10 15 158 https://s3.amazonaws.com/atg-prod-oaas-files/russiaglobal/original/be12a2e1927579272693b43db4c92ed2.jpg db03cea63ff33f048163ff3f551be26f Event A non-persistent, time-based occurrence. Metadata for an event provides descriptive information that is the basis for discovery of the purpose, location, duration, and responsible agents associated with an event. Examples include an exhibition, webcast, conference, workshop, open day, performance, battle, trial, wedding, tea party, conflagration. Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) Twenty-three years Event Type Independence Participants Names of individuals or groups participating in the event Georgia Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Georgian Independence Description An account of the resource On April 9, 1991, a national referendum established Georgia’s independence from the Soviet Union. The news came to the Georgian people on a day meant to remember the April 9, 1989 “Tbilisi Massacre.” It was reported in the Los Angeles Times that Georgians “danced in the streets” and “wept with joy;” a vote ten days before showed that more than 98 percent of those Georgians who voted preferred independence. In May of that year, Zviad Gamaskhurdia, a dissident leader, became president. Though diplomatic ties were established with Russia in 1992, in the wake of Georgia’s independence, tension between Russia and Georgia over the area of South Ossetia continued, escalating in a war in 2008. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Group 5 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Shogren, Elizabeth. “Soviet Georgia Declares Its Independence.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 10 Apr. 1991. Web. 12 Feb. 2014. <http://articles.latimes.com/print/1991-04-10/news/mn-259_1_soviet-union> “Freedom in the World.” Freedom House. N.p. 2012. Web. 12 Feb. 2014. <http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2012/georgia#.Uvw-CRa62f8> “The History of Russian-Georgian Relations.” Ria. Ria Novosti, 2 Sept. 2010. Web. 12 Feb. 2014. <http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20100902/160438446.html> Troitsky, Nikolai. “The Hazy Dawn of Georgian Independence.” Ria. Ria Novosti, 11 Apr. 2011. Web. 12 Feb. 2014. <http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20110411/163471890.html> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource April 9, 1991 Subject The topic of the resource Georgia, part 4 Assignment: Trajectories Georgia Independence Referendum Tbilisi Massacre https://s3.amazonaws.com/atg-prod-oaas-files/russiaglobal/original/74c20c61ff263c46b3baed509b4536ed.jpg ea57dd4149a8f5e7486a8c42aeee725d Event A non-persistent, time-based occurrence. Metadata for an event provides descriptive information that is the basis for discovery of the purpose, location, duration, and responsible agents associated with an event. Examples include an exhibition, webcast, conference, workshop, open day, performance, battle, trial, wedding, tea party, conflagration. Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) One day Event Type Signing of a treaty Participants Names of individuals or groups participating in the event Russia and Kingdom of Kartli-Kakheti Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Treaty of Georgievsk Description An account of the resource In 1783, the Treaty of Georgievsk was signed, between the Kingdom of Kartli-Kakheti, in Eastern Georgia, under King Irlaki II, and Russia, under Catherine II. The relationship was initiated by King Irlaki II. The major elements that came out of the treaty were that King Irlaki II would submit to Russia (rather than the Ottoman empire), by way of “[determining] solemnly and precisely his duties with regard to the All-Russian Empire,” in the words of the treaty. In turn, Georgia would benefit from Russia's protection, or, according to the treaty, “the defense, support and refuge to the said [Georgian] people and to their Most Serene Sovereigns, against the oppression of their neighbors, to which they were susceptible.” The Treaty of Georgievsk was not an endpoint on a trajectory, but rather the beginning of a longterm relationship that extended through the time of the Soviet Union. Soon after, in 1801, Paul I of Russia annexed Georgia. While the incorporation of Georgia was indubitably an act of expansion, it is also an indication that Russia’s empire building and expansionist activities were not only a process of forced invasion, but could be one side of a mutually beneficial relationship. An article in The Voice of Russia points out that the treaty was helpful to both Russia and Georgia. Russia benefited from the opportunity to establish itself in the Caucasus region while, according to expert Felix Stanevsky, Georgia benefitted from a period of cultural freedom and richness. As indicated by the treaty, Gorgia also benefitted from the protection provided by Russia. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Group 5 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Yeltsin Presidential Library. “Treaty of Georgievsk signed 230 years ago - Eastern Georgia becomes a protectorate of Russia.” N.p. n.d. Web. 12 Feb. 2014. <http://www.prlib.ru/en-us/history/pages/item.aspx?itemid=901> “Dialogue of Cultures.” Voice of Russia. The Voice of Russia, 31 July 2013. Web. 12 Feb. 2014. <http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_07_31/Dialogue-of-cultures-4225/> Martin, Russell E. “Treaty of Georgievsk.” Westminster. N.p. n.d. Web. 12 Feb. 2014. <http://www.westminster.edu/staff/martinre/Treaty.html> Solaris, Saltus. “Fragmentation of Oppressed Nations as an Instrument of Keeping W. Caucasus under Russian Control.” Live Journal, 12 June 2012. Web. 12 Feb. 2014. <http://baltvilks.livejournal.com/68540.html> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource July 24, 1783 Subject The topic of the resource Georgia, part 1 Assignment: Trajectories Georgia Geostrategic importance Treaty https://s3.amazonaws.com/atg-prod-oaas-files/russiaglobal/original/4831cf8c9843e7dd03e2960c4149255a.png 4828460fd69fd4846611aa13a4211f50 Still Image A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Russian Presence in Transnistria Subject The topic of the resource Moldova, Part 5 Description An account of the resource The Dniester Moldavian Republic is a small strip of land in between Moldova and Ukraine. Dniesterians have been trying to separate from Moldova since 1989, either by forming their own state or by joining Russia. They are not recognized by other countries as an independent state, and neither does Russia support their effort to join them. It is in Russia's best strategical efforts for the Dniester region (otherwise known as Transnisteria) to remain a part of Moldova because this way they can influence Moldova and Romania. Russia has had a brigade of "peace keeping troops" stationed in the Dniester region since 1989. This letter is written to the Joint Control Command (the name of the peace keepers) congratulating them on their 25 anniversary of keeping the peace between the Dniester Region and the rest of Moldova. The letter was written July 29, 2010. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Group 1 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived "Обращение ОКК к 18-летию СМС в Приднестровье." Official Site of the Delegation of Representatives in the Joint Control Commission from the Dniester Moldavian Republic. Joint Control Commision, 29 July 2010. Web. 19 Feb. 2014. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource July 29, 2010 Assignment: Trajectories Moldova Peacekeeping Places Transnistria https://s3.amazonaws.com/atg-prod-oaas-files/russiaglobal/original/68bab44c0a8617079138e641ec592cde.jpg 1581bb619d1181e33ba736e07442560d Event A non-persistent, time-based occurrence. Metadata for an event provides descriptive information that is the basis for discovery of the purpose, location, duration, and responsible agents associated with an event. Examples include an exhibition, webcast, conference, workshop, open day, performance, battle, trial, wedding, tea party, conflagration. Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 132 years Event Type Annexation Participants Names of individuals or groups participating in the event Georgian Orthodox Church Russian Orthodox Church Russian Empire Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Orthodox Church Politics Description An account of the resource In 1811, the Russian Orthodox Church takes over the Georgian Orthodox Church at the direction of Russian officials. Previously, the common Orthodox religion of Georgia and Russia had served as part of the means of bringing the two closer together. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Group 5 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Rapp, Stephen H., Jr (2007). "Georgian Christianity". The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 137–155. ISBN 978-1-4443-3361-9. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1811-01-01 Subject The topic of the resource Georgia, part 2 Annexation Assignment: Trajectories Georgia Imperialism Religion https://s3.amazonaws.com/atg-prod-oaas-files/russiaglobal/original/22101346ba297fa3c4665dcf574e56b1.gif 06ab993d7e0d92873a878a21bd350f9d Event A non-persistent, time-based occurrence. Metadata for an event provides descriptive information that is the basis for discovery of the purpose, location, duration, and responsible agents associated with an event. Examples include an exhibition, webcast, conference, workshop, open day, performance, battle, trial, wedding, tea party, conflagration. Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 2004 Event Type Agreement Participants Names of individuals or groups participating in the event Russian Federation and Republic of China Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Complementary Agreement between the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation Subject The topic of the resource Amur Region, Part 5 Description An account of the resource After treaties in 1991 and 2001 were not able to complete define the disputed border between the Russian Federation and the Republic of China, the two states were party to the Complementary Agreement between the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation on the Eastern Section of the China–Russia Boundary in 2004. The disputed territories were islands at the confluence of the Amur and Ussuri Rivers. Possession of the two islands was significant for military control of the Amur region, as the Russian city of Khabarovsk is in close proximity to the disputed border. China wished for the boundary to be the channel north of the islands, resulting in China’s possession of Bolshoy Ussuriyski and Tarabarov Island. Russia insisted that, consistent with the 1860 Treaty of Beijing, the southern channel should make up the boundary, allowing for Russian possession of the islands. Once negotiations were concluded, Tarabarov Island and part of the Abagaitu Islet were relinquished by Russia, and Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island was divided in half. The agreement was ratified in 2005, and it came into effect on October 14, 2008. In both the Russian Federation and the Republic of China, the agreement was unpopular because of the mutual loss of territory. Russian Cossacks protested the division of Bolshoy Ussuriyski Island in 2005. Media outlets in Taiwain and Hong Kong were critical of the agreement, as they felt the islands were Chinese territory forever lost to Russia. Furthermore, Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island is still claimed by Taiwan. Despite the unpopularity of the agreement, the Russian Federation and the Republic of China consider the agreement to be a success. The border between the two states is now definitively declared, and economic cooperation in the region has been increased. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Group 3 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Morris-Suzuki, Tessa, Morris Low, et al. East Asia Beyond the History Wars: Confronting the Ghosts of Violence. 1st ed. New York: Routledge, 2013. 31-33. Print. Guo, Rongxing. Cross-Border Resource Management. 2nd ed. Oxford: Elsevier, 2012. 216-217. Print. Wiegand, Krista. Enduring Territorial Disputes. 1st. ed. Athens: University of Georgia, 2011. 240-241. Print. Picture: http://www.economist.com/node/11792951 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource October 14, 2004 Amur Region Assignment: Trajectories China Places Russia https://s3.amazonaws.com/atg-prod-oaas-files/russiaglobal/original/d5a1a3429e790b82f502eea7f1fb2f90.jpg bfa8e1eca1c4080b19f72e928ddcac1b Event A non-persistent, time-based occurrence. Metadata for an event provides descriptive information that is the basis for discovery of the purpose, location, duration, and responsible agents associated with an event. Examples include an exhibition, webcast, conference, workshop, open day, performance, battle, trial, wedding, tea party, conflagration. Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 1858 Event Type Treaty Participants Names of individuals or groups participating in the event Count Nikolas Muravyov-Amursky of the Russian Empire and Yishan, official of the Qing Dynasty. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Treaty of Aigun Subject The topic of the resource Amur Region, Part 2 Description An account of the resource The Amur region grew in importance for Russia during the 1850s. Count Nikolas Muravyov-Amursky led expeditions into the region during the first part of the decade, and during the Crimean War of 1853-1856, the Russian presence in the Amur region was expanded significantly. The Amur River became an important waterway for the Russian military as gateway to the Pacific, and several military outposts were built. With the increased settlement, the region was virtually controlled by Russia. China was unable to respond militarily to the challenge. While Russia was establishing outposts and assuming control of the nearby maritime region, China was taking part in a number of devastating conflicts. The Taiping Rebellion of 1850-1864, which wiped out a large number of Chinese citizens, coupled with the Second Anglo-Chinese War of 1856-1860, provided Russia with the opportunity to gain new territory in the frontier along the border. The Treaty of Aigun, named after the Chinese town in which it was signed, was concluded in May 1858. The signers were the Russian Count Muravyov-Amursky and the Manchu official Yishan. As part of the treaty, Russia received all land north of the Amur River. Another large part of land to the east of the Ussuri River was also given to Russia. The Treaty of Aigun amounted to an estimated two million miles of new territory for Russia. In addition to territory, Russia gained more control over regional trade and near exclusivity in the use of the Amur, Ussuri, and Sungari Rivers. Two years later, the terms of the Treaty of Aigun would be confirmed in the Treaty of Beijing, which established the Ussuri River as the border between Russia and China. Despite the Treaty of Aigun and the Treaty of Beijing, the border between Russia and China was not agreed upon in manner precise enough as to prevent future conflict. China was fully aware that it had been forced into the Treaty of Aigun, and border disputes continued into the 20th century. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Group 3 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Tzou, Byron. China and International Law: The Boundary Disputes. 1st. ed. New York: Praeger, 1990. 47-48. Print. " Russia and China end 300 year old border dispute." BBC World News (1997): BBC News. Web. 12 Feb 2014. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/analysis/29263.stm. "Russian-Chinese Treaty of Aigun concluded 155 years ago." Boris Yeltsin Presidential Library. 28 May 2013. Web. 12 Feb 2014. http://www.prlib.ru/en-us/history/pages/item.aspx?itemid=1042. Picture: http://qingdynastyyong.blogspot.com/ Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource May 1858 Amur Region Assignment: Trajectories China Places Russia https://s3.amazonaws.com/atg-prod-oaas-files/russiaglobal/original/e17d9fd7bdf1d74b8a93207cc9ae2e60.jpg 7e00e794ebbc5ba56615625d0aa8e8cc Event A non-persistent, time-based occurrence. Metadata for an event provides descriptive information that is the basis for discovery of the purpose, location, duration, and responsible agents associated with an event. Examples include an exhibition, webcast, conference, workshop, open day, performance, battle, trial, wedding, tea party, conflagration. Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 1812-1846 Event Type Migration Participants Names of individuals or groups participating in the event Gagauz people living in Bulgaria, imperial Russia Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Migration of the Gagauz People into Moldova Description An account of the resource The Gagauz people are an Orthodox Turkic people mostly living in Moldova. Originally living in Bulgaria, they were given incentives to re-settle to Moldova by the Russians following the Russo-Turkish wars in order to settle an under-cultivated region. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Group 1 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Menz, Astrid. "The Gagauz." Çagatay & Kuban (2006): 370-383. "GAGAUZIA." HUNMAGYAR.ORG. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Feb. 2014. <http://www.hunmagyar.org/turan/caucasus/gagauz.html>. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1812-1846 Subject The topic of the resource Moldova, Part 2 Assignment: Trajectories Identity-building Migration Moldova https://s3.amazonaws.com/atg-prod-oaas-files/russiaglobal/original/e2c5fdc8a2e9db98722d524fbb7423de.jpg b6348157a75cb212bbe34dd27ce52f1d Person An individual. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data 'Dymitr Samozwaniec w stroju koronacyjnym', 1606. Current location: State Historical Museum, Moscow/ Laszki Murowane Castle. Birth Date Unknown (15??) Birthplace Unknown. Death Date 17 May 1606 Occupation Monk (?), Russian Tsar from 30 July 1605 to 17 May 1606. Biographical Text See under 'Description' Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource False Dmitrii I (Lzhedmitrii) Subject The topic of the resource Poland, part 1 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Group 2 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Smuta v kulʹture srednevekovoĭ Rusi : ėvoli͡ut͡sii͡a drevnerusskikh mifologem v knizhnosti nachala XVII veka / D.I. Antonov. (Moscow: RGGU, 2009);Dimitry, called the Pretender, Tsar and Great Prince of all Russia, 1605-1606 [by] Philip L. Barbour. Illustrated with photos. and with maps and tables by Samuel H. Bryant. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1966); Alexandr Pushkin. Boris Godunov (Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia Literatura, 1966). Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 17 May 1605 – 17 May 1606 Language A language of the resource Russian; English. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available RGGU Press; Houghton Miffin Publishing House; Khudozhestvennaya Literatura Publishing House. Description An account of the resource The figure of False Dmitrii I is, possibly, among the greatest mysteries of Russian history. His story is inherently related to the history of Russian-Polish struggle. False Dmitrii I, a pretender, who claimed to be the son of Ivan IV the Terrible, was, according to some versions, the former monk Grigorii Otrep'iev, according to others - a Polish peasant. It has been proven that False Dmitrii spent a long time living in Poland, and was married to the Polish Marina Mnishek. With the help of the latter's father, False Dmitrii gathered an army and, in 1605, established his short rule as the Russian Tsar. He was killed by the troops of Vasilii Shuiskii in May 1606. The Neatline represents an approximate trajectory of Lzhedmitrii's victorious campaign through Oster, Moravsk, Tchernigov,Novgorod Severskii, and Tula, to Moscow, which he triumphantly entered on June, 20, 1605. Boris Godunov Catholicism Impostor Military conflict Poland Religion Russian History Samozvanets Smutnoie Vremia Time of Troubles Tsar Vasilii Shuiskii https://s3.amazonaws.com/atg-prod-oaas-files/russiaglobal/original/7f4ffdb59bf5305403ad88b80f0d7a34.pdf 0fa577c42d193bc5e68a8acd7dd22e09 Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Moldovan Cyrillic Subject The topic of the resource Moldova, Part 3 Description An account of the resource This is a table equating groups of roman characters and cyrillic characters. In the 1920's, the Soviet Union attempted to unify Bessarabia (a region of Romania that used to be a part of the kingdom of Moldavia before the Ottoman Empire) and the Moldovan Soviet Socialist Republic (a region of the Soviet Empire). As a part of their attempt to create a new region, they applied the cyrillic alphabet to the language spoken by those of Moldovan descent. This language is virtually the same as Romanian and prior to the 1920's, was written in roman characters. In 1989, when the Moldova declared independence, the official language was changed back to being written in roman characters, except for in the region of Transnisteria, where the Cyrillic characters are still used to this day. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Moldovan Cyrillic. N.p.: The Permanent Committee on Geographical Names, 2002. PDF. Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available The Permanent Committee on Geographical Names Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1924 - 1932 and 1938 - 1989. Still used in Transnistria. Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource PDF Language A language of the resource English Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Group 1 Assignment: Trajectories Cyrillic Language Moldova Translation https://s3.amazonaws.com/atg-prod-oaas-files/russiaglobal/original/2dd92fec681a6f7f63296dafd4a3f3f4.JPG aad2ca025c48281d87d460a625263670 Event A non-persistent, time-based occurrence. Metadata for an event provides descriptive information that is the basis for discovery of the purpose, location, duration, and responsible agents associated with an event. Examples include an exhibition, webcast, conference, workshop, open day, performance, battle, trial, wedding, tea party, conflagration. Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) Two years Event Type Polish uprising against Russian control Participants Names of individuals or groups participating in the event Nicholas I Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource 1863 Polish Uprising Subject The topic of the resource Poland, Part 3 Description An account of the resource In 1863, many Poles rose up against the Russian government. One of the motivating factors was the religious difference: that Roman Catholic Poland was displeased with the control exerted by the Russian Orthodox Church. But when the uprising was crushed, Russian Orthodox suppression of the Roman Catholic church only increased. Note that the borders portrayed are not Poland's modern borders, but the rough area of the uprising. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Group 2 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Smitha, Frank. "Polish Resistance." Accessed 12 February 2014. 2003 http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h47-ru5.htm Image from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rok_1863_Polonia.JPG Borders from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Podzia%C5%82_terytorialny_Rzeczypospolitej_1863.png Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1863-1865 Orthodoxy Poland Rebellion Religion Roman Catholicism https://s3.amazonaws.com/atg-prod-oaas-files/russiaglobal/original/8174246f8772d06881f26b4398bf1c29.jpg 8c6b4c898c2d940b2d217da23893f913 Event A non-persistent, time-based occurrence. Metadata for an event provides descriptive information that is the basis for discovery of the purpose, location, duration, and responsible agents associated with an event. Examples include an exhibition, webcast, conference, workshop, open day, performance, battle, trial, wedding, tea party, conflagration. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Treaty of Nerchinsk Subject The topic of the resource Amur Region, part 1 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Group 3 Description An account of the resource As Russia sent explorers and settlers eastward in the mid-seventeenth century, they struggled over the land in the Amur basin. At the time of Yerofei Khabarov’s 1649 expedition, one bank of the Amur river was ruled by the Daurians and the other by the Manchu, at the time the ruling dynasty of China. Khabarov captured a Daurian fortress that he called Albazino and installed a Russian settlement there, which fought against the Manchu in numerous battles and sieges. Several times the settlers escaped from Albazino to Nerchinsk, where they regrouped before returning to the fortress. Only 100 of the 800 settlers escaped from a 1685 siege, but returned the next year. The next siege lasted a full year and was more deadly still, leaving 40 out of 900 settlers alive. Finally, in 1689, Russian and Manchu delegations met at Nerchinsk to agree on a treaty that gave the Amur region to the Manchu rulers of China. The Treaty of Nerchinsk gave the lands of the upper Amur to China and called for the destruction of the Russian settlement at Albazino, with the Chinese promising not to populate the Amur basin. The treaty also opened trade with China and included provisions allowing travel and extradition of criminals between Russia and China. China’s northern boundary was extended, now marked by the river Gorbitsa, and a neutral zone was left between the river Ud and the frontier mountains. However, with a lack of both accurate maps and clear descriptions the exact boundary was and is ambiguous.Because the treaty was written using Latin as a lingua franca and translated into Russian and Manchu separately, a great number of differences exist between the various translations, exacerbating the boundary ambiguities. This border between Russia and China held, legally if not precisely, from 1689 until the Treaty of Aigun in 1858. Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived The Territorial Terms of the Sino-Russian Treaty of Nerchinsk, 1689. V. S. Frank. Pacific Historical Review , Vol. 16, No. 3 (Aug., 1947) , pp. 265-270 "The Amur's siren song." The Economist. Dec 17th 2009. http://www.economist.com/node/15108641 "Treaty of Nerchinsk, the first treaty between Russia and China, concluded." Boris Yeltsin Presidential Library. Web. 10 Feb 2014. http://www.prlib.ru/en-us/History/Pages/Item.aspx?itemid=658. Image source: http://history.cultural-china.com/chinaWH/upload/upfiles/2009-11/09/treaty_of_nerchinsk__the_first_treaty_between_russia_and_china8ece83df84e905ad63a3.jpg Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1689-1858 Amur Region Assignment: Trajectories Borders Places Treaty https://s3.amazonaws.com/atg-prod-oaas-files/russiaglobal/original/444d7b37f2f58810ae1e8d338987a30a.jpg de22ca5d22dc2b84c1fe6031cbeea305 Event A non-persistent, time-based occurrence. Metadata for an event provides descriptive information that is the basis for discovery of the purpose, location, duration, and responsible agents associated with an event. Examples include an exhibition, webcast, conference, workshop, open day, performance, battle, trial, wedding, tea party, conflagration. Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) June 19th, 1992 to July 21st, 1992 Event Type Civil War Participants Names of individuals or groups participating in the event Moldova, Transnistria, Soviet 14th Army Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Transnistrian War Subject The topic of the resource Moldova, Part 4 Description An account of the resource As the Soviet Union began its collapse, Moldova declared independence. Moldovan nationalists were giddy with freedom and proposed making Moldovan the national language. There was even talk of re-uniting with Romania. These changes did not sit well with the mostly Russian-speaking peoples east of the Dniester River, who subsequently declared independence from Moldova. A short war ensued that ended with the aid of the Soviet 14th army, which was still present on Transnistrian soil, and a peace treaty was signed. Since then Transnistria has been a de-facto independent state, recognized by none. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Group 1 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived "Transnistria-Moldova Territorial Dispute (ICE)." Transnistria-Moldova Territorial Dispute (ICE). N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Feb. 2014 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource June 19th, 1992 to July 21st, 1992 Assignment: Trajectories Civil War Military conflict Moldova Nation-building https://s3.amazonaws.com/atg-prod-oaas-files/russiaglobal/original/1fad2f4a89b73ec1b9eb836d37920964.jpg 0ec5b98e793839576a7d28e1d6dd2ff6 Event A non-persistent, time-based occurrence. Metadata for an event provides descriptive information that is the basis for discovery of the purpose, location, duration, and responsible agents associated with an event. Examples include an exhibition, webcast, conference, workshop, open day, performance, battle, trial, wedding, tea party, conflagration. Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 25 years (1891-1916) Event Type Construction of the trans-Siberian railroad in the Amur region. Participants Names of individuals or groups participating in the event Russian Empire Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Trans-Siberian Railroad Description An account of the resource The Trans-Siberian Railroad was the material display of Russia’s desire for a permanent foothold on the Pacific coast. Not long after the Amur region had come under Russian control, the imperial government recognized the need for a railroad to connect the region with the Russian heartland. Such a railroad would bolster Russia’s internal development of the region and project Russia’s military power. Ames’ account of Russian railway construction provides a full description of the trans-Siberian railroad’s construction, but the most notable points regarding the Amur region is that construction began simultaneously at Vladivostok as in the west, and that the first completed segment ran through Manchuria. Ultimately, an all-Russia link would be completed in the Amur valley by 1916. In particular, Russia’s desire for a militarily secure railroad arose from the concern that the Amur region, recently acquired from China, might return to the Chinese. Fears of reconquest by demographic means became common in the period. These fears had real roots in the massive settlement program, described by Marks, that the Qing dynasty had enacted in Manchuria. The notion of a few Russian outposts against the entirety of China would remain a latent ethnic concern even into the Soviet and modern era, and the trans-Siberian railroad was a means of improving the odds of permanent Russian settlement in the Amur region. However, the greater railroad projects in the Amur region did not simply represent a means of bolstering Russia against the Chinese threat. In the late 19th century, Russia saw itself as much of a colonial power as any European state, and the railroad held promises of facilitating a Russian expansion into China. Marks notes how the most ambitious of Russians even hoped for an expansion of Orthodoxy into China through railroads extending into China. While that would not come to pass, the construction of the trans-Siberian railroad and its Manchurian branches provided the infrastructure needed for any sort of economic, military, or social control over China by Russia. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Group 3 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Ames, Edward. "A century of Russian railroad construction: 1837-1936."American Slavic and East European Review (1947): 57-74. Marks, Steven Gary. Road to Power: The Trans-Siberian Railroad and the Colonization of Asian Russia, 1850-1917. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991. "File:Banknote 5000 rubles (1997) back.jpg" From Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Accessed February 12, 2014. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Banknote_5000_rubles_%281997%29_back.jpg Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1891-1916 Subject The topic of the resource Amur Region, Part 3 Amur Region Assignment: Trajectories China Places Railroads Russian Empire https://s3.amazonaws.com/atg-prod-oaas-files/russiaglobal/original/8a680fcd91f9f1fd9b31b82fc1b76ebc.jpg bb679a3624d65387d557e79dbec856a8 Event A non-persistent, time-based occurrence. Metadata for an event provides descriptive information that is the basis for discovery of the purpose, location, duration, and responsible agents associated with an event. Examples include an exhibition, webcast, conference, workshop, open day, performance, battle, trial, wedding, tea party, conflagration. Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) 6 years Event Type War Participants Names of individuals or groups participating in the event Ottoman Empire and Imperial Russian Empire Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Russo-Turkish War (Moldova, Part 1) Subject The topic of the resource Russo-Turkish War of 1806-1812 Description An account of the resource In the Russo-Turkish War of 1806-1812, Imperial Russia annexed Bessarabia (formerly known as the Republic of Moldavia) from the Ottoman Empire. After noticing the weakening of the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire began encroaching on Bessarabia (or present-day Moldova) in 1806. After the Russian Empire began occupying the eastern half of Bessarabia (between the Prut and Dniester rivers), six years of warfare broke out between the Ottomas and the Russians. In the Treaty of Bucharest (May 16, 1812), the Ottoman Empire officially gave over the entire land to the Russian Empire, after owning it for 300 years prior. The annexation of Bessarabie marked an entirely new social, political, and cultural climate for the area. By gaining Bessarabia, the Russian Empire became a major power in the Danube River area and the Transcaucus Region.<br /><br />The image from below appears from an exhibit in the National Museum of Moldovan history, commemorating the annexation of Bessarabie to Russia as a moment of fusion between the East and the West. The image depicts Sultan Selim III of the Ottoman Empire on the top left side of the image giving away the land of Bessarabia to Russian Emperor Alexander I on the bottom right-hand side of the image. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Group 1 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Mikhaĭlovskiĭ-Danilevskiĭ, Aleksandr Ivanovich, and Alexander Mikaberidze. Russo-Turkish War of 1806-1812. West Chester, OH: Nafziger Collection, 2002. Print. "Russo-Turkish War of 1806-1812 and the Annexation of Bessarabia: Memory of the East and the West," Exhibitions, National Museum of History of Moldova. The National History Museum of Moldova, 2006. Web. 11 Feb. 2014. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1806-1812 Alexander I Assignment: Trajectories Moldova Sultan Selim III Tsar https://s3.amazonaws.com/atg-prod-oaas-files/russiaglobal/original/41231e4f6c6e33e97c320266602d5bff.jpg e97f5f292d4cec03cb9b926c57fb831e Event A non-persistent, time-based occurrence. Metadata for an event provides descriptive information that is the basis for discovery of the purpose, location, duration, and responsible agents associated with an event. Examples include an exhibition, webcast, conference, workshop, open day, performance, battle, trial, wedding, tea party, conflagration. Duration Length of time involved (seconds, minutes, hours, days, class periods, etc.) March 2, 1969 Event Type Border dispute Participants Names of individuals or groups participating in the event Soviet Union, People's Republic of China Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Damansky Island Conflict Description An account of the resource After the collapse of Sino-Soviet relations in the 1960s, the Chinese began to dispute the current borders on the argument that "unequal treaties" by the Russians had stolen Chinese territory. On March 2, 1969, the border units of the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China clashed at Damansky (Zhenbao in Chinese) Island. After fierce fighting, the Soviet border forces managed to hold control of the island. Ultimately the Chinese and Soviets would not escalate the matter any further, but the border incident demonstrated that old rivalries between the Romanov and Qing dynasties had not been swept away by Communism. Russia had only gained control of the region in the last one hundred years, and the escalation of the conflict to the level of bloodshed demonstrated that the border remained an open question to the Chinese. Besides causing loss of life and nearly dragging two nuclear powers to war, the incident also resonated in historical memories on both sides. In China, Yang Kuisong notes how the Cultural Revolution stoked flames of both ideological assault against the Soviet "revisionists" and cultural memory of national humiliation by colonial powers. In the Soviet Union, popular imagination sprung on the fear of outposts of Russians being subsumed by waves of Chinese invaders. One poet, Yevgeny Yevtushenko, even went so far as to claim "Vladimir and Kiev,/you see in the smoking twilight /The new Batu Khans, /bombs rattling in their quivers." Although these examples may be the most heated examples of propaganda, they demonstrate how important this region was on a cultural level. For both nations, the Amur region, as distant as it might be from the Russian or Chinese heartlands, was as dear as Moscow or Shanghai. Just as the legal matter of the border dispute would not be resolved in this period, the societal impact of this region would resonate even in contemporary times. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Group 3 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Kuisong, Yang. "The Sino-Soviet Border Clash of 1969: From Zhenbao Island to Sino-American Rapprochement." Cold War History 1, no. 1 (2000): 21-52. For the poem cited, Yevtushenko, Yevg. "(Poem)-ON THE RED USSURI SNOW." Current Digest of the Russian Press, The (formerly The Current Digest of the Post-Soviet Press) 21, no. 15 (1969): 12-13. Image: "We will not attack unless we are attacked, if we are attacked, we will certainly counterattack," Chineseposters.net. Accessed February 12, 2014. http://chineseposters.net/images/e13-783.jpg Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource March 2, 1969 Subject The topic of the resource Amur Region, Part 4 Amur Region Assignment: Trajectories Borders People's Republic of China Places Soviet Union