Models of Nominating the Mining Objects of the Ural Gold and Rock Crystal Deposits in the Comparative Aspect

Abstract

This article discusses the names of mining objects of gold and rock crystal located in the Southern, Middle, and Circumpolar Urals. These include names of mines, placers, veins, and other artificial objects located on the territory of deposits and associated with the extraction of these minerals. The purpose of the study is to identify the main models of object nomination and compare specific cases of using these models depending on the characteristics of the extracted raw materials, methods of their development and the geographical location of the deposit. The author analyses a total of 627 names. The article refers to specialised works on the history of gold mining, mining of rock crystal, and the history of the development of specific deposits. There are three main models of object nomination: anthroponymic, toponymic (according to the origin of the toponym) and object-motivated (according to the nomination situation). In different fields, these models are presented in different proportions and specific implementations. Thus, the anthroponymic model becomes the leading one for the Beryozovsky gold deposit, the toponymic one for the Circumpolar Ural deposits of rock crystal, and the object-motivated units are represented at each of the deposits, quantitatively significantly inferior to the names given based on other nomination models. It is concluded that the leading characteristic for the emergence and development of a particular nomination model for specific deposits is the nature of its development (private prospector / regular state), as well as the number of objects subject to naming. The economic development of the territory of the deposit prior to the start of mining on it also plays a role. At the same time, the nature of the extracted mineral does not matter significantly.