur expedition lasted until 1855, during which time Nevelskoy made several major discoveries in the area of ​​the lower reaches of the Amur and the northern shores of the Sea of ​​Japan, and annexed the vast expanses of the Amur and Primorye regions to Russia.

Thanks to the navigator, it became known that Sakhalin is an island that is separated by the navigable Tatar Strait, and the mouth of the Amur is accessible for ships to enter from the sea.

In 1850, Nevelsky’s detachment founded the Nikolaev post, which today is known as Nikolaevsk-on-Amur.

“The discoveries made by Nevelsky are invaluable for Russia,” wrote Count Nikolai Muravyov-Amursky “Many previous expeditions to these regions could have achieved European glory, but none of them achieved domestic benefit, at least to the extent that Nevelskoy accomplished this.”

North of Vilkitsky

The purpose of the hydrographic expedition of the Arctic Ocean in 1910-1915. was the development of the Northern Sea Route. By chance, captain 2nd rank Boris Vilkitsky took over the duties of the voyage leader. Icebreaking steamships "Taimyr" and "Vaigach" went to sea.

Vilkitsky moved through the northern waters from east to west, and during his voyage he was able to compile a true description of the northern coast of Eastern Siberia and many islands, received essential information about currents and climate, and also became the first to make a through voyage from Vladivostok to Arkhangelsk.

The expedition members discovered the Land of Emperor Nicholas I., known today as Novaya Zemlya - this discovery is considered the last significant one on the globe.

In addition, thanks to Vilkitsky, the islands of Maly Taimyr, Starokadomsky and Zhokhov were put on the map.

At the end of the expedition the First World War. The traveler Roald Amundsen, having learned about the success of Vilkitsky’s voyage, could not resist exclaiming to him:

“In peacetime, this expedition would excite the whole world!”

Kamchatka campaign of Bering and Chirikov

The second quarter of the 18th century was rich in geographical discoveries. All of them were made during the First and Second Kamchatka expeditions, which immortalized the names of Vitus Bering and Alexei Chirikov.

During the First Kamchatka Campaign, Bering, the leader of the expedition, and his assistant Chirikov explored and mapped the Pacific coast of Kamchatka and Northeast Asia. Two peninsulas were discovered - Kamchatsky and Ozerny, Kamchatka Bay, Karaginsky Bay, Cross Bay, Providence Bay and St. Lawrence Island, as well as the strait, which today bears the name of Vitus Bering.

Companions - Bering and Chirikov - also led the Second Kamchatka Expedition. The goal of the campaign was to find a way to North America and explore the Pacific Islands.

In Avachinskaya Bay, the expedition members founded the Petropavlovsk fort - in honor of the ships "St. Peter" and "St. Paul" - which was later renamed Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky.

When the ships set sail to the shores of America, by the will of an evil fate, Bering and Chirikov began to act alone - due to fog, their ships lost each other.

"St. Peter" under the command of Bering reached the west coast of America.

And on the way back, the expedition members, who had to endure many difficulties, were thrown onto a small island by a storm. This is where Vitus Bering’s life ended, and the island where the expedition members stopped for the winter was named after Bering.
Chirikov’s “Saint Paul” also reached the shores of America, but for him the voyage ended more happily - on the way back he discovered a number of islands of the Aleutian ridge and safely returned to the Peter and Paul prison.

“Unclear Earthlings” by Ivan Moskvitin

Little is known about the life of Ivan Moskvitin, but this man nevertheless went down in history, and the reason for this was the new lands he discovered.

In 1639, Moskvitin, leading a detachment of Cossacks, set sail to the Far East. The main goal of the travelers was to “find new unknown lands” and collect furs and fish. The Cossacks crossed the Aldan, Mayu and Yudoma rivers, discovered the Dzhugdzhur ridge, separating the rivers of the Lena basin from the rivers flowing into the sea, and along the Ulya River they reached the “Lamskoye”, or Sea of ​​Okhotsk. Having explored the coast, the Cossacks discovered the Taui Bay and entered the Sakhalin Bay, rounding the Shantar Islands.

One of the Cossacks reported that the rivers in the open lands “are sable, there are a lot of all kinds of animals, and fish, and the fish are big, there are no such fish in Siberia... There are so many of them - you just need to launch a net and you can’t drag them out with fish...”.

Geographic data collected by Ivan Moskvitin formed the basis of the first map of the Far East.