THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE NOVGORODIAN

FUR TRADE IN THE PRE-MONGOL ERA (CA. 900-CA. 1240)

Roman K. Kovalev©

University of Minnesota October 6, 2002

A THESIS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

BY

ROMAN KONSTANTINOVICH KOVALEV

PREFACE INTRODUCTION ………………………………….……………………… 1 CHAPTER I NOVGOROD’S FUR TRADE UP TO THE MONGOL CONQUEST ……………………………………….…… 43 At the Origins of the Novgorodian Fur Trade Fur Trade With the Islamic East Fur Trade with Byzantium Fur Trade With the Baltic CHAPTER II THE SOROCHOK/TIMBER UNIT ……………………….……..………... 92 The Sorochok/Timber Unit The Origins of the Sorochok/Timber The Diffusion of the Sorochok/Timber Into the Baltic CHAPTER III THE NOVGORODIAN SUPPLY OF PELTS …………….……………. 131 Finno-Ugrians As Suppliers of Pelts The Structure of Finno-Ugrian Hunting Practices Active Hunting Passive Hunting (Trapping) Hunting-Trapping Patterns Curing Pelts CHAPTER IV GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF FINNO-UGRIAN TRADE RELATIONS WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS ………………….. 172 Trade and Its Structure Demand and Supply in the Russian North Non-Ferrous Metals Beads Ferrous Metals Other Goods CHAPTER V NOVGORODIAN TRADE WITH THE RUSSIAN NORTH ………..…... 210 Origins and General Characteristics Colonial Settlements in the Russian North Minino Way-Station

Kema Toll-Station Slavensk Portage Way-Station Beloozero CHAPTER VI TRANSPORT DEVICES IN THE LANDS OF NOVGOROD ………………………..………....….. 259 Overland Transport Skis Sleds Water Transport Inland Water Craft Dugout Canoes (Simple and Complex) River Barges Seagoing Ships CHAPTER VII MAJOR PORTS, KEY ROUTES, AND THE NOVGORODIAN FUR MARKET ………………………...... 291 Port of Staraia Ladoga and the Route to the Baltic Novgorod's Other Systems of Routes Port of Novgorod Warehousing Furs The Novgorodian Fur Market CONCLUSION ………………………………..………………..….…… 346 BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………………………..... 364

PREFACE

In Memory of my teacher, mentor, colleague, and a very dear friend –

THOMAS S. NOONAN (1938-2001)

In these very early pages of the volume, I must say that this section is in many

ways most dear to me, since it provides me the opportunity to thank all of the kind people

and generous organizations that helped this study come to fruition. Without the

intellectual and spiritual support of the friends and scholars who had assisted me in this

venture and the financial backing of a number of important foundations and institutions

that deemed this project of potential scholarly merit, this volume would not have been

easy to assemble. I collectively thank each and every one of the individuals and

organizations that supported this project from its start to its finish.

While I am deeply grateful to all of the scholars, the critical protagonists as well

as the constructive antagonists of this study, for their interest in the project and the

attentive care they have given it in their commentaries and suggestions on how to

improve it, I must single out one individual who had been and continues to be my guiding

light, a source of immense inspiration for this as well as my other projects – my teacher,

mentor, colleague, and a very dear friend – the late Professor Thomas S. Noonan. Over

the last six years of my residency at the University of Minnesota, I have had the greatest

pleasure of working with this charming, eloquent, very modest and unpretentious, and a

highly innovative historian of early Russian history. One cannot find the words to express

the loss that Russian history and myself, in personally, felt when he passed away on June

15, 2001 after having battled cancer with all of his strength for nearly a year. Being a true

scholar and a genuine humanist – boldly seeking answers to difficult questions until the

very end – Tom continued his scholarly research while in his hospital bed until his last

days. Tom Noonan’s contributions to the study of medieval Russia, and broadly speaking

to the history of western Eurasian medieval trade, is immeasurable and goes way beyond

what can be expressed in this short Preface.1 I would like to take this opportunity to thank

him from the depths of my heart for all of the kind care he has given me over the years,

both intellectually and spiritually. His memory and research interests will continue to live

on into the future.

I should also like to thank for their generous support of my research project the

University of Minnesota Graduate History Department for the 1998, 1999, and 2000 Pre-

Dissertation Travel Grants and the 1999 Foreign Language Study Grant to study

Swedish; Professor J. Tracy of the University of Minnesota and the Union Pacific Pre-

Dissertation Travel Grants for 1998, 1999, and 2000 to Russia as well as for the

Microfilm Grants of 1999 and 2000; the McMillan Foundation for the 2000 Pre-

Dissertation Travel Grant to Russia; the American-Scandinavian Foundation for the 2001

Travel Grant to Norway; Helen Maud Cam Dissertation Grant though the Medieval

Academy of America 2001 Travel Grant to Russia; the Foreign Language & Area Studies

(FLAS) Grant 1999-2000 to study Swedish; the Charles Christianson Foundation for the

2001 Acquisition Award Grant; and, the Graduate School of the University of Minnesota,

Graduate Research Partnership Program Grant of 2001. With the help of these generous

grants, I was not only able to visit the primary cities, museums, libraries, and other

1 See “Introduction” to the Festschrift of Th.S. Noonan by R.K. Kovalev in Russian History/Histoire Russe [Festschrift for Th.S. Noonan, Vol. I, ed. by R.K. Kovalev & Heidi M. Sherman]. Also, see the near complete bibliography of Th.S. Noonan see: “Bibliography” compiled by R.K. Kovalev in History/Histoire Russe [Festschrift for Th.S. Noonan, Vol. I].

research facilities and institutes in Russia (Moscow, St. Petersburg, Novgorod, Staraia

Russa, Staraia Ladoga, Pskov, Torzhok, Tver’, Rzhev, and Novosibirsk) and Norway

(Oslo, Bergen, and Trondheim) that were indispensable for the writing of this volume,

but also learn Swedish and add a substantive volume of books related to my research to

my library.

INTRODUCTION

During Russia’s pre-Mongol or Kievan era (ca. 900-1240), Novgorod was not only

the capital of the Novgorodian principality, but, after Kiev, the second most important

city in Kievan Rus’. The Kievan Rus’ realm stretched from the forest-steppe region of

southern Russia and Ukraine in the south to the Arctic Circle in the north and from the

borders of Poland and Hungary in the west to the middle Volga and the foothills of the

Urals in the east. A large part of this vast territory lay within the borders of the

Novgorodian principality. By the fourteenth-early fifteenth centuries, Novgorod had also

become one of medieval Europe’s great cities, occupying about 329 hectares with a

population of some 25,000-30,000 inhabitants.1 By way of contrast, while the

contemporary cities of Constantinople (40,000-70,000+), Paris (80,000), London

(35,000-40,000), Köln (30,000-40,000), Milan, Venice, Florence, Naples, Ghent, and

Bruges (the last five with 50,000+) surpassed Novgorod in population, the city was on a

par with Lübeck, Prague, Valencia, Saragossa, and Lisbon. The populations of other

important late medieval cities such as Nuremburg, Augsburg, Vienna, Strasburg, and

Toulouse (all with 20,000) fell below that of Novgorod.2 In this way, in population,

Novgorod can be rated as one of the larger cities of late medieval Europe.

Aside from being one of the great medieval European cities, when considering the

vastness of the Novgorodian territories (core and colonial) that formed by the first half of

the twelfth century, at the latest, the Novgorodian principality was the largest state in all

1 R. Khammel’-Kizov, “Novgorod i Liubek. Struktura poselenii dvukh torgovykh forodov v sravnitel’nom analize,” NNZ 8 (Novgorod, 1994), 236. 2 Khammel’-Kizov, “Novgorod i Liubek. 236; H. Birnbaum, Lord Novgorod the Great: Essays in the History and Culture of a Medieval City State, Pt. 1: The Historical Background (Columbus, OH, 1981), 124, n. 10. Also see C. Goehrke, “Einwohnerzahl und Bevölkerungsdichte altrussischer Städte. Methodische Möglichkeiten und vorläufige Ergebnisse,” Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte 18 (1973), 29-46.

2

of medieval Europe. The immense territories of Novgorod, most of which lay to the north

and northeast of the city and stretched to as far as the coastal regions of the White and

Kara Seas and the northwestern Urals, provided it with enormous and largely-untapped

sources of high-quality northern furs coming from a great array of animals inhabiting the

taiga and tundra zones of northern Russia. The accumulation of such colossal colonial

lands by Novgorodian can be directly linked to the fur trade. The urge to find additional

supplies of pelts and better-quality furs drove not only the Novgorodian traders and

tribute collectors to cross the Urals during the Middle Ages, but later the Muscovites to

colonize Siberia and even later the Russian Empire to explore and establish control over

the Russian Far East and Alaska.3

Founded in the first several decades of the tenth century, Novgorod quickly grew into

one of the most important cities in the Rus’ lands.4 The rise and development of

Novgorod can be connected to the fine agricultural lands that lay near the city, its vast

forests rich with fauna, timber and other flora as well as many water bodies teeming with

fish.5 Novgorod’s favorable geographic position on key transcontinental water routes also

3 For the later Russian fur trade, see R.J. Kerner, The Urge to the Sea: The Role of Rivers, Portages, Ostrogs, Monasteries, and Furs (Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1942), R.H. Fisher, The Russian Fur Trade, 1550-1700 (Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1943); G.V. Lantzeff, Siberia in the Seventeenth Century: A Study of the Colonial Administration [University of California Publications in History, Vol. 30] (Berkeley-Los Angeles, 172). 4 For a comprehensive discussion of Novgorod’s earliest settlements, see V.L. Ianin, “Osnovnye istoricheskie itogi arkheologicheskogo izucheniia Novgoroda,” Novgorodskie arkheologicheskie chteniia (Novgorod, 1994), 16-19; idem., “The Archaeological Study of Novgorod: an Historical Perspective,” The Archaeology of Novgorod, Russia: Recent Results from the Town and its Hinterland [The Society for Medieval Archaeology: Monograph Series 13], ed. M.A. Brisbane; tr. K. Judelson; gen. ed. R. Huggins (Lincoln, 1992), 84-87. 5 For the natural environmental conditions and resources in the lands of Novgorod and the types of agricultural products and domestic animals raised by the peoples inhabiting the core lands of Novgorod, see E.N. Nosov, “Ryurik Gorodishche and the Settlements to the North of Lake Ilmen,” The Archaeology of Novgorod, Russia, 7-9; V.Ia. Konetskii, “Rol’ estestvenno-prirodnykh faktorov v rannei istorii Novgorodskoi zamli,” Materialy nauchnoi konferentsii [125 let Novgorodskomu muzeiu] (Novgorod, 1991), 32-39; A.V. Kir’ianov, “Istoriia zemledeliia Novgorodskoi zemli X-XV vv.,” TNAE 2 [MIA SSSR 65] (Moscow, 1959), 321-335, 354-361; M. Aalto and H. Heinäjoki-Majander, “Archaeobotany and

3

greatly contributed to its rise and development into one of the most important commercial

centers in Europe. Beginning with the early years of the ninth century and continuing

well into the Late Middle Ages, local, regional, and long-distance trade passing via

northwestern Russia brought much wealth to the core lands of Novgorod.

Strategically situated on the banks of the Volkhov river in northwestern Russia, via

the intricate and extensive network of the interior Russian river-ways, Novgorod grew to

become a major commercial depot connecting the chief routes of the northern part of

western Eurasia with its southern and central regions. Three foremost cross-continental

trade arteries joined together in Lake Il’men’ just south of Novgorod: “The Khazar Way”

(ca. 800-ca. 965) and later the “The Volga Way” (ca. 900 to ca. 1240) as well as “The

Way From the Varangians to the Greeks” (ca. 900-1240). By way of the “The Khazar

Way,” northwestern Russia maintained commercial relations with Khazaria,

Transcaucasia-Caspian Sea regions, and the Near East. “The Volga Way” connected

Novgorod with Volga Bulgh!ria of the middle Volga and, further south down the Volga,

with the Muslim lands of the Caspian Sea. From Volga Bulgh!ria, it was also possible to

travel via a caravan route to the thriving Islamic commercial-cultural centers in Iran and

Central Asia.6

Palaeoenvironment of the Viking Age Town of Staraia Ladoga, Russia,” Birka Studies, IV: Environment and Vikings, ed. U. Miller and H. Clarke, (Stockholm-Rixensart, 1997), 21-22; H. Heinäjoki & M. Aalto, “Zer Geschichte der Vegetation beim Burgwall der Ladogaburg,” Slaviane i finno-ugry: arkheologiia, istoriia, kul’tura (St. Petersburg, 1997), 168-171; V.I. Tsalkin, Materialy dlia istorii zhivotnovodstva i okhoty v drevnei Rusi [MIA SSSR 51] (Moscow, 1956), Appendixes 14 & 16, pp. 175-176; M. Molbi, Sh. Gamil’ton-Daer, “Kosti zhivotnykh iz raskopok v Novgorode i ego okruge,” NNZ 9 (Novgorod, 1995), 129-156; B.A. Kolchin, Wooden Artifacts from Medieval Novgorod 1, ed. A.V. Chernetsov [BAR International Series 495 (i-ii)] (Oxford, 1988), 19; E.K. Sychevskaia, “Ryby drevnego Novgoroda,” SA 1 (1965), 236-256. 6 For a comprehensive, but now outdated, monograph on “The Volga Way,” see I.V. Dubov, Velikii Volzhskii put’ (Leningrad, 1989). See Chapter I for many new studies and older ones which Dubov left out of his work connected to the use of the Volga as well as the “Khazar Way.” Also see E.A. Rybina,

4

“The Way From the Varangians to the Greeks” connected Novgorod to

Constantinople and the Byzantine territories in the Crimea and Trabizond in northern

Anatolia via the Dnepr, Kiev, and the Black Sea.7 Kiev also provided Novgorod with

access to trade routes to central Europe in the west and Volga Bulgh!ria and its routes to

the Islamic world in the east.8 The northern section of the “The Way From the

Varangians to the Greeks” – the segment that stretched from Novgorod – connected the

city with the Baltic Sea world of the Vikings and later the German-dominated

commercial cities that evolved into the Hanseatic League in the fourteenth century.9

Since all three cross-continental routes and many lesser known ones traversed through

other Rus’ lands, Novgorod was also commercially linked with the Smolensk, Polotsk,

Chernigov, Rostov-Suzdal’, and other Rus’ principalities.10

The Volkhov also provided Novgorodians access the far-eastern corners of the

Russian North by traveling northeast to the southeastern Lake Ladoga region and entering

Lake Onego by way of the Svir’ river. Lake Onego, in turn, offered entrance to the Onega

and Northern Dvina river-systems by way of which it was possible to reach as far as the

sub-Arctic and Arctic regions of the White, Barents and Kara Seas.11 During the pre-

Mongol era, many of these fur-rich areas of the Russian North were colonized and

incorporated into the Novgorodian domains as the direct result of the city’s extensive fur

Torgovlia srednevekovogo Novgoroda: Istoriko-arkheologicheskie ocherki (Velikii Novgorod, 2001), 83-88. For a comprehensive synopsis of the Volga Bulgh!r routes, see A.P. Motsia, A.Kh. Khalikov, Bulgar-Kiev. Puti sviazi sud’by (Kiev, 1997), 24-34. 7 For a comprehensive monograph on “The Way From the Varangians to the Greeks,” see Th.S. Noonan, The Dnieper Trade Route (microfiche, Ann Arbor, MI., 1967). Also see R.K. Kovalev, “Route to Greeks,” Encyclopedia of Russian History (in the press). 8 For the trade routes of Kiev, see Motsia, Khalikov Bulgar-Kiev. Puti sviazi sud’by, 7-23. Also see the collection of articles dedicated to the topic in Put’ iz Bulgara v Kiev (Kazan’, 1992). 9 For more on this route, see Chapter VI. 10 Rybina, Torgovlia srednevekovogo Novgoroda, 89-91. 11 For more on these routes, see Chapter VI.

5

trade with other parts of western Eurasia. In this way, up until the Mongol conquest of the

Rus’ lands in ca. 1240, Novgorod maintained commercial relations with most of western

parts of Eurasia including its central regions.

The indigenous hunting-gathering Finno-Ugrians and the agriculturalist Slavic

colonists and Viking migrants (with their warrior-merchant maritime-commercial

culture12) who came to settle in northwestern Russia during the course of the eighth-tenth

centuries, all took advantage of the natural resources and trade routes of the lands of

Novgorod.13 Each, in their own way, contributed their unique skills and survival

strategies to the emergence of Novgorod and its rapid growth. By the second half of the

twelfth century, Novgorod occupied an area of some 120 hectares and had a population

of 15,000 people.14 At that time, it also possessed vast colonial domains in the far-

Russian North that were tapped by Novgorodian traders and tribute collectors for

acquiring pelts for its markets. These territories came to be known as Zavoloch’e,

literally meaning the “land beyond the portage,” encompassed a huge area stretching east

12 The Scandinavians appear to have been mainly migrants from central Sweden who came to the lands of Novgorod beginning with the second half of the eighth century. Most of them were originally mercenaries and traders who were temporary visitors to Russia, but came to settle in the lands of Novgorod and quickly melted together into the heterogeneous populace of the recently established Novgorod. Some, at least in the initial stages of Novgorodian history, also formed one of the key groups of the ruling elite in the lands. For a very good overview of Viking activities in Novgorod and Russia, in general, see Th.S. Noonan, “Scandinavians in European Russia,” The Oxford Illustrated History of the Vikings, ed. P. Sawyer (Oxford-New York, 1997), 134-155. 13 For various discussions on the complex history of the ethno-cultural makeup of Novgorod based on historical and archaeological sources, see E.N. Nosov, Novgorodskoe (Riurikovo) gorodishche (Leningrad, 1990), 163-166; idem., “Traces of Finno-Ugrian Culture in Novgorod,” ISKOS 9 (1990), 81-86; idem., “Ryurik Gorodishche and the Settlements to the North of Lake Ilmen,” 46-57; A.A. Zalizniak, “Znachenie novgorodskikh berestianykh gramot dlia istorii russkogo i drugikh slavianskikh iazykov,” Vestnik Akademii nauk SSSR 8 (1988), 92-100; V.L. Ianin, “Osnovnye istoricheskie itogi arkheologicheskogo izucheniia Novgoroda,” 22-24; and, Birnbaum, Lord Novgorod the Great, 27-39; A.M. Spiridovov, “Novgorodskie berestianye gramoty,” Pis’mennye izvestiia o karelakh (Petrozavodsk, 1990), 75-96; E.A. Khelimskii, “O pribaltiisko-finnskom iazykovom materiale v novgorodskikh berestianykh gramotakh,” NGB: 1977-1983, 252-259. For some new perspectives on how to approach the study of the complex ethno-cultural mix in northwestern Russia, see Th.S. Noonan, “The Vikings and Russia: Some New Directions and Approaches to an Old Problem,” in Social Approaches to Viking Studies, ed. R. Samson (Glasgow, 1991), 201-206; idem., “Scandinavians in European Russia,” 134-155. 14 Khammel’-Kizov, “Novgorod i Liubek,” 236.

6

and northeast of Lake Onego and Lake Beloe regions to the foothills of the Urals and

included into its geographical scope such major rivers as the Onega, Northern Dvina,

Emtsa, Vaga, Pinega, and Mezen’.15 This region became the primary sources of pelts for

the expanding Novgorodian fur market.

From the foundation of Novgorod until its loss of independent and incorporation into

the expanding Muscovite state in 1478, Novgorodian boyars, unlike their counterparts in

other areas of the Rus’ lands who lived in their rural estates, were permanently stationed

in the city. The continuous presence of the local aristocratic elite in Novgorod secured

their position as key decision-makers in the political, economic, and social life of the city

and its domains.16 As early as the 920s-930s, the elite clans and their extended families

came to exercise great control over the Riurikovichi princes who ruled Novgorod. Over

the next two centuries, the boyars slowly but surely placed various limitations on the

legal and political powers of the princes and gained political autonomy from Kiev, the

capital of the Rus’ lands which had provided Novgorod with its princes.17

The boyar struggle with their princes was also made much easier by the fact that

during its long history the princes who ruled Novgorod were all outsiders. In other words,

15 It should be noted that many scholars attempted to define the term Zavoloch’e with more accuracy to certain specific areas of the Russian North, such as river basins, watersheds, or portages. However, after closely reviewing their arguments in a recent study, N.A. Makarov came to the reasonable conclusion that this term was used to refer to the general area of the river systems that fall into the White Sea basin, seen as a separate geographic region from the Volga basin of the core Rus’ lands. See N.A. Makarov, Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain Drevnei Rusi v XI-XIII vekakh (Moscow, 1997), 102-103. 16 V.L. Ianin, “Vozmozhnosti arkheologii v izuchenii srednevekovogo Novgoroda,” Ocherki kompleksnogo istochnikovedeniia: Srednevekovyi Novgorod (Moscow, 1977), 228; B.A. Kolchin, V.L. Ianin, “Itogi i perespektivy novgorodskoi arkheologii,” Arkheologicheskoe izuchenie Novgoroda, ed. B.A. Kolchin, V.L. Ianin (Moscow, 1978), 34-39; idem., “Arkheologii Novgoroda 50 let,” Novgorodskii sbornik: 50 let raskopok Novgoroda (Moscow, 1982), 111-114; A.S. Khoroshev, “Proiskhozhdenie o sotsial’no-politicheskaia kharakteristika boiarstva Liudina kontsa,” Trudy V Mezhdunarodnogo Kongressa Arkheologov-Slavistov: Kiev, 18-25 sentiabria 1985 g., ed. P.P. Tolochko, 2 (Kiev, 1988), 160-163; idem., A.S. Khorosev, “Novgorodskie usad’by i sistema gorodskogo zamlevladeniia po arkheologicheskim dannym,” NNZ 11 (Novgorod, 1997), 37-41. 17 N.L. Podvigina, Ocherki sotsial’no-ekonomicheskoi i politicheskoi istorii Novgoroda Velikogo v XII-XIII vv. (Moscow, 1976), 104-108.

7

they were sent to rule the city by the Grand Princes of Kiev and later other branches of

the Riurikovichi dynasty (est. 850s-860s to 1598) for a limited period of time. For this

reason, not only did a local Novgorodian princely dynasty did not take root in the city,

but also hampered the development of private princely estates in the lands of Novgorod.

It made little sense for the princes to acquire private lands in the Novgorodian domains

since they ruled the city for only a short while and could not dispense patrimonies to their

children who did not automatically stand to inherit the Novgorodian throne.

Consequently, until the early twelfth century when the boyars, the Novgorodian church,

and wealthy private individuals came to establish private estates, all of the traditional

core Novgorodian territories and its vast colonial domains were part of the city’s

municipal landholdings.18

While gaining significant political autonomy from princely rule may have taken

several centuries to achieve, the boyars had significant independence and leverage over

their princes in economic matters from the foundation of Novgorod. Even before the

establishment of the city, the princes who ruled in the future lands of Novgorod received

a dar or “gift” from the local aristocracy for the services they rendered to the city. This

“gift” or payment for their maintenance came mainly in the form of pelts which only the

boyars had the right to collect from the municipal Novgorodian domains. The tradition of

the “gift-giving” in the lands of Novgorod continued throughout the Middle Ages,

thereby providing the local aristocrats with enormous economic power and influence over

18 V.L. Ianin, Novgorodskie posadniki (Moscow, 1962), 46-54, 62-72, 132; idem., “The Archaeological Study of Novgorod: an Historical Perspective,” 89-91; idem., “Osnovnye istoricheskie itogi arkheologicheskogo izucheniia Novgoroda,” 20-21; idem., U istokov Novgorodskoi gosudarstvennosti (Velikii Novgorod, 2001), 11, 64.

8

the actions of the princes.19 By “holding the key to the purse,” the local boyars achieved a

significant level of independence from the princes and established a boyar republic which

was politically dominated by the boyar veche or city councils. While theoretically open to

all Novgorodian freemen, these councils were largely dominated by the boyars who came

to amass great wealth from their participation in the collection of state revenues (mainly

in the form of pelts) from the Novgorodian domains and through their involvement in the

trade of pelts.20 In this way, much of Novgorodian history from its foundation can be tied

to the fur trade.

BASIC ISSUES OF NOVGOROD’S FUR TRADE IN THE PRE-MONGOL ERA

The sable is born in the most remote forests of Russia and is exported over vast stretches of land and sea to distant peoples. This arises from the inveterate cunning of the Russian race. Lacking gold and silver mines in their territories, which are full of rivers and marshes, they have learned to bring in real gold and silver in exchange for these perishable goods, to their own great gain and the remarkable profit to traders.21

Olaus Magnus – Rome Description of the Northern Peoples, Rome 1555

Olaus Magnus’ insightful statement given above refers to the sixteenth-century

Muscovite fur trade, but it equally well characterizes the history of the Novgorodian fur

trade during the Kievan Rus’ era. For example, Olaus notes the lack of natural deposits of

valuable (non-ferrous) metals in the Rus’ lands, the great abundance of pelts in its

19 Ianin, U istokov, 6-30, 64. 20 Podvigina, Ocherki sotsial’no-ekonomicheskoi i politicheskoi istorii, 104-106. 21 Olaus Magnus, Description of the Northern Peoples, Rome 1555, 3, tr. P. Fisher and H. Higgens, ed. P. Foote [Works Issued by the Hakluyt Society, 2nd Ser. vol. 188] (London, 1998), 900-901.

9

northern forests, the vast stretches of territories that had to be traversed by land and by

sea to retrieve and sell them; and, the “cunning” nature of the Russian people in

exchanging these perishable, but highly-valued goods for silver and gold. These very

same conditions also existed in the lands that would make up Novgorod’s territory in the

tenth through the thirteenth centuries.

As early as the ninth century, even before Novgorod came into existence as a

settlement, the Rus’ had learned how to obtain and convert furs – the one highly-prized

commodity naturally available to them in great abundance – into silver by selling them

far beyond their lands. In later centuries, they continued to export pelts in huge numbers

to obtain through their exchange all sorts of luxury goods as well as raw materials from

foreign lands throughout western and central Eurasia. During the Middle Ages,

Novgorod, in fact, became the most important fur-trade center in western Eurasia. In

relative terms, much literature has been dedicated to the question of the types of items the

Novgorodians traded for their pelts with the outside, the role Novgorod played in the

international fur trade, the Novgorodian external fur market, and its commercial partners.

This is particularly true for the post-Kievan era and Novgorod’s trade with the Hansa

during the latter Middle Ages and the early modern period.22

While the external commercial relations of Novgorod’s fur trade are of great interest

to historians, no study has yet attempted to explore in a serious manner the internal

mechanism, the actual infrastructure of the Novgorodian fur trade. Interestingly, these are

22 See, for instance, A.I. Nikitskii, Istoriia ekonomicheskogo byta Novgoroda (Moscow, 1893; reprint, The Hague, 1967), 105-181, 229-299; A.L. Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia velikogo Novgoroda s Pribaltikoi i zapadnoi Evropoi v XIV-XV vekakh (Moscow, 1963), 45-121; J. Martin, Treasure of the Land of Darkness: The Fur Trade and Its Significance for Medieval Russia (Cambridge, 1986); 49-85, 152-163; E.A. Rybina, Torgovlia srednevekovogo Novgoroda: Istoriko-arkheologicheskie ocherki (Velikii Novgorod, 2001), 61-258.

10

some of the main issues raised by Olaus’ about half a millennium ago: how did the Rus’

obtain the furs from the far-Russian North? How did they transport them over great

distances across the many rivers and marshes? How did they sell them to outsiders for

precious metals and other items and export them by sea and land? Thankfully, as will be

seen in the body of this study, Olaus provides some important clues to answer these

fundamental questions in a number of passages of his book (both verbally and visually).

Of course, many more questions remain unaddressed, particularly since Olaus was

writing about the Muscovites, some three centuries after the fall of Rus’ to the Mongols.

As Olaus, modern researchers should also marvel at the ingenuity of the Novgorodians

and attempt to explain how the Novgorodians overcame the many obstacles of

conducting trade in the Russian North and succeeded in converting furs into precious

commodities.

Perhaps the reason why the infrastructure of the Novgorodian fur trade has been

largely overlooked in scholarship, particularly for the pre-Mongol era, can be tied to the

fact that very few written sources have come down to historians with which to address

the topic. In view of this, historians are left with two options. They can completely

disregard this fundamental element in the Novgorodian economy and history, citing the

dearth of written documents as a disclaimer. Another alternative, and one pursued in this

study, is to evaluate and combine all of the other, non-written sources (numismatics,

archaeology, osteology, pictorial, ethnography, the inscriptions on birch-barks and

graffiti, and comparative materials) with the tidbits of information found in the traditional

written records to reconstruct a much larger, more complete history of the early centuries

of the Novgorodian fur trade. Although a more challenging path, it is a much more

11

fruitful way of addressing this important historical question. As will be discussed in more

detail below, each of these sources is like individual tessera in a mosaic. If viewed

individually, they will not provide a composite image of the subject nor show its multi-

faceted schema. However, when joined together, much like puzzle pieces or tessera in a

mosaic, and withdrawing back to view, a much more complete picture of the

infrastructure of the pre-Mongol Novgorodian fur trade can be reconstructed.

Among the key issues that can be addressed with the use of the multi-source approach

are the questions of why and how the Novgorodian fur trade developed in the Middle

Ages and to what regions of the world the Novgorodians sold their pelts and what they

received in exchange for them? As will be discussed in Chapter I, many of these

questions can be answered, but not sole by consulting the written sources. Archaeological

and numismatic materials must be brought into the discussion to gain a more complete

answer. Chapter II will also address some of these questions by studying the diffusion of

the so-called sorochok/timber (the most common unit of counting, packaging,

transporting, and selling pelts in the fur trade) throughout western Eurasia during the

Middle Ages. Using the written texts, archaeological materials, and pictorial sources, this

chapter will demonstrate how the unit spread from Novgorod to other regions of the

world.

After determining the reasons for the demand for Novgorodian pelts in lands far

beyond its domains and examining the city’s international fur trade relations in the first

two chapters, Chapter III will turn to the issue of the crucial role the Finno-Ugrian

peoples played in the Novgorodian fur trade. Most historians begin their study of the

early Russian fur trade not at its source, but at its middle level, i.e., from the stage when

12

the pelts were already in the possession of Rus’ merchants. Often forgotten in the

discussion is that most pelts exported by Novgorod came from the northern forests,

inhabited by various hunting-gathering Finno-Ugrian tribes of northern Russia who lived

great distances from the main political and economic centers of Rus’. Without these

peoples, the early Rus’ fur trade would have been impossible. Aside from ethnographers,

few scholars dedicate time to the discussion of how these pelts were actually acquired

from the forests by the Finno-Ugrians. Without these expert hunters-trappers, however,

the regular and vast supply of pelts for the Novgorodian fur market would not have

existed.

The next question that naturally follows from the above is how the Novgorodians

obtained the pelts from the Finno-Ugrians? It would be highly simplistic to merely say

that it was through trade or tribute collection. Indeed, through these two methods,

Novgorod obtained the overwhelming majority of the pelts it sold on its market, but it

would be entirely inadequate to end the discussion with simply recognizing these facts.

Since this study is dedicated specifically to the topic of trade, Chapters IV and V will

attempt to show that the commercial relations between the Novgorodians and the

indigenous peoples of the Russian North were much more complex than commonly

believed. They involved considerable effort on the part of the Novgorodians to provide

the goods that stood in high demand in the northern regions of Russia. It is not the case,

for example, that the Finno-Ugrians accepted any goods the Novgorodians offered them

in exchange for their pelts. As will be discussed in Chapter IV, the natives of northern

Russia had very specific and well developed belief systems, aesthetic tastes, and needs

which had to be satisfied in order for them to sell their pelts and be encouraged to provide

13

many more in the future. They would be interested primarily in items that they could not

produce themselves, such as glass beads, or objects of higher quality than the Finno-

Ugrians were able to craft themselves. In part, these goods could serve utilitarian

purposes and, in part, social, religious, political, and even the diplomatic needs of the

inhabitants of the Russian North. Such fundamental issues as the limited types of goods

that the Finno-Ugrian would exchange for their pelts are usually left totally unaddressed

by scholars involved in the study of the Russian fur trade.

To accommodate these needs, beginning with the initial stages of its fur trade

relations with the Russian North, the Novgorodians either imported the items desired by

the indigenous peoples of northern Russia from other lands or learned to produce them

themselves. These items were, thereafter, passed through elaborate trade networks which

the Novgorodian merchants established with the Russian North Russia by way of colonial

settlements and intermediaries. The types of goods traded by the Novgorodians for the

Finno-Ugrian pelts, the mechanism of this trade, and its origins and development will be

considered in Chapter V.

The act of trading and the goods produced for the exchange in only a part of the fur

trade system. Even before pelts could come into the hands of Novgorodian merchants, the

traders needed appropriate transportation vehicles for entering the far-distant forests of

northern Russia with their goods and returning to the city with their acquisitions. Once in

the city, furs had to be exported to other lands via the extensive Novgorodian trade links

using transport devices that greatly differed from those used in the Russian North. While

these questions seem fundamental to the study of the Novgorodian fur trade, the subject

of transport devices used in the Novgorodian fur trade remains largely unaddressed. For

14

this reason, the Novgorodian transport devices used in its fur trade will be the subject of

Chapter VI.

Another question integral for the study of the infrastructure of the Novgorodian fur

trade is the disposal mechanism of the pelts once they were in the city. Novgorod needed

the proper port facilities, developed trade routes and a transport system, secure storage

facilities for pelts, an efficient market mechanism, and merchants to sell their furs.

Having a well-developed system for selling pelts, after all, is crucial when considering

that the Novgorodians had to dispose of hundreds of thousands of pelts each year. These

subjects will be addressed in the final Chapter VII.

Taken all together, the infrastructure of the Novgorodian fur trade is fundamental for

the understanding of the way the city’s fur trade functioned. It is not enough to simply

examine the mechanism from the middle to the final levels, that is, beginning at the stage

when pelts were already in Novgorod to be sold overseas by local merchants. The first

level involved many more steps than is usually implied: from obtaining furs from the

forests, trading for them with the natives of the Russian North for specific items through

special networks, and transporting them to Novgorod. Mechanisms of the middle and

final levels are also more complex and remain largely unstudied: from the question of

transport devices, packaging, and the storage of pelts to the Novgorodian routes, their

structure, and the Novgorodian fur market and its merchants. Despite the paucity, if not

total dearth, of information in written documents on these topics, with the use of the

multi-sources approach, it is possible to study most of these questions and offer many

answers.

15

SOURCES FOR THE STUDY OF THE NOVGORODIAN FUR TRADE

PRIMARY WRITTEN EVIDENCE

As noted above, the body of evidence for the study of the infrastructure of the

Novgorodian fur trade of the pre-Mongol era is large, but is, at the same, time hard to

work with since it is scattered among different sources and disciplines. Among the most

important sources are the primary written documents. Practically all of them are very

brief references to the subject and rarely provide more than a single line of text on the

issues under study. However, they do come from a very wide geographic and cultural

sphere of medieval western and central Eurasia and, thus, offer a broad range of

observations, opinions, and insights. These sources include all sorts of written works of

Rus’, Arabic, Byzantine, Scandinavian, and west and central European origin.

The relative paucity of Rus’ written records from the Kievan era is well known to

early Russian historians. Inevitably, this greatly complicates the study of Rus’ history in

general and the infrastructure of the Novgorodian fur trade in particular. In addition, the

available standard written sources are cryptic and provide only vague information on the

topic. For these reasons, the only choice left for historians is to piece together all of the

various odds and ends available in the Rus’ chronicles, law codes, Novgorodian treaties

with their princes or the countries of the Baltic, and other documents to reconstruct some

aspects of the Novgorodian fur trade, its transportation systems, and structure of its

market, and other related questions.

16

In view of the scarcity of traditional written sources from the Kievan era, at times it

becomes necessary to consult the records coming from later periods. For instance, much

can be learned about the structure of the Novgorodian trade with the Baltic from the

Novgorodian-Hansa treaties of the post-Kievan period. Of course, all of the information

contained in these records cannot be taken at face value, since they often reflect

conditions that existed at a later time. At the same time, some of the evidence found in

them can be joined with earlier evidence (archaeological, numismatic, or written) which

suggests a continuation in the tradition that dates to the earliest periods of Novgorodian

history. Since later records tend to be more complete and often offer fuller, more

elaborate explanations for certain nuances in the Novgorodian fur trade, they can be used

to fill in gaps left open in earlier sources. The same can be said about other later sources

such as the post-Kievan birch-bark texts, saint’s lives, Novgorodian tax registers,

charters, reports of Muscovite diplomats, Muscovite customs books, and other

documents.

Arabic sources are just as important as the Rus’ documents and, in some ways, even

more informative about some key issues connected to the early stages of the Rus’ fur

trade. They come in two main types: eyewitness accounts and medieval secondary

studies. The former are descriptions written by individuals who actually traveled to

European Russia, saw Rus’ fur merchants engaged in their commercial operations in

other nations, or some other related information. An excellent example of such a source is

Ibn Fa!l!n’s Ris!la, written soon after his diplomatic mission from the "Abb!sid Caliph

al-Muqtadir to Volga Bulgh!ria in 921/22. Ibn Fa!l!n provides extensive details of his

experiences in the middle Volga region, some of which deals directly with the fur trade

17

and Rus’ merchants. Another example is Ab# $!mid al-!arn!%&, a Spanish-Islamic

traveler to eastern Europe in 1136-1150, who provides some invaluable and unique

information not only on the fur trade, but also on the types of transport devices used in

the Russian North. One can also add to these two the accounts of Ibr!him ibn Ya"q#bi, a

Spanish-Jewish traveler to central Europe in the second half of the tenth century who had

a word to say about pelts, and Ibn Ba%%#%a, the well-known traveler and author of the mid-

fourteenth century.

Medieval Arabic secondary studies – mainly histories and geographical works – were

composed by Muslim authors who either had very limited direct exposure to eastern

Europe or never traveled anywhere near it during their lives. The information contained

in these works originated either in the interviews the authors made with merchants and

travelers to eastern Europe or from written accounts left by travelers, such as the text of

Ibn Fa!l!n. Very often, these authors relied heavily on each other’s works and repeated

the same information. At the same time, authors of secondary Arabic accounts sometimes

also attempted to update the information they had available to them by adding new

materials. A good example of a work that revised an earlier source is Zainu ’l-Axb!r by

Gard&z& (mid-eleventh century) who introduced new information to Ibn R#sta’s early

tenth-century treaties.

Ibn R#sta and Gard&z& represent the famous Persian-Arabic “Geographic School”

which had its heyday in the tenth century, but continued thereafter well into the later

Middle Ages. Aside from those already noted above, representatives of this Geographic

18

School who speak of eastern European fur trade include al-J!'iz, Ibn Khur!!dbeh, Ibn al-

Faq&h, I(%akhr&, al-Muqaddas& (al-Maqdis&), al-B&r#n&, Ibn $awqal, Marvaz&, and the

anonymous author of "ud#d al-$%lam, all of whom wrote in the pre-Mongol era. Some

valuable information can also be found in the post-Mongol travel-geographic literature of

Ibn Ba%%#%a, "Awf&, Ab#’l Fid!’, and al-"Umar&. Overall, since many of these authors were

interested in the various types of goods and where they could be purchased, they left

much important information about the sources of pelts, their many types, what could be

traded for them, the merchants who sold them, and, transport devices used to access the

markets.

Various brief accounts and mentions of fur in pre-Mongol western and central Eurasia

are also found in the works of al-K#f&, al-"abar&, Mas"#d&, Ibn al-Zubayr, Us!ma ibn

Munqidh, Ibn al-Ath&r, and other Arabic authors, most of whom were historians or

chroniclers and influenced by the “Geographic School.” These sources are of great use

since they shed light on the origins of the pelts while others simply show the great

demand for pelts in the lands of Islam during the Middle Ages. Be that as it may, as with

most geographical works, because they relied on accounts left by others (such as tales of

merchants, travelers, or other sources), it is not always clear to what extent their

information can be trusted. Even the accounts of travelers such as Ibn Fa!l!n are not fully

based on eyewitness information: much of what he writes about the far-Russian North

came from stories he heard from merchants. In addition, there is always the problem of

chronology, since an Arabic author may have used sources that date to a century or two

19

earlier. Consequently, the accounts they provide may be significantly out of date and,

thus, not reflect the current state of affairs when they composed their treaties. For all of

the above reasons, Arabic sources, especially the secondary studies, may not always

provide fully reliable information, particularly about the chronology.23 At the same time,

the issue of chronology is not always central to the reconstruction of the structure of the

Novgorodian fur trade, since it is the description of the process that is central to the

question. Furthermore, the Arabic accounts can often be checked by examining other

sources. In this way, despite their inadequacies, Arabic sources must be included into the

discussion.

Old Norse and Scandinavian sources are of five main types: 1) eyewitness accounts

(e.g., the early tenth-century description of the Russian North by Ohthere, a Norwegian

merchant-traveler); 2) histories (e.g., the History of the Danes by Saxo Grammaticus; 3)

numerous Icelandic sagas (e.g., Heimskringla, Egil’s, Færeyinga, Kn!tlinga, Yngvar’s,

Sturlaugs, and Örvar Odds); 4) runic inscriptions; and, 5) law codes (e.g., the Bergen law

code of 1282 – Om Handel og Taxter i Bergen). Of these, potentially the most

problematic are the sagas, since they were all written in the thirteenth and later centuries,

but describe events that allegedly occurred in the ninth century and later. Although the

historicity of the sagas – be they Heroic (fornaldarsögur) or King’s (konungasögur) – has

been a point of considerable debate for over three centuries,24 there is no reason to

dismiss the information found in them concerning the fur trade in northern Europe. The 23 For more on the medieval Islamic sources concerning eastern Europe, see B.N. Zakhoder, Kaspiiskii svod svedenii o Vostochnoi Evrope 1-2 (Moscow, 1967) and I.Iu. Krachkovskii, Izbrannye sochineniia 4 (Moscow-Leningrad, 1957), 194-197. Also see A.A. Duri, The Rise of Historical Writing Among the Arabs, ed. and tr. L.I. Conrad (Princeton, 1983) for a general discussion of the origins and development of Islamic historical writing in the Middle Ages. 24 Also, for a basic discussion on the historiography and historicity of the Heroic sagas, see T.M. Andersson, The Problem of Icelandic Saga Origins: A Historical Survey [Yale Germanic Studies 1] (New Haven, 1964). Also see S.A. Mitchell, Heroic Sagas and Ballads (Ithaca-London, 1991), 32-43.

20

thrust of the messages they carry concerning the availability of pelts in the north of

Russia, the role played by the Finno-Ugrians in obtaining pelts, selling, and transporting

them seem to stand on solid traditional lore which was passed orally across many

generations until they were recorded in written form. Furthermore, as with all other

primary literary sources, these accounts can usually be collaborated for accuracy by way

of supplementary evidence (archaeological, numismatic, ethnographic, and others) and

chronology is not always the key issue.

West and central European written sources also contain important scraps of

information on the infrastructure of the Novgorodian fur trade or related subjects. These

include pre-Mongol-era chronicles, laws, saint’s lives, travel accounts, and histories:

Jordanes, Adam of Bremen, Helmold of Bosau, Rudolf von Ems, The Annals of Roger de

Hoveden, Villehardouin, William of Rubruck, John of Plano Carpini, Vita s. Mariani

Scoti, Vita Meinwerci episcopi Paderbornensis, “Assisa Regis David Regis Scottorum,”

and the numerous French, German, and Spanish chivalric romances of the twelfth-

thirteenth centuries. Much information is also found in later, post-Mongol texts such as

those by Marco Polo, Balducci Pegolotti, George Trakhaniott, Francesco Da Colla, Olaus

Magnus, Sigmund von Herberstein, Heinrich von Staden, Anthony Jenkinson, P.-M. de la

Martinière, and others. Most of these are travel accounts into Muscovy or the lands of

northern Russia which describe the later Russian fur trade or the types of transport

devices used for accessing the far distant lands of the north. Clues about the nature of

packaging pelts for transport can also be found in several Anglo-French Ordinances

dating to the post-Kievan era. Lastly, from the Mongol period, there are also a number of

Hanseatic records, particularly the house rulebook (Schra) of the Hansa Kontor of

21

Novgorod, which are of use. While dating to a later period than the present study is

concerned, these sources are of great use for the reconstruction of a number of key issues.

Somewhat surprisingly, Byzantine texts are almost silent on the Rus’ fur trade.

Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the Byzantine emperor who wrote in the mid-tenth century,

mentions furs. But even Constantine does not make a specific mention of pelts from the

Rus’ lands. At the same time, he does provide unique and invaluable information

concerning the structure of the Rus’-Byzantine trade relations during the mid-tenth

century. On the one hand, the great paucity of references to pelts in Byzantine sources

can be interpreted as a sign that Byzantium was not a major imported of furs during the

Middle Ages. On the other hand, Byzantine sources simply do not refer to any of the

types of goods brought from Rus’. As can be discerned from Rus’ sources, wax, honey,

and slaves were commonly exported alongside furs to Byzantium. However, practically

no Byzantine documents speak of any of these Rus’ imports. In this way, the general

dearth of references to the import of pelts from Rus’ in Byzantine sources is not at all

unusual and should not be seen as evidence for the absence of these items in Rus’-

Byzantine trade.

Overall, the one key advantage of the non-Rus’ sources, particular those left by

eyewitnesses or those who sat down to record their experiences, is that they often provide

insights that were omitted by the Rus’ in their documents. Being foreign visitors in the

Rus’ or other lands, travelers took note of various subjects that the locals had no interest

in recording. Perhaps the best examples of this are the accounts of the transport devices

such as skis, sleds, and the use of dogs and deer for pulling the latter by practically every

culture that came into contact with them. For the Rus’, there was nothing special about

22

these topics and, thus, they found no need to describe them. Foreigners can often present

and record better, more insightful information by looking within from the outside.

Taken all together, the written evidence for the fur trade, in general, and the

Novgorodian fur trade during the Kievan era, in particular, seems quite abundant. Albeit,

as noted above, the reality is that the overwhelming majority of these sources provide

only small snapshots of minute details on the subject. To make sense and use of them, all

of these sources have to be examined in their totality and, usually collaborated or

expanded upon with later records or with the use of supplementary evidence derived a

number of other channels of information which will be discussed below.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS

In the twentieth century, particularly during the so-called “Golden Age” of Soviet

archaeology (1950-1980), archeologists uncovered the remains of hundreds of Kievan

Rus’ towns and settlements.25 Of this group, the most thoroughly studied medieval town

is Novgorod.26 This would be true to say not only for the Rus’ lands, but for all of

medieval Europe. To date, more than sixty thousand cubic meters of the city’s cultural

layers have been excavated alongside seven kilometers of wooden city pavements, and

eleven hundred medieval wooden buildings. Albeit, the area excavated constitutes only a

25 For a general discussion, catalog, and bibliography of the excavations of these sites, see A.V. Kuza, Drevnerusskie gorodishche X-XIII vv.: Svod arkheologicheskikh pamiatnikov (Moscow, 1996). 26 For a good summary on the digs, see Kolchin, Ianin, “Arkheologii Novgoroda 50 let,” 3-52. Also see the collection of essays by various archaeologists of Novgorod in Novgorod the Great, comp. M.W Thompson (London, 1967). While this book is quite outdated in many aspects, it does provide an English-language reader with many fundamental topics on medieval Novgorod and its excavations. For a more current work, see The Archaeology of Novgorod, Russia.

23

small area of medieval Novgorod – less than one hectare.27 Much more work remains to

be done in Novgorod.

Because the city was established on a clay-based ground which did not permit water

to escape via subterranean streams, the soil and the cultural deposits with all of their

artifacts remained waterlogged, thereby preventing air from entering the deposits and

oxidizing metals and bacteria from eroding organic substances. The massive quantities of

damp manure of domestic animals scattered throughout the grounds of residential urban

properties has also prevented artifacts within the cultural layers of Novgorod from

drying, decaying, and corroding. Many thanks can also be extended to the medieval

citizens of Novgorod and the visitors to the city who, in the words of V.L. Ianin, were

“uncultured,” leaving behind literally tons of items, discarded intentionally as trash or

misplaced by accident or lost in the many medieval city fires.28 For all of the above

reasons, over the last sixty years, hundreds of thousands of organic (wood, leather, bone,

textiles, fibers, grains/seeds) and inorganic artifacts (metal, stone, glass, and ceramic)

have been uncovered during the systematic archeological excavations of the city.29

Because of dendrochronology (the study of tree-rings in cross-sections of timbers), most

of these finds are datable, usually to a fairly specific period (20-30 years). For this reason,

27 V.L. Ianin, Ia poslal tebe berestu..., 3rd ed. (Moscow, 1998), 23. 28 Ianin, Ia poslal tebe berestu..., 19-23. 29 Aside from the two English-language monographs (Novgorod the Great, by M.W. Thompson and The Archaeology of Novgorod, Russia), much of the published materials discovered in Novgorod can be found in the annual publication Novgorod i Novgorodskaia zemlia (NNZ), the four volumes of Trudy Novgorodskoi arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii, and the ten volumes of NGB. See Bibliography for details. In addition, most of the works dedicated to the archaeology of Novgorod can be found in the three bibliographic volumes: Arkheologiia Novgoroda. Ukazatel’ literatury 1917-1980 gg. comp. P.G. Gaidukov (Moscow, 1983); Arkheologiia Novgoroda. Ukazatel’ literatury 1981-1990 gg. (Dopolneniia k ukazateliu za 1917-1990 gg.), comp. P.G. Gaidukov (Moscow, 1992); Arkheologiia Novgoroda. Ukazatel’ literatury 1991-1995 gg. (Dopolneniia k ukazateliu za 1917-1990 gg.) comp. P.G. Gaidukov (Novgorod, 1996). Additional bibliographies from 1996 and later can be found in individual issues of NNZ.

24

it is possible to study many aspects of the material culture in Novgorod within a

determined chronological framework.

The archaeological finds most pertinent to the present study are the osteological or

bone remains of fur-bearing animals; special arrowheads used for hunting fur-bearing

animals; the numerous items used in the fur trade such as beads, coins, and jewelry;

jewelry-making workshops; remains of transport devices and cargo containers; and, other

categories of objects. Among the more revealing and overlooked archaeological finds

connected to the fur trade in Novgorod are the wooden tallies. In general, tallies (Old

Rus’ – doski or zhereb’ia) or small wooden sticks or planks with notches were the most

wide-spread instruments for counting and record-keeping in medieval Russia as well as in

Latvia, Poland, Scandinavia, England, France, Germany, Italy, and other European states.

In Russia, archaeologists have unearthed the largest collection of medieval tallies in

Europe: ca. 900 were discovered in Novgorod, Riurikovo gorodishche, Rostov, Pskov,

Beloozero, Gnëzdovo, Moscow, Toropets, Staraia Ladoga, Staraia Russa, Vologda,

Pereiaslavl’-Riazanskii, Tver’, Torzhok, and Solikamsk in the Ural regions.30 The largest

collection of medieval tallies (637 by the end of 2001 archaeological season) comes from

Novgorod. Occur in all parts of the city, with a chronological span beginning in the third

quarter of the tenth to the mid-fifteenth centuries (after which date archaeological layers

30 R.K. Kovalev, “Novgorodskie dereviannye birki: obshchie nabliudeniia,” RA 1 (2002), 38-50; idem., “Birki-sorochki: upakovka mekhovykh shkurok v Srednevekovom Novgorode,” NIS 9 (St. Petersburg, in the press); idem., “Dereviannye dolgovye birki-sorochki XI-XII vv. iz Novgorodskoi kollektsii,” NIS 9 (St. Petersburg, in the press); idem., “Ganzeiskaia («diuzhinnaia») schetnaia birka s Gotskogo raskopa srednevekovogo Novgoroda,” [Festschrift for A.L. Khoroshkevich] (Moscow, in the press); idem., “Accounting, Tag, and Credit Tallies,” Wood and its Use in Medieval Novgorod (London, in the press); idem., “Birka (Tally),” SMERSH (in the press); Th.S. Noonan, R.K. Kovalev, “What Can Archaeology Tell Us About How Debts Were Documented and Collected in Kievan Rus’?” RH/HR 27:2 (2000), 119-154; A.L. Mongait, Riazanskaia zemlia (Moscow, 1961), Fig. 75: 7, p. 186. Information of the newly-published tally from Gnëzdovo can be found in T.A. Pushkina, V.V. Murasheva, V.S. Nefedov, “Novye v izuchenii tsentral’nogo selishcha v Gnëzdove,” Arkheologicheskii sbornik: Gnëzdovo – 125 let issledovaniia pamiatniki, ed. V.V. Murasheva (Moscow, 2001), Fig. 14, p. 24.

25

in this city cease to preserve wooden artifacts). Of the numerous types of tallies

discovered in Novgorod, one type was specifically used in the fur trade – the

sorochok/timber tally. As will be discussed in Chapter II, these objects were implemented

for counting out pelts into 40s or the sorochok/timber unit and, thus, provide critical

information of the structure of the Novgorodian fur trade. While such tallies were known

in other areas of the Rus’ lands and countries of the Baltic, only in Novgorod have they

been found in significant quantities, something that should not be surprising in view of

the city’s intense involvement in the trade of pelts.

Aside from Novgorod, archaeologists have been very active in exploring other towns

within the core Novgorodian domains such as Riurikovo gorodishche, Staraia Ladoga,

Staraia Russa, Torzhok, and Pskov. Outside of the central lands of the Novgorodian lands

– mainly in the northern and northeastern regions of the Russian North – significant

numbers of Finno-Ugrian settlements, cemeteries, and sanctuaries have received

archaeological exploration and study. The excavations of these sites provide invaluable

materials on the Novgorodian fur trade with the region, including osteological finds,

specialized arrowheads used for hunting fur-bearing animals, lead seals or bullae that

appear to have been used in the fur trade, and various items used in the fur trade such as

beads, coins, jewelry, and many other objects.

Lastly, the discovery and study of medieval ships and their parts in the Baltic-

Northern Seas region by marine and land archaeologists and historians has yielded

significant information of the types of cargo vessels that may have sailed to Novgorod to

trade for pelts. Finds of tallies in Sweden and Norway also shed light on some key issues

such as the way pelts were counted and transported from Novgorod to the Baltic. The

26

discovery of various items of Rus’ origins or those exported via their lands in the Baltic

Sea region sheds some light on the Rus’-Baltic commercial contacts and the types of

objects traded by the Rus’ in addition to pelts. In this way, archaeology outside of Russia

can also reveal information on the Novgorodian fur trade.

BIRCH-BARK TEXTS AND GRAFFITI

A man whose word I trust told me that one of the kings of Mount al-Qabq (the Caucasus) sent him to the king of Russia. He believes that they have writing inscribed on wood, and he showed me a piece of white wood with an inscription on it.

The Fihrist of al-Nad&m (Baghd!d, 987/988)31

It has been suggested that the “white wood” seen by al-Nad&m was in fact a birch-bark

text.32 Not being familiar with the flora of the northern forests, it is easy to see how a

person living in Baghd!d would not identify the “white wood” he saw with a birch-bark.

The discovery of medieval birch-barks with inscriptions in Rus’ towns has substantiated

al-Nad&m’s account. The Rus’ did, in fact, use “white wood” or, more accurately, birch-

barks for writing. Between 1951 and 2001, one thousand and four birch-barks have been

unearthed during the excavations of eleven medieval Rus’ towns: 916 in Novgorod, 36 in

Staraia Russa, 17 in Torzhok, 15 in Smolensk, 8 in Pskov, 5 in Tver’, 3 in Zvenigorod of

Galicia, and one each in Moscow, Mstislavl’, Riazan’, and Vitebsk.33 The overwhelming

31 Vol. 1, ed. and tr. N. Dodge (New York-London, 1970), 37. 32 Ianin, Ia poslal tebe berestu..., 38. 33 R.K. Kovalev, “Birch-Bark Texts,” SMERSH (in the press).

27

majority of the birch-barks come from Novgorod and its provincial towns (Staraia Russa,

Torzhok, and Pskov), in part because the city is so well excavated and, in part, because

the soils of northwestern Rus’ towns are most conducive to the preservation of organic

materials. In fact, based on the relatively small area of medieval Novgorod that had been

excavated by 1993, Ianin, estimated that the medieval strata of the entire city may contain

about 20,000 additional birch-barks.34

Writing on birch-bark was not an unusual practice in areas where birch trees were

found. For instance, outside the territories of medieval Rus’, birch-bark was used for

writing in Sweden during the fifteenth to the eighteenth century.35 The survival of this

practice is quite understandable given the fact that paper or parchment were either too

expensive for everyday use or were simply not available to common people. However,

birch-bark was inexpensive or free and available to anyone wishing to write and go

through the uncomplicated process of pealing a piece of bark off a birch tree, boiling it in

water, and cutting it to the desired dimensions. After this process the birch-bark becomes

a convenient object to write on.36

34 Ianin, “Osnovnye istoricheskie itogi arkheologicheskogo izucheniia Novgoroda,” 10. 35 Olaus Magnus, Description of the Northern Peoples, Rome 1555, 1, tr. P. Fisher & H. Higgens tr. P. Fisher and H. Higgens, ed. P. Foote [Works Issued by the Hakluyt Society, 2nd Ser. vol. 182] (London, 1996), 77; Ianin, Ia poslal tebe berestu..., 33. 36 For details on the processes which are involved in treating and preserving the birch-barks after they are found as well as other interesting details on the “physical science” of birch-bark studies, see Ianin, Ia poslal tebe berestu..., 35-36; V.I. Povetkin, “Opyt vostanovleniia novgorodskikh berestianykh gramot,” RA 3 (1996), 52-56. Also see Kovalev, “Birch-Bark Texts” for the most current bibliography and discussions of other issues related to the subject. For another English-language discussions of the birch-barks, see the translation of A.V. Artsikhovskii’s article in “Birch bark documents,” Novgorod the Great, 55-63; V.L. Ianin, “The Birch-Bark Documents,” The Archaeology of Novgorod, Russia, 71-73; E. Levin, “Novgorod Birchbark Documents: The Evidence for Literacy in Medieval Russia,” Medieval Archaeology: Papers of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies 60, ed. C.L. Redman (Binghamton, N.Y., 1989), 127-137.

28

With the exception of two birch-bark texts (!13 [second half of the fifteenth century]

and !496 [mid-fifteenth century]37), which were written with ink, the authors used a

metal, bone, or a wooden instrument or stylus (pisála) to scratch out the characters on the

birch-bark. These styli varied is size and shape, but were made to fit into the hand, much

like a modern pen. Many styli were equipped with loops at the blunt end so that they

could be suspended from a belt and carried. Holsters with styli were also found in

Novgorod. In this way, it appears that people in early Rus’ carried these writing

instruments with them wherever they needed to write. Some styli, instead of having a

loop at the blunt end, were equipped with a shovel-shaped tool, which was used for

smearing or erasing texts. Undoubtedly, these styli were intended for writing and erasing

on wax tablets (tsery).38 Hundreds of styli of various types have been found at dozens of

Kievan Rus’ towns.39 Before the discovery of the birch-barks, these objects greatly

puzzled archaeologists who attempted to explain their function in different ways. With

the discovery of the birch-barks, the purpose of these objects became clear. It also

became evident that the practice of writing was a common feature of life in medieval

Russia.40 The finds of over one thousand birch-barks at eleven Rus’ towns supports this

general conclusion.

37 !13 was never interpreted. For these two birch-barks, see NGB: 1952, 14; NGB: 1962-1976, 88-90. 38 For studies on the medieval Rus’ wax tablets, see Kolchin, Wooden Artifacts from Medieval Novgorod Pt. 1, 165-166, Pt. 2, 401; E.A. Rybina, “Tseri iz raskopok v Novgorode,” NNZ 8 (Novgorod, 1994), 129-133; A.A. Medyntseva, “Epigrafika, pisala (stili) i tsery,” Drevniaia Rus’: Byt i kul’tura, ed. B.A. Kolchin and T.I. Makarova (Moscow, 1997), 151-152. 39 For studies on the medieval Rus’ styli, see A.F. Medvedev, “Drevnerusskie pisala,” SA 2 (1960), 63-88; B.B. Ovchinnikova, “Pisala srednevekovogo Novgoroda,” Novgorodskie arkheologicheskie chteniia, 83-85; Medyntseva, “Epigrafika, pisala (stili) i tsery,” 150-151. 40 I do not wish to get involved in the controversial debate over the extent to which literacy was widespread in medieval Rus’. This question has been addressed by numerous scholars. For some of the basic arguments at opposite ends of the debate, see N.S. Chaev, Istoriia kul’tury drevnei Rusi 1 (Moscow-Leningrad, 1951), 216-244; R. Picchio, “The Slavonic and Latino-Germanic Background,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies [Eucharisterion: Essays Presented to Omelyan Pritsak] 3/4, 2(1979-1980), 650-661. See,

29

The medieval Rus’ birch-barks were mainly written in Old Rus’ (mostly in its

Novgorodian variant or dialect) using Cyrillic characters. The exceptions are the birch-

barks written in Finnish (Karelian?) using Cyrillic characters [!292 (mid-twelfth

century)41]; in German using Latin characters [!753 (mid-eleventh century)42]; in Old

Norse using young futhark runes [Smolensk !11 (1170s-1190s)43 and Staraia Russa

!2744 (eleventh century?)]; in Latin using Gothic characters [!488 (end of the

fourteenth to the early fifteenth centuries)45]; and, in Greek [!552 (1196-1213)46] using

Greek characters (a Church-related text, probably written by Olisei-Grechin, a

Novgorodian icon painter). Thus, Germanic and Finnic speaking peoples living among

the Eastern Slavs in Rus’ or visiting them in Novgorod, Staraia Russa, and Smolensk also

used the birch-bark for writing.

After the birch-bark with its message was conveyed and read, the addressee usually

discarded it on the ground; thus, archeologists find them during their excavations of early

Rus’ towns. Birch-barks with writing on them were so common in medieval Rus’ towns

that Kirik, a Novgorodian priest, felt it necessary to ask his bishop, Nifont, sometime

in particular, the recent and generally convincing studies of S. Franklin, “Literacy and Documentation in Early Medieval Russia,” Speculum 60 1(1985), 1-38 and Levin, “Novgorod Birchbark Documents,” 127-137. It would be amiss not to note the numerous graffiti found in the Rus’ lands which show the extent of the written culture of pre-Mongol Rus’. See below for more details. 41 NGB: 1956-1957, 120-122. 42 NGB: 1990-1996, 50. 43 D.A. Avdusin, E.A. Mel’nikova, “Smolenskie gramoty na bereste (iz raskopov 1952-1968),” DGNT 1984 (Moscow, 1985),” 208-209. 44 It must be mentioned that the text of this birch-bark has not yet been interpreted. It is even possible that it was not written in Old Norse runes. Therefore, until the birch-bark is better examined, its Old Norse origin has to be considered as tentative. See V.G. Mironova, “Raskopki v Staroi Russe v 1988-1991 gg.,” NNZ 6 (Novgorod, 1992), 8. 45 NGB: 1962-1976, 80-83. 46 NGB: 1977-1983, 25-26.

30

between 1130 and 1156 whether it was proper to walk on them.47 Since the Cyrillic

alphabet was used in the writing of birch-barks, the same alphabet sanctioned for the

translation of the Bible (along with Hebrew, Greek, and Latin) by the Byzantine

Orthodox Church, it is easy to see how a priest may have viewed the birch-barks with

writing discarded on the ground throughout the city as potential desecration of the

“Written Word.” To Kirik’s question, the bishop responded with a practical answer by

stating that it would be improper “Only if one has the pieces [of the birch-bark texts]

together so one can recognize the words.”48 There is no doubt that in this statement the

bishop was referring to those birch-barks that were, indeed, cut or were supposed to have

been cut by the addressees on their receipt of the birch-bark. Many examples of shredded

birch-barks have been found in Novgorod and some texts that had been cut up (but put

together by modern scholars) request that they be shredded after being read (e.g., !881 –

second quarter of the twelfth century).49 Simply put, the bishop suggested that one should

refrain from spying on other people by reading the texts of their birch-barks.

While the advice given by Bishop Nifont is admirable and most appropriate for his

contemporaries, modern researchers find many reasons for prying into the lives of

medieval Novgorodians with the help of birch-barks. After all, they present the most

revealing information on the actual conditions of life in medieval Rus’. Because these

texts were composed by a wide range of people of both genders and all age groups and

coming from a cross-section of the Rus’ society (e.g., merchants, craftsmen, the clergy,

peasants, landowners, civil officials, mayors, and even princes), they afford perspectives

47 “1130-1156 g. Voprosy Kirika, Savvy i Ilii, s" otvetami Nifonta, episkopa novgorodskogo, i drugikh" ierarkhicheskikh" lits",” Russkaia istoricheskaia biblioteka 6: Pamiatniki drevnerusskogo kanonicheskogo prava, ed. V.N. Beneshevich, Pt. 1, 2nd ed. (St. Petersburg, 1908), p. 40, !65. 48 “1130-1156 g. Voprosy Kirika,” 40, !65. 49 Ianin, Zalizniak, “Berestianye gramoty iz novgorodskikh raskopok 1999 g.,” VIa 2 (2000), 21-22.

31

which the traditional literary sources normally omit. The texts of the birch-barks

primarily deal with the everyday “worldly” affairs of the Rus’ people, unlike, for

example, the writings of the chronicles, which were written by monks and aimed at the

ruling elite. Another highly attractive feature of these texts lies in the fact that, because of

dendrochronology, they are datable to a fairly specific period of 20-30 years.

The earliest birch-bark text found in Novgorod is dated to the 1030s (!591),

although the earliest finds of styli are dated to the mid-tenth century.50 This early date for

the appearance of writing in Rus’ may be supported by the above-noted Arabic report

from 987/88, which states that the Rus’ wrote on “white wood.” The most recent extant

birch-bark comes from Novgorod and is dated to the second half of the fifteenth century

(!495). The decline in the use of birch-bark as medium for writing can be attributed to

the rapid growth in the use of ink after the second half of the fifteenth century.51

Since many birch-bark texts have been badly damaged, intentionally or not, reading

their texts is usually very difficult. At times, only individual words or phrases can be

read. The reading of the birch-barks is also complicated by the fact that they were written

in the colloquial variant or dialect of the Novgorodian Old Russian language. Since most

Rus’ documents such as chronicles, acts, statutes, and treaties were written in Old Church

Slavonic – the official governmental-church language – scholars have very few texts that

can be used to interpret the birch-barks. For instance, certain vernacular lexicology found

in the birch-barks is unique to the northwestern Rus’ lands. Thus, it is sometimes difficult

to define certain words, particularly nouns. Be that as it may, A.A. Zalizniak, the leading

scholar on the medieval Novgorodian dialect, has recently made much headway in the

50 A.F. Medvedev, “Drevnerusskie pisala,” 63-88. 51 Ianin, Ia poslal tebe berestu...

32

study of the Old Novgorodian morphology, phonology, lexicon, and other linguistic

issues.52 His translations are usually convincing and will serve as the base for most of the

birch-bark texts that will be used and translated into English in this study.

FIGURE 1 A RECONSTRUCTION OF OLISEI GRECHIN’S YARD OF THE SECOND HALF OF THE

TWELFTH CENTURY (“A”), TROITS DIG IN THE LIUDIN END OF NOVGOROD53

One of the most remarkable and exciting aspects of Novgorodian archaeology is the

ability of scholars to examine most of the artifacts unearthed in the city in the fixed

context of other finds. Specifically, the overwhelming majority of the medieval objects

discovered in Novgorod come from residential city yards – called usad’by [Fig. 2]. Over

the past half century, the archaeologists of Novgorod have unearthed dozens of such

yards, mostly at the huge Nerev and Troits digs where a dozen or more yards joined

together have been discovered. While not all of these yards were fully excavated, many 52 Zalizniak, DD. 53 Illustration of the reconstruction comes from Drevniaia Rus’. Gorod, zamok, selo [Arkheologiia SSSR] (Moscow, 1985), 195.

33

have been, thereby permitting scholars to determine their sizes, how they functioned, and

even who lived at them.54 Overall, boyar yards can best be described as urban residential

compounds which contained buildings used for living, various specialized workshops (for

the various types see below), tool sheds, storage houses, kitchens, icehouses, stalls for

animals and poultry coops, kitchen gardens, orchards, bathhouses, and outhouses.55

All of the materials found at these yards (from bullae and birch-barks to tallies and

workshops) can be studied in context of each other. What is more, based on other

documents, it is sometimes possible to connect the characters mentioned in the birch-

barks with historical individuals, particularly important leaders such as prominent civil

officials, mayors, members of the clergy, and even princes who were not neglected in the

chronicles. Based on all of these materials, scholars can, at times, reconstruct not only the

identity of the yard owners, but also elucidate on the course of the life of individual’s

family clans for generations.56 For this reason, the birch-barks as well as many other finds

can shed a great deal of light on many questions, including some key aspects of the

Novgorodian fur trade.

Lastly, hundreds of graffiti and inscriptions have been found on church walls and

other monumental buildings as well as on various everyday (e.g., slate spindle-whorls,

54 For the main studies, in Russian and English, on the topic, see Kolchin, Ianin, “Arkheologii Novgoroda 50 let,” 111-113; P.I. Zasurtsev, “Usad’by i postroiki drevnego Novgoroda,” TNAE 4 (Zhilishcha drevnego Novgoroda) [MIA SSSR 123] (Moscow, 1963), 88; idem., Novgorod, otkrytyi arkheologami (Moscow, 1967); idem., “Yards and Buildings of Medieval Novgorod,” Novgorod the Great, 35-54; B.A. Kolchin, A.S. Khoroshev, V.L. Ianin, Usad’ba novgorodskogo khudozhnika XII v. (Moscow, 1981); A.S. Khoroshev, A.N. Sorokin, “Buildings and Properties From the Lyudin End of Novgorod,” The Archaeology of Novgorod, Russia, 133-159. 55 It should be noted that while outhouses have been discovered, the archaeologists of Novgorod, unlike their Western colleagues in Norway, England, and Ireland, appear to be too squeamish to describe, analyze, and publish the materials. For those interested in the subject, the closest possible analogies to the Novgorodian outhouses probably come from Bergen in Norway. See A.E. Herteig, “The ‘Cellar Buildings’ and Privies at Bryggen,” The Bryggen Papers: Supplementary Series 5 (Bergen, 1994), 287-320. 56 See, for instance, the comprehensive reconstruction of the yard belonging to the well-known icon painter Olisei Grechin: Kolchin, Khoroshev, Usad’ba novgorodskogo khudozhnika XII v.

34

amphorae, jewelry-making molds, buckets, barrels, cups, bowls, tallies, weapons, and

toggles) and non-everyday/luxury objects (e.g., silver platters, cups, beakers, icon

panels). These occur throughout the Kievan Rus’ lands (e.g., Pskov, Smolensk,

Novgorod, Kiev, Torzhok, Zvenigorod of Galicia, Polotsk, Riazan’, Suzdal’, Volkovysk,

Drutsk, Novogrudok, and Grodno).57 In light of what is known about the birch-barks and

the propensity of the Rus’ to write, the finds of these inscriptions should not be

surprising. Of the many inscriptions, there are several that are directly connected to the

fur trade and, thus, need to be considered.

NUMISMATIC EVIDENCE

During the Viking age (ca. 800-1050), dirhams or Islamic silver coins were imported

by the millions into European Russia, largely in exchange for Rus’ furs. These coins were

the most basic monetary unit used domestically as a medium of exchange in the lands of

Islam from the borders of Afghanistan with Pakistan to the coast of the eastern

Mediterranean in Eurasia as well as northern Africa and much of Iberia during the Middle

57 NGB: 1951, 44-49; NGB: 1977-1983, 81-86; NGB: 1984-1989, 112-122; A.A. Medyntseva, Drevnerusskie nadpisi Novgorodskogo Sofiiskogo sobora XI-XIV vv. (Moscow, 1978), idem., “O liteinykh formochkakh s nadpisiami Maksima,” Drevniaia Rus’ i slaviane (Moscow, 1978), 378-382; idem., “Epigraficheskie nakhodki iz Staroi Riazani,” Drevnosti Slavian i Rusi, ed. B.A. Timoshchuk (Moscow, 1988), 247-256; idem., “Epigrafika, pisala (stili) i tsery,” 140-150; T.V. Rozhdestvenskaia, “Drevnebolgarskaia epigraficheskaia traditsiia i novgorodskaia epigrafika XI-XV vv.,” Palaeobulgarica/Starob”lgaristika, 14: 2 (1990), 51-58; idem., Drevnerusskie nadpisi na stenakh khramov (Novye istochniki XI-XV vv.) (Leningrad, 1992); idem., Podpisnye shedevry drevnerusskogo remesla (Moscow, 1991); B.A. Rybakov, Russkie datirovannye nadpisi: XI-XIV vv.: Svod arkheologicheskikh istochnikov (Moscow, 1964); L.V. Stoliarova, Svod zapisei pistsov, khudozhnikov i perepletchikov drevnerusskikh pergamennykh kodeksov XI-XIV vekov (Moscow, 2000); M.V. Sedova, “Epigraficheskie nakhodki iz Suzdalia,” KSIA 190 (1987), 7-13; G.V. Shtykhov, Drevnii Polotsk: IX-XIII vv. (Minsk, 1975), 110-177; idem., Goroda Polotskoi zemli (Minsk, 1978), 136-139; S.A. Vysotskii, Drevnerusskie nadpisi Sofii Kievskoi: XI-XIV vv. 1 (Kiev, 1966); idem., Srednevekovye nadpisi Sofii Kievskoi (Po materialam graffiti XI-XIV vv. 2 (Kiev, 1976); idem., Kievskie graffiti: XI-XVII vv. (Kiev, 1985); Ia.G. Zverugo, Drevnii Volkovysk (Minsk, 1975), 122-126; idem., Verkhnee Poneman’e v IX-XIII vv. (Minsk, 1989), 188-193; R.K. Kovalev, “Zvenyhorod in Galicia: An Archaeological Survey (Eleventh – Mid-Thirteenth Century,” Journal of Ukrainian Studies, 24: 2 (1999), 34.

35

Ages. Dirhams were also widely used by the Muslims in their international exchange

with other regions, particularly eastern Europe and the Baltic. The restrictions on human

images (such as those of rulers and religious figures) on these coins was maintained in

accordance to Islamic law, thereby freeing up space on the coin legends to permit the

Arabic (Kufic) inscriptions of the names of rulers under whom the coins were struck,

their dates of issue, and the city of mint. For this reason, unlike most other, non-Muslim

coins in medieval world, dirhams can be dated to their exact year of production,

identified with their precise mints of issue, and be attributed to a specific ruler. These

attributes permit scholars to study many topics connected to the history of the Muslim

world including the chronological timeframes of trade between the Islamic lands and

Rus’, the direction of trade routes and the changing patterns of trade relations, and

periods when dirhams remained in circulation in Rus’ and the Baltic. All of these subjects

are fundamental to the understanding of the origins and development of the Rus’ fur trade

since, as will be discussed in Chapter I, the Rus’ only accepted dirhams in exchange for

their pelts from merchants who had access to these coins. Since literary sources are

practically non-existent on these issues, dirhams serve as the base for the study of the

initial stages of the Novgorodian fur trade.

In the later part of the Viking Age, the import of dirhams into the Rus’ lands ceased

due to their relative scarcity in Central Asia (the main source of these coins during the

tenth century) and their low quality, i.e., the drop in silver contents. The Rus’ replaced

them by turning westwards to the Baltic for imported west and central European silver

coins called deniers. To a much lesser extent, they also imported Byzantine silver coins

(miliaresia). However, these Christian coins, because they did contain various images

36

(rulers, Christ, saints, and other religious figures), had little open space on their legends

for dates, particularly for the awkward and cumbersome Roman numerals. For this

reason, unlike dirhams, the deniers and miliaresia can usually be attributed only to the

general date of rule of individuals under whom they were struck, i.e., John Tzimisces

(969-976) or Henry II (1002-1024). Because these coins are broadly dated, they cannot

be used to reconstruct a precise chronology of their imports by precise years of issue like

it is possible to do with the dirhams. Be that as it may, their relative chronologies provide

sufficient evidence that can be used to discuss the nature of trade contacts between

Novgorod and its lands with the Baltic.

PICTORIAL SOURCES

Some important information on the infrastructure of the Novgorodian fur trade can be

gathered from pictorial sources. These can be divided into three categories: 1)

representations left by the Finno-Ugrians of the Russian North (petroglyphs, drawings on

various objects, and images found on Finno-Ugrian jewelry); 2) pictures drawn by others

who came into contact with the Finno-Ugrians and drew them or the ways of life in the

Russian North; and, 3) illustrations connected with Novgorod, merchants, and individuals

who had some form of connections to furs (illuminations in Rus’ chronicles, pictures and

engravings in early modern West European sources). Pictures of the first category such as

petroglyphs or drawings made on mountainsides shed light on the types of transport

devices used in the far-Russian North by the Stone- and Bronze-age ancestors of the

Finno-Ugrians. The medieval Finno-Ugrians also left behind drawings of items deemed

valuable in their society on various objects. Much can also be learned about the aesthetic

37

tastes and religious views of the Finno-Ugrians and their perceptions of wealth through

the designs and representations of people and animals on their jewelry.

The second category of pictorial sources, those left by outsiders who either came into

contact with the Finno-Ugrians and the Russian North or had some knowledge of the

subjects, includes the engravings found in Olaus Magnus’ Description of the Northern

Peoples where he depicts the transport devices and market scenes in northern Russia. As

will be seen in Chapter III, the Novgorodians who visited the Finno-Ugrians in northern

Russia in the twelfth century also drew pictures of them and their ways of life on their

return to Novgorod. More insights can be gathered about the transport systems of

northern Russia from the Muscovite seventeenth-century Kratkaia Sibirskaia

(Kungurskaia) illuminated chronicle.

The third category of pictorial sources which depict scenes connected to Novgorod,

merchants, and the fur trade comes from a number of Rus’ annals such as the late

fifteenth-century Königsberg or Radzivil, the mid-sixteenth-century Nikon chronicles.

While the latter chronicle’s illuminations are quite late in date, the former contains

images which were copies made from the Vladimir Litsevoi chronicle of 1206.

Consequently, the illustrations found in the Königsberg/Radzivil chronicle depict the

reality in the early thirteenth century, something that has been convincingly shown in

scholarship.58 The other illustrations of this category come from medieval and early

modern West European sources. Here, again, Olaus Magnus’ work provides a valuable

picture for the better understanding of how pelts were transported by merchants and

processed by furriers. Another very useful group of pictures related to Novgorod’s fur

58 B.A. Rybakov, “Miniatiury Radzivilovskoi letopisi i russkie litsovye rukopisi X-XII vv.,” Iz istorii kul’tury drevnei Rusi: Issledovaniia i zametki (Moscow, 1984), 188.

38

trade comes from a wooden carving found on the panel of a church pew (dated to the

second half of the fourteenth century) of Novgorodian merchants at the Church of St.

Nicholas in Stralsund, northern Germany. It shows how fur-bearing animals were hunted,

skinned, and packaged for sale.

Overall, pictorial sources provide an important supplementary source for the study of

the Novgorodian fur trade in the pre-Mongol period. While not all of them come from the

Kievan era of Novgorodian history, all of them do illustrate the types of conditions found

in the Russian North or the structure of the fur trade in the pre-modern period. Used in

conjunction with other sources of evidence, these illustrations elucidate a number of key

topics that could not have been addressed otherwise.

ETHNOGRAPHIC RECORDS, FOLKLORE, AND COMPARATIVE SOURCES

Since much of the evidence concerning the Finno-Ugrian hunting-trapping methods

and other issues related to the fur trade such as transport devices has simply not been

preserved in the extant medieval written and pictorial records and the earth of northern

Russia has not yet yielded enough clues, it is sometimes necessary to turn to the relevant

ethnographic sources. As will be discussed in Chapter III, ethnographers who have

studied the Finno-Ugrian peoples of the Russian North in the late nineteenth and early

twentieth centuries have shown that many of these peoples retained their ancestral

traditional ways of life and material culture, such as their hunting-trapping practices and

transportation devices, well into modern times. Traditional societies such as the Finno-

Ugrian of northern Russia, largely isolated from modern innovations, simply changed

very little, if at all, until very recent times. Therefore, much can be learned from the

modern ethnographic accounts of their hunting practices or the types of transport devices

39

they used to travel through the Russian North. As will be seen in the subsequent chapters

of this study, the ethnographic evidence can usually be collaborated fully or in part with

the medieval archaeological, written, or pictorial evidence. For this reason, it is rarely

necessary to make a major leap of faith to discern a number of key elements in the

structure of the traditional Finno-Ugrian ways of life in the Middle Ages.

Ethnography is of great use not only for identifying the nature of the medieval

artifacts used by the Finno-Ugrians, but illustrates the process of how or why these

objects were used. In other words, it can provide a more objective, fuller picture of the

material life in the Russian North in the Middle Ages. For instance, over the course of

many years archaeologists have unearthed hundreds of small cylinders, usually made of

bone or antler, throughout northern Russia dating from the Stone Age to the early modern

period. Until very recently, these objects have been wrongly identified as “knife

handles,” other parts of everyday implements, and even chess game-pieces (the latter

very hard to believe particularly if they dated to the Stone Age). However, as will be

discussed in Chapter III, thanks to ethnographic evidence, it is now clear that these

cylinders were blunt-tip arrow heads, objects specifically used for hunting fur-bearing

animals without damaging their pelts. Such arrowheads were known to most peoples

inhabiting not only the northern regions of Eurasia, but also North America well into the

modern period.

Very often, there are a great number of parallels that can be drawn in the material life

of hunting-gathering peoples of the northern climbs of the globe in the ethnographic

records. The existence of many similarities should not be surprising. After all, in a pre-

modern setting, life was fundamentally the same in most regions of the northern laterals

40

of Earth, particularly in areas where the terrains, climate, flora, and fauna were similar, if

not almost identical. Peoples adapted to these conditions and often developed similar

survival strategies including hunting-trapping practices and transport devices. In many

cases, these survival strategies were developed in the Stone Age, or soon after the first

humans came to settle the Russian North when the glaciers receded to the North Pole.

The existence of these survival strategies in the Stone Age and continuity into the modern

period can serve as hard evidence for their presence in the medieval period, particularly if

the same traits in the material culture were found throughout the great expanse of the

Russian North among its diverse ethnic groups.

One can add to the ethnographic evidence a number of useful sources such as the

Novgorodian ballads about Sadko (the medieval Novgorodian merchant-hero), the

Novgorodian “Legend of the Mayor Dobrynia,” and the Finnish national epic the

Kalevala. While these folktales/legends were recorded in paper form in the modern

period, much like the Norse sagas, they or some of their episodes date to a much earlier

period, thereby shedding light on the pre-modern worlds of the Novgorodians and the

Finno-Ugrians. Again, as with the ethnographic records, in many cases, it is possible to

confirm some of the information found in these sources with medieval written,

archaeological, or other types of evidence.

The composite picture constructed with the use of ethnographic/folklore records,

combined with all of the other available date, can often be collaborated and/or elucidated

upon by examining comparative evidence from what is known about the later, much

better recorded in the written sources, fur trade in Siberia and North America. As in the

cases of the early modern Muscovite fur trade in Siberia and the French and English fur

41

trade in North American, the Novgorodian trade of pelts took place in the northern climes

of the globe. In all three cases, the fur trade was played out between

newcomers/colonizers and the native peoples. In light of this, it would be natural to

expect to find many instructive parallels between the European fur traders of Minnesota

or the Hudson Bay in North America, the Muscovite entrepreneurs who traveled to the

Lena river region and further beyond in Siberia, and the Novgorodians merchants who

visited the Lake Onego region and the western foothills of the Urals. As will be discussed

in Chapters IV and V, many similarities, indeed, existed, from the use of beads, textiles,

and iron implements as trade items exchanged for pelts with the natives to the use of

intermediaries for contacting the more distant sources of pelts.

In conclusion, there is a vast quantity of diverse types of sources for the

reconstruction of the infrastructure of the Novgorodian fur trade in the pre-Mongol

period. The primary written documents coming from medieval and early modern western

and central Eurasia, the abundant archaeological materials from Novgorod to the coastal

regions of European Arctic, the Novgorodian birch-bark texts and Rus’ graffiti, the

numismatic evidence, the pictorial depictions made by the Finno-Ugrians themselves and

others who had something to draw about their world or the fur trade in general, the

ethnographic/folklore records, and comparative materials from the Siberian and North

American fur trades of the early modern and modern periods provide a huge pool of data

for such a study. However, any given one category of sources would be totally

insufficient for addressing the questions. It is only by combining all of the categories of

evidence together that a more or less comprehensive picture can be comprised of the way

the Finno-Ugrians obtained furs from the forests of Northern Russia, how and what the

42

Novgorodians offered them in exchange for their pelts, why they accepted these goods,

how the Novgorodians transported the pelts back to Novgorod, and, where the pelts were

warehoused, how they were packaged, sold on the Novgorodian fur market, and, finally,

shipped to other lands.

CHAPTER I

NOVGOROD’S FUR TRADE UP TO THE MONGOL CONQUEST

AT THE ORIGINS OF THE NOVGORODIAN FUR TRADE

In a recent insightful study, J. Howard-Johnston has argued that there is “very little

evidence that furs were being worn, and hence that there was any significant demand in

the Mediterranean world, in the Greek, Hellenistic, and Roman periods. There is none at

all for fur-wearing by elite groups in core territories.”1 Howard-Johnston attributes the

aversion to fur in the classical world to the disdain of the “civilized” person for the

skins/furs that were worn by “barbarians.” The only groups who did not share this

distaste for fur were “deviant youth sub-cultures” and Germanic émigrés who settled in

the late Roman Empire.2 If Howard-Johnston is correct, and he does present a convincing

argument, then the first large-scale eastern European fur trade would have dated from the

late ancient-early medieval period at the earliest.

There is good written evidence for a fur trade between the Roman Empire and

Scandinavia during the late Roman period. Jordanes, for example, mentions those in

Scandinavia (the Svear) “who send through innumerable other tribes the sapphire colored

skins to trade for Roman use. They are a people famed for the dark beauty of their

furs...”3 Recently, D.M. Metcalf has interpreted the late Roman and early Byzantine coins

found in Scandinavia as evidence for the existence of a fur trade between the northern

lands and the Roman Empire during the fifth and sixth centuries. In particular, Metcalf 1 J. Howard-Johnston, “Trading in Fur, From Classical Antiquity to the early Middle Ages,” Leather and Fur: Aspects of Early Medieval Trade and Technology, ed. E. Cameron (London, 1998), 69-70. 2 Howard-Johnston, “Trading in Fur,” 70-72. 3 The Gothic History of Jordanes, tr. C.C. Mierow (Princeton, 1915), III: 21, p. 56.

44

suggests that “a fashion among the Ostrogothic nobility for the wearing of fur robes was

instrumental in creating a long-distance trade in high-quality furs from southern Sweden

to northern Italy with counterflows of gold solidi which have been found in modern times

especially on the Baltic islands of Öland, Gotland, and Bornholm.”4 The Gothic love of

fur is well attested5 and there is good evidence that the Huns also had a love for fur.6

Howard-Johnston believes that the “barbarians” who settled in the empire quickly

adopted Roman dress and consequently lost their desire for fur.7 However, Howard-

Johnston also cites the Secret History of Procopius which clearly demonstrates that

“barbarian” fashions, including the use of fur, had become very popular amongst the

population of Constantinople in the mid-sixth century.8 Rather than dismiss this

testimony regarding the spread of “barbarian” dress among the citizens of Constantinople

as the product of “deviant youth sub-cultures,” this passage from Procopius indicates how

fashionable such practices as the wearing of fur had become amongst the “civilized”

citizens of the empire’s capital. In this connection, it is important to note that the furriers

of Constantinople had their shops in the Forum (of Constantine?) where the Basilica or

Church of the Furriers appeared as early as 532.9 Furthermore, the very word “furrier” is

unknown in Greek before the sixth century.10 In short, there is good reason to believe that

4 D.M. Metcalf, “The President’s Address: “Viking-Age Numismatics. 1. Late Roman and Byzantine Gold in the Northern Lands,” Numismatic Chronicle 155 (1995), 413-441; idem., “The President’s Address: “Viking-Age Numismatics. 2. Coinage in the Northern Lands in Merovingian and Carolingian Times,” Numismatic Chronicle 156 (1996), 399. 5 H. Wolfram, History of the Goths (Berkeley, 1988), 207, 209, 462, n. 297. 6 Priscus, frag. 14 in C.D. Gordon, The Age of Attila: Byzantium and the Barbarians (Ann Arbor, 1966), 103. 7 Howard-Johnston, “Trading in Fur,” 71. 8 Howard-Johnston, “Trading in Fur,” 71. Also see Procopius, The Secret History, tr. G.A. Williamson (Harmondsworth, 1981), ch. 7.14, 6, pp. 72-73. 9 A. Kazhdan, “Furrier,” The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium 2, ed. A.P. Kazhdan (New York-Oxford, 1991), 809. 10 Kazhdan, “Furrier,” 809.

45

the barbarian taste for fur slowly but surely spread amongst other groups in the empire,

especially as the Goths became part of the ruling elite.

The desire of the late Roman population for fur may help to explain the reference of

Jordanes to the Hunugori of the north Pontic steppe who were active in the trade of

marten pelts.11 While it is not clear to whom these pelts were sold in the south, it would

be reasonable to believe that the Hunugori had tapped into the newly-established northern

branch of the “Silk Road” which passed from China to Byzantium via a route passing

through Soghdia, the regions north of the Aral Sea, to the northern Caucasus, and then to

the eastern Black Sea beginning with the late 560s.12 At the same time as this east-west

route was established, another route leading north of the Aral Sea to the middle Volga,

upper Kama, and the western Urals began to function. The regions north of the Aral Sea

were inhabited by various Finno-Ugrian peoples who had abundant pelts to trade with the

south. In exchange for these pelts, the Finno-Ugrians received items that were available

along the east-west route – namely, Sasanian silver coins or drachms, as well as bronze

and silver Byzantine and Sasanian dishware.13 The discovery of these coins and vessels

dating to the sixth and later centuries north of the Aral Sea strongly suggests that this new

north-south route, or the “Fur Road,” began to function within the chronological

framework of the newly developing taste for furs in Byzantium.

By the early ninth century, furs (specifically sables) were considered among the most

valuable goods by the Byzantines. In his work Dhakh!’ir, Ibn al-Zubayr mentioned that

11 Gothic History, ch. 4.37, p. 60. 12 Th.S. Noonan, “The Fur Road and Silk Road: The Relations Between Central Asia and Northern Russia in the Early Middle Ages,” Kontakte zwischen Iran, Byzanz und der Steppe, ed. C. Bálint [Varia Archaeolgica Hungarica, Bd. IX] (2000), 288ff. 13 Noonan, “The Fur Road and Silk Road,” 285-293.

46

when the !Abb"sid caliph Ma’m#n (813-832) wished to send a diplomatic gift to the

Byzantine Emperor and asked what are the most prized commodities in Byzantium, he

was told that they were misk (musk) and samm!r (sables). The caliph consequently

ordered that 200 ra"ls of misk and 200 hides of samm!r be prepared to be shipped.14 The

evidence thus suggests that by the sixth century, the long-standing Greco-Roman

aversion to fur was changing under the “barbarian onslaught.” By the early ninth century,

the distaste for furs had transformed into admiration as they came to be highly desired by

the Byzantine emperors. As will be seen below, the Byzantines during later centuries

continued to crave pelts from the north.

The growing fashion for fur noted in the late Roman/early Byzantine Empire also

developed in the early Islamic world. While we do not know much about the use of furs

by the Persian Sasanids and the early Arab caliphate under the Umayyads, soon after the

!Abb"sid dynasty took power in ca. 750, furs became a standard luxury item among the

elite in the Islamic world. Thus, in 758, among the many luxury items sent to Yaz$d – the

!Abb"sid governor of Arm$niyah – by the Khazar kaghan as part of a dowry, were ten

covered wagons “whose doors were lined with silver and gold plates while the interiors

were covered with sable furs and brocade…”15 In Baghd"d, !Abb"sid courtiers also are

14 M. Gil, “The R"dh"nite Merchants and the Land of R"dh"n,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 17:3 (1974), 313. 15 Al-K#f$, Kniga zavoevanii (Izvlecheniia po istorii Azerbaidzhana VII-IV vv.), tr. Z.M. Buniiatov (Baku, 1981), 62. Also see K. Czeglédy, “Khazar Raids in Transcaucasia in 762-764 A.D.,” Acta Orientalia 11 (1960), 80. For more details on the development of trade relations between European Russia and the Islamic East, see Th.S. Noonan, “Why Dirhams First Reached Russia: The Role of Arab-Khazar Relations in the Development of the Earliest Islamic Trade with Eastern Europe,” The Islamic World, Russia and the

47

reported to have wore furs during the reign of al-Mahd! (775-785).16 In fact, the early

"Abb#sid elite, including the caliphs, used furs extensively in their dress on an everyday

basis. H#r$n al-Rash!d (786-809), for example, is said to have had 4,000 sable robes in

his treasury.17 Sables were also used at the early "Abb#sid court to decorate palanquins.18

In his work, Mur!dj al-dhahab (compiled in ca. 934), Mas"$d! noted that “Arab and

Persian kings take pride in their black furs, which they value more highly than those of

sable-martens, fanak (?) and other similar beasts. The kings have hats, caftans (khaf"t#n)

and fur coats (daw"w#j) made of them, and it is impossible for a king not to possess a

caftan or a fur coat lined with these black bur$"s#.”19 In his work Dhakh"r’, Ibn al-Zubayr

mentioned that Ism#"!l ibn A%mad (892-907) – the S#m#nid am!r – sent sable (samm!r)

hats to the "Abb#sid caliph al-Mu"ta!id in 893.20

Although furs were often worn by the elite as status symbols, there were also practical

reasons for possessing outfits and hats made of worm pelts. Thus, in ca. 941, when

speaking of the mountainous regions of "abarist#n in northern Iran, Ab$-Dulaf noted that

“…at a certain time of the year, winds blow upon the travelers following the highroad,

Vikings, 750-900: The Numismatic Evidence [Variorum Collected Studies Series] (Ashgate-UK, 1998), 152-282. 16 Al-"abar!, The History of al-!abar#: An Annotated Translation, tr. H. Kennedy, 29 ["Al-Man&$r and al-Mahd!] (New York, 1990), 225. 17 Gil, “The R#dh#nite Merchants and the Land of R#dh#n,” 313, n. 56. Also see reference to sable caps under the year 837/38 in al-"abar!, The History of al-!abar#: An Annotated Translation, tr. C.E. Bosworth, 33 [The Caliphate of al-Mu"ta&im] (New York, 1991), 87. 18 Mas"$d!, The Meadows of Gold: The Abbasids, tr. and ed. P. Lunde and C. Stone (London, 1989), 390. 19 Mas"$d!, A History of Sharv"n and Darband in the 10th-11th Centuries, tr. V. Minorsky (Cambridge, 1958), 149. 20 Gil, “The R#dh#nite Merchants and the Land of R#dh#n,” 312-313.

48

and if it has caught someone it will kill him, even if he is wrapped up in furs.”21 While

the Near East and Central Asia are generally thought of as regions of hot climate, there

are areas, particularly in the mountains, where the cold temperatures would require

people to wear furs.

The use of furs among the elites in the Islamic world continued into the High Middle

Ages. In 1025, for example, the Qar!kh!nid Qadir-Kh!n gave the Ghaznavid Am"r

Ma#m$d “sables, minever, ermines, black fox and marten furs…”22 But by the twelfth

century, less valuable pelts (squirrels) were also used by average people in the Holy

Lands to line the insides of their coats as was reported by Us!ma ibn Munqidh (1095-

1188).23 It is very likely that these pelts were brought to the Holy Lands by Genoese

merchants who were known to have imported squirrel pelts and cloaks lined or trimmed

with furs to Syria during the twelfth century.24 Lastly, writing about the affairs of the

northern Caucuses, Ibn al-Ath"r noted that during the first (1223) Mongol invasion of

Rus’ and the southern Russian (Kipchak) steppe region, “communication routes were

closed and from them (the Rus’ and Kipchak lands) nothing was sent out, not bur!"s#, not

sables, nor any other goods that are exported from those lands.”25 Clearly, furs were in

great demand in the Islamic lands from the early Middle Ages through the Mongol

conquests.

21 Ab$-Dulaf Mis’ar Ibn Muhalhil’s Travels in Iran (Circa A.D. 950), tr. and comm. V. Minorsky (Cairo, 1955), 56. 22 W. Barthold, Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion (London, 1958), 284. 23 Us!ma ibn Munqidh in Memories of an Arab-Syrian Gentleman or an Arab Knight in the Crusades: Memoirs of Us"ma ibn-Munqidh, tr. P.K. Hitti (Beirut, 1964), 35. 24 E.H. Byrnes, “Genoese Trade with Syria in the Twelfth Century,” American Historical Review 25 (1919-20), 217-218. 25 Tarikh-al-kamil’ Ibn-al-Asira (polnogo svoda istorii) (Baku, 1940), 144.

49

Furs were also in great demand in the Latin parts of Europe during the tenth-thirteenth

centuries. For instance, Ibr!him ibn Ya"q#bi, a Spanish-Jewish traveler to Prague in ca.

965, noted the sale of various pelts in the city that were brought by Rus’ and Slavic

merchants via Kraków.26 By the second half of the eleventh century, love of fur aroused

Adam, the Archbishop of Bremen, to write the following admonishing the Germans:

They [Sembi or Prussians] have an abundance of strange furs, the odor of which has inoculated our world with the deadly poison of pride. But these furs they regard, indeed, as dung, to our shame, I believe, for right or wrong we hanker after a martenskin robe as much as for supreme happiness.27

He later added the following:

Thus you may say that the Swedes are lacking in none of the riches, except the pride that we love or rather adore. For they regard as nothing every means of vainglory; that is, gold, silver, stately chargers, beaver and marten pelts, which make us lose our minds admiring them.28

But Adam’s reprimand went unheeded. Thus, as part of the “spiritual” preparation for the

launching of the Third Crusade, in 1188, Henry II of England, Phillip II Augustus of

France, and church authorities determined “that no one should swear profanely, and that

no one should play at games or chance or at dice; and no one was after the ensuing Easter

to wear beaver, or gris (gray squirrels, R.K.K.), or sable, or scarlet….”29 Apparently, the

nobility of Latin Europe continued to dress in luxurious furs. In fact, the French, Spanish,

and German Chivalric romances of the twelfth-thirteenth centuries are replete with

26 Relacja Ibr!hima ibn Ja’k"ba z podró!y do krajów s"owia#skich w przekazie al-Bekr#ego, ed. T. Kowalski (Kraków, 1946), 46; J. Brutzkus, “Trade with Eastern Europe, 800-1200,” Economic History Review 13 (1942), 34. 27 Adam of Bremen, History of the Archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen, tr. F.J. Tschan (New York, 1959), 199. 28 Adam of Bremen, History of the Archbishops, 203. 29 The Annals of Roger de Hoveden 2 (A.D. 1181-to A.D. 1201), tr. H.T. Riley (London, 1853), 80-81.

50

references to the wearing of various types of furs by the elites. Thus, just to give a sample

of some of the furs noted in these courtly novels and how they were used, we encounter:

“…hats … of splendid sable,” “blouses … trimmed at the wrist with sable,” “ermine-trimmed cloak,” “spotted and grey furs, sables,” “dress … trimmed with white ermine even along the sleeves,” “around the neck were two sable furs…,” “white ermine lining,” “fur-trimmed cloak,” “clothes of spotted fur and ermine,” “sable-bordered grey cloaks,” “large ermine blanket,” “…robes… trimmed with ermine …, other with spotted fur,” “silk robe trimmed with ermine,” “fur-trimmed silk,” “black-hooded cloaks lined with warm fur…,” and “sable-fur-lined cloak,” “…ermines and other skin [worn above their armor]…”30

While this list can be greatly expanded if one were to include all of the Chivalric romance

literature and poetry of the age, it should already be evident that the love for fur among

the elite in Latin Europe was no less intense than in the contemporary Islamic world and

Byzantium.

FUR TRADE WITH THE ISLAMIC EAST

Even before the foundation of Novgorod in the second third of the tenth century, Rus’

merchants had a developed tradition of trading pelts and carrying them across western

Eurasia. Thus, writing between ca. 850-885, Ibn Khur!!dbeh reported in his treaties on

the various routes and roads of the Caliphate that Rus’/ar-R"s merchants brought beaver

and fox furs to Khazaria by ship and, thereafter, traversed the Caspian Sea to its southern

coast where they disembarked and transported their goods via camel caravans to

30 The Poem of the Cid, tr. L.B. Simpson (Berkeley, 1957), 105-106, 116; Hartmann von Aue, Iwein, tr. J.W. Thomas (Lincoln, 1979), 81; idem., Eric, tr. J.W. Thomas (Lincoln-London, 1982), 53, 132; idem., Poor Heinrich in The Best Novellas of Medieval Germany, tr. J.W. Thomas (Columbia, 1984), 31; Eric and Enide, Cliges, The Knights of the Cart all in The Complete Romances of Chretien de Troyes, tr. D. Staines (Bloomington-Indianapolis, 1990), 2, 18, 21, 24, 27, 29, 54, 65, 81, 83, 86, 89, 175, 176, 190; The Song of Roland, tr. D.L. Sayers (London, 1957), 69, 71, 201.

51

Baghd!d.31 Numismatic evidence not only collaborates Ibn Khur!!dbeh account, but also

suggests that his information can be dated to the early ninth century.32

Writing in the early tenth century, Ibn R"sta and, about a century and a half later,

Gard#z# (mid-eleventh century), noted that the Rus’ sold their pelts only for Islamic silver

coins or dirhams (also see below).33 An examination of hoards with dirhams found

throughout eastern Europe can shed much light on early Rus’ trade of pelts. Numismatic

data shows that the earliest dirham hoards found in European Russia date to ca. 800.

From ca. 800 to ca. 875, dirhams continue to be imported to European Russia and most of

the dirham hoards consist of newly-struck $Abb!sid dirhams from Near Eastern mints

(mainly Iranian and Iraqi). In this way, dirhams entered the Rus’ lands from the same

areas to which the Rus’ merchants traveled as described by Ibn Khur!!dbeh, i.e.,

Baghd!d via the Caspian Sea and northern Iranian provinces. During this period, dirham

hoards found in European Russia grow in number and the hoards, themselves, become

larger in the amount of dirhams that they contain. For the most part, the hoards are found

31 O. Pritsak, “An Arabic Text on the Trade Route of the Corporation of the ar-Rus in the Second Half of the Ninth Century,” Folia Orientalia 12 (1970), 256-257. It should be noted that Ibn al-Faq#h, writing in the early tenth century, noted that the Rus’/R"s traveled from the southern Caspian not to Baghd!d, but to the Iranian city of Rayy. However, as noted by Pritsak (pp. 245-248, and n. 18, p. 255-256), this is an inaccurate account. 32 Th.S. Noonan, “When Did R"s/Rus’ First Visit Khazaria and Baghdad?” AEMAe 7 (1987-1991), 213-219. 33 Ibn R"sta in D.A. Khvol’son, Izvestiia o khazarakh, burtasakh, bolgarakh, mad’iarakh, svlavian i rusi, Abu ali-Akhmeda ben” Omar” ibn-Dasta (St. Petersburg, 1869), 35-36; Gard#z# in A.P. Martinez, “Gard#z#’s Two Chapters on the Turks,” AEMAe 2 (1982), 158-159.

52

in the central and northwestern Rus’ lands, which points to the two major areas which

had the most developed trade relations with the East.34

Based on Ibn Khur!!dbeh’s information and the geographic distribution of the ninth-

century dirham hoards found in European Russia, it can be determined that the main

channels of the trade route began in the Volkhov and the upper Dnepr basins in

northwestern and central Russia. Then the route followed southeast to the upper Volga

via the Oka system and, thereafter, passed further south to the lower Don-Severskii

Donets basins, thus, entering the lands of the Khazars. On the lower Don, probably at the

Khazar fortress of Sarkel (built in the 830s), a portage was taken to the lower Volga, from

where it was possible to reach the Khazar capital of "til, located at the mouth of the

Volga. From "til, the Rus’ entered the Caspian Sea, crossed it in their ships, and

disembarked to sell their merchandise at the Islamic cities such as those situated along the

southern shores of the Caspian. Sometimes, however, the route could be extended as far

south as Baghd!d. In such cases, the Rus’ would harbor their ships at the southern

Caspian Iranian city of Gurg!n/Ab!sk#n and load their merchandise onto camels to travel

to Baghd!d. This ninth-century Rus’ trade with the Near East has been dubbed by Th.S.

Noonan as the “Caspian Phase” of commercial relations between northern Europe and the

Islamic East.35

34 Th.S. Noonan, R.K. Kovalev, “Bol’shoi klad dirkhemov rannei epokhi Vikingov naidennyi v 2000 g. v g. Kozel’ske, Kaluzhskoi obl,” AV 9 (2002, in the press) (with an extensive English summary). 35 Noonan, “When Did R#s/Rus’ First Visit Khazaria and Baghdad?,” 213-219; Pritsak, “An Arabic Text,” 256-257; Noonan, Kovalev, “Bol’shoi klad dirkhemov rannei epokhi Vikingov.” For Sarkel, see S.A. Pletneva, Sarkel i !shelkovyi" put’ (Voronezh, 1996) and my critique of this work in R.K. Kovalev, “Critica: S.A. Pletneva, Sarkel i «shelkovyi» put’,” AEMAe 10 (1999), 245-254.

53

Overall, by ca. 800, or about half a century after furs had become a highly-desired

luxury item in the Islamic world, the Rus’ had developed a system for delivering pelts

from the Russian north directly to the source of the demand – Baghd!d, the capital of the

"Abb!sid Caliphate. Based on the numismatic evidence, once this commerce had been

established at the early years of the ninth century, this trade intensified in volume

throughout the century. The finds of dirham hoards in the central and northwestern

Russia, as noted above, also shows that these two regions played the main role in

delivering pelts to the Near East.

By the last quarter of the ninth century, for reasons that require further study, the

“Caspian Phase” of Rus’ trade relations with the Islamic world dramatically declined.

Relatively few Near Eastern dirhams were exported to European Russia after ca. 875.36

However, in about a quarter century, by ca. 900, the Rus’ reestablished their intense trade

relations with the Islamic East, but this time with S!m!nid Central Asia. While dirhams

continued to be exported from the Near East to Russia during much of the tenth century,

their volumes are marginal in comparison to the ninth-century imports from the same

region and are dwarfed by the new dirham imports from Central Asia.37 This new stage of

Rus’ commercial contacts with the Islamic world, which lasted for much of the tenth

36 Th.S. Noonan, “The first major silver crisis in Russia and the Baltic, c. 875-c. 900,” hikuin 11 (1985), 41-50; idem., “Khazaria as an Intermediary Between Islam and Eastern Europe in the Second Half of the Ninth Century: The Numismatic Perspective,” AEMAe 5 (1985), 179-204. 37 Prior to his passing in June 2001, Th.S. Noonan had begun a study dedicated to estimating the volume of Near Eastern dirhams imported to European Russia in the tenth century. His preliminary, but well-researched numismatic data supports his earlier conclusions. In the near future, I hope to finish this study and present the data in Th.S. Noonan, R.K. Kovalev, “Coins For the Khagan: The Role of Khazaria in the Great Viking-Age Trade Between the Islamic World and European Russia” AEMAe (in preparation).

54

century, Th.S. Noonan has appropriately called the “S!m!nid Phase” of Rus’-Islamic

trade relations.38

Islamic sources inform that beginning with the early years of the tenth century Rus’

merchants were very active along the course of the middle Volga or the lands of the

Volga Bulgh!rs. The Volga Bulgh!rs, themselves, had established trade relations with the

S!m!nid em"rate of Central Asia via a caravan route by the third quarter of the ninth

century at the latest.39 Thus, in 921/22, while visiting Volga Bulgh!ria on a diplomatic

mission from al-Muqtadir – the #Abb!sid caliph – Ibn Fa!l!n personally met the

Rus’/R$s merchants who sailed in their ships to the middle Volga area and built their

temporary living quarters there in order to trade their sable pelts with the Volga

Bulgh!rs.40

Arabic accounts continue to speak about the Rus’ and their trade of furs with the

Volga Bulgh!rs during the tenth century. For instance, writing in 977-980, when

speaking of the furs that were available in Khazaria before its fall in 965, the Islamic

author Ibn %awqal stated that “a large part of these furs, even the best of them, is

obtained in the lands of the Rus’, and the more expensive pelts are imported from the

38 Th.S. Noonan, “The Impact of the Islamic Trade Upon Urbanization in the Rus’ lands: The Tenth and Early Eleventh Centuries,” Les Centres proto-urbains russes entre Scandinavie, Byzance et Orient [Actes du Colloque International tenu au Collège de France en octobre 1997], ed. M. Kazanski, A. Nercessian, and C. Zuckerman (Réalités Byzantines 7) (Paris, 2000), 380-381; R.K. Kovalev, “Klad dirhemov 913/14 g. iz der. Pal’tsevo Tver’skoi gub,” Klady, sostav, khronologiia, interpretatsiia, 2002, St. Petersburg University, (St. Petersburg, in press). 39 R.K. Kovalev, “The Infrastructure of the Northern Part of the "Fur Road# Between the Middle Volga and the East During the Middle Ages,” AEMAe 11 (2000-2001), 26-27. 40 Ibn Fa!l!n, The Ris!la of Ibn Fa!l!n: An Annotated Translation with Introduction, J.E. Mckeithen (Ann Arbor, dissertation microfiche, 1979), 133.

55

lands of the Gog and Magog peoples; [these pelts] come to the Rus’ due to their

proximity to the peoples of the Gog and Magog and their trade with them. And they sold

these [pelts] in Bulgh!r.”41 Ibn R"sta noted that the Rus’ “bring to them (the Bulgh!rs)

their goods: furs of sables, martens, squirrel, and others.”42 Gard#z#, using much of the

earlier account of Ibn R"sta, added “Their (Rus’) commerce [consists of] sable, grey

squirrel and other furs (m!yh").”43 Both of these authors proceed to inform that the Volga

Bulgh!rs paid the Rus’ 2 to 2! dirhams per pelt, and dirhams were the only type of

payment they accepted for their goods.44 Specifically, Gard#z# stated the following about

money and its circulation in the middle Volga region:

The greater [part] of their (i.e., Bulgars’) wealth [consists] of ermine (or weasel) [pelts] (dale/dalle). They have no “solid” money (m!l-e "amet) [of their own] and therefore give (i.e., make payment in) ermine skins instead of silver [at the rate of] one [pelt] for two <and a half> dirhams <and these dirhams> are brought to them from the lands of Islam. [It] is a dirham that is white and round. This dirham they purchase and everything <is purchased> from them <with it>. Then they again, [in their turn] pay out (lit. give) that dirham to the Rus and Saql!bs, for the[se] people[s] will not sell [their] goods (axr#y!n) except for solid money (deram-e "!met).45

This passage makes it quite clear that the Volga Bulgh!rs were acting as intermediaries in

the fur trade between the Rus’ and the lands of Islam and that most of the Islamic silver

that they obtained was used to purchase pelts from the Rus’.

41 Ibn $awqal in V.V. Bartol’d, Sochineniia II:1 (Moscow, 1963), 848. For the “Gog and Magog,” see Chapter IV. 42 Ibn R"sta in Khvol’son, Izvestiia, 23. 43 Gard#z# in A.P. Martinez, “Gard#z#’s Two Chapters on the Turks,” AEMAe 2 (1982), 167. 44 Gard#z# in Martinez, “Gard#z#’s Two Chapters on the Turks,” 158-159; Ibn R"sta in Khvol’son, Izvestiia, 35-36. 45 Gard#z# in Martinez, “Gard#z#’s Two Chapters on the Turks,” 158-159.

56

Numismatic evidence suggests that the fur trade between European Russia and

S!m!nid Central Asia reached huge dimensions by any medieval standards. More than

75% of all dirham hoards deposited in European Russia and the about 85% buried in the

Baltic lands were deposited there during the tenth century and the overwhelming majority

of them contain S!m!nid dirhams. In fact, dirhams appear to have been struck by the

S!m!nid specifically for this great Northern trade.46

Recently, Noonan has estimated that 125,000,000 whole S!m!nid dirhams were

imported into northern Europe during the course of the tenth century.47 Thus, on the

average, 1,250,000 dirhams entered European Russia every year from Central Asia

during the course of the tenth century.48 These calculations do not seem to be

exaggerated, since, for instance, the annual budget of the S!m!nid state in the tenth

century is estimated at 45,000,000 dirhams49 while the military alone received 20,000,000

dirhams a year from the government.50 Thus, the entire tenth-century dirham export into

northern Europe constituted less than three annual government S!m!nid budgets. While

46 Th.S. Noonan, “Fluctuations in Islamic Trade with Eastern Europe During the Viking Age,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 16 (1992), 243; idem., “The Vikings in the East: Coins and Commerce,” Developments Around the Baltic and the North Sea in the Viking Age, ed. B. Ambrosiani and H. Clarke (Stockholm, 1994), 227. Also see Th.S. Noonan, R.K. Kovalev, “The Dirham Output and Monetary Circulation of a Secondary S!m!nid Mint: A Case Study of Balkh,” Moneta Mediævalis: Studia numizmatyczne i historyczne ofiarowane Profesorowi Stanis!awowi Suchodolskiemu w 65. rocznic" urodzin, ed. R. Kiersnowski, et al (Warsaw, 2002), 163-174; R.K. Kovalev, “Mint Output in Tenth-Century Bukh!r!: A Case Study of Dirham Production and Monetary Circulation in Northern Europe,” RH/HR [Festschrift for Th.S. Noonan, Vol. I, ed. by R.K. Kovalev & H.M. Sherman], 28: 1-4 (2001), 245-271; idem., “Dirham Mint Output of S!m!nid Samarqand and its Connection to the Beginnings of Trade with Northern Europe,” Histoire et Mesure [Monnaie et espace] !3-4 (2002) (in the press). 47 Th.S. Noonan, “Volga Bulgh!ria’s Tenth-Century Trade with S!m!nid Central Asia,” AEMAe 11 (2000-2001), 206. 48 Noonan, “Volga Bulgh!ria’s Tenth-Century Trade,” 206. 49 Barthold, Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion, 238. 50 Barthold, Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion, 238.

57

the budget does not necessarily reflect the actual sum of dirhams available within the

state at any given time since it also includes goods and services, it does illustrate the

order of magnitude of the S!m!nid economy.51 Therefore, it is not unreasonable to

believe that 1,250,000 dirhams, an amount representing only 2.7% of the annual S!m!nid

budget, could be traded yearly by Central Asian merchants for furs with European

Russia.

Exports of pelts to the East must have reached equally enormous proportions in the

tenth century. Since its is known that about 1,250,000 whole dirhams were imported into

European Russia from the S!m!nid lands annually and that 2 to 2.5 dirhams were given

to the Rus’ per pelt by the Volga Bulgh!rs, it can be estimated that about 500,000-

625,000 pelts were sent each year to Central Asia in return for these coins. While other

goods in addition to pelts were exported from Volga Bulgh!ria to Central Asia,52 the

balance of this trade could have been paid with other commodities, such as beads and

other items.53 In this way, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that about half a

million pelts were exported via the Volga Bulgh!r lands annually to the lands of the East

during the tenth century in return for 1,250,000 dirhams.

51 For more comparative examples to the exportation of such large quantities of dirhams to Northern Europe to the volume, in relative terms, of the availability of dirhams in the S!m!nid (and neighboring Islamic states’) economies, see Noonan, “Volga Bulgh!ria’s Tenth-Century Trade,” 206-210. 52 Al-Muqaddas" (al-Maqdis"), writing in ca. 985, noted the following items that were exported from Volga Bulgh!ria to Khw!razm: “sables, miniver, ermine, and the fur of steppe foxes, marten, foxes, beavers, spotted hares, and goats; also wax, arrows, birch bark, high fur caps, fish glue, fish teeth (i.e., walrus tusks), castoreum, amber, prepared horse hides, honey, hazel nuts, falcons, swords, armor, khalanj wood, Slavonic slaves, sheep, and cattle.” See Barthold, Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion, 235 and P.B. Golden, Khazar Studies: An historico-philological inquire into the origins of the Khazars I (Budapest, 1980), 108. Also see Noonan, “Volga Bulgh!ria’s Tenth-Century Trade,” 167-194, for these goods, their origins, and uses. 53 Kovalev, “The Infrastructure of the Northern Part of the !Fur Road", 30-34.

58

The volume of commerce of pelts for dirhams between the Rus’ lands and the Islamic

East came to an end for all practical purposes during the last two decades of the tenth

century, although dirhams continued to be imported at comparatively marginal levels

until the second decade of the eleventh century. Several reasons can be ascribed for the

termination of this trade. First, from the fifth decade of the tenth century, the S!m!nid

state underwent a significant economic and political decline. Agriculture began to

collapse, revenues were no longer collected at the same rates as before, rebellions were

endemic, and practically all of the southern territories of the S!m!nid state became

independent.54 By the last years of the tenth century, the S!m!nid state, for all practical

purposes, ceased to exist. These economic and political hardships, no doubt, diminished

S!m!nid state revenues and, thus, limited the quantities of silver that were available for

the striking of new dirhams by the state. This is clearly illustrated by the paucity of

dirhams struck in S!m!nid mints from the late 960s through the 980.55 Second, in

addition to producing fewer and fewer dirhams during the second half of the tenth

century, it has been argued that from ca. 943 S!m!nid dirhams became debased as their

silver content dropped.56

Overall, it is clear that the S!m!nid state was experiencing a “Silver Crisis” during the

second half of the tenth century. Since the Rus’ merchants were interested in obtaining

54 R.N. Frye, “The S!m!nids,” The Cambridge History of Iran 4, ed. R.N. Frye (Cambridge, 1975), 156-160; Barthold, Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion, 249-271. 55 Kovalev, “Mint Output in Tenth-Century Bukh!r!,” 255-256, 257. Also see Th.S. Noonan, “The Onset of the Silver Crisis in Central Asia,” AEMAe 7 (1987-1991), 225. 56 E.A. Davidovich, “Iz oblasti denezhnego obrashcheniia v Srednei Azii XI-XII vv.,” Numizmatika i epigrafika 2 (1960), 115-118, 130-131. Also see Noonan, “The Onset of the Silver Crisis in Central Asia,” 228-229.

59

silver coins (as pure silver or as close to pure silver as possible: up to ca. 943, dirhams

were 92.5% silver in content57), not copper fals or dirhams made of base metals, they

found commerce with the S!m!nids unappealing during the later decades of the tenth

century. This dilemma, coupled with the fact that the S!m!nids simply could no longer

produce dirhams in sufficient quantities – debased or not – forced the Rus’ to look

elsewhere for new sources of silver for which they could exchange their pelts. As will be

discussed below, the Rus’ – notably the Novgorodians – found their new source of silver

in the early eleventh-century Baltic, thereby rearranging the entire fur-trading network

that had existed for two centuries.

While the import of Islamic coins in exchange for pelts ceased after the last decade of

the tenth century, trade with the Muslim world of the Caspian/Caucasus and Central Asia

continued through the rest of the Kievan era of Novgorodian history. By way of the

Volga and the lands of Volga Bulgh!ria, Near Eastern silks, glass items, rock-crystal

beads, boxwood from the Caucasus (usually used in making combs), glazed pottery of

Central Asian and Volga Bulgh!r origins, and other items were all imported to Novgorod,

in large part in exchange for pelts. All of this trade passed not only via the lands of Volga

Bulgh!ria but, from the second half of the twelfth century, also through the territories of

Suzdalia, a powerful and emerging Rus’ principality which came to control the upper

Volga.58

57 Davidovich, “Iz oblasti denezhnego obrashcheniia v Srednei Azii XI-XII vv.,” 92-117; Noonan, “The Onset of the Silver Crisis in Central Asia,” 228-230. 58 For the later use of the Volga route, see Th.S. Noonan, “Suzdalia’s Eastern Trade,” Cahiers du Monde russe et soviétique 19:4 (1978), 371-384; idem, “Russia’s Eastern Trade, 1150-1350: The Archaeological Evidence,” AEMAe 3 (1983), 201-264; M.D. Poluboiarinova, Rus’ i Volzhskaia Bolgariia v X-XV vv.

60

Before changing the topic from the Rus’ fur trade with the Islamic East to Byzantium,

it is necessary to examine the role of Novgorod and its lands in the Rus’-Islamic fur-

dirham trade of the ninth-tenth centuries. As noted above, during the course of the ninth

and tenth centuries, millions of dirhams were exported to eastern Europe from the Islamic

East. Since we know that the Rus’ traded their pelts only for dirhams, the finds of these

coins in hoards in Novgorod and its lands would suggest that it played a role in this trade.

To date, 313 Viking-age dirham hoards have been discovered in eastern Europe. Of

these hoards, twenty-three come from Novgorod and its core lands (Table 1). Five of the

twenty-three hoards, dating from 864/65 to 974/75, have been found within the city of

Novgorod itself and three more, dating to 855-861, 867, and tenth century (?) were found

at Riurikovo gorodishche. Riurikovo – located just 2 km south of Novgorod where the

Volkhov flows out of Lake Il’men’ – was a ninth-century settlement that gave rise to

Novgorod in the early tenth. It was also the residence of the Novgorodian princes for

much of Novgorodian history.59 Thus, a total of eight dirham hoards are directly

associated with the city of Novgorod.

Find Spot Date of Deposit Number and Type of Coins Demiansk 824/25 at least 35 dirhams

Riurikovo gorodishche 855-861 6 dirhams Novgorod 864/65 203 dirhams

Poterpel’tsy 865/66 60 dirhams Riurikovo gorodishche 867 7 dirhams

Shumilovo 870/71 1326 dirhams Liubyn’ 873/74 2361 dirhams

(Moscow, 1993), 106-108; E.A. Rybina, Torgovlia srednevekovogo Novgoroda: Istoriko-arkheologicheskie ocherki (Velikii Novgorod, 2001), 85-88; J. Martin, Treasure of the Land of Darkness: The Fur Trade and Its Significance for Medieval Russia (Cambridge, 1986), 118-130. 59 For the fundamental study on the site, see E.N. Nosov, Novgorodskoe (Riurikovo) gorodishche (Leningrad, 1990). Also see a comprehensive English-language discussion of Riurikovo and other settlements in the Volkhov-Lake Il’men’ basins in E.N. Nosov, “Ryurik Gorodishche and the Settlements to the North of Lake Ilmen,” The Archaeology of Novgorod, Russia: Recent Results from the Town and its Hinterland [The Society for Medieval Archaeology: Monograph Series 13] ed. M.A. Brisbane; tr. K. Judelson; gen. ed. R. Huggins (Lincoln, 1992), 5-66.

61

Vylegi 9th century at least 7 dirhams Pankino 9th century 26 dirhams

Bor early 10th century 6 dirhams Novgorod 929/30 13 dirhams Novgorod 952/53 40 dirhams Novgorod 971/72 871 dirhams

Novaia Mel’nitsa 973/74 62 dirhams Near the Khutyn Monastery 973/74 433 dirhams and one miliaresion

Novgorod 974/75 734 (?) dirhams and 1 Byzantine miliaresion Pestovo 987 5 or 11 dirhams

Podborovka 991/92 152 dirhams Along Lake Shlino 10th century 200 silver coins including at least 5 dirhams

Riurikovo gorodishche 10th century? at lest 5 dirhams Sobach’i Gorby ca. 1050 336 Islamic, Byzantine, and West European silver coins

Near the Kirillov Monastery 9th - 11th century A hoard of dirhams and dirham fragments was found Pestovo 9th – 11th 6 dirham

TABLE 1

Viking-Age Dirham Hoards Found in the Core Region of the Novgorodian Land60

An additional twenty-six hoards were discovered within the general area of the

Novgorodian lands: dating from 786/87 to 999/1000 (Table 2). In sum, a total of forty-

nine dirham hoards – dating from the very beginnings of the fur trade between European

Russia and the Islamic East in ca. 800 until its end in the last decades of the tenth century

– were deposited in the Novgorodian lands.

Find Spot Date of Deposit Number and Type of Coins

Staraia Ladoga 786/87 31 dirhams Peterhof 803/04 more than 83 dirhams

Kniashchino 808/09 350? Staraia Ladoga 846/47 23 dirhams Staraia Ladoga by 850 15 dirhams

Near Borovikovo 905/06 123 (?) dirhams Bulaevo 935/36 at least 5 dirhams

Near Pskov 958/59 73 dirhams Erilovo 975/76 401 Islamic, Byzantine, and other silver coins

Along the shore of the Lovat’ River 976/77 or 978/79 100+ kg of dirhams Bel’kovka 980/81 7 dirhams

60 The numismatic data derives from the monumental and comprehensive catalogue of Viking-age dirham hoards discovered throughout western Eurasia which Professor Th.S. Noonan had been compiling for several decades prior to his passing. The present author will see to it that this catalog will be completed sometime in the near future. See Th.S. Noonan, Dirham Hoards from Medieval Western Eurasia, c. 700-c. 1100 [Commentationes De Nummis Saeculorum IX-XI in Suecia Repertis. Nova series 13] (Stockholm) (in preparation).

62

Vakhrushevo 987-996 5 dirhams and 1 German denier Niubinichi/Shakhtipole 999/1000 Sasanian drachm and 4 dirhams

St. Petersburg, Vasil’evskii Island? 9-11th centuries at least 5 coins Petrozavodsk 9-11th centuries at least 60 dirhams Vyborg Uezd 9-11th centuries 180 dirhams

Buianitsy 9-11th centuries 300 dirhams and deniers Pribuzh 9-11th centuries at least 5 dirhams and deniers

Lodeinoe Pole 9-11th centuries at least 5 dirhams Along the shores of Lake Ladoga 9-11th centuries ca. 115 kg of coins – probably dirhams

Glazunovo 9-11th centuries at least 5 dirhams Near Ostrov 9-11th centuries 100 dirhams Malye Strugi 9-11th centuries at least 5 dirhams

Toropets Uezd 9-11th centuries 150 dirhams Velikie Luki 9-11th centuries at least 5 dirhams

Toropets Uezd 9-11th centuries at least Dirhams

TABLE 2

Viking-Age Dirham Hoards Found in the General Region of Novgorod61

The forty-nine dirham hoards from the Novgorodian lands represent about 15% of all

the hoards with dirhams found throughout eastern Europe, i.e., 49 of the 313. While 15%

may not seem like a significant number, it must be kept in mind that the lands of

Novgorod acted as the main source for the export of dirhams into the Baltic from the

early ninth century until the 1010s (mostly from ca. 800 to 950s). During this period,

60% (an estimated total of 50,000,000 to 100,000,000 whole dirhams or 1450-2900 kg of

silver) of all the dirhams imported into eastern Europe were re-exported into the Baltic.62

Practically all of the dirhams exported into the Baltic during of the ninth and much of the

tenth centuries came from the lands of Novgorod and were shipped west via Staraia

Ladoga, the main Novgorodian deepwater port.63

61 Noonan, Dirham Hoards from Medieval Western Eurasia. 62 Th.S. Noonan, “Dirham Exports to the Baltic in the Viking Age: Some Preliminary Observations,” Sigtuna Papers – Proceedings of the Sigtuna Symposium on Viking-Age Coinage 1-4 June, 1989, ed. K. Jonsson & B. Malmer [Commentationes De Nummis Saeculorum IX-XI in Suecia Repertis. Nova series 6] (Stockholm, 1990), 251, 256. Also see Noonan, “The Vikings in the East,” 215-236. 63 Noonan, “The Impact of the Islamic Trade Upon Urbanization in the Rus’ lands,” 391. For the port of Staraia Ladoga (known simply as Ladoga during the Middle Ages), see Chapter VII.

63

Before leaving the subject of dirhams, it must be noted that from the very beginnings

of the Rus’ trade with the S!m!nid lands in ca. 900, based on the finds of dirham hoards,

Sweden came to play the leading role in trade relations between the Baltic and eastern

Europe, mainly with the lands of Novgorod. Of all of the dirham hoards discovered in the

Baltic, 52.8% were discovered in Sweden: 13.6% on mainland Sweden and Öland and

39.2% on Gotland.64

Overall, the finds of significant numbers of dirham hoards in the lands of Novgorod

dating from the earliest periods of the Rus’ fur trade with the Islamic East in ca. 800 to its

termination in the last decade of the tenth century points to this area of European Russia

as a major center of the fur trade. About 60% of the dirhams imported into eastern

Europe were re-exported out into the Baltic during the course of ninth and tenth

centuries, almost exclusively via the Novgorodian lands. Based on the finds of ca. 40% of

all tenth-century dirham hoards in the Baltic on Gotland, it appears that this island was

the most important Baltic commercial partner of northwestern Russia of the period.

FUR TRADE WITH KIEV AND BYZANTIUM

It is likely that the Rus’ fur trade with Byzantium developed at about the same time as

it did with the Islamic East. Rus’ contacts with the Byzantine and Black Sea worlds had

their origins already in the late eighth-early ninth centuries. Thus, for instance, Byzantine

and Russian literary sources reveal that in ca. 790,65 818/819,66 and 860,67 the Rus’ came

64 Noonan, “The Vikings in the East,” Table 2, p. 222, 224. 65 O. Pritsak, “At the Dawn of Christianity in Rus’, Harvard Ukrainian Studies 12-13 (1988/9), 93-95, 105, 110. Also see V.G. Vasilevskij, Trudy – III (Zhitiia svv. Georgiia Amastridskogo i Stefana Surozhskogo) (reprint: The Hague/Paris, 1968), V, CXLII-CL, CCLXIX, CCLXXII, CCLXXIII, CCLXXVI, CCLXXX, CCLXXXIV, 95; A.A. Shakhmatov, Obozrenie russkikh letopisnykh svodov XIV-XVI vv. (Moscow-Leningrad, 1938), 134-136.

64

as raiders to the Black Sea regions and were involved in operations along its coast – from

Crimea, to northern Anatolia, Iberia (Georgia), and Constantinople. But these contacts

were not limited to confrontation. The Rus’ traveled via the Black Sea to Constantinople

as ambassadors from the Rus’ kaghan in 838/839.68 The Rus’ were also acting as

merchants in the region. Thus, in addition to describing the route used by the Rus’ to

reach Khazaria and the caliphate, Ibn Khur!!dbeh also provides an alternative route of

the Rus’ merchants. This route passed from the interior of Russia into the northern Black

Sea region:

They travel [by boats] to the sea of Rum (= Byzantium, i.e., the Black Sea) [to the city of Chersones/Korsun’] and the Lord (= governor) of Rum (= Byzantium) takes [there] from them a tenth. Then they go by sea [on boats] to [the city of] Samkar!-the = Jewish (Tamatarkha, the later Tmutorokan’69), [there they sell their merchandise and] then they return to the !aqlabs.70

As noted above, numismatic evidence suggests that Ibn Khur!!dbeh’s account on the

Rus’ can be dated to the very beginning years of the ninth century. Hence, it is clear that

the Rus’ were highly involved in the Black Sea region and had contacts with the

Byzantine Empire and the adjacent regions during the first half of the ninth century.

Unfortunately, however, there is no evidence for direct commercial contacts between

Constantinople and the Rus’ lands during the ninth century. With the establishment of the

66 W. Treadgold, “Three Byzantine Provinces and the First Byzantine Contacts with the Rus’,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 12-13 (1988/9), 136-137, 143. Also see Zhitiia sv. Georgiia Amastridskogo in Vasilevskij, Trudy – III, 64-68. 67 A.A. Vasiliev, The Russian Attack on Constantinople in 860 (Cambridge, Mass., 1946); O. Pritsak, The Origin of Rus’ 1 (Cambridge, Mass., 1981), 174-182. 68 The Annals of St-Bertin: Ninth Century Histories 1, tr. J.L. Nelson (New York, 1991), 44. 69 Samkar!-the/Tamatarkha/Tmutorokan’ was located just east of the Crimea, on a peninsula opposite of the Kerch’ Straight. 70 Pritsak, “An Arabic Text,” 256.

65

Rus’ in Kiev along the middle Dnepr River in the early tenth century, if not a bit earlier,

Rus’ trade with the Byzantine capital seems to have been established71 via what is known

as the route “From the Varangians to the Greeks.”72 In 907, the Rus’ officially signed a

commercial treaty with the Byzantines which permitted them to trade with

Constantinople. More commercial treaties followed during the tenth century: in 911, 944,

and 971.73

Unlike the Rus’ fur trade with the Islamic world, trade with Byzantium did not

involve silver. Since the time of Justinian I in the mid-sixth century, Byzantium had

restricted the outflow of precious metals and in the late ninth century, according to the

Byzantine law code of the Emperor Leo VI, the export of any silver objects was

prohibited from Byzantine territories.74 Given the extreme paucity of Byzantine silver

coins in European Russia,75 it appears that the Byzantines enforced these laws and did so

successfully. In exchange for their pelts, the Rus’ received various manufactured

commodities and luxury items, not silver or gold. The Rus’ written sources and

archaeological finds speak of such items as spices, silks, wine, olive oil, glass objects,

fine ceramics, among others.76 Since coins were not used in the Byzantine-Rus’ fur trade,

71 Th.S. Noonan, “Khazaria, Kiev and Constantinople in the First-Half of the Tenth Century” (in the press). 72 For this route and literature on it, see R.K. Kovalev, “Route to Greeks,” Encyclopedia of Russian History (in the press). 73 See all of these commercial treaties in Laws of Rus’, 1-14. 74 Codex Justinianus, The Digest of Justinian 2, tr. A. Watson (Philadelphia, 1985), 18.1.71; Basilicorum libri, 19.1.82, ed. H.J. Scheltema and N. van der Wal (Groningen, 1960), 923. Also see M.F. Handy, Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy (London, 1985), 257. 75 Th.S. Noonan, “The Circulation of Byzantine Coins in Kievan Rus’,” Byzantine Studies/Etudes Byzantines 7:2 (1980), 143-181. 76 See, for example, E.A. Rybina, Torgovlia srednevekovogo Novgoroda: Istoriko-arkheologicheskie ocherki (Velikii Novgorod, 2001), 62-83 for a good general overview of the types of goods imported to Novgorod from Byzantium during the Kievan era. For the importation of wine and olive oil into Kievan Rus’ from Byzantium, see Th.S. Noonan, R.K. Kovalev, “Prayer, Illumination, and Good Times: The Export of Byzantine Wine and Oil to the North of Russia in Pre-Mongol Times,” Byzantium and the North, Acta Byzantina Fennica 8: 1995-1996 (Helsinki, 1997), 73-96; idem., “Wine and Oil For All the Rus’!: The

66

measuring its volume and fluctuations is very difficult. However, based on the finds of

tens of thousands of Byzantine amphorae shards throughout the Rus’ lands (in ca. 150

towns and settlements), including Novgorod (more than 3,000), it is clear that Byzantine-

Rus’ trade took on huge proportions during the Kievan era.77 No doubt, a large part of

this wine and oil trade was exchanged for the Rus’ pelts.

Writing in the mid-tenth century, Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, the Byzantine

emperor, described how the Rus’ traveled annually in their ships from the middle Dnepr

River to trade in Constantinople.78 He noted that before their voyage, Slavic tribes from

various parts of Rus’ – from as far north as Novgorod – gathered at Kiev with their

tribute and thereafter refitted their ships to sail south to Constantinople. Overall,

Constantine Porphyrogenitus describes a very well-regimented structure of trade contacts

between the Rus’ and Constantinople. Clearly, the Rus’ were common visitors to the

Byzantine capital and annually brought various goods of northern Russian origins to

Constantinople.

Although the emperor describe only the importation of slaves to Constantinople from

the Rus’ lands, one of the trade treaties (944), speaks of the Rus’ giving furs, slaves, and

wax as presents to the Byzantines.79 About a decade later, the Byzantine Emperor

allegedly requested the Rus’ Princess Ol’ga to send him “many presents of slaves, wax,

Import of Byzantine Wine and Oil to Kievan Rus’,” Byzantium and the North, Acta Byzantina Fennica 9: 1997-1998 (Helsinki, 1999), 87-121; R.K. Kovalev, “Byzantine Wine and Olive Oil and its Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean and Beyond (Tenth to the Fourteenth Centuries),” Byzantium and the North, Acta Byzantina Fennica (in preparation). For the importation of Byzantine silks to Kievan Rus’, see M.V. Fekhner, “Izdeliia shelkotkatskikh masterskikh Vizantii v drevnei Rus’,” SA 3 (1977), 130-142; idem., “Shelkovye tkani v srednevekovoi Vostochnoi Evrope,” SA 2 (1982), 57-70. 77 Noonan, Kovalev, “Prayer, Illumination, and Good Times;” idem., “Wine and Oil For All the Rus’!” 78 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio I, tr. R.J.H. Jenkins, 2nd ed. (Washington D.C. 1967), ch. 9, pp. 57-63. 79 Laws of Rus’, 12.

67

and furs.”80 Thus, it is obvious the Byzantines were very interested in obtaining pelts

from the Rus’ and that the Rus’ were willing to oblige. In fact, it can be argued that in

947 the Rus’ Princess Ol’ga responded to the Byzantine demand for pelts by developing a

new administrative tribute-gathering system in the lands of Novgorod that would ensure a

steady supply of pelts for the Byzantine market. The Russian Primary Chronicle notes

the following concerning her activities:

Olga went to Novgorod, and along the Msta she established trading-posts (povosty/pogosty) and collected tribute (dan’). She also collected imposts and tribute along the Luga. Her hunting grounds, boundary posts, towns, and trading-posts still exist throughout the whole region, while her sleighs stand in Pskov to this day. … After making these dispositions, she returned to her city of Kiev, and dwelt at peace with it.81

From 957 until 1014 (when Iaroslav the Wise, who then ruled over Novgorod, refused to

pay the annual tribute to Kiev82), Novgorod, must have sent pelts to Kiev, many of which

were re-exported to Byzantium. But even after Novgorod ceased paying tribute to Kiev,

furs were still exported to the southern Rus’ capital by traders and, no doubt, as gifts from

the Novgorodian princes.

Another indirect reference to the export of pelts from the Rus’ lands to the south is

found in the Russian Primary Chronicle under the year 969. It described the reasons why

the Rus’ Grand Prince Sviatoslav was considering moving his capital from Kiev to

Pereiaslavets on the Danube. According to the chronicle, Sviatoslav stated:

I do not care to remain in Kiev, but should prefer to live in Pereyaslavets on the Danube, since that is the center of my realm, where all riches are concentrated; gold, silk, wine, and various fruits from Greece, silver and horses from Hungary and Bohemia, and from Rus’ furs, wax, honey, and slaves.83

80 RPC, 83. 81 RPC, 82; PVL, 29. 82 RPC, 124. 83 RPC, 86.

68

This passage makes it clear that Rus’ furs were exported to the Black Sea during the tenth

century and there is little doubt that many of them found their way to the Byzantine

markets where they were highly valued. The above quote also reveals other types of

commodities that interested the Rus’ in the second half of the tenth century: the import of

gold, silver, silk, horses, wine, and fruit and export of furs, wax, honey, and slaves.

Somewhat surprisingly, very few sources speak about the export of pelts from

Novgorod to the south, specifically to Kiev and Byzantium. Among the exceptions is the

account of ca. 932 of I!"akhr# who noted that the beaver pelts exported out of Khazaria

came from two sources: the “rivers in the territory of Bulgh$r and the Rus’ and Kuy$bah

(Kiev), and not anywhere else so far as I know.”84 The unknown Persian author of !ud"d

al-#$lam (written in 982) noted that K%y$ba (Kiev) “…produces various furs (m"y) and

valuable swords.”85 Although it is very likely that Kiev was, indeed, a “producer” of

some of the pelts that were available on its markets, there is little question that some of its

pelts came from Novgorod. This assumption is supported by what Constantine

Porphyrogenitus informs about the collection of tribute from as far as Novgorod in Kiev

in the mid-tenth century.

During the twelfth century, sources relate that pelts were sent to Kiev from the

Russian North as gifts and random grants of tribute. In 1133, on the order of Grand

Prince Iaropolk Vladimirovich of Kiev, Iziaslav Mstislavich traveled to Novgorod and

84 I!"akhr# in D.M. Dunlop, The History of the Jewish Khazars (Princeton, 1954), 93. 85 !ud"d al-#$lam: “The Regions of the World,” A Persian Geography 372 A.H.-982 A.D., tr. V. Minorsky, 2nd ed. (London, 1970), 159.

69

retrieved “tribute from the Pechora” which the city withheld from the Novgorodian

Prince Vsevolod Mstislavich.86 Tribute from the Pechora lands consisted of pelts.87 Other

sources provide more information, albeit indirect, on the availability of pelts in Kiev.

Thus, it is known that in 1160 the Kievan Grand Prince Rostislav Mstislavich gave as a

present to Prince Sviatoslav Ol’govich of Moroviisk: “sables, ermines, black marten,

polar foxes, white wolves, and ‘fish teeth’ (i.e., walrus tusks).”88 Seeing that polar foxes,

white wolves, and walrus tusks are included among the gifts, it is clear that the origins of

these items were the Arctic regions of the far-distant lands of northern Russia, probably

Novgorodian possessions. Since Rostislav’s son – Sviatoslav Rostislavich (1158-1160,

1161-1167) – ruled in Novgorod at that time, it is likely that these pelts came from him.

In the same way, the Bishop Elias of Novgorod gave furs to Metropolitan Ioan of Kiev in

1166.89 Another reference to the availability of pelts in Kiev comes from graffito !25

(second half of the twelfth century), written on a wall of the St. Sophia Cathedral in

Kiev.90 It states:

[In the] month of January, [day:] 30, [on the day of] St. Ipolit, the princess of Vsevolod bought land [from] Boian before St. Sofiia, before the priest. And the priests [who were] here: priest Iakim, Domilo, Patelei Stipko, Mikhal’ko Nezhenovich, Mikhail, Danilo, Marko, Sem’iun, Mikhal Elisavinich, Ivan Ianchin, Tudor Tubynov, Il’ia Kopylovich, Tudor Borziatich. And in front of [these] witnesses the princess bought all of Boian’s land and gave for it 70 grivnas of sables (sobol’nykh), a part of 700 grivnas [total].

86 PSRL, 1: 302; V.L. Ianin, Novgorod i Litva. Pogranichnye sutuatsii XIII-XV vekov (Moscow, 1998), 36. 87 RPC, 184-185; PVL, 107-108, 245-246. 88 The Kievan Chronicle (Hypatian), tr. and comm. L.L. Heinrich (Ann Arbor, dissertation microfiche, 1978), 244. For the export of walrus ivory from Russia during the Middle Ages, see R.K. Kovalev, “!Fish Teeth" – The Ivory of the North: Russia’s Medieval Trade of Walrus and Mastodon Tusks” (in preparation). 89 PSRL, 9: 233 90 S.A. Vysotskii, Drevnerusskie nadpisi Sofii Kievskoi: XI-XIV vv. (Kiev, 1966), 60-71. The English translation is mine.

70

Based on this text, it is clear that sables were available in Kiev in the second half of the

twelfth century and it is possible that they had their origin in Novgorod.

The Vita s. Mariani Scoti, written in the 1180s, notes that a certain monk traveled to

Kiev with a request for a donation for the construction of the Monastery of Sts. Jacob and

Gertrude in Regensburg. The Grand Prince of Kiev and his nobles responded with a gift

of 100 marks (ca. 20-25 kg of silver) worth of “precious furs,” which the monk,

thereafter, transported back to Germany in a cart. This gift was enough to finish building

the monastery and laying the roof on it.91 Thus, again we find that the Rus’ elite in Kiev

had abundant furs at their disposal, and it is very likely that most of them came to Kiev

from Novgorod. By the late twelfth century, Kiev’s fur trade with central Europe became

quite stable, as is apparent from the fact that King Imre of Hungary declaring that the

Monastery of Estergom could collect half a mark on traders from Rus’ among whom

there were those who carried expensive furs.92

Trade between Novgorod and Kiev during the pre-Mongol era is relatively well

attested by a variety of sources. Thus, under the year 1147, the Laurentian Chronicle

notes that Novgorodian merchants had their own dvor (“office” or base) and a Church of

St. Michael in the Podol, or the commercial part of Kiev.93 Four pre-Mongol era birch-

barks (!!675, 524, 829, and 915) found in Novgorod speak of travel, moneylending

and other commercial contacts between Novgorod and Kiev.94 While on these travels, the

91 Vita sancti Mariani Scoti, ed. J. Gamansius in Acta Sanctorum quotquot toto orbe coluntur, Februarius 11, vol. II (Paris, 1864), 369; Drevniaia Rus’ v svete zarubezhnykh istochnikov, ed. E.A. Mel’nikova (Moscow, 2000), 384. 92 A.P. Novosel’tev, V.T. Pashuto, “Vneshniaia torgovlia drevnei Rusi (do serediny XIII v.),” Istoriia SSSR 3 (1967), 86. 93 PSRL, 1: 318. Also see Rybina, Torgovlia srednevekovogo Novgoroda, 64. 94 Zalizniak, DD, 265, 273, 301-302; V.L. Ianin, A.A. Zalizniak, “Berestianye gramoty iz novgorodskikh raskopok 1998 g.,” VIaz 4 (1999), 8-9; idem., “Berestianye gramoty iz novgorodskikh raskopok 1999 g.,” VIaz 2 (2000), 12. Also see Rybina, Torgovlia srednevekovogo Novgoroda, 64.

71

Novgorodians left graffiti on the walls of the St. Sophia Cathedral, attesting to the close

contacts between the two cities.95

The finds in Novgorod amphorae (large clay jars that were used for transporting wine

and oil) shards, glass jewelry (e.g., beads, bracelets, finger-rings) and other glass items

(e.g., goblets, beakers, wineglasses) of Byzantine origins as well as glazed ceramic

Easter-eggs (pisanki), rose-colored spindle whorls, jewelry made of glass, precious, and

non-ferrous metals, glass objects (oil lamps, beads, bracelets, finger-rings, and

tableware), amber from the middle Dnepr region, and other items of Kievan manufacture

or origins, and even walnuts from Byzantium and/or southern Rus’, all illustrate the close

commercial contacts that were maintained between the two cities.96 While the

importation of these items from Kiev to Novgorod fluctuated in volume throughout the

Kievan period, trade relations were maintained almost uninterrupted until the Mongol

conquest.97 Therefore, it would be reasonable to hypothesize that the Novgorodians used

their well-developed commercial channels with southern Rus’ for disposing of their

abundant pelt supplies to Kiev and that many of the items of southern origins noted above

were sent to Novgorod in exchange for furs.

There is also little doubt that some and perhaps even most of the pelts brought to Kiev

from Novgorod were re-exported to Byzantium. In his 1130-1156 questions to the

Novgorodian bishop Nifont, Kirik (a local priest), ask if it were proper for members of

the clergy (ecclesiastic and monastic) to dress in “animal skins” and received the answer

95 V.E. Orlov, “Gosti Novgorodskie. Novgorodskie graffiti v Sofii Kievskoi,” DGVE: 1995 (Moscow, 1997), 234-239. 96 Rybina, Torgovlia srednevekovogo Novgoroda, 65-83. 97 Rybina, Torgovlia srednevekovogo Novgoroda.

72

that because of the winter and cold, it is permitted in both Byzantium and Rus’.98 The

former and ailing metropolitan of Athens, after being evicted from his city by the Latin

Crusaders, asked Theodore I Lascaris (1204-1222), the Byzantine Emperor of Nicaea, “If

you could also send me a [pelt] of a white rabbit, the type the Rus’ import to the Great

City (Constantinople), then you will do me a good deed, since the doctors say that it

warms one very well.”99 The availability of pelts in Constantinople is attested in the

account by Villehardouin of the conquest of Constantinople in 1204. Villehardouin, an

eyewitness, listed “mantles of squirrel fur, ermine and miniver” among the many other

precious items that were looted by the Latins during the Fourth Crusade.100 Rus’ was the

most likely source of these pelts. Benjamin of Tudela, a Spanish-Jewish traveler to

Constantinople in the second half of the twelfth century, noted Rus’ merchants in the

city.101 These Rus’ merchants were probably those who stayed for up to six months

annually from spring through the summer months at the quarters at St. Mamas (modern

Beshik-tash102) in Constantinople. Since the signing of the commercial treaty of 944

between the Rus’ and Byzantium, St. Mamas had been the traditional place where Rus’

merchants stayed in Constantinople.103 But, by ca. 1200, because of the importance of the

Rus’ traders in Constantinople, the Byzantines permitted the Rus’ to settle outside the

city walls and possess their own private emblos or covered arcades. In fact, because

98 “1130-1156 g. Voprosy Kirika, Savvy i Ilii, s" otvetami Nifonta, episkopa novgorodskogo, i drugikh" ierarkhicheskikh" lits",” Russkaia istoricheskaia biblioteka 6: Pamiatniki drevnerusskogo kanonicheskogo prava, ed. V.N. Beneshevich, pt. 1, 2nd ed. (St. Petersburg, 1908), 14. 99 Novosel’tev, Pashuto, “Vneshniaia torgovlia drevnei Rusi,” 84. 100 Joinville and Villehardouin: Chronicles of the Crusades, tr. M.R.B. Shaw (London, 1963), 92. 101 Contemporaries of Marco Polo, ed. M. Komroff, (3rd printing, New York, 1937), 264. 102 For the location of St. Mamas, see S.J. Pargoire, “Le Saint-Mamas de Constantinople,” Transactions of the Russian Archaeological Institute in Constantinople 9: 1-2 (1904), 302. 103 Laws of Rus’, 10.

73

merchants from Rus’ were so common in the Byzantine capital, the Golden Gates in

Constantinople came to be known as the “Rus’ Gates” during this period.104

Some of the pelts that were available in the Byzantine capital may have come there

from Rus’ via the Crimean port of Sudak (Soldaia/Surozh/Sugdaia), particularly after the

conquest of Constantinople by the Latins in 1204. Thereafter, much of the Rus’-

Byzantine trade was transferred to the Crimean port of Sudak.105 Indeed, sources speak of

Rus’ commercial relations with Sudak after 1204. For instance, in ca. 1253, Friar William

of Rubruck noted that merchants from Rus’ brought “…squirrel and ermine and other

valuable furs…” to Sudak, which were thereafter exported to Anatolia.106 William also

states that merchants from Constantinople visited Sudak and adds that Rus’ merchants

used special covered carts to carry their pelts to the city.107 Writing at about the same

time, but speaking of events of 1222, Ibn al-Ath!r noted that “…bur!"s# and sables…”

were exported from Sudak.108 It is possible that some of these furs originated in the lands

of Novgorod and were brought from Kiev to Sudak by Rus’ merchants. Thereafter, these

pelts may have been resold to Byzantine traders or the Genoese who had established trade

relations with this city and other Crimean ports in the second half of the twelfth

century.109 Quite possibly, the squirrel pelts and cloaks lined or trimmed with furs

104 M.N. Tikhomirov, The Towns of Ancient Rus’, tr. Iu. Sdobnikov (Moscow, 1959), 130-132; Martin, Treasure of the Land of Darkness, 44-45. 105 Martin, Treasure of the Land of Darkness, 46-49. 106 “The Journey of William of Rubruck,” The Mongol Mission: Narratives and Letters of the Franciscan Missionaries in Mongolia and China in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries, tr. A Nun of Stanbrook Abbey (New York, 1955), 90. 107 “The Journey of William of Rubruck,” 91-92. 108 Tarikh-al-kamil’, 143. 109 For the Genoese in the Black Sea and the role of Italian merchants, in general, in the Crimea during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, see M.E. Martin, “The First Venetians in the Black Sea,” Maure Thalassa [12on Symposion Byzantinon Spoudon, Birmingham, M. Bretannia, 18-20 Martiou 1978], ed. A. Bryer (Athens, 1979), 114-117.

74

imported by the Genoese to Syria during the second half of the twelfth century110

originated in Sudak.

FUR TRADE WITH THE BALTIC

Above, it was noted that furs were also in great demand in the Latin West, particularly

from the eleventh century onwards. While some, if not a large part, of the western and

central European furs were probably Scandinavian imports,111 a significant quantity can

be shown to have been Novgorodian. The export of fur from Novgorod to the Baltic can

be dated to the turn of the eleventh century, if not several decades earlier.

In the Færeyinga Saga, written in the early thirteenth century, we hear of a

Norwegian merchant named Hrafn Hólmgar!sfari (lit. “one who fares to Novgorod”),

who often traveled to Novgorod, landing on the Faroe Islands to trade.112 This event in

the saga is dated to ca. 970.113 Unfortunately, we are not informed in the saga if pelts

were among the items exported from Novgorod by Hrafn. However, in view of their

availability in Novgorod at this time and their desirability in western Europe, it would be

reasonable to conclude the Norwegian did, indeed, trade in Novgorodian furs.

Direct literary references that speak of the export of furs from Novgorod into the

Baltic can be dated to the first half of the eleventh century. Thus, the Heimskringla Saga,

written in the mid-thirteenth century, reports that a merchant from Gotland named

Gudleik the Gar!ariker (lit. “the Rus’ian,” from Gar!ariki = Rus’) journeyed to

110 Byrnes, “Genoese Trade with Syria in the Twelfth Century,” 217-218. 111 See, for instance, the processing of pelts in the Viking-age town of Birka in Sweden in B. Wigh, “Animal Bones from the Viking Town of Birka, Sweden,” Leather and Fur: Aspects of Early Medieval Trade and Technology, ed. Ester Cameron, (London, 1998), 81-90. 112 The Faroese Saga: Freely Translated with Maps and Genealogical Tables, tr. G.V.C. Young & C.R. Clewer (Belfast, 1973), Ch. 8; Færeyinga saga [Íslensk úrvalsrit 13] (Reykjavik, 1978), 70. 113 T.N. Dzhakson, Islandskie korolevskie sagi o Vostochnoi Evrope (s drevneishikh vremen do 1000 g.) (Moscow, 1993), 231.

75

Hólmgar! (Novgorod) and bought “fine skins which he procured for the king (of

Norway) for his high robes of state, and besides he bought costly skins and an excellent

table service”114 (Byzantine or Near Eastern ceramic or glass vessels?). Scholars date

Gudleik’s visit to 1017.115 At about the same time, a runic inscription from Gotland

suggests that Scandinavian fur-merchants were, in fact, active somewhere in the Rus’

lands.116 It states:

1. ... auk sunaria sat mi! skinum 2. ... auk han enta!is at ulfshala !a hin helki ...

... and he sat in the south [as a merchant] with skins [furs] ... ... and he died in Ulvshale, when Saint ...

While the exact meaning of this text is somewhat obscure, it does mention that a Norse

merchant “sat in the south,” like Gudleik the Gar!ariker, and dealing in furs. The “south”

probably refers to the Rus’ lands, Byzantium, or the Islamic East. By the 1030s, Sigvat

the Skald “often asked when he found merchants who went into Hólmgar! (Novgorod)

what they could tell him about Magnus Olavson…”117 The Icelandic Kn!tlinga Saga

(written in ca. 1250 but describing earlier events118) mentions a merchant named

Ví!gautr who was sent by King Knut of Denmark on a diplomatic mission to Prince

Harold/Mstislav Vladimirovich (1113-1117) who ruled Novgorod.119 Before leaving

Denmark, Ví!gautr promised the king that he would bring him back 8,000 gray squirrel

114 Snorre Sturlason, Heimskringla, tr. A.H. Smith (New York, 1932; reprint 1990), 264. 115 Drevniaia Rus’ v svete zarubezhnykh istochnikov, 535. 116 The runic text and the English translation come from O. Pritsak, The Origin of Rus’ I (Cambridge, Mass., 1981), 379. 117 Snorre Sturlason, Heimskringla, 482. 118 B. Gu!nason, “Kn!tlinga saga,” Dictionary of the Middle Ages 7 (New York, 1986), 281. 119 G. Vernadsky, Kievan Russia (New Haven-London, 1948), 96-97.

76

pelts.120 Clearly, by the 1030s, Novgorod had become a major commercial center in the

Baltic, often visited by Scandinavian fur merchants.

But Novgorod’s trade was not limited to Scandinavia in the early eleventh century. In

the Vita Meinwerci episcopi Paderbornensis, dating to the twelfth century but recording

events in the life of Bishop Meinwerc (1009-1036), it is mentioned that the Paderborn

prelate, a city in Westphalia, was actively involved in the trade of pelts. Among the furs

noted in the Vita are martens, squirrel, fox as well as “zebelina tunica” or sable tunics

worth “6 talents” or 12 marks (= ca. 2.5 kg of silver). The mention of the Rus’ word

sobol’ (“zebelina” or sables) in the Vita, suggests that the bishop was trading in Rus’

pelts, namely sables and maybe other furs imported from Novgorod.121 In general, it is

commonly accepted that the Modern English word “sable” and its Germanic cognates

(Old Norse – safali; Swed. – sobel; Norw. – sobel; Dan. – zobel; Mid. Low Ger. – sable;

Mod. Ger. – Zobel; and, Dutch – sablemarter are lexicological borrowings from the Old

Rus’ word for sable – sobol’. The Rus’ term sobol’ also entered medieval Latin in the

form of sabellum, sabinorum, among other forms,122 and derivatives of this word are

found in later Romance languages: Middle French – sable; Mod. French – zibeline;

Spanish – marta cibellina/marta cibelina; Italian – zibellino; and, Portuguese – marta

zibeline/zibeline. Even the modern Finnish word for sable – soopeli – derives from the

Russian word sobol’. Thus, written sources reveal that the Novgorodian fur trade with the

120 Kn!tlinga saga in Sogur Danakonunga 46, ed. C. Petersens and E. Olson (Copenhagen, 1919-1925), 204. Also see Chapter II. 121 Vita Meinwerci, episcopi Paderbornensis: Das Leben des Bischofs Meinwerk, ed. H. Tenckhoff (Hannover, 1921), 39, 44-45, 52, 56, 58, 85, 86, 111, 112, 123; Drevniaia Rus’ v svete zarubezhnykh istochnikov, 387. It should be noted that Rus’ trade with Westphalia, specifically with the town of Medebach, is noted in 1165. See Hansisches Urkundenbuch, ed. K. Hölbaum, Bd. I, Halle (Leipzig, 1876), !17. 122 E.A. Mel’nikova, “Drevnerusskie leksicheskie zaimstvovania v shvedskom iazyke,” DGNT SSSR: 1982 (Moscow, 1984), 72.

77

Baltic began, in all likelihood, with the early years of the eleventh century, at the latest,

and brought with it not only the furs, themselves but also the terminology associated with

them, such as “sable.” By way of medieval trade networks extending throughout western

Europe, Rus’ pelts and the terms associated with them spread far beyond the borders of

the Novgorodian lands.

Numismatic data supports the other evidence that speaks of the Novgorodian export

of furs into the Baltic at the turn of the eleventh century. As discussed above, prior to this

time, millions of dirhams had been imported into the Rus’ lands from the Islamic world

mostly in exchange for pelts. By the late tenth century, however, dirham imports into

Rus’ declined precipitously because of the “Silver Crisis” that occurred in the S!m!nid

land and the Rus’ had to seek new sources of silver. Therefore, it is not surprising that by

the late tenth-early eleventh century, west and central European silver coins or deniers

began to appear in the Novgorod lands. Most of these coins were apparently used to pay

for the furs which were now being exported through Novgorod into the Baltic rather than

to the Islamic world.123 Novgorod had thus become a major supplier of fur to the Baltic

by the turn of the eleventh century. In fact, it has been argued that the new silver inflow

from the Baltic into European Russia greatly stimulated the development of Novgorod,

itself, as a major commercial center.124

E.A. Rybina argues that one of the main Baltic trading partners of Novgorod were

Gotlandic merchants who had a long-standing history of commercial contact with

123 Th.S. Noonan, “The Impact of the Silver Crisis in Islam Upon Novgorod’s Trade with the Baltic,” Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 69 (1988), 411-447. For a dated, but still very solid, study of the medieval West European coins found in Rus’, see V.M. Potin, Drevniaia Rus’ i evropeiskie gosudarstva v X-XIII vv. (Leningrad, 1968). 124 Noonan, “The Impact of the Silver Crisis in Islam Upon Novgorod’s Trade with the Baltic,” 444-446.

78

northwestern Russia.125 Indeed, as noted above, the finds of almost 40% of all tenth-

century dirham hoards in the Baltic come from this island.126 Likewise, the written

evidence discussed above supports the conclusion that Gotlandic merchants played a

prominent role in Novgorod’s trade with the Baltic from a very early period. Rybina also

points to the “Legend of the Mayor Dobrynia” which alludes to the existence of a

Gotlandic dvor (merchant “office” and later the Hansa Kontor) with its Church of St.

Olaf, built in the late eleventh-early twelfth centuries.127 Thus, if we are to believe the

legend, by the turn of the twelfth century, merchants from Gotland had made their

presence permanent in Novgorod.

The Novgorodians, themselves, were also active in cross-Baltic trade relations during

the twelfth century. Like the Gotlandic merchants, Novgorodians established their base or

“office” in Sigtuna, Sweden, with their own stone church, sometime in the twelfth

century.128 The Novgorodian chronicle reports that in 1130 seven Novgorodian merchant

ships perished along with their merchandise while sailing from Gotland to Denmark. In

1134, the same source informs us, Novgorodian merchants’ goods were confiscated in

Denmark for some unspecified offence.129 The Novgorodian chronicle also mentions that

in 1142, three Rus’ merchant ships were harassed by a flotilla of 60 Swedish ships,

presumably somewhere in the eastern Baltic. The Rus’ merchants, incidentally, were able

125 Rybina, Torgovlia srednevekovogo Novgoroda, 97-99. 126 For curiosity, it should be noted that because of such huge numbers of hoard finds on Gotland, Swedish authorities have made metal detectors illegal specifically on this island. 127 E.A. Rybina, Inozemnye dvory v Novgorode v XII-XVII vv. (Moscow, 1986), 4-26. 128 O. Friesen, “Ur Sigtunas äldsta historia,” Upplands foruminnesförenings tidskrift 26 (1910), 19. Also see Makt och manniskor i kungens Sigtuna [Sigtunautgravingen 1988-1990], ed. S. Tesch. 129 CN, 12, 13; NPL, 22, 23. It should be noted that R. Michell and N. Forbes (CN, 12) translate the word rubosha found under the entry for 1134 as “cut to pieces,” i.e., they translate the passage as “...they cut to pieces some men of Novgorod beyond the Sea in Donia.” However, the definition of rubosha is clearly “to confiscate goods” by the law of marque/mark. See Rybina, Torgovlia srednevekovogo Novgoroda, 100-103.

79

to escape after defeating the crews of three Swedish ships.130 Lastly, Saxo Grammaticus

informs that while visiting Schleswig in 1157, a fleet of Rus’ merchant ships was raided

and their goods confiscated by the Danish King Sven III (1147-1157).131

German sources also confirm the activities of Rus’ traders in the Baltic during this

period. In 1158, for instance, Rus’ merchants were invited to visit the rebuilt city of

Lübeck a year after King Sven’s attack. Helmold reports:

The duke [Henry the Lion] sent messengers to the cities and kingdoms of the north – Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Russia – offering them peace so that they should have free access to his city of Lübeck.132

It is very possible that the Rus’ merchants had begun to visit Lübeck even before it had

been closed by Henry the Lion in 1152.133 But, the Danish raid on their ships and the

earlier attacks made against them in Denmark, no doubt, further inspired the Rus’ to

transfer their activities to Lübeck. Soon after its reopening, Lübeck was quickly

becoming an important center for trade with the eastern Baltic. Thus, in 1163, the

merchants of Gotland were granted a charter to trade duty-free in Lübeck.134 By 1188,

Frederick I Barbarossa had extended these privileges to trade in Lübeck to “Rus’,

Gotland, Norman, and other peoples of the East.”135

While the Novgorodians were becoming frequent visitors in Lübeck in the second

half of the twelfth century, the Germans, themselves, began visiting Novgorod a century

earlier. Their presence in the city is attested to by the texts of birch-barks !753 (written

130 NPL, 26. 131 Saxo Grammaticus Books X-XVI, II (Books XIV, XV, and XVI: Text and Translation), tr. E. Christiansen [BAR International Series 118 (i)] (Oxford, 1981), 398. 132 Helmold of Bosau (Holstein), The Chronicle of the Slavs, tr. and ed. F.J. Tschan (New York, 1966), 229. 133 Helmold of Bosau, The Chronicle of the Slavs, 203-204. 134 Hansisches Urkundenbuch, I, !15. 135 Hansisches Urkundenbuch I, !33.

80

in German with Latin characters) dating to the mid-eleventh century and !881 dating to

the second quarter of the twelfth century which mentions the German name Walter and

speaks of making an oath of returning or paying him something.136 By the last decade of

the twelfth century, German proto-Hansa merchant cities – mainly Lübeck – had

infiltrated the eastern Baltic and began to break up the Gotlandic monopoly on their trade

with Novgorod.137 Thus, in 1188 German merchants were actively trading with Novgorod

already from their base in Visby on Gotland. This is well attested in the Novgorodian

chronicle which reports a conflict between German and Novgorodian merchants.

Specifically, this source informs that in 1188 German merchants confiscated goods of

several Novgorodian traders who were visiting Gotland for some misdeeds (outstanding

debts?) of other Novgorodians who had already left Gotland, i.e., they implemented the

law of marque/mark. However, since the Novgorodian authorities believed this

confiscation to have been unjust, in the spring of 1189, they deported Gotlandic

merchants who had been wintering in Novgorod back home “without peace” and without

providing them with regular guide/escort.138 Further, they prohibited Novgorodian

merchants from trading with Gotland.139

The commercial boycott following the incident of 1188 must have been detrimental to

both sides. Thus, in 1191-1192 Novgorod had concluded a formal commercial treaty with

136 NGB: 1990-1996, 50; Ianin, Zalizniak, “Berestianye gramoty iz novgorodskikh raskopok 1998 g.,” 21-22. Birch-bark !753 contains the following text “-ÍLGAFAL IM[K]IE,” translated something like “hit (or: fall into) him” or “let it hit him,” apparently referring to an arrow. But, other possible readings have been offered (see NGB: 1990-1996, 50). 137 Rybina, Torgovlia srednevekovogo Novgoroda, 100. 138 In general, employing escorts and gaining special permission to travel to Novgorod from Staraia Ladoga has a long tradition that dates to the first half of the eleventh century at the latest. See T.N. Dzhakson, “Islandskie sagi o roli Ladogi i Ladozhskoi volosti v osushchestvlenii russko-skandinavskikh torgovykh i politicheskikh sviazei,” Rannesrednevekovye drevnosti severnoi Rusi i ee sosedei (St. Petersburg, 1999), 20-25. 139 NPL, 39.

81

Gotland and Lübeck, which provided for the full reciprocity of rights for merchants of

different lands, i.e., Rus’ merchants in Gotland and Lübeck as well as German-Gotlandic

merchants in Novgorod. One of the major concerns of this treaty, not surprisingly, was to

forbid the confiscation of merchants’ goods collectively and bring only the guilty party to

justice. The other major issue addressed was the prohibition of economic boycott due to

unresolved commercial disputes.140 Lastly, it is pertinent to make the observation that

German merchants were clearly in the leading role of the Gotland-Lübeck commercial

confederacy by this time. Among the confederacy’s signatories of the treaty, after the

name of the ambassador, stand “German sons,” thereby showing who was in control of

trade in the eastern Baltic by the late twelfth century.141

The 1191-1192 treaty seems to have been a major watershed in Novgorodian-German

relations, since in 1192, the German dvor or “office” (later the Hansa Kontor) with its

Church of St. Peter had appeared in Novgorod.142 From that time until 1494, when the

Hansa Kontor was formally passed over to the Livonian Knights, German merchants

were the sole Baltic traders to have maintained contacts with Novgorod.143 While

commercial disputes continued to arise, such as the one in 1201,144 the 1191-1192 treaty

and ones signed later permitted Novgorod to maintain constant trade relations with the

Germans, who became Novgorod’s most important buyers of pelts.

While details regarding the volume of the Novgorodian fur trade with the Baltic are

not reflected in the standard written sources, coin hoards do provide some information on 140 For the text of the commercial treaty between Novgorod and the Gotland-north German confederation, see Pamiatniki russkogo prava 2, ed. A.A. Zimin (Moscow, 1953); 124-131; GVNP, !28, 55-56. Also see V.L. Ianin [Novgorodskie akty XII-XV vv. (Moscow, 1991), 81-82] for the re-dating of the text to 1191-1192. 141 Rybina, Torgovlia srednevekovogo Novgoroda, 103. 142 Rybina, Inozemnye dvory v Novgorode, 27-31. 143 Rybina, Torgovlia srednevekovogo Novgoroda, 194. 144 NPL, 45; Rybina, Torgovlia srednevekovogo Novgoroda, 107.

82

this question. Thus, forty-six hoards with deniers and at least ninety stray deniers have

been discovered within the Novgorodian lands.145 One of these hoards, dating to ca.

1025, was discovered within the city itself.146 However, unlike the Islamic dirhams, West

European deniers do not carry the precise dates indicating when they were minted. For

this reason, measuring the volume of their import to Rus’ during specific periods is very

difficult. All that can be said about the finds of deniers in Rus’ is that the main suppliers

of silver to Novgorod were England, Denmark, and Germany. At the same time, it does

not appear that most of these deniers were brought to Novgorod directly from the above-

mentioned countries. The composition of the Russian hoards of deniers is very similar to

the composition of the contemporary hoards found in the southern Baltic region.

Consequently, it appears that most of the deniers that were brought to Novgorod came

there by way of Baltic Slav/Pomeranian middlemen, who also maintained close

commercial relations with Novgorod.147 Indeed, the existence of Western Slavic

merchants in Novgorod is suggested by the construction of the Church of the Trinity in

1165 by “the people of Szczecin (shetitsinitsi)” – a major Polish commercial center in the

southern Baltic – in the Liudin End of the city, which was destroyed by fire in 1194, soon

rebuilt, and burned down again in 1224.148

After the early twelfth century, deniers ceased being imported to the Rus’ lands.

Coins, therefore, became very scarce in Rus’ until the mid-fourteenth century when some

Russian principalities, including Novgorod, resumed striking their own coins. For this

145 Potin, Drevniaia Rus’ i evropeiskie gosudarstva; Rybina, Torgovlia srednevekovogo Novgoroda, 226-227. 146 V.L. Ianin, P.G. Gaidukov, “Novgorodskii klad Zapadno-Evropeiiskikh i Vizantiiskikh monet kontsa X – pervoi poloviny XI v.,” DGVE: 1994 (Moscow, 1996), 151-170. 147 Potin, Drevniaia Rus’ i evropeiskie gosudarstva, 47, 63. Also see Rybina, Torgovlia srednevekovogo Novgoroda, 92-95, 226. 148 NPL, 31, 41, 63, 219, 233, 267. Also see Tikhomirov, The Towns of Ancient Rus’, 126.

83

reason, the period from the early twelfth to the mid-fourteenth centuries is called the

“coinless period” in Rus’ history.149 The disappearance of silver coins from the Rus’

lands, however, did not mean that silver was not available in Rus’. Although few coins

were imported into Rus’ after the early twelfth century, silver was still imported, but now

in the form of silver ingots.150 In fact, it has been show that after the early twelfth century

there was more silver available in the Rus’ lands (in the shape of ingots) than in the

previous centuries (in the form of coins).151

During the course of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, coinage in western and

central Europe had become less standardized in weight, size, and fineness from region to

region.152 This made long-distance and large-scale trade more difficult as it complicated

accounting. Silver ingots, on the other hand, had a number of advantages over coins:

merchants could test the fineness of the silver ingots for purity more easily (i.e., the

merchant only had to test one ingot as opposed to hundreds of different types of coins); it

was easier for silversmiths and moneyers to work with ingots; and, ingots were also easy 149 It should be noted that during the Kievan era, silver (serebrenik) and gold (zolotnik) coins were also struck in the Rus’ lands, including Novgorod. However, they were all minted within thirty years following the conversion of Rus’ to Christianity in 988/89, mostly by Grand Princes Vladimir I (970-1014) and the early years of the reign of Iaroslav the Wise (1019-1054). Iaroslav minted serebrenik in Novgorod before he became Grand Prince in Kiev. Since the initiation of minting coins in Rus’ followed directly on the heels of Christianization and the fact that the overwhelming majority of these coins were struck from base metals (containing very little gold or silver), it is likely that their issue was connected to political (propagandizing) rather than economic reasons. For the early Rus’ coins, see M.P. Sotnikova, I.G. Spasski, Russian Coins of the X-XI Centuries A.D.: Recent research and a corpus in commemoration of the mellenery of the earliest Russian coinage, tr. H.B. Wells (Oxford, 1982); idem, Tysiacheletie drevneishikh monet Rossii (Leningrad, 1983); M.P. Sotnikova, Drevneishie russkie monety X-XI vekov (Moscow, 1995). For some of the main and traditional arguments concerning the so-called “coinless period,” see V.L. Ianin, Denezhno-vesovye sistemy (Moscow, 1956), 208; N.F. Kotliar, “Eshche raz o «bezmonetnom» periode denezhnogo obrashcheniia Drevnei Rusi (XII-XIII vv.),” Vestnik drevnei istorii 5 (1973), 152-169; I.G. Spasskii, Russkaia monetnaia sistema (Leningrad, 1970), 256; and, E. Pavlova, “The Coinless Period in the History of northeastern Rus’: Historiographical Study,” RH/HR 21: 4 (1994), 375-392. 150 It should be noted that silver ingots were imported and circulated in the Rus’ lands as early as the beginning of the ninth century. However, it was only from the early twelfth century when these ingots became more standardized in shape and weight. See N.F. Kotliar, “Severorusskie («chernigovskie») monetnye grivny,” DGVE: 1994 (Moscow, 1996), 82-83. 151 Potin, Drevniaia Rus’ i evropeiskie gosudarstva, 87. 152 Potin, Drevniaia Rus’ i evropeiskie gosudarstva, 81-92.

84

to count out, weigh, and transport over long distances. Therefore, from the twelfth

century on, the silver ingot became the single most important method of payment in long-

distance trade from Europe to the western Chinese borders.153

In Rus’, beginning with the eleventh century, silver ingots (grivny) of the so-called

“Kievan” type began to be produced. These hexagonal-shaped ingots (155-160g on the

average) circulated mainly in the southern Rus’ lands.154 In the late eleventh and the early

twelfth centuries, “Novgorodian” and the so-called “Chernigov” ingots also appeared and

were mainly used in the northern Rus’ lands.155 The bar-like “Novgorodian” ingots

weighed about 200g and, thus, were very similar in weight to many of the northern and

western European ingots (lötiges silber, wêrsilber, mark, marca argenti, etc.) of the

age.156 The similarity in the weight of the ingots from these regions clearly shows the

intense contacts in the long-distance trade networks between western, central, and

northern Europe and Novgorod. In the words of P. Spufford: “This unminted silver

traveled from mining-areas of Europe to the more economically advanced areas in bars or

ingots of a standard fineness.”157 A large part of this silver was brought to Novgorod by

Gotlandic and German merchants in exchange for furs and other commodities. It is

curious to note that a reference to the import of these ingots (marks) is found in the story

153 P. Spufford, Money and Its Use in Medieval Europe (Cambridge, 1988), 209-224; Potin, Drevniaia Rus’ i evropeiskie gosudarstva, 81-92; A.G. Makhamadiev, Denezhnoe obrashchenie Povolzh’ia i Priural’ia VI-XV vv. (Aftoreferat; St. Petersburg, 1992), 32-33. 154 Th.S. Noonan, “The Monetary History of Kiev in the pre-Mongol Period,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 11 (1987), 404-406. 155 N.F. Kotliar, “Pro tak zvani Chernihivski hryvny sribla,” Arkheolohiia 2 (1995), 83-93; idem., “Drevnerusskie monetnye grivny (opyt klassifikatsii i khronologii),” Tezy dopovidei ukrainskoi delehatsii na VI Mizhnarodnomu kongresi sloviankoi arkheolohii: Novhorod, Rosiia, 1996 r. (Kiev, 1996); idem., “Severorusskie («chernigovskie») monetnye grivny,” 80-142. For the methods of production of the Rus’ ingots, see R.S. Minasian, “Sposoby izgotovleniia platezhnykh slitkov,” Peterburgskii arkheologicheskii vestnik (St. Petersburg, 1995), 168-172. 156 Spufford, Money and Its Use in Medieval Europe, 219-221. 157 Spufford, Money and Its Use in Medieval Europe, 209.

85

Der guote Gêrhard by Rudolf von Ems, written in ca. 1220. In 1177, Gerhard, a

merchant from Köln, was said to have voyaged on a trading expedition to other lands

including Novgorod and brought with him 50 marks of silver.158

In Rus’, the western European ingots (marks) were recast into local ingots, i.e., the

“Novgorodian,” “Kievan,” and the “Chernigov” types. To date, about 255 silver ingots of

the “Kievan” type have been found in Kiev dating to the pre-Mongol period.159 More

than 330 ingots of the “Kievan” type have also been found outside of Kiev.160 One half of

such an ingot was discovered in Novgorod and references to them – called a “grivna of

silver” in Rus’ sources – occur in 11 birch-bark texts from Novgorod.161 Likewise, the

standard fines for various crimes noted in the commercial treaties between the

northwestern Rus’ principalities and the countries of the Baltic, such as the 1191-1192

treaty between Novgorod and the Gotland-Lübeck commercial confederation, were

estimated in marks of silver.162 In light of the above, it would be more appropriate to state

that the so-called “coinless period” in Rus’ was a time when small coins did not circulate

in the marketplace; rather, larger “coins” in the form of silver ingots were used for

making substantive purchases. The silver which the Rus’ fashioned into their ingots, in

large part, was provided by the Baltic merchants who traded it for Novgorodian pelts.163

The great abundance of the silver ingots available in Rus’ came to confuse later

medieval authors into believing that silver mines were found within the Rus’ lands. Thus,

writing in the middle of the fourteenth century, Ibn Ba!!"!a stated the following about

158 Rudolf von Ems, Der guote Gêrhard (Tübingen, 1971), 41. 159 Noonan, “The Monetary History of Kiev,” 405. 160 Noonan, “The Monetary History of Kiev,” 406. 161 Rybina, Torgovlia srednevekovogo Novgoroda, 227. 162 Pamiatniki russkogo prava II, 54-87. 163 Rybina, Torgovlia srednevekovogo Novgoroda, 227.

86

Rus’: “In their country are silver mines, and from it are imported the !awm, that is, the

ingots of silver with which selling and buying are done in this land, each !awma

weighing five ounces.164 Marco Polo (1254-1324), after noting that “sable, ermine, vair,

ercolin, and foxes” are found in “abundance” in Rus’ – “the best and most beautiful in

the world” – made a similar mistake by saying “There are also silver mines, yielding no

small amount of silver.”165 Apparently, neither Ibn Ba!!"!a or Marco Polo were aware of

the Novgorodian fur trade with the Baltic that brought in huge quantities of silver into the

Rus’ lands in return for the millions of pelts.

While silver was a crucial import to Novgorod from the Baltic, other non-ferrous

metals such as tin, lead, copper, and brass constituted the largest group of trade items

brought to Novgorod.166 Most of these metals were imported into the city in the form of

plates or sheet, ingots, and wire, all of which were later processed into jewelry and other

luxury items in the Novgorodian workshops. A number of examples of these metals in

their raw form dating to the pre-Mongol era have been discovered in Novgorod, mostly at

yards where jewelry-making workshops were located.167 One birch-bark text from

Novgorod (!439) dating to the 1190s-1210, specifically mentions tin, lead, and copper

164 The Travels of Ibn Ba""#"a, A.D. 1325-1354, II, ed. H.A.R. Gibb (Cambridge, 1962), 498-499. 165 Marco Polo, The Travels, tr. R.E. Latham (London, 1958), 332. 166 Rybina, Torgovlia srednevekovogo Novgoroda, 229-237; N.V. Ryndina, “Tekhnologiia proizvodstva novgorodskikh iuvelirov X-XV vv.,” TNAE 3 (Novye metody v arkheologii) [MIA SSSR 117] (Moscow, 1963), 206-213; V.L. Ianin, “Nakhodka pol’skogo svintsa v Novgorode,” SA 2 (1966), 324-328; N.V. Enisova, R.A. Mitoian, T.G. Saracheva, “Latuni srednevekovogo Novgoroda,” NNZ 14 (Novgorod, 2000), 99-111. 167 Ryndina, “Tekhnologiia proizvodstva,” 206-213; B.A. Kolchin, A.S. Khoroshev, V.L. Ianin, Usad’ba novgorodskogo khudozhnika XII v. (Moscow, 1981), 97, 122, 124.

87

and merchants who were trading them.168 Lead was also used in roofing churches, as is

evident from the laying of a lead roof on St. Sophia in Novgorod in 1151 or 1156.169

In addition, Flemish, English, and German textiles as well as salt, beer, herring, and

other Baltic commodities were also imported to Novgorod. Most of these items, such as

beer, salt, and herring are very difficult to trace archaeologically and we possess very

little written records concerning them, practically none for the pre-Mongol period.

However, cloth is relatively well preserved in the cultural layers of Novgorod. Thus,

aside from the finds of lead seals which were affixed on the bolts of cloth (guaranteeing

their quality and quantity as well as indicating their place of manufacture) in Novgorod,

significant quantities of the actual textiles have been discovered in the city, dating from

the tenth to the fifteenth centuries.170 During times of famine, Novgorodians also

imported grain from the Baltic, as is attested to by the Novgorodian chronicle which

notes under the year 1231 that “Germans arrived from beyond the sea with corn and

flour” to relieve the starving city.171 While there is no doubt that all of the items

mentioned were not brought to Novgorod to be traded only for pelts, since we know that

Novgorod also exported wax in significant quantities and other items imported from Kiev

and Byzantium, there is no question that the great majority of Baltic imports came to the

city in exchange for furs.172

168 Zalizniak, DD, 357-358; NGB: 1962-1976, 42-45. See Chapter VII for the full text. 169 NPL, 29; PSRL, 4 (2): 157. It would also be of interest to note that a sheet of lead roofing was discovered at yards “E” of the Troits dig which contained an inscription of a letter. See NGB: 1956-1957, 154-155; Zalizniak, DD, 238-239. For the use of lead for roofing in Kievan Rus’, see P.A. Rappoport, Stroitel’noe proisvodstvo Drevnei Rusi X-XIII vv. (St. Petersburg, 1994) 98-101. 170 For details on these imports and their chronology, see Rybina, Torgovlia srednevekovogo Novgoroda, 237-244, 254-256. 171 NPL, 71. 172 For a discussion of the other items (wax, leather, falcons) exported from Novgorod into the Baltic during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, see A.L. Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia velikogo Novgoroda s Pribaltikoi i zapadnoi Evropoi v XIV-XV vekakh (Moscow, 1963), 121-159. Shards of Byzantine amphorae

88

The written, numismatic, and archaeological evidence discussed above on

Novgorod’s fur trade with the Baltic during the pre-Mongol can be supplemented with an

additional source – namely the tracking of the origins and diffusion of the

sorochok/timber unit from the lands of Novgorod. This will be the subject of the next

chapter of this study.

* * *

In conclusion, even before the city of Novgorod came into existence in the first

several decades of the tenth century, the Rus’ had been very active as fur merchants in

their trade relations with the Islamic East and Byzantium. The origin of the Rus’ fur trade

seems to be connected to the changing nature of fashions in the southern parts of western

Eurasia which came about as a result of the “barbarization” of the classical world in the

early Middle Ages. The Byzantines, like their Muslim neighbors to the east, did not share

the disdain the Greco-Romans civilization had for wearing furs which they commonly

associated with “barbarian” dress. The newly established “barbarian” kingdoms outside

of the Mediterranean basin also had no contempt for using furs in their dress. As the

Byzantines and the Muslims, the ruling elite in Northern Europe not only found nothing

distasteful with dressing in furs, but saw them as highly desired prestige/luxury items for

which they were ready to pay for dearly with silver.

along with other items of Byzantine and Kievan origins have been discovered in Poland (Gda!sk, Gniezno, Krusszwoca, Legnica, Wroc"aw, Opole, Kraków, and Sandomierz), Sweden (Lund and Sigtuna), and Denmark-Germany (Hedeby/Schleswig). See W. Dzieduszycki, “Zum Studium weitreichender Kontakte frühstädtischer Zentren am Beispiel der Diffusion keramischer Importe nach Polen im X-XIII. Jh.,” Archaologia Polona 19 (1980), p. 75, Tb. 4; A. Buko, Ceramika wczesnopolska. Wprowadzenie do bada!. Prace Habilitacyjne (Wroc"aw-Warszawa-Kraków-Gda!sk-#ód$, 1990), p. 337, Tb. 150; M. Roslund, “Brosamen vom Tisch der Reichen. Byzantinische Funde aus Lund und Sigtuna (ca. 980-1250),” Rom und Byzanz im Norden: Mission und Glaubenwechsel im Ostseeraum während des 8.-14. Jahrhunderts 2 (Mainz, 1998), 361-368; R. Kelm, “Eine byzantininische Amphorenscherbe aus Haithabu,” Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 27 (1997), 185-188. It should be noted that some of the Byzantine and Kievan imports discovered in the Baltic may have been shipped there from the middle Dnepr by way of the Dnestr or the Prut’ – Western Bug – Vistula rivers or the West Dvina, thereby bypassing Novgorod.

89

The growing demand for pelts beginning with the early Middle Ages in the southern

regions of western Eurasia and their wiliness to exchange silver for them enticed the Rus’

to seek out these markets. By ca. 800, the Rus’ established stable trade relations via

Khazaria with the Islamic Near East where they sold their pelts in exchange for Islamic

silver coins or dirhams. The trade of dirhams for pelts continued for most of the ninth

century, but, in the last quarter of the century, much of its focus shifted from Iran and

Iraq to S!m!nid Central Asia via the lands of the Volga Bulgh!r intermediaries.

Beginning with ca. 900 to the last two decades of the tenth century, Rus’ trade with the

S!m!nid em"rate boomed as millions of dirhams were imported into the lands of

Novgorod in exchange for pelts during the 900s. While Central Asia was unable to

sustain such an intense export of silver into eastern Europe and by the end of the tenth

century came to exhaust its silver reserves, trade relations with the Rus’ did not end.

After the late tenth century, both Central Asia and the Near East exported various luxury

items such as silks, glass, semi-precious stones, precious wood, and fine pottery in

exchange for Novgorodian pelts. Located along the Volga bend, Volga Bulgh!ria stood

as the main intermediaries in this trade. Through its control over the upper Volga, from

the second half of the twelfth century, Suzdalia came to act as additional middlemen for

the Novgorodian trade with the Islamic East.

During the early tenth century, the Rus’ also established trade relations with

Byzantium via the Dnepr and Kiev in its middle course. By the mid-tenth century, the

growing demand for pelts in Byzantine markets appears to have given stimulus to the

growth of Novgorod as a city when Princess Ol’ga established several key

administrative-tax collection centers in its core lands. However, unlike its commerce with

90

the Islamic world, Rus’ trade of pelts involved the exchange of items other than silver

with Byzantium. The Byzantines had a long-standing prohibition on the commercial

exportation of precious metals beyond its territories. The commodities the Rus’ received

from the Empire in exchange for their pelts included all sorts of luxury objects such as

glass artifacts, spices, wine and olive oil, silks, fine ceramics, and other goods. Other

items of Kievan manufacture or southern Rus’ origins such as glass objects, Dnepr

amber, rose-colored spindle whorls, jewelry, and ceramics were added to the goods

exported in exchange for pelts in Novgorod’s trade with Constantinople by the Kievan

intermediaries. The trade relations between Byzantium and Novgorod via Kiev, once

established in the early tenth century, continued (albeit with some alterations) for the

remaining part of the Kievan era of Rus’ history.

With the decline of the silver trade for pelts with the Islamic world and the

inaccessibility of silver in the Byzantine markets, the Rus’, more specifically the

Novgorodians, turned to the Baltic. As noted above, the “barbarian” kingdoms of the

Baltic and North Sea regions were prime markets for pelts. Thus, about a decade or so

after silver became scarce in Central Asia at the close of the tenth century, the

Novgorodians shifted the focus of their fur trade west. Through the Gotlandic, German,

and Western Slavic (Pomeranian) merchants who came to visit Novgorod or by voyaging

into the Baltic, themselves, the Novgorodians traded their pelts for central and west

European silver coins or deniers.

The trade of deniers for Novgorodian pelts continued until the turn of the twelfth

century when these coins became difficult to conduct large-scale commercial operations

because of their lack of standardization in size, weight, and silver content. Trade relations

91

from that time onwards were conducted with the use of silver ingots, non-ferrous metals,

textiles, and other commodities that were exchanged for Novgorodian pelts. It was also

sometime at the close of the twelfth century when the German or the proto-Hansa

merchants came to assert their commercial dominance in the Baltic by forming German-

based commercial confederations with various Baltic nations and cities, including

Gotland. The German merchants, like their Gotlandic predecessors, established a

permanent base or Kontor in Novgorod in order to maintain more direct and intimate

trade relations with the city. The trade relations with the Germans became the cornerstone

of the Novgorodian fur trade for the remaining part of the Kievan era and continued well

into the Mongol period with the advent of the Hanseatic League.

CHAPTER II

THE SOROCHOK/TIMBER UNIT: ITS ORIGINS AND DIFFUSION INTO THE BALTIC

THE SOROCHOK/TIMBER UNIT

At the end of his mission to England in 1698, Peter the Great of Russia presented his

translator with a gift of 40 sables.1 The gift of 40 furs was very typical of Muscovite

diplomatic practice. Russian embassies of the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries

frequently brought furs packed in units of 40 as gifts to the sovereigns of other states

[Fig. 1]. For example, during his mission to Milan in 1486, Muscovite ambassador

George Trakhaniott presented Duke Gian Galeazzio with two bundles of 40 sables as

well as several live sables as gifts from Grand Prince Ivan III.2 In 1567, eleven 40s of

sables were presented by the Russian diplomatic mission sent by Ivan IV to Erik XIV of

Sweden.3 Three years later, the Ottoman sultan, Selim II, also received 40s of sables from

Ivan IV.4 Elizabeth I of England was given several 40s of sables from Ivan IV’s embassy

sent in 1582,5 followed by several more from Tsar Boris Godunov in 1600.6 Alexander,

the king of Georgia, received his 40 sables worth 30 rubles in 1589.7 The “Sun King,”

1 R.K. Massie, Peter the Great: His Life and World (New York, 1980), 215. 2 “George Trakhaniott’s Description of Russia in 1486,” ed. and tr. R.M. Croskey and E.P. Ronquist, RH/HR 17 (1990), 60. 3 Puteshestviia russkikh poslov XVI-XVII vv. (Moscow, 1954), 10. 4 Puteshestviia russkikh poslov XVI-XVII vv., 76. 5 Puteshestviia russkikh poslov XVI-XVII vv., 116. 6 Puteshestviia russkikh poslov XVI-XVII vv., 167, 204. 7 Russian Embassies to the Georgian Kings (1589-1605) I: Texts [Works Issued by the Hakluyt Society, 2nd Ser. vol. 137], ed. W.E.D. Allen, tr. A. Mango (Cambridge, 1970), 98.

93

Louis XIV of France, not to be forgotten, was presented seven 40s of sables by the

Muscovite diplomats of Tsar Alexis Mikhailovich in 1668.8

FIGURE 1 A SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY MUSCOVITE EMBASSY TO WESTERN EUROPE9

The use of pelts bundled in 40s was not limited to early Russian diplomatic protocol

or to the Muscovite era of Russian history. This 40-unit of pelts, known as a sorochok in

Russia, was the most common way of packaging pelts in the Russian fur trade from its

beginnings in the early Middle Ages well into the modern era. Early Rus’ texts are replete

with references to the sorochok unit.

!910 (turn of the XI/XII centuries) !223 (late XII - 1st quarter of the XIII centuries) !336 (mid-1110s - mid-1130s) !7 (late XII - 1st quarter of the XIII centuries) !647/683/721 (1140s - mid-1190s) !420 (1230s - 1260s) !681 (mid-1150s - mid-1190s) !52 (late 1260s - 1270s)

8 Puteshestviia russkikh poslov XVI-XVII vv., 257. 9 N.N. Molchanov, Diplomatiia Petra Pervogo (Moscow, 1984).

94

!230 (last quarter XII century) !278 (1350s - 1380s) !649 (late XII - 1st quarter of the XIII century) !260 (1370s - early 1380s) !650 (late XII - 1st quarter of the XIII century) !445 (XIV century according to paleography)

TABLE 1

BIRCH-BARK TEXTS WITH REFERENCES TO THE SOROCHOK10

Aside from the fourteen birch-bark texts dating from the turn of the twelfth century to the

1370s-early 1380s found in Novgorod (see Table 1), this unit is encountered in various

state acts,11 cadastre tax-rent rolls of the late sixteenth-early seventeenth centuries,12 and

private deeds.13 According to the Russian customs books and official correspondence

regarding trade, furs (particularly sables) were packed in 40s and shipped to Persia, India,

and the Ottoman Empire throughout the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries.14

The sorochok unit – also known as timber, tymbere, timbr, tymmyr, tymmer in

Germanic languages – was widely known outside of Russia and can be found in various

medieval and early modern central and western European sources. The earliest reference

to the timber unit comes from a Scottish document (Assisa de Tolloneis) dated to 1150.15

During the next two centuries and later, the unit occurs in Icelandic,16 Norwegian,17

10 Zalizniak, DD, 322, 363-366, 370, 372, 391-392, 425, 468, 500, 507; V.L. Ianin, A.A. Zalizniak, “Berestianye gramoty iz novgorodskikh raskopok 1999 g.,” Via 2 (2000), 9-10. 11 “Charter of Prince Sviatoslav Ol’govich of 1136/1137,” in Laws of Rus’, 57-58; GVNP, !77, p. 131; !88, p. 144, !89, p. 146. 12 Pistsovye knigi Novgorodskoi zemli II: Pistsovye knigi Obonezhskoi piatiny XVI v., ed. K.B. Baranov (St. Petersburg, 1999). 13 GVNP, !297, p. 295; !304, p. 299; !321, p. 308. 14 See, for example, documents !1, p. 25; !55, pp. 121-122; !151, p. 259; !152, p. 260; !159, p. 264; !161, p. 265; !164, p. 126 in Russko-indiiskie otnosheniia v XVII v. (Moscow, 1958); M.V. Fekhner, Torgovlia Russkogo gosudarstva so stranami Vostoka v XVI veke (Moscow, 1956), 58-61. Also see R. Hellie, The Economy and Material Culture of Russia, 1600-1725 (Chicago, 1999), 53-70, for a discussion of the Muscovite fur trade and references to the sorochok in the seventeenth-early eighteenth centuries. 15 “Assisa Regis David Regis Scottorum,” The Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland I: AD 1124-1423 (Edinburgh, 1844), 667. 16 Kn!tlinga saga in Sogur Danakonunga 46, ed. C. Petersens and E. Olson (Copenhagen, 1919-1925), 204. 17 Norges gamle Love III, ed. R. Keyser and P.A. Munch (Christiania, 1849), 14.

95

Anglo-French,18 Hanseatic,19 eastern Baltic,20 Lithuanian-Polish,21 and Hapsburg22

documents (also see below). The sorochok unit was also known in medieval Finland: in

1391 a Finnish merchant sent 10,000 sorochoks/timbers of squirrels to Tallinn,23 a

Hanseatic city at that time. Olaus Magnus, writing in the middle of the sixteenth century,

said of ermine skins “Their pelts are sold in tens, and especially in bundles of forty, like

those of sables, martens, foxes, beavers, squirrels, or hares, and are shipped off to distant

lands.”24 Thus, the sorochok/timber unit was known and used widely in the fur trade

throughout northern Europe during the Middle Ages.

Packaging pelts by 40s was also practiced in the medieval Near East, Central Asia,

and China. Francesco Balducci Pegolotti (writing in the first part of the fourteenth

century) noted that units of 40 were used for counting ermine in Persia.25 Presumably, the

use of the 40 in the fur trade arose long before Pegolotti’s time. In the middle of the

thirteenth century, while en route to visit the Great Mongol Khan in Central Asia, the

Papal mission headed by John of Plano Carpini and Brother Benedict the Pole gave as 18 “«The White Book» of Peterborough Abbey,” in “Select Tracts and Table Books Relating to English Weights and Measures (1100-1742),” ed. H. Hall, F.J. Nicholas, Camden Third Series, Vol. XLI: Miscellany - XV (London, 1929), 10, 12. 19 See, for instance, the 1423 treaty between Novgorod and the Hansa towns in Hanserecesse. Zweite Abteilung, Bd. I: 7 (Leipzig, 1876), !569 and the same treaty in GVNP, !62, p. 104. Also see, for example, article 89 of the IV Schra (inserted in 1346) in Die Nowgoroder Schra - in sieben Fassungen vom XIII. bis XVII. Jahrhundert, ed. W. Schlüter (Dorpat, 1911; 1914, Lübeck, 1916). 20 See, for instance, the documents noted in connection with the Muscovite-era Russian fur trade with Riga and Swedish ports in the Baltic in J.T. Kotilaine, “Riga’s Trade with its Muscovite Hinterland in the Seventeenth Century,” Journal of Baltic Studies 30:2 (1999), 129-161. 21 “1431 g. ianvaria 25 – Dogovornaia gramota litovskogo velikogo kniazia Svidrigaila s Velikim Novgorodom,” “1440-1447 gg. – Dogovornaia gramota litovskogo velikogo kniazia Kazimira s Velikim Novgorodom,” “1470-1471 gg. – Dogovornaia gramota korolia pol’skogo i velikogo kniazia litovskogo Kazimira IV s Velikim Novgorodom,” GVNP, !63, pp. 105-106; !70, p. 116; !77, p. 131. For the re-dating of the 1440-1447 treaty, see V.L. Ianin, Novgorodskie akty XII-XV vv. (Moscow, 1991), 178. 22 Sigmund von Herberstein, Description of Moscow and Muscovy, 1557, tr. J.B.C. Grundy, ed. B. Picard (New York, 1969), 84. 23 J. Kodolányi, “North Eurasian Hunting, Fishing and Reindeer-Breading Civilizations,” Ancient Cultures of the Ugrian Peoples (Budapest, 1976), 185. 24 Olaus Magnus, Description of the Northern Peoples, Rome 1555, 3, tr. P. Fisher and H. Higgens, ed. P. Foote [Works Issued by the Hakluyt Society, 2nd Ser. vol. 188] (London, 1998), 902. 25 Francesco Balducci Pegolotti, La Pratica della Mercatura, ed. A. Evans (Cambridge, Mass., 1936), 27.

96

gifts 40 beavers and 80 badgers to Khan Batu.26 The earliest indirect references to the use

of the sorochok unit in Central Asia and China, however, can be found in the account of

Marvaz! who wrote in ca. 1120. He noted that in ca. 1027 an envoy from the

Khit"y/Qit"y/Ch’i-tan emperor gave the Ghaznavid Am!r Ma#m$d “200 sable martens”

and “1000 grey squirrels.”27 As will be discussed in more detail below, in Novgorod and

the Baltic sorochoks were commonly parceled into larger packages which contained five

units of 40s (= 200 pelts) or twenty-five units of 40s (= 1000). In this way, it appears that

the furs presented by the emperor of Manchuria and northern China to the Ghaznavid

am!r in Afghanistan were not only packaged into sorochoks but also into the typical

larger units used in contemporary Northern Europe.

With the discovery of the New World by Europeans, the 40 unit was defused to the

Americas. In the sixteenth century, Spanish colonists collected tribute from the former

Aztecs in the form of jaguar skins calculated by 40s during this and later periods.28

Today, in the northern mid-western state of Wisconsin, fur-farmers still pack their pelts

into boxes of 40 pelts each,29 a remnant of the activities of the great Hudson Bay

Company of Canada.

In sum, the sorochok/timber or 40 pelts was the most common unit for counting,

packaging, transporting, and selling/giving pelts throughout Eurasia from the Middle

26 “The Narrative of Brother Benedict the Pole,” The Mongol Mission: Narratives and Letters of the Franciscan Missionaries in Mongolia and China in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries, tr. A Nun of Stanbrook Abbey (New York, 1955), 80. 27 Marvaz!, Sharaf al-Zam!n !!hir Marvaz" on China, the Turks and India, tr. V. Minorsky (London, 1942), 20. Also see K.A. Wittfogel, F. Chia-Shêng, History of Chinese Society Liao (907-1125) [Transactions of the American Philological Society, New Series 36 (1946)] (Philadelphia, 1949), 317-318. 28 S.B. Schwartz, Victors and Vanquished: Spanish and Nahua Views of the Conquest of Mexico (Boston-New York, 2000), 222. 29 Personal communications from Wisconsin fur-farmers.

97

Ages well into the modern period. By the early modern period, this unit was also known

in the Americas. The roots of the sorochok/timber unit go back many centuries, probably

dating to the beginnings of the great medieval trans-continental fur trade discussed in the

previous chapter.

Until recently, the earliest reference to the word sorochok came from two

contemporary written sources, both from Novgorod – birch-bark !336 (mid-1110s to the

mid-1130s)30 and the “Charter of Prince Sviatoslav Ol’govich of 1136.”31 Both of these

documents are not only the earliest written texts for this word in Rus’, but are also the

earliest literary sources on the 40-unit in northern Europe. However, with the find of

birch-bark !910, dating to the turn of the twelfth century, in 1999 in Novgorod, mention

of the sorochok and the unit it represents has aged by some 30 to 40 years.32 In this way,

this newly discovered birch-bark supports the conclusion that the sorochok unit was first

widely used in Rus’ and was later defused into other parts of Europe during the Middle

Ages via the great Novgorodian fur trade.33

Archaeological evidence supports the very early use of the sorochok unit in Rus’ and

Novgorod in particular. During the 1998 excavations in Novgorod, archaeologists

discovered accounting sorochok/timber tally !1, stratigraphically dating to the second

half of the tenth century (but probably dating to the 950s-990s) [Fig. 2]. As noted in the

Introduction, accounting tallies, or small wooden stick or planks with notches, were very

common in medieval Europe and were widely used for counting and record-keeping. The

sorochok/timber accounting tallies from Novgorod usually contain 40 notches, each 10 of

30 NGB: 1958-1961, 24-26; Zalizniak, DD, 257. 31 Laws of Rus’, 57-58. 32 Ianin, Zalizniak, “Berestianye gramoty iz novgorodskikh raskopok 1999 g.,” 9-10. 33 Th.S. Noonan, R.K. Kovalev, “The Furry Forties: Packaging Pelts in Medieval Northern Europe” [Jaroslav Pelenski Festschrift] (in the press).

98

which are subdivided by elongated notches or an extra notch near the main row into 4

units, thereby making 4 units of 10s or one sorochok/timber.34

FIGURE 2 ACCOUNTING SOROCHOK/TIMBER TALLY !1 FROM NOVGOROD35

Accounting sorochok/timber tally !1 is the exception to the rest of such tallies found

in Novgorod, since it contains two sets of 40 notches. Apparently, it was used to count

out two 40s at the same time. But what makes this tally even more special and of

particular interest is that it carries a princely insignia belonging to Prince Iaropolk

Sviatoslavich who ruled Novgorod through his representative between 977-980. This

permits the tally to be dated to his reign.36 As will be seen below, somewhat similar

sorochok/timber accounting tallies have also been discovered in other parts of northern

34 R.K. Kovalev, “Novgorodskie dereviannye birki: obshchie nabliudeniia,” RA 1 (2002), 42-43. 35 R.K. Kovalev, “Birki-sorochki: upakovka mekhovykh shkurok v Srednevekovom Novgorode,” NIS 9 (St. Petersburg, in the press). 36 Kovalev, “Birki-sorochki.”

99

Europe (Sweden and Norway), but none date to earlier than ca. 1200.37 Additionally,

there are very good reasons to believe that this tally was used for counting out pelts,

brought as tribute to Novgorod for the prince, into sorochoks.38 In sum, both the written

and archaeological evidence show that the earliest use of the sorochok/timber unit in

northern Europe can be traced to northwestern Rus’ and specifically to Novgorod. The

questions that remain to be answered are where did the sorochok/timber unit originate,

what kind of a unit it was, and how and when it was defused outside of Novgorod?

THE ORIGINS OF THE SOROCHOK/TIMBER UNIT In Old Rus’, the words for units of ten are formed by adding a single-digit numerical

prefix – in cardinals as well as ordinals – to the word desiat’ (-dtsat’) or ten, i.e., 20 =

dvadtsat’ or “two-tens,” 30 = tritsat’ or “three-tens,” 50 = piat’desiat or five-tens,” etc.

The word sorochok or sorok, meaning 40, is thus unique in Rus’ numerical terminology.

One would expect that the word for 40 would be some compound of chetyre-desiat’ or

“four-tens,” as it is in the other, non-Eastern primary Slavic languages: Polish –

czterdziesci; Czech – !ty"icet; Slovak – #tyridas$; Bulgarian – chetirideset; Serbo-

Croatian – !etrdeset, and Slovenian – #tirideset. For this reason, scholars usually assume

a non-Rus’/foreign etymology or origin for the word sorochok/sorok. The most popular

foreign candidates have been Scandinavia and Byzantium. The Scandinavian theory has

recently been argued by B. Strumi!ski who claims that the Old Rus’ sorok’ derived from

the Old Norse *sarkR which he asserts was a “measure of 200 animal skins or 5

37 A. Grandell, “Helgeandsholmens karvstocksfynd,” Fornvännen 79 (1984), 242-246; idem., “Finds from Bryggen Indicating Business Transactions,” The Bryggen Papers, Supplementary Series 2 (Oslo, 1989), 67, Fig. 2; H. Åkerlund, Fartygsfynden i den Forna Hamnen i Kalmar (Uppsala, 1951), Pl. 13, d. Fynd IV. 38 Kovalev, “Birki-sorochki.”

100

timbers.”39 However, Strumi!ski does not cite any Old Norse written source of the tenth-

twelfth centuries in which this term was used. Furthermore, as A.V. Nazarenko has

recently noted, it is not clear why a Scandinavian unit of 200 mysteriously shrank to only

40 in northern Russia.40 Strumi!ski had argued that the Norse *sarkR (200 pelts or 5

times 40 pelts) became the Rus’ sorok (a timber of 40 skins) due to “a semantic shift,” an

explanation that is not at all convincing.41 In addition, Strumi!ski provides no evidence

that the 40-unit originated in Scandinavia. In any case, it is well known that the direct

Norse (and Germanic, in general) equivalent to the sorochok is timber/tymber, which is

clearly not a linguistic borrowing that gave rise to the word sorochok. Consequently, it

becomes necessary to look elsewhere for the origins of the sorochok.

The Byzantine hypothesis has been recently argued by Nazarenko who maintains that

the unique Old Rus’ word for 40 was borrowed from Middle Greek. According to

Nazarenko, the Rus’ merchant exchanging his pelts in a Byzantine market would give

four tens of kunas or marten pelts for a litra of silver. During this transaction, the Rus’

merchant probably heard the Greek words "#$%&'()# (= “forty”) or "#$#&'"*)# (= “a

fortieth (part)”) used frequently. Thus, Nazarenko argues that the unit of 40 used in the

Rus’ fur trade derives from Byzantium and, since the Byzantine litra equaled 327.6 g and

each marten pelt was presumably valued at ca. 8 g of silver, one could buy or sell 40

marten pelts for one litra.42 He concludes: “As the result of active trade ties with

Byzantium, this unit of 40s became the standard for counting furs in Rus’ already from 39 B. Strumi!ski, Linguistic Interrelations in Early Rus’: Northmen, Finns, and East Slavs (Ninth to Eleventh Centuries) (Edmonton-Toronto, 1996), 238-239. Also see the review of this work by Th.S. Noonan, R.K. Kovalev, “B. Strumi!ski, Linguistic Interrelations in Early Rus’: Northmen, Finns, and East Slavs (Ninth to Eleventh Centuries),” Journal of Ukrainian Studies 23:1 (1998), 143-145. 40 A.V. Nazarenko, “Proiskhozhdenie drevnerusskogo denezhno-vesovogo scheta,” DGVE: 1994 (Moscow, 1996), 72. 41 Strumi!ski, Linguistic Interrelations, 239. 42 Nazarenko, “Proiskhozhdenie drevnerusskogo denezhno-vesovogo scheta,” 72, 77.

101

the ninth century which led to the borrowing from the Greek language of the very term

sorok, which is found among the Slavic languages only in Old Rus’.”43

While Nazarenko’s argument concerning the etymology of the sorochok seems very

compelling, he does not convincingly explain why one marten pelt would be worth ca. 8

g of silver per skin or why 40 such pelts would necessarily cost the equivalent of one litra

of silver in Byzantium. Relying almost exclusively on the manipulation of various

monetary-weight systems found throughout medieval western Eurasia, Nazarenko does

not advance a single written source from any period or place in the world that would

support his conclusion.

In addition, one must ask, why would marten pelts be used as the basis for the

establishment of a system of counting and packaging all sorts of pelts into 40s, even if

martens were valued at 8 g of silver and 40 of them could be purchased with a litra of

silver? Rus’ merchants traded in all sorts of pelts, not just martens and there is no reason

to believe that they brought only martens to Byzantium. Prices for different types of pelts

would have greatly differed, since some were considered more valuable than others

because of their beauty or durability while other pelts were very rare. Squirrel pelts, for

example, were always much cheaper than beaver or sable furs and when the Rus’ brought

them to Byzantium they would have established their prices accordingly. Let it be

assumed for a moment that a marten pelt did cost 8 g of silver, a squirrel pelt cost 2 g,

and a beaver 20 g in Constantinople at some time in the ninth-tenth centuries. Following

Nazarenko’s logic, one could purchase 40 martens, 160 squirrels, and 16 beavers with a

litra or 327.6 g of silver. Why then did 40 become the standard unit for packaging all

pelts and not 160 or 16? 43 Nazarenko, “Proiskhozhdenie drevnerusskogo denezhno-vesovogo scheta,” 77.

102

One must also ask if there was any logic in establishing a set price for 40 marten pelts

based on the litra? Considering that prices for all furs would have fluctuated depending

not only on their quality but also their availability on the Byzantine market at any given

time, why would the Rus’ sellers or the Byzantines buyers establish a set price on pelts?

Furthermore, why would the Byzantine or the Rus’ merchants rely exclusively on the

litra for negotiating their transactions, and specifically those involving marten pelts?

Why not simply use smaller units of denominations, like silver or gold coins, which

would have been much easier to utilize in light of all the price fluctuations for furs?

Indeed, there is no reason to believe that they did not, just as there is no reason to believe

that they used the litra for selling any of their pelts. Nazarenko does not consider any of

these rather obvious economic issues and simply provides a highly theoretical argument

based on what, for a lack of a better term, can be called numerology. In view of all of the

above, there seem to be a number of fundamental problems with using metrology to

interpret the origins of the sorochok and Nazarenko’s thesis concerning the relationship

between the hypothetical price of 40 marten pelts and the Byzantine litra is not at all

convincing.

In searching for the origins of the 40-unit, it is important to keep in mind that the Rus’

fur trade with the Islamic world began at about the same time as it did with Byzantium,

i.e., in ca. 800. Consequently, the use of the sorochok may have originated in the Rus’-

Islamic trade of the ninth century. The Rus’ merchants who came to Byzantium may have

already adopted the practice of bundling furs in units of 40 based on their experience in

dealing with Islamic merchants. For this reason, the insightful commentary to the

“Charter of Prince Sviatoslav Ol’govich of 1136” by V.L. Ianin is of particular interest.

103

He pointed out that 100 “new” (kuna) grivnas were to be collected from the 27 districts

mentioned in the Charter. Assuming that these 100 “new” grivnas equaled 25 grivnas of

silver and that the average silver grivna weighed 196 g, Ianin calculated that the 45

sorochoks of tribute from this region equaled 4912 g of silver. In other words, each

sorochok weighed 109.15 g of silver (4912 divided by 45). Dividing 109.15 g by 40,

Ianin got the figure of 2.73 g, which he says “coincides remarkably with the kuna-dirham

of the Russian monetary system of the ninth-tenth centuries.”44 Thus, Ianin concludes that

the sorochok as a unit of account was an archaisms reflecting the earlier monetary

practice of Novgorod. In short, Ianin argues that during the heyday of the Rus’ trade with

the Islamic world, i.e., ninth-tenth centuries, each pelt in the Novgorod land was worth

one dirham.

While Ianin’s approach has a certain appeal, it also presents several problems. It is not

clear, for example, why the Islamic merchants, who bought furs from the Rus’ in the

ninth century, might insist on bundles of 40 furs which had a value of ca. 109 g.

Presumably, these Islamic merchants would employ for their calculations the standard

weight used in the !Abb"sid Caliphate at the time which was the Baghd"d ra!l of 409.5 g.

According to Ianin’s calculations, four sorochoks would have a value of 436 g of silver

which does not fit into the ra!l system. Alternatively, 130 dirhams of account (al-kayl),

weighing 3.12 g - 3.15 g each, equaled 1 ra!l.45 Unfortunately, 130 dirhams would be the

44 See V.L. Ianin’s commentary to the Charter of 1136/37 in Rossiiskoe zakonodatel’stvo: X-XX vekov 1 (Moscow, 1984), 229. For a further critique of Ianin’s argument, see Nazarenko, “Proiskhozhdenie drevnerusskogo denezhno-vesovogo scheta,” 64ff. 45 O. Pritsak, The Origins of the Rus’ Weights and Monetary Systems (Cambridge, Mass. 1998), 35.

104

equivalent of 3 sorochoks and 10 furs using Ianin’s approach. Thus, Ianin does not

explain how the sorochok of ca. 109 g of silver would fit into the Islamic weight system.

In order to explore the potential Islamic origin of the sorochok, it becomes necessary

to turn to several Islamic sources that contain information on the fur trade of Eastern

Europe with the Islamic world in the ninth-tenth centuries. As noted in the previous

chapter, Ibn Khur!!dbeh described how the Rus’/R"s merchants brought beaver and fox

fur to Khazaria and Baghd!d. Based on numismatic evidence, his account can be dated to

the early years of the ninth century. Thus, different types of fur were being purchased by

Islamic merchants from the Rus’ at the very start of the Rus’ fur trade. Any unit for

bundling these furs would have to take into account the price differential among various

furs. There is no reason to believe that beaver had the same value as fox. While a

sorochok of beaver may have been valued at ca. 109g of silver, for example, a sorochok

of fox did not necessarily have the same worth. Furthermore, a sorochok of squirrel, the

most common pelt cost less than a sorochok of either beaver or fox. Consequently, the

sorochok was most likely a unit of measure rather than of weight.

Writing in the early tenth century, Ibn R"sta provides an interesting account of the

Rus’ fur trade along the middle Volga, information that is more or less repeated by

Gard#z# in the mid-eleventh century. In Ibn R"sta’s version, the generic word “pelt” is

apparently used and the price was given as two and a half dirhams.46 However, in

Gard#z#, “ermine pelts” seem to be specified and the price is gives as two dirhams.47

46 Translated in Pritsak, The Origins of the Rus’ Weights and Monetary Systems, 24. 47 Gard#z# in A.P. Martinez, “Gard#z#’s Two Chapters on the Turks,” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 2 (1982), 158-159.

105

These differences between Ibn R!sta and Gard"z" highlight several essential points. The

price of fur, as measured in dirhams, changed during the course of the tenth century. This

change has been explained by the appearance of a new, heavier dirham after the time of

Ibn R!sta.48 In other words, the price of a pelt given in dirhams had to be constantly

adjusted to the weight and purity of the dirham as well as the quality and type of fur. This

may explain why Gard"z" seemingly specified “ermine” when giving the price paid for

Rus’ fur in Volga Bulgh#ria. The price of fur would also fluctuate depending upon the

availability and quality of different pelts in any given year. In sum, any fixed ratio

between dirhams and pelts was short-lived, just as it would have been for any such

hypothetical ratio between marten pelts and the Byzantine litra. The use of these ratios

would have necessitated constant changes in the number of pelts that could be purchased

for a given price. One hundred and nine grams of silver might purchase a sorochok of

squirrel one year but only ten beaver the next.

Finally, al-Muqaddas" (al-Maqdis"), who wrote in the late tenth century, states that

sable, miniver or squirrel, ermine, weasel, fox, marten, and beaver fur were all exported

from Volga Bulgh#ria to the Islamic world via Khw#rizm in Central Asia.49 The

availability of many of the same pelts in Central Asia mentioned by al-Muqaddas" was

already mentioned by J#$iz (d. 870) about a century earlier who noted that “From the

48 Pritsak, The Origins of the Rus’ Weights and Monetary Systems, 34. 49 W. Barthold, Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion (London, 1958), 235 and P.B. Golden, Khazar Studies: An historico-philological inquire into the origins of the Khazars I (Budapest, 1980), 108.

106

lands of Khw!razm (come) … ermine, marten, miniver, and fox furs…”50 Hence, these

two reports make it quite clear that a great variety of furs were sent from European

Russia to the Islamic world and, as discussed in the previous chapter, the Rus’ supplied

the Volga Bulgh!rs with a sizable part of their furs. All these different types of fur were

presumably packaged in sorochoks and each sorochok differed in value depending on the

type and quality of fur. Given this circumstance, it would make no sense to set a generic

ratio between dirhams and pelts.

The above discussion demonstrates that any system based on a set price for a pelt was

inherently unstable. Consequently, there are serious doubts about the continued efforts to

explain the origins of the sorochok based upon the manipulation of monetary and weight

standards. Given all the fluctuation in the fur trade, the changing weight, quality, and the

availability of dirhams in Islamic countries for export, no monetary-weight standard

would have lasted long enough to establish “40” as the universal unit in the fur trade for

any one variety of pelts. All such standards would have been transitory. The absence of a

fixed monetary-weight standard in silver is confirmed by the fact that the nukra, or the

medieval Islamic ingot of silver, had no precise weight standard, but was apparently

fashioned to equal whatever weight was needed for a given market or a given transaction.

The important thing was that the silver in the nukra had to be of commercial quality, i.e.,

as near to 100% as possible.51

In light of the above, it will be suggested that a more fruitful approach to the study of

the origins of the sorochok is to be found by seeking a standard of measure or count from 50 J!"iz in R.S. Lopez, I.W. Raymond, Medieval Trade in the Mediterranean World: Illustrative Documents, Translations With Introductions and Notes (New York, reprint, 1990), document 4, p. 28. 51 I should like to thank Dr. Michael Bates of the American Numismatic Society for this information on the nukra.

107

somewhere in western Eurasia that is based on the unit of 40. In other words, it is likely

that the sorochok became the standard unit for counting furs of all kind and that, once the

sorochoks had been counted, the buyer and seller agreed upon a mutually satisfactory

price that could be denominated in Islamic, Byzantine, or West European silver coins,

ingots, or some other acceptable commodity. Such a suggestion is supported by the text

of birch-bark !420 (1230s-1260s) from Novgorod which states:

From Panko to Zakharii and to Ogafon. I sold 40 beavers (pelts) to Miliata for 10 grivnas of silver (= ca. 2 kg of silver). When [you, Ogafon] receive the silver, then hand over the beavers and give the silver to Zakharii.52

If the sorochok of beavers had a set price on it in Novgorod, there would not have been

reason for Panko to inform his commercial partners of the price for which he sold them.

Thus, just as cigarettes today are sold in packs of 20 cigarettes each and each carton is

sold having 10 packs, so furs of all kinds were sold by the sorochok. The price varied

from seller to seller, but there were always 40 pelts in a bundle of furs, just as there are

20 cigarettes in each pack and 10 packs in each carton.

The use of the sorochok unit may, in fact, have developed as part of the earliest

significant fur trade in eastern Europe and/or adjacent regions. As was discussed in the

previous chapter, beginning with the early Middle Ages, the wearing of fur became well

established in the Byzantine and Islamic worlds and furs were in great demand for

centuries to come. As a result of this fashion, furs gravitated to the Byzantine and Islamic

markets stretching from Constantinople to Central Asia during the entire course of the

Middle Ages. Much of this fur came from the Russian north and exported by Rus’

merchants. 52 Zalizniak, DD, 391-392; NGB: 1962-1976, 28. The English translation is mine.

108

With that said, it is necessary to now turn to the earliest written account that implicitly

speaks of the use of the 40-unit system in counting pelts. Writing in the middle of the

tenth century, Constantine Porphyrogenitus described the unsuccessful Bulgarian

invasion of Serbia ca. 860. Constantine noted that “For this favor [the Bulgarian khan]

Michael Boris gave them [the Serbs] handsome presents, and they in return gave him, as

presents in the way of friendship, two slaves, two falcons, two dogs and eighty furs...”53

Since the gifts were all presented in pairs, it becomes quite evident that the “eighty furs”

were a pair of 40s or 2 sorochoks.

If Constantine’s account is to be taken at face value, then the sorochok as a unit to

count fur existed in southeastern Europe as early as the middle of the ninth century. It

was noted in Chapter I that the Rus’ were not only actively raiding the Byzantine

territories in the Black Sea as early as the 790s-830s, while at other times – such as in

838/39 – traveling to Constantinople as diplomats, but were also trading in the region of

Byzantine-held Crimea already by the early years of the ninth century. Thus, it is quite

possible that the Rus’ – either as traders or as ambassadors – could have brought not only

furs to the Black Sea-Balkan region during the first half of the ninth century, but also the

sorochok unit. At the same time, the possibility that the sorochok unit had already existed

in southeastern Europe prior to the appearance of the Rus’ fur traders in the Black Sea

area cannot be excluded. In other words, it cannot be ruled out that the Rus’ fur

merchants had no prior knowledge of the sorochok unit and had to adopt it once they

began to trade with Byzantium sometime in the late eighth/early ninth centuries.

Regrettably, the sources presently available do not permit to speculate beyond this point.

53 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio I, tr. R.J.H. Jenkins, 2nd ed. (Washington D.C. 1967), ch. 32, p. 155.

109

At the same time, if Constantine’s account is not historically accurate and reflects the

realities in the fur trade of the time he wrote his work in the mid-tenth century, there is

much stronger evidence pointing to the Rus’ origins of the 40-unit for counting and

packaging pelts. As noted above, it is evident that the sorochok unit was used in the

Novgorodian lands already by 977-980, as is attested to by the find of sorochok

accounting tally !1. Most importantly, this unit was utilized at the highest levels of the

Rus’ elite, since it shows that the early Rus’ princes in Novgorod counted their pelts –

obtained as tribute from the lands of Novgorod – on special sorochok tallies. Clearly, the

sorochok was a set standard in lands of Novgorod in the last quarter of the tenth century

and, therefore, it must have existed for some time prior to then. Thus, there is very good

reason to believe that fur merchants from the Novgorodian lands exported their pelts in

40s by the time Constantine wrote his work, if not much earlier.

Lastly, it is necessary to consider the question of the possible origins of the actual

word sorochok. In a study written about four years ago, Th.S. Noonan and I argued that

the word sorochok probably had its originated in an ecclesiastical milieu rather than in an

economic one as was suggested by Nazarenko. This argument was based on great many

references to the forty days of Lent, the candles lit on each of the forty days of Lent, the

Church of the Forty Martyrs, forty days of penance, forty as a monetary unit in the fines

for civil and ecclesiastical offenses, and other mentions of forty in connection to the

church and civic life in the Rus’ sources. In other words, “forty” was a widespread, even

symbolic, number employed for a variety of purposes in both religious and secular life.

Noteworthy is the fact that many of the early Rus’ sources which mention “forty” are

connected with beliefs and/or institutions that came to Rus’ from Byzantium, e.g.,

110

Orthodoxy and a written law. Therefore, it was concluded that it is probable that the Old

Rus’ word sorok/sorochok did, in fact, come from Byzantium and that it had its origins in

the Middle Greek words “!"#$%&'("” or “!"#"%&!)("” as argued by Nazarenko, but in

a religious and legal context rather than in a commercial one.54

However, after the discovery of sorochok accounting tally *1 in Novgorod in 1998

and having given this topic more consideration, it seems that our position has to be

revised. While it is still very likely that the term sorochok derived from the

Byzantine/Middle Greek words !"#$%&'(" or !"#"%&!)(", it is unlikely that it was

borrowed via the religious-legal ties Rus’ had with Byzantium. After all, if Byzantium

was the progenitor of this term in the Old Rus’ lexicon and it was propagated into Rus’

by way of Byzantine religious and judicial texts and institutions, it leaves open the

question why such a borrowing was not made into the languages of the other Slavic

nations which fell under the sway of the Byzantine Orthodox world or, as D. Obolensky

called it, the “Byzantine Commonwealth.”55 As noted above, Bulgarian and Serbo-

Croatian retained the old Slavic form for 40, i.e., chetirideset/!etrdeset, as did the West

Slavic languages. However, unlike the Western Slavs, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Rus’ were

converted to Byzantine Orthodoxy and were a part of the so-called “Byzantine

Commonwealth” from the ninth-tenth centuries. Therefore, it becomes difficult to explain

why the Rus’ would have borrowed the term sorok/sorochok from the Byzantines in

54 Noonan, Kovalev, “The Furry Forties.” For the sources, see NPL, 44, 52, 58, 65, 238, 250, 259, 270, 355, 364, 389; “1130-1156 g. Voprosy Kirika, Savvy i Ilii, s" otvetami Nifonta, episkopa novgorodskogo, i drugikh" ierarkhicheskikh" lits",” Russkaia istoricheskaia biblioteka 6: Pamiatniki drevnerusskogo kanonicheskogo prava, ed. V.N. Beneshevich, pt. 1, 2nd ed. (St. Petersburg, 1908), 22-62; The Ruskaia Pravda in Laws of Rus’, 15, arts. 1 and 5; “Statute of Prince Iaroslav” in ibid., 47, arts. 15 and 29. 55 D. Obolensky, Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Europe, 500-1453 (London, 1974), see especially pp. 266-307.

111

connection to their ecclesiastical-legal practices while the other Slavic peoples who had

direct contact with the Byzantine world did not.

Furthermore, it must be noted that most of the Byzantine church and legal texts that

were introduced into Rus’ with its conversion to Orthodox Christianity in 988/89 were

brought there already translated from Greek into Old Church Slavonic, mostly from

Bulgaria.56 Therefore, the appearance of the words sorok/sorochok in early Rus’

ecclesiastical and legal texts show that the term was already in use in Rus’ prior to

conversion and, thus, it must have had its origins in pre-Christian Rus’, i.e., before

988/89.

In view of the above, it becomes necessary to return to Nazarenko’s argument that

suggested that the word sorochok was connected to the early Rus’-Byzantine commercial

relations. While Nazarenko’s claim that the sorochok had its origins in a metrological

relationship between the Byzantine litra and the price for marten pelts cannot be accepted

for the many reasons discussed above, there may be a much simpler and more logical

solution to this question. Supposing that the Rus’ brought to the Byzantine markets pelts

all packed in 40s, and there are reasons to believe that they did, Greek merchants would

naturally begin to refer to them simply as 40s or “!"#$%&'("” in Middle Greek (just as

one would refer to a “dozen” eggs in a shop today). The Rus’, on hearing this word on an

everyday bases, also began to refer to the 40-units of pelts as sorok/sorochoks or the

Slavocized, modified version of !"#$%&'(". With time, during the course of the tenth

(perhaps as early as the ninth) century, by way of the Rus’-Byzantine commercial contact

and the fur trade, in particular, the word sorok/sorochok was introduced into Rus’ were it

spread among the Eastern Slavic-speaking peoples. In fact, over the later centuries, the 56 Obolensky, Byzantine Commonwealth, 409ff and 418, 421ff.

112

popularity in the use of this word in connection with the extensive Russian fur trade even

influenced the way Muscovites came to count all bulk items. The mid-sixteenth-century

German traveler to Muscovy, Sigmund von Herberstein, observed the following about

40s in Russia: “And their method of counting is such that they add and divide all items by

forties and nineties, just as we by hundreds. When counting, they repeat and multiply like

this: twice forty, thrice forty, four times forty; sorogk – this is “forty” in their

language.”57

THE DIFFUSION OF THE SOROCHOK/TIMBER

UNIT INTO THE BALTIC

The growing export of Novgorodian fur to the Baltic during the eleventh and twelfth

centuries inevitably meant that Novgorodian practices in the fur trade, such as the use of

the sorochok unit, began to spread to the West. Perhaps the best example for the diffusion

of Rus’ practices in the fur trade is found in the Icelandic Kn!tlinga saga which dates

from the middle of the thirteenth century but describes earlier events.58 Here, the author

records that the merchant Ví!gautr was sent by King Knut of Denmark on a diplomatic

mission to Prince Harold I/Mstislav Vladimirovich (1113-1117) who ruled in

Novgorod.59 Before leaving Denmark, Ví!gautr promised the king:

... !ér skulu! !iggja af mér XL serkja grárra skinna, en V timbr eru í serk, en XL skinna í timbr.60

… You shall receive from me 40 serks (i.e., sacks) of gray skins (i.e., squirrel pelts), 5 per timber in each serk and 40 skins in each timber.

57 Sigizmund Gerbershtein, Zapiski o Moskovii, tr. A.I. Maleina and A.V. Nazarenko, ed. V.L. Ianin (Moscow, 1988), 125. 58 B. Gu!nason, “Kn!tlinga saga,” Dictionary of the Middle Ages 7 (New York, 1986), 281. 59 NPL, 20. Also see G. Vernadsky, Kievan Russia (New Haven-London, 1948), 96-97. 60 Kn!tlinga saga, 204. The English translation is mine.

113

In other words, Ví!gautr stated that he was bringing back from Novgorod 8,000 grey

pelts in 40 serks or sacks each one of which contained 5 sorochoks or timbers equaling

200 pelts. It is instructive to note in this context that birch-bark !225 from Novgorod,

dating to the 1160s-1190s, which mentions squirrel pelts and suggests that they were

carried in sacks: “From Torchin to Giurgii. Mikhal [has] sorted half of the squirrel pelts !

only (?) the good ones – one sack (or: all fur).”61

There is no reason to doubt that the sack referred to in this bark contained one or more

sorochoks. Furthermore, the sack in this birch-bark is probably the “serk” mentioned in

the Kn!tlinga saga. The use of the sack (Old Russ. mekh; Low German secke or

schinsecken) for packaging pelts is noted on a number of occasions in later medieval

Russian and Hanseatic texts.62 In any event, the Kn!tlinga saga demonstrates that already

in the early twelfth century, Scandinavian merchants were familiar with the Novgorodian

practice of bundling furs in units of 40. The sorochok had thus become a standard unit in

the fur trade for both Novgorodian merchants who ventured into the Baltic and Baltic

merchants who came to Novgorod.63 As the Kn!tlinga saga so vividly illustrates, Baltic

Sea merchants adopted the sorochok from the Novgorodians who supplied the furs.

61 Zalizniak, DD, 315-316. The English translation is mine. Although the reading of «sack» in this text is not absolutely certain (since the word mekh can also be read as “fur”), the fact that all of the birch-barks found to date in Novgorod which contain the word mekh have the meaning of “sack,” suggests that “sack,” not “fur,” was mentioned in the present birch-bark. Thus, for example, in birch-barks !500 (1320s-1330s) we find a “bag of kunas (marten);” in !601 (mid-1190s to early 1210s) we find a “sack” for tribute/furs (?); in !718 (thirteenth century), we find “two sacks” for tribute/furs? Also see !354 (1340s-1370s). All the birch-bark texts can be found in Zalizniak, DD, 352, 383-384, 448-449; 455; V.F. Andreev, “Novgorodskie berestianye gramoty ! 601 i 609,” Proshloe Novgoroda i Novgorodskoi zemli (Novgorod, 1995), 32-35. 62 See Die Nowgoroder Schra, IV, article 9; GVNP, art. 42, pp. 75-76. 63 In the Baltic, however, the word timber was used instead of sorochok.

114

By the middle of the twelfth century, the sorochok/timber unit had spread to the North

Sea. A Scottish toll book (Assisa de Tolloneis) of 1150 mentions the use of the timber

unit in reference to fur (beaver, sable, squirrels, marten, otter, ferret, etc.):

De tymbria wlpium cirogrillorum Martinorum Murelegorum Sabinorum Beueriorum uel similium " De vnaquaque timbria ad exitum . iiij " ! " De timbria schorellorum " ij " ! " De mille de Gris " uel de scorello preparatis et co"eratis " viij " ! " De qualibet pelle de lutir " ob "

Of a tymmyr of skynnis of toddis quhytredys mertrikis cattis beueris sable firrettis or swylk vthyr of ilk tymmyr at #e outpassing iiij ! " Of #e tymmyr of skurel ij ! " Of ane hundreth gray gryse and skurel dycht and letheryt viij ! " Of ilk otyr skyn a halfpenny. 64

The sorochok/timber also appears in two thirteenth/fourteenth-century sources from the

British Isles. The first is an Anglo-French Ordinance (De tute manere de peys et de

measures ki vm vend), dating to ca. 1253, which states: “La timber de peus de cunnis et

de gris, ou ver, est de xl peus.”65 Another Anglo-French Ordinance of the thirteenth-

fourteenth centuries (Incipit compositio de ponderibus et mensuris) echoes the former

passage: “Tymbra vero de pellibus cuniculorum et grisonum constat ex quadraginta

pellibus.”66 These sources leave no doubt that the Rus’ sorochok had spread to the British

Isles by the twelfth century where it had apparently become the standard unit in counting

furs. The latter two ordinances are of particular interest because they emphasize that the

“correct” (vero) sorochok/timber consisted on 40 pelts. Apparently, not all the English

were accustomed to the 40-unit in counting fur. In Rus’, where the sorochok had long

been in use, no such decrees were necessary.

64 “Assisa Regis David Regis Scottorum,” 667. 65 “«The White Book» of Peterborough Abbey,” 12. 66 “Select Tracts and Table Books,” 10.

115

Finally, in the Bergen law code of 1282 (Om Handel og Taxter i Bergen) contains the

following passage concerning the sorochok/timber unit:

Skinnarar er !eir gera timbr marskinna, taka fyrir tua aura, tuer ærtughar fyrir timbr huitra skinna, æyri fyrir timbr graaskinna ...67

Furriers, when they make a timber of marten pelts, take two öre (in payment), two örtugar for (a) timber of white pelts, (one) öre for (a) timber of gray pelts ...

Thus, it is clear that in Bergen it was the skinners who made the sorochoks/timbers. For

making a timber of marten pelts, the skinner received 2 öre (ca. 50 gm of silver); for a

timber of “white pelts,” 2 örtugar (ca. 17 gm silver); and, for a timber of “gray pelts,” 1

öre of (ca. 24 gm of silver).68 This information suggests that merchants brought furs to

Bergen – the main international commercial center of Norway during this period – and

sold them to skinners who made them into timbers for the state. The skinners were then

compensated by the Royal treasury at a fixed rate for buying the pelts and bundling them

into timbers. In this way, the Norwegian government regulated the prices of furs. Thus,

the timber unit appears to have become the legal unit of calculation in the Norwegian fur

trade by the end of the thirteenth century.

The diffusion of the sorochok/timber unit into the Baltic is also confirmed by

archaeological evidence. Excavations of the medieval harbor of Bryggen in Bergen in

Norway uncovered two sorochok/timber accounting tallies, both dating to ca. 1200. On

what remains of the first tally are 27 notches along one side, with every fourth notch cut

deep into the interior, thus dividing up the tally into 7 units of 4s [Fig. 3].

67 Norges gamle Love III, 14. The English translation is mine. 68 Mark (1 = ca. 208 g) = 8 öre (1 = ca. 26 g) = 24 örtugar (1 = ca. 8.6 g). The question of Viking-age weights is a complex one which cannot be addressed in this study. For a relatively recent discussion of the Viking-period weights, see S.E. Kruse, “Ingots and weight units in Viking Age silver hoards,” World Archaeology 20:2 (Hoards and Hoarding) (1988), 285-301.

116

FIGURE 3 ACCOUNTING SOROCHOK/TIMBER TALLY !1 FROM BERGEN69

A. Grandell believes that each of the smaller notches cut on the tally represents a count

bundle of 10 pelts, known in Old Norse as dekur/dikur, meaning a bundle of ten skins

which, in turn, were packaged into 4s, thus making up a timber. In other words, each of

the sub-divisions made in units of 4 on the tally made up a sorochok/timber unit.70 In this

way, at least seven 40s were counted out on this tally.

FIGURE 4 ACCOUNTING SOROCHOK/TIMBER TALLY !2 FROM BERGEN71

The second sorochok/timber tally contains 28 notches total, each 4 of which were cut

several centimeters away from each other [Fig. 4]. Additional, large notches (three of

which are still visible) were cut along the plain next to the main row of the 28 notches.

69 Bryggen Museum !17428 – Grandell, “Finds from Bryggen Indicating Business Transactions,” Fig. 2, p. 67. 70 Grandell, “Finds from Bryggen Indicating Business Transactions,” 67. 71 This tally has not yet been published. It is archived at the Bryggen Museum (!11054), Bergen. I intend to publish this find fully in the near future.

117

With the exception of its very tip, this tally is almost fully preserved. Thus, it is very

similar to the tally described above, i.e., it contained 7 units of 4s and each one of the 4s

probably containing 4 packs of 10 pelts = 40 pelts. In this way, this tally was used for

counting up 7 sorochoks/timbers or 280 pelts.

Grandell notes another sorochok/timber tally that was found during the excavations of

Helgeandsholmen in Stockholm, dating to 1300-1350 [Fig. 5]. This tally contains 48

notches total, each 8 of which is separated by a longer notch made on the plain next to the

main row of notches.

FIGURE 5 ACCOUNTING SOROCHOK/TIMBER TALLY

FROM HELGEANDSHOLMENS, STOCKHOLM72

In this way, the tally contains 6 units of 8, i.e., the tally was used to count out 8 bundles

of five pelts each for a total of 40 furs per each of the 6 units.73 Thus, 6 sorochoks/timbers

were counted out on this tally or a total of 240 pelts.

72 Grandell, “Helgeandsholmens karvstocksfynd,” 243. 73 Grandell, “Helgeandsholmens karvstocksfynd,” 242-246.

118

Another sorochok/timber tally was discovered in Sweden, apparently dating to the

fifteenth century [Fig. 6].74 It was found inside the Kalmar IV shipwreck and, like the

FIGURE 6 ACCOUNTING SOROCHOK/TIMBER TALLY FROM KALMAR IV SHIPWRECK75

tally from Helgeandsholmen, it is also an 8-unit tally, containing at least 15 such units.

Thus, at a minimum, 15 sorochoks/timbers or 600 pelts were counted out on this tally.

The find of this tally on a ship suggests that the vessel was transporting pelts to and from

the Swedish port of Kalmar in the fifteenth century.76

In connection to the above, it is interesting to observe that not a single one of the

Scandinavian tallies were used to count out single or individual sorochoks/timbers, as

they were in Novgorod. All eight of the Novgorodian tallies, thus far found in the city,

were used to first count and assemble pelts into 10s and, thereafter, the 10s into 4s, hence

making one sorochok/timber unit.77 Almost identical sorochok accounting tallies (4 units

of 10s) have been found in other Rus’ towns: one in Rostov on the upper Volga78 and one

74 Åkerlund, Fartygsfynden i den Forna Hamnen i Kalmar, Pl. 13, d. Fynd IV. 75 Åkerlund, Fartygsfynden i den Forna Hamnen i Kalmar, Pl. 13, d. Fynd IV. 76 Based on the picture of this tally in Åkerlund, it appears that it was fully preserved. It must be noted, however, that the drawing of this tally seems to be a bit inaccurate, at least in respect to the exact number of notches made in each of the 17 units. Unfortunately, since this tally does not seem to have been preserved, it is now impossible to examine it and compare it with the picture. It is very clear, nonetheless, that the 8-unit was used throughout most of the tally. I should like to thank Mrs. Sofia Cinthio Fransson, Curator of the Statens historiska museum, Stockholm, for notifying me about the status of the Kalmar IV tally. 77 Kovalev, “Birki-sorochki.” 78 A.E. Leont’ev, “Rostov epokhi Iaroslava Mudrogo: po materialam arkheologicheskikh issledovanii,” Istoriia – arkheologiia: Traditsii i perespektivy (Moscow, 1998), pp. 139-140 & Fig. 7:1, p. 143.

119

in Staraia Russa79 (located within the Novgorodian lands), both dating to the first half of

the eleventh century. The Scandinavian tallies, on the other hand, were all used to count

out pelts that had already been assembled into bundles of 5s or 10s. The fact that the

Scandinavian tallies contained up to fifteen units of 40s on a single stick also indicates

that the tally-scorer was processing large numbers of pelts at the same time, all of which

were already assembled into larger units. In Novgorod, tally-scorers only counted up to

one sorochok/timber on a single tally and in only one case two were scored. All of this

suggests that in Novgorod pelts were first assembled into 10s and then the 10s into 4s,

hence 40s; thereafter, these 40s were imported into Scandinavia where they were broken

down into 5s or 10s, perhaps according to the size of the pelt or its quality, and then, once

again, reassembled into as many 40s as there were pelts available. After the 40s were

reassembled, they were counted out in these large units on the tallies such Scandinavian

tallies as discussed above. This conclusion brings to mind the 1282 Bergen law code (Om

Handel og Taxter i Bergen) which states that skinners in Bergen were obliged to

assemble sorochok/timber units by the government. In light of all of the above, it would

not be unreasonable to argue that the sorochok/timber tallies found in Bergen were used

by the Bergen skinners to reassemble pelts brought from Novgorod back into 40s.

Taken altogether, the available evidence suggests that the Rus’ sorochok unit, as well

as the practice of using a special tally-stick to count out 40 furs, had spread to

Scandinavia by ca. 1200 at the latest. Thereafter, it was known in this part of northern

Europe for counting out pelts by various systems into 40s, i.e., by 4 units of 10s or by 8

units of 5s well into the late Middle Ages. However one may have packaged up pelts, by

79 This tally [87-XV, 26-8-86] has not yet been published. It is archived at the Novgorod State Museum (NGM KP 36156-112). I intend to publish this find fully in the near future.

120

10s or 5s, they were invariably packed up into 40s in the end. Such borrowings would be

very natural and almost necessary, since the main exporter of pelts in the Baltic –

Novgorod – always packed these commodities into bundles of 40s. Baltic merchants

simply had to adjust to these Novgorodian accounting practices and borrow their

techniques of counting pelts in their business activities in the Baltic.

In sum, by the twelfth-thirteenth centuries, the sorochok/timber unit that had become

widely used in Rus’ since the last third of the tenth century, at the latest, spread to both

the Baltic and the North Seas where a series of law codes and ordinances established it as

the standard for packaging fur. Along with the sorochok/timber came the Rus’ practice of

using tally-sticks to count the pelts in 40s. In this way, there is strong evidence that shows

that the sorochok/timber unit, so widespread in the medieval northern European fur trade,

came from Novgorod and that its spread represents the expanding Novgorodian fur trade

with the Baltic during the eleventh and twelfth centuries.

Before leaving the subject of the sorochok and the Novgorodian fur trade with the

Baltic during the pre-Mongol era, it would be of use to explore the nature of the term

timber and consider how pelts were packaged for transport on their way out of Novgorod

into the Baltic. The medieval term timbr/tymmyr/tymmer is Germanic in origin and its

cognates (Dutch and Swedish timmer; German Zimmer; British and American English

timber) can be found in modern dictionaries of Germanic languages. To date, however,

the etymology of this word remains a mystery. Perhaps closest to the mark came the

Grimm brothers in their Deutsches Wörterbuch where they noted sources from the early

modern and modern periods, one of which states that a timber was “a legal quantity of

121

forty skins packed up within two boards of timber.”80 Thus, quite logically, it seems that

the term timber or 40 pelts is tied directly to the more common meaning of the word

timber, i.e., wood. There seems little reason to dispute this definition. However, the

association of the term timber with wooden boards in between which 40 furs were packed

is very dubious.

While furs were apparently packed in between wooden boards in the early modern

and modern era, there is no reason to believe that they were in earlier times. Aside from

the utter lack of any sources which would indicate that boards were used for packaging

furs during the Middle Ages, speaking as an economic historian, it is inconceivable that

merchants would transport furs in such heavy and bulky packaging, particularly during

the initial stages of the development of the fur trade in Eastern Europe in the ninth-tenth

centuries when and where the 40 became the standard unit for counting pelts. It is very

difficult to imagine, for instance, that the Rus’ merchants, who voyaged from northern

Russia to Baghd!d in the early ninth century, first traveling in their small ships and later

by camel, would bring their furs packaged in wooden boards. As will be discussed in

Chapter VI, during this period Rus’ ships would not have been much larger than Boat !1

(9.75 m ! 1.85 m ! 0.77 m81) found on the Norwegian Gokstad warship (dating to ca.

895).82 Hence, it is very unlikely that such small craft would carry boards with pelts in

this cross-continental trade.

80 “Zimmer,” J. Grimm, W. Grimm, Deutsches Wörterbuch 15 (Z-Zmasche) (Leipzig, 1956), 1308. 81 F. Johannessen, “Båtene fra Gokstadskibet,” Viking 4 (Oslo, 1940), 125-130. 82 P.E. Sorokin, “O nekotorykh osobennostiakh sudovogo dela v Drevnei Rusi,” Pamiatniki stariny: kontseptsii. Otkrytiia. Versii 2 (St. Perersburg-Pskov, 1997), 288; idem., Vodnye puti i sudostroenie na severp-zapode Rusi v srednevekov’e (St. Petersburg, 1997), 33, 82.

122

No less difficult and dangerous was it to travel via the Dnepr to Constantinople from

northern Russia in the tenth-thirteenth centuries. Aside from having to portage overland

their ships across the cataracts of the middle Dnepr, Rus’ merchants had constantly to be

aware of the eminent danger of raids from the steppe peoples, like the Pechenegs and

later the Polovtsy, who were always eager to help themselves to merchandise Rus’ traders

carried.83

As for Novgorod’s trade with the Baltic – the area where the term “timber” was

widely used and had its origins – it is, likewise, difficult to imagine that boards would

have been used in the eleventh through the thirteenth centuries for packaging pelts.

During this and later periods, while ships in the Baltic-North Seas region became larger

and could carry significant tonnage, the barrel remained the most common container for

transporting pelts (see below).84 Thus, it is very difficult to believe that Novgorodian and

Baltic merchants would package their furs between wooden boards and transport them

across great distance in this fashion. When the shipping lanes became more secure and

the tonnage of ships dramatically increased – and consequently the freight costs dropped

as it happened in the early modern period – fur merchants could conceivably afford the

luxury of packaging their furs in wooden boards. But, it is very unlikely that such a

practice existed during the Middle Ages.

Although there is no evidence for the use of boards for packaging furs in the Middle

Ages, there are sources that speak of other methods of packaging pelts. First, there are the

three miniatures in an Old Rus’ chronicle depicting what a sorochok/timber of pelts

83 See the account of how this was done in Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio I, ch. 9, pp. 57-63. For the Pechenegs and Polovtsy, see R.K. Kovalev, “Pechenegs” and “Polovtsy/Cumans/Kipchaks” in Encyclopedia of Russian History (New York, in the press). 84 For the tonnage of Baltic ships, see Chapter VI.

123

looked like in Rus’. They show four bundles that are suspended on a ring that is

constructed from branches (probably of willow, as it was done as late as the nineteenth

century by Russian hunters) on which the furs were strung forming round bundles [Fig.

7].85

FIGURE 7 TRIBUTE BEING OFFERED TO A RUS’ PRINCE86

Interestingly, the picture of the Muscovite embassy [Fig. 1] shows very similar

bundles. What is more, on that same picture one finds Muscovite diplomats holding not

only 40s in their hands, but apparently also 10s – the desiatok of Rus’ and dekur/dikur of

medieval Scandinavia. Presumably, one or several sorochoks were split up into 10s so

that every member of the ambassadorial delegation had something to present to their

hosts. Identical bundles of pelts as those depicted in Figure 1 can also be found on the

85 A.V. Artsikhovskii, Drevnerusskie miniatiury kak istoricheskii istochnik (Moscow, 1944), 25-26 & Fig. 3. 86 From the Königsberg/Radzivil Chronicle – Artsikhovskii, Drevnerusskie miniatiury kak istoricheskii istochnik, Fig. 3.

124

wooden carving on the panel of a pew (dated to the second half of the fourteenth century)

of Novgorodian merchants at the Church of St. Nicholas in Stralsund, northern Germany

[Fig. 8].

FIGURE 8 PANEL OF A PEW OF NOVGORODIAN TRADERS AT THE CHURCH OF ST. NICHOLAS IN

STRALSUND, NORTHERN GERMANY (SECOND HALF OF THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY) 87

Thus, in addition to seeing that the sorochok/timber unit was packaged just as the

Novgorodian sorochok/timber accounting tallies enumerate them (i.e., 4 units of 10s), it

is also clear that they were packaged into bundles and suspended on a wooden ring, not

packaged in between boards.

In connection to the above, it would be curious to note that similar, if not identical,

wooden rings were known in early modern central Europe. Thus, one can find such rings 87 J. Schildhauer, The Hansa. History and Culture, tr. K. Vanovitch (Leipzig, 1988), 113.

125

on one of the engraving included into the 1555 work – A Description of the Northern

Peoples – by Olaus Magnus [Fig. 9].88

FIGURE 9

ENGRAVING FROM OLAUS MAGNUS OF FURRIERS AT WORK 155589

This drawing represents several skinners sitting around a table and sewing the so-

called furs (also known as furrura, penula, penne, pane, mantle), which usually consisted

of eight tiers or fessi, each of which were made from 15 strips of squirrel pelts sewn

together.90 In this way, these furs were made of a total of 120 pelts or three

sorochok/timber units. Thereafter, furriers used the furs as lining for coats. Behind the

skinners, one can see three rings attached to the wall with pelts suspended from each one.

These rings appear to be the same type as found on the Rus’ miniature. Therefore, it can

88 Olaus Magnus, Description of the Northern Peoples, Rome 1555, 2, tr. P. Fisher and H. Higgens, ed. P. Foote [Works Issued by the Hakluyt Society, 2nd Ser. vol. 187] (London, 1998), 309. 89 Description of the Northern Peoples, Rome 1555, 309. 90 E.M. Veal, The English Fur Trade in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 1966), 28-29, 117-118.

126

be suggested that these rings with pelts were imported into the Baltic from Novgorod and

were nothing less than the sorochok/timbers units of pelts.

Medieval Scandinavian, German, and Rus’ written sources indicate that furs were

shipped in wooden barrels (tunna) from Russia to the Baltic.91 According to Hansa

records, squirrel pelts from Novgorod were exported in barrels that were estimated by the

thousands of pelts they contained, ranging in volume from 5,000 to 7,000. If pelts were

smaller in size, up to 12,000 could fit into the barrel. However, 5,000-7,000 seems to

have been the standard.92 In fact, the Novgorodian ballads about Sadko, the local

merchant-hero, relate that he possessed aboard his ship barrels called sorokovki (plural)

which can be translated as “40s-barrels.”93 It is quite likely that these barrels were

precisely the types used to transport the sorochok/timber units of pelts into the Baltic.

There is some information on barrels from medieval Novgorod which provide some

idea of their size and capacity. Thus, aside from the water-carrier barrels, archaeologists

discovered staves and other parts of barrels, including an intact example, of one type of

barrel (type 2) that became very common in Novgorod from the late twelfth century.

These barrels, made exclusively of oak, held about 120 liters and were 45 cm in diameter

and 65 cm in height (including the bottom). By the fourteenth century, these barrels

became very widespread in the city, suggesting that they represented a standard unit.94

The initial appearance of these standard barrels in Novgorod in the late twelfth century

may reflect the growing trade in goods, such as pelts, between Novgorod and the Baltic. 91 Snorre Sturlason, Heimskringla, tr. A.H. Smith (New York, 1932; reprint 1990), 376; Zalizniak, “Spisok ubitykh novgorodtsev,” DD, articles 2 & 5, pp. 576-577. Also see A.L. Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia velikogo Novgoroda s Pribaltikoi i zapadnoi Evropoi v XIV-XV vekakh (Moscow, 1963), 70-71, 107. 92 Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia velikogo Novgoroda, 108. 93 “Byliny o Sadke,” Novgorodskie byliny (Moscow, 1978), 153. 94 B.A. Kolchin, Wooden Artifacts from Medieval Novgorod 1, ed. A.V. Chernetsov [BAR International Series 495 (i-ii)] (Oxford, 1988), 38. Also see volume 2 of the Kolchin study for the picture of this barrel, p. 273, pl. 30:6.

127

In fact, these 120-liter barrels may well have been the ones that were called sorokovki in

Novgorod and used for exporting pelts into the Baltic. This suggestion is made even more

likely by the fact that some parts of these barrels (albeit dating to the fourteenth-fifteenth

centuries), including the one that was entirely preserved, had Hanseatic geometric

merchant ownership marks (Hausmarke or Hofmarke) on them, direct parallels of which

can be found in cities such as Lübeck.95 Hopefully, in the near future, an attempt will be

made by researchers to conduct an experiment to see now many squirrel pelts can be

fitted into one of these 120-liter barrels.

There survives perhaps another indirect reference to the barrel or tunna used for

transporting sorochoks/timbers. As noted above, the Kn!tlinga saga mentions a certain

Ví!gautr who stated that he was bringing back from Novgorod 8,000 grey pelts in 40

serks or sacks, each one of which contained 5 sorochok/timber units or 200 pelts. Was

Ví!gautr making a reference to a standard, average-sized barrel used to transport 200

sorochok/timber units or 8,000 pelts? Since the standard barrel used in the thirteenth-

fifteenth centuries by the Hansa merchants contained between 5,000 and 12,000 pelts

(8,500 on average), it appears that the thirteenth-century Icelandic author of the saga was

very close to the mark about its volume. If this is so, then, based on all of the above, it is

possible to reconstruct the way furs were packaged and transported from Novgorod into

the Baltic in the Middle Ages: 10 pelts in one desiatok/dekur/dikur bundle ! 4 = 1

sorochok/timber (or 4 bundles of 10 pelts suspended on a ring constructed from branches)

95 E.A. Rybina, Torgovlia srednevekovogo Novgoroda: Istoriko-arkheologicheskie ocherki (Velikii Novgorod, 2001), 203, 207, Fig 14:2-4, p. 247, Fig. 18:1-18, p. 249, Fig. 19: 1-16, p. 251, Fig. 20: 1-15.

128

! 5 = 1 mekh/serk (sack) or 200 pelts ! 5 = 5 sacks or 1,000 pelts ! 8 = 1 sorokovka/tunna

(barrel) or 8,000 pelts.

With all that said, it can now be suggested that the origin of the term timber is found

in none other than the Novgorodian wooden accounting sorochok tallies used for

assembling pelts into 40s. When Scandinavian-German merchants came to Novgorod,

they requested squirrel pelts and would get in turn 40 squirrel pelts which would be

counted out for them by Novgorodian fur merchants on a sorochok accounting tally.

While the Novgorodians called this unit sorochok, the tally, itself, they called a doska,96

which, in Old as well as Modern Russian, also means a wooden board or plank. Thus, the

association of the word for tally and wood is clearly demonstrated in Old Rus’. Quite

possibly, the words “timber” or “wood” and “tally” became one in the same thing among

the Germanic-speaking merchants who visited Novgorod. In other words, to the Germans

and Scandinavians who came to buy furs in Novgorod, a sorochok of pelts became

synonymous with the Rus’ 40-unit wooden accounting tallies used to count out 40 pelts.

These merchants came simply to request a doska or a wooden plank (calling it “timber”

among themselves) of “such-and-such fur” from the Rus’, just as one would requests a

“carton” of Marlboro’s at a store today, for example. There are other examples of units of

measure or count that are based on a specific material associated with the commodity

measured and packaged. For instance, units of measure such as “a glass of wine” at a

restaurant or a “glass” of milk for a recipe, a “tin (can) of tomatoes” (more common in

Britain) or a “carton” of eggs at a store, are all based on the material of the product’s

packaging – glass, tin or metal, and carton (French term, meaning “flimsy cardboard”).

96 NPL, 51. Also see Pskov Judicial Charter in Laws of Rus’, 89-90, 92-94, 97, 101-102.

129

When one comes to a store to buy eggs or cigarettes, one does not ask for 10 packs of

cigarettes or 12 eggs – they ask for carton of these items, assuming that they will get the

standard package containing a set unit. In sum, it is quite possible that the Germanic term

timber meaning a measure of 40 pelts was based on the wooden tallies used in Novgorod

to count out 40 furs that made up the sorochok/timber unit.

* * *

In conclusion, it is clear that the sorochok/timber unit that was universal in the fur

trade of pre-modern Eurasia and the Americas first became widespread in the

northwestern Rus’ lands where it can be documented in literary sources to the turn of the

twelfth century. Archaeological evidence in the form of a tally-stick suggests that the

sorochok/timber may have already been used in the lands of Novgorod as early as the last

decades of the tenth century. With the development of the Novgorodian fur trade with the

Baltic starting ca. 1000, the sorochok/timber unit and the related tally-stick spread to the

Baltic and then the North Sea. By the thirteenth century, the “40-unit” was the standard

from the Volga to the Thames.

The origins of the 40-unit system of counting and packaging pelts have not yet been

determined. Most scholars of Rus’ assume that the sorchok/timber was borrowed from

abroad, probably from either Scandinavia or Byzantium. However, a convincing

argument for either of these two alternatives has not yet been advanced. There are serious

weaknesses in the traditional metrological approach to interpreting this unit. Furs were

most likely sold by unit and the price of the unit was determined by supply and demand,

the type and quality of fur, and other very specific circumstances. In seeking for the

origin of the sorochok, it was noted the absence of a developed fur trade in the classical

130

Mediterranean world and the initial signs of a commerce in fur dating from fifth-sixth

centuries. The desire for fur in the early Byzantine world was shared by the Islamic ruling

elite starting around 750. Thus, it becomes possible talk of a real fur trade starting only in

the late Roman period. Hence, it is likely that the 40-unit came into existence sometime

in the early medieval era and was tied to the earliest eastern European commerce of pelts

with the Mediterranean/Islamic worlds. Based on the often neglected passage in De

administrando imperio which clearly suggests that the 40-unit was known in the Balkans

by the mid-ninth century (or, perhaps, the mid-tenth century – the time when it was

written), it is evident that the sorochok/timber had spread into the Black Sea region by the

early Middle Ages. In view of the Rus’ commercial, diplomatic, and military activities in

the Black Sea beginning with the last decades of the eighth century, it is possible that

they introduced the 40-unit into southeastern Europe.

Lastly, the unique Rus’ word “sorockok” seems to have derived from the Middle

Greek word “!"#$%&'("” meaning “40.” It is likely that this word entered the Rus’

lexicon when the Rus’ brought their 40s of pelts to the Byzantine markets where the

Greek merchants called them “!"#$%&'(".” With time, the Rus’ merchants, themselves,

began to call their 40s of pelts sorochoks and, thus, transported the Slavicized version of

this Greek term to the Rus’ lands where it became the common word for 40. In a

somewhat similar manner, the Rus’ 40-unit of pelts came to be called timber in Germanic

languages. When the German merchants visited Novgorod to purchase pelts, the Rus’

counted out their 40s on wooden tallies used specifically to count out the sorochok unit.

Since the Rus’ called this tally “doska” or “wooden board,” the German merchants began

to call the 40-units timber or “wood.”

CHAPTER III

THE NOVGORODIAN SUPPLY OF PELTS

FINNO-UGRIANS AS SUPPLIERS OF PELTS

By far the largest and the best part of Novgorod’s fur supply came from the far-distant

northern lands inhabited by various Finno-Ugrian peoples, mostly in Zavoloch’e. The

Finno-Ugrians played a significant role in obtaining pelts, and thus provided a critical

link in the structure of the Novgorodian fur trade. However, their participation in this fur

trade has been entirely ignored in scholarship. This neglect can, in large part, be

explained by the nearly complete absence of primary written sources on the Finno-

Ugrians and their role in supplying pelts to the Novgorodian fur markets.

This chapter will examine in detail the first stage in the process of supply, namely

how fur-bearing animals were caught. In order to do so, it is necessary to examine the

medieval archaeological remains left by the Finno-Ugrians, the later ethnographic

evidence on Finno-Ugrian hunting practices, and the few available primary written

sources. When possible, these materials will be integrated to better illustrate the structure

of medieval hunting and trapping practices of the Finno-Ugrians.

Most of what the written texts – all composed by people living outside of the Finno-

Ugrian world such as Norse, Rus’, Italian, and Islamic authors – reveal is that the Finno-

Ugrians had great access to pelts and that various merchants and tribute collectors

traveled north to obtain them. For instance, Ibn Fa!l!n, a traveler to the middle Volga

region in 921/22, noted that Volga Bulgh!r merchants travel to the “country called W"s#

132

and return with sables and black foxes.”1 Marvaz!, writing in ca. 1120, repeated the same

information and added several more details: “…towards the Pole, is a land called "s#, and

beyond this a people called Y#ra. …From them are imported excellent sable and other

fine furs; they hunt these animals, feeding on their flesh and wearing their skins.”2

Ab# $%mid al-!arn%&!, a Spanish-Islamic traveler to eastern Europe in 1136-1150,

added more information to Marvaz!’s account:

It (Bulgh%r) has a region [in which people] pay tribute [to them]. It is called W!s# and it is a month of travel between them and Bulgh%r. And there is another region called Ara where [people] hunt for beaver, ermine, and superb squirrels. ... Excellent beaver pelts come from them. … And beyond the W!s# on the Sea of Darkness (White and/or Kara Sea) there is a region called Y#ra. … The inhabitants of Y#ra … have many sables, the meat of which they eat.3

Rus’ sources also speak of the far-distant regions of the Russian north and mention the

Pechora tribes and their more easterly neighbors, the Iugra/Y#ra. The earliest of these

accounts comes from an entry in the Russian Primary Chronicle under the year 1096

where it is mentioned that the Novgorodians were collecting tribute from the Pechora

and, in fact, were making their way further north/northeast to the lands of the Iugra.4

About two decades later, another Rus’ chronicle relates that Rus’ tribute collectors and/or

1 Ibn Fa!l%n, The Ris!la of Ibn Fa!l!n: An Annotated Translation with Introduction, J.E. Mckeithen (Ann Arbor, dissertation microfiche, 1979), 110. 2 Marvaz!, Sharaf al-Zam!n "!hir Marvaz" on China, the Turks and India, tr. V. Minorsky (London, 1942), 34. 3 Ab# $%mid al-!arn%&! in Puteshestvie Abu Hamida al-Garnati, tr. O.G. Bol’shakov, comm. A.L. Mongait (Moscow, 1971), 31. 4 RPC, 184-185.

133

fur traders found enumerable numbers of pelts among the Iugra and Samoyeds.5 Not

surprisingly, Rus’ sources inform that Novgorodians made the Iugra tribes tributaries

soon after this report. By the late twelfth century, Novgorodians were making regular fur

tribute collection rounds among these peoples.6

Al-!arn!"#’s account and the information found in the Rus’ chronicles concerning the

great abundance of pelts available among the peoples of the Russian north is supported

by Marco Polo (1254-1324) who noted the following about the people of the “Land of

Darkness:”

[They] have great quantities of costly fur – sable, whose immense value I have already noted, ermine, ercolin, vair, and black fox, and many others. They are all trappers, who acquire such numbers of these furs that it is truly marvelous. And all these they sell to neighboring tribes within the bounds of daylight; for they take them into the lands of daylight and sell them there. And the traders who buy them make a huge profit.7

Other sources confirm the availability of pelts among the Finno-Ugrian peoples

inhabiting the far Russian north. Thus, in an Old English text of the early tenth century,

Ohthere, a Norwegian merchant-traveler and an eyewitness, noted the availability of

marten skins among the Biarmians/Beormas of the Northern Dvina/White Sea region

who collected them as tribute from the Terian Lapps (Terfinnas).8 In the Saga of St. Olaf

written in the mid-thirteenth century but describing events of the late tenth century,

Snorre Sturlason noted the following about Norse commercial activities with the Finno-

Ugrians at a market town along the Vina (Northern Dvina River) in Bjarmaland/Permia

(coastal region of the White Sea): “Tore (!orri) got many fur wares, beaver and sable;

5 PSRL 2: 277. 6 NPL, 38, 40, 41. 7 Marco Polo, The Travels, tr. R.E. Latham (London, 1958), 331. 8 Ohthere’s account in O. Pritsak, The Origin of Rus’ I (Cambridge, Mass., 1981), 695-696.

134

Karli had also much goods with which he bought many skins.”9 The Icelandic Egil’s

Saga (written in the mid-thirteenth century, probably also by Snorre Sturlason) contains

references to beaver pelts, sables, squirrels, and martens among the Finno-Ugrians

peoples of Finnmark and regions east as far as Karelia.10 In a Norwegian text dating to ca.

1250 which describes the borders between Rus’ and Norway there is a reference to “half-

Karelinas” and “half-Finn” (that is those who had “Finn mothers”) who paid five grey

pelts per bow to the Norwegians kings.11 In his discussion of the Finno-Ugrian people

who inhabit areas east of Sweden and Norway, Saxo Grammaticus (writing in ca. 1210-

1220) noted: “They normally use animal skins instead of money to trade with their

neighbors.”12 Interestingly, even in modern Finnish, the word for money is raha –

meaning “fur.”13 Finally, in another part of his account, al-!arn!"# noted that Finno-

Ugrians voyaged to the lands of Volga Bulgh!ria during winter months in their beaver fur

coats.14 The numerous finds of the remains of fur coats and hats at medieval Finno-

Ugrian graves (both male and female) illustrate the widespread use of pelts in their

everyday dress.15

In sum, Islamic, Rus’, Italian, and Norse accounts inform of various Finno-Ugrian

peoples of the Russian north, as far as the northern Ural Mountains, who had significant

quantities of pelts available to them. However, the one major issue that remains to be

9 Snorre Sturlason, Heimskringla, tr. A.H. Smith (New York, reprint 1990), 360. 10 Egil’s Saga, tr. H. Pálsson and P. Edwards (London, 1976), 43, 44, 46, 47, 49, 50. 11 Atiquités russes d’aprés les monuments historiques des Islandais des anciens Scandinaves 2, ed. C.C. Rafn (Copenhagen, 1852), 493-494. 12 Saxo Grammaticus, The History of the Danes 1, tr. P. Fisher, ed. H.E. Davidson (London, 1979), 9. 13 E. Jutikkala, A History of Finland, tr. P. Sjöblom (New York, 1962), 11. 14 Al-!arn!"# in Puteshestvie, 35. 15 N.B. Krylasova, “Kostium srednevekovogo naseleniia Verkhnego Prikam’ia,” Problemy Finno-ugorskoi arkheologii Urala i Povolzh’ia (Syktyvkar, 1992), 136, 140; G.A. Arkhipov, Mariitsy IX-XI vv. (Ioshkar-Ola, 1973), 17.

135

studied is the question of how these peoples were able to obtain the huge quantities of

pelts that were needed annually for the Novgorodian fur market. As discussed in Chapter

II, there is reason to believe that during the tenth century, between 500,000 to 625,000

pelts were sent each year to Islamic Central Asia in return for dirhams. These figures

seem to be relatively consistent with the volume of the Novgorodian fur trade of the later

Middle Ages. Thus, based on the rent-tax cadastres of the late fifteenth century from the

lands of Novgorod, Janet Martin calculated that 200,000 squirrel pelts were collected

annually during this period. This estimate is a bare minimum, since private sales of pelts

by peasants, estates that were no longer a part of the tax system (e.g., monastic lands),

and pelts other than squirrels were all excluded. Moreover, the calculations were based

on minimal averages. Most importantly, however, by the late fifteenth century, the

Novgorodian fur trade was on the decline. Martin concludes by saying: “But it is

probable that at the height of Novgorod’s fur trade, in the second half of the fourteenth

century and early fifteenth century, a volume two or three times greater entered and was

sold on the Novgorodian fur market.”16 If Martin’s statement is taken at face value, then

at the peak of the Novgorodian fur trade 400,000 to 600,000 pelts were exported out of

Novgorod, a figure very close to the tenth-century exports to the Islamic East. In sum,

there are solid reasons to believe that the Novgorodian fur trade during the course of the

Middle Ages involved hundreds of thousands of pelts annually, all of which came from

animals that had to be hunted down or trapped, and their pelts then collected, transported,

and processed before being sold.

16 J. Martin, Treasure of the Land of Darkness: The Fur Trade and Its Significance for Medieval Russia (Cambridge, 1986), 159, and also see 152-163.

136

THE STRUCTURE OF FINNO-UGRIAN HUNTING PRACTICES

Hunting for various mammals and fowl played a pivotal role in the Finno-Ugrian

economy. A number of medieval literary sources speak about the high level of skill with

which they hunted for animals and of their dexterity with hunting bows. Thus, for

instance, Snorre Sturlason noted: “They (Finns) are so wise that they can follow tracks

like hounds, ... nothing, man or beast, can escape them and they hit everything they shoot

at.”17 Writing at about the same time, Saxo Grammaticus echoes Snorre: “This race

(Finns) use their missiles with an eager zest; no others are more agile in launching the

javelin, while the arrows they shoot are large and broad. They devote themselves to

magical skills and are expert hunters.”18 On speaking of the Samoyeds in ca. 1250, John

of Plano Carpini noted that “…these men, so it is said, live entirely off their hunting;

even the tents and clothes they have are made of nothing but animal skins.”19

Osteological remains of mammals discovered at medieval Finno-Ugrian sites

throughout northern Russia show a wide variety of fur-bearing animals trapped and

hunted from the forests: beaver, fox, hare, lynx, otter, marten, badger, squirrel, sable,

woodchuck, ferret, wolf, and wolverine.

Overall, fur-bearing animals clearly predominate over the wild-hoofed at all the sites

from which there is specific osteological data. The above table illustrates the percentages

of fur-bearing and wild-hoofed animals from the pool of all the bones of wild and

domestic animals (see Table I). To harvest these animals, the Finno-Ugrians relied on a

17 Snorre Sturlason, Heimskringla, 66. 18 Saxo Grammaticus, The History of the Danes I, 153. 19 John of Plano Carpini, “History of the Mongols,” The Mongol Mission: Narratives and Letters of the Franciscan Missionaries in Mongolia and China in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries, tr. A Nun of Stanbrook Abbey (New York, 1955), 30.

137

great variety of techniques, most of which are recorded only in later ethnographic

sources.

Sites Fur-Bearing Wild-Hoofed

Krutik 58.82% 5.55% Shcherbino 38.05% 6.92%

Meria and Mordva Sites 12% 3% Idnakar 64.4% 34.6%

Vis II and Kuzvomyn 69.05% 14.29%

TABLE I The Percentage Based on the Total Number

of All Animal (Domestic & Wild) Bones Found at Sites20

As late as the early twentieth century, the Finno-Ugrians still practiced the traditional

patterns of hunting known to their medieval ancestors.21 The most detailed ethnographic

evidence on these practices derives from the Komi, descendants of the medieval

Permians. This is particularly significant since, according to ethnographers, the Komi

hunting practices, recorded in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, have remained

practically unchanged from much earlier periods.22 Consequently, an attempt will be

made to reconstruct the patterns of hunting practices based on these ethnographic records.

20 Data for this chart derives from A.F. Dubynin, “Shcherbitskoe gorodishche,” D’iakovskaia kul’tura (Moscow, 1974), Table, 1, p. 244; E.G. Andreeva, “Fauna poseleniia Krutik,” Belozerskaia Ves’ (po materialam poseleniia Krutik IX-X vv.) (Petrozavodsk, 1991), 183; V.I. Tsalkin, K istorii zhivotnovodstva i okhoty v Vostochnoi Evrope [MIA SSSR 107] (Moscow, 1962), Fig. 13, p. 79; G.M. Burov, Drevnii Sindor (Moscow, 1967), Table 9, p. 159; A.G. Petrenko, “Rezul’taty issledovanii osteologicheskikh meterialov iz raskopok srednevekovykh pamiatnikov Prikam’ia,” Issledovaniia po srednevekovoi arkheologii lesnoi polosy Vostochnoi Evropy (Izhevsk, 1991), Table 1, p. 73. 21 V.N. Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi [TIE 45] (Moscow, 1958), 64-65, 75-76; N.D. Konakov, Komi (Okhotniki i rybalovy vo vtoroi polovine XIX-nachala XX v.) (Moscow, 1983), 32; R.F. Taroeva, Material’naia kul’tura Karel (Moscow-Leningrad, 1965), 45, 97; V.V. Pimenov, Vepsy. Ocherk etnicheskoi istorii i genezisa kul’tury (Moscow-Leningrad, 1965), 106. 22 N.D. Konakov, O.V. Kotov, Etnoareal’nye gruppy komi: formirovanie i sovremennoe etnokul’turnoe sostoianie (Moscow, 1991), 94.

138

ACTIVE HUNTING

Special techniques were used for hunting fur-bearing animals, notably, the so-called

blunt-tip arrowheads (Russ. tomary). These arrowheads were widely used for hunting

beaver, sable, squirrel, and other small fur-bearing mammals.23 As their name suggests,

these arrowheads had blunt or dull tips so that, when they struck animals, the skin and fur

would remain intact. Furthermore, since the blunt-tip arrowheads did not pierce the

animal, the highly valued castor oil found in beavers would not leak out when the beaver

was hit. The blunt tip of the arrow was made simply to stun the animal until the hunter

could reach it. The tip was usually made of bone (predominantly of deer or elk antler, but

sometimes also of metal or wood) and shaped like a cylinder so that it could be joined

with the end of the wooden arrow [Fig. 1].24 These cylinders range from 2.5-4.5 cm in

length; the diameter of the lower end ranges from 1.5-2.5 cm; the diameter of the tip part

ranges from 1.5-3.5 cm; the diameter of the hollowed-out part ranges from 10-15 mm

(slight differentiation of these measurements occur, depending on the period and

region).25 The origin of these arrowheads is found in the Mesolithic period.26 Various

types of blunt-tip arrowheads were unearthed at a great many medieval Finno-Ugrian

sites throughout northern Russia dating from the seventh to the thirteenth centuries.27

23 P.G. Gaidukov, N.A. Makarov, “Novye arkheologicheskie materialy o pushnom promysle v drevnei Rusi,” NNZ 7 (Novgorod, 1993), 179-188; L.I. Smirnova, “Eshche raz o tupykh strelakh (k voprosu ob okhotnich’em promysle v srednevekovom Novgorode),” NNZ 8 (Novgorod, 1994), 143-156; J. Kodolányi, Jr. “North Eurasian Hunting, Fishing and Reindeer-Breading Civilizations,” Ancient Cultures of the Ugrian Peoples (Budapest, 1976), 149-150; R.H. Fisher, The Russian Fur Trade, 1550-1700 (Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1943), 157. 24 Gaidukov, Makarov, “Novye arkheologicheskie materialy,” 179-188. 25 Smirnova, “Eshche raz o tupykh strelakh,” 148. 26 Smirnova, “Eshche raz o tupykh strelakh,” 145; I. Zachrisson, “Medeltida ekorrpilar,” Fornvännen 71 (1976), 117-120. Also see J.G.D. Clark, Prehistoric Europe: The Economic Basis (Stanford, 1952), 36-37, Fig. 14. 27 E.g., Lomovatova, Polom, Ves’, Meria, Mari, Vanvizdino, Vym’ (post-Vanvizdino), and D’iakovo cultures. See: V.A. Semenov, “Varninskii mogil’nik,” Novye pamiatniki Polomskoi kul’tury (Izhevsk,

139

Ethnographic records show that blunt-tip arrowheads were used throughout northern

Eurasia and North America well into the late nineteenth century for hunting fur-bearing

animals.28

Some sites where blunt-tip arrowheads have been found are particularly revealing.

For example, at the Ortinsk settlement (located at the estuary of the Pechora River and its

confluence with the Barents Sea29) archaeologists discovered a fragment of a blunt-tip

arrowhead alongside bones of beaver, fox, polar fox, and hare.30 Based on the various

1980), p. 46, Fig. XXII: 34; Gaidukov, Makarov, “Novye arkheologicheskie materially,” pp. 180, 187, Fig. 1; N.A. Makarov, Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain Drevnei Rusi v XI-XIII vekakh (Moscow, 1997), p. 339, Table 127: 26, 27; idem., “Srednevekovyi mogil’nik Popovo na Kargopol’e,” KSIA 171 (1982), pp. 83, 86, Fig. 3, !5; S.I. Kochkurina, A.M. Livenskii, Kurgany letopisnoi Vesi X-nachala XIII veka (Petrozavodsk, 1985), p. 137, Fig. 60, !7; A.E. Leont’ev, Arkheologiia meri. K predystorii Severo-Vostochnoi Rusi (The Archaeology of the Merya) (Moscow, 1996), p. 58 and Fig. 56: 5, 6, & 4 (?); G.A. Arkhipov, Mariitsy IX-XI vv. (Ioshkar-Ola, 1973), p. 74, Fig. 68:15; V.A. Oborin, “Kostianaia rukoiatka iz Aniushkara (Kylasovo),” KSIA 57 (1955), 133-134; Dubynin, “Shcherbitskoe gorodishche,” Fig. III, !9; Fig. XVIII, !5; idem., “Daterovka gorodishche i etnicheskii sostav naseleniia,” Drevnee poselenie v Podmoskov’e (Moscow, 1970), p. 63, Figs. 4-6; R.L. Rozenfel’dt, “Razvedki v Moskovskoi oblasti,” KSIA 79 (1960), Fig. 28: 6; G.M. Burov, “Luki i dereviannye strely V-VI vv. n.e. s poseleniia Vis II v Privychegod’e,” KSIA 175 (1983), 61. Such arrowheads were also known to the peoples of southern Siberia during the Middle Ages. See, for instance, S.V. Kiselev, Drevniaia istoriia iuzhnoi Sibiri [MIA SSSR 9] (Moscow, 1949), Fig. XLVIII: 21, p. 353; I.V. Dubov, Severo-Vostochnaia Rus’ v epokhu rannego srednevekov’ia (Leningrad, 1982), Fig. 39: 11, p. 237. 28 E.g., Komi, Mari, Mordva, Ob’-Ugrians, Finns, Evenki, Buriat, Iakut, Nents, Eskimos, etc.; see I. Manninen, Die finnisch-ugrischen Völker (Leipzig, 1932), 211-212, Fig. 183; Konakov, Komi, 115; Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi, 76; G.A. Sepeev, Vostochnye mariitsy (Ioshkar-Ola, 1975), 95; T.A. Kriukova, Material’naia kul’tura mariitsev XIX veka (Ioshkar-Ola, 1956), pp. 34-35, Fig. 15; K.I. Kozlova, Etnografiia narodov Povolzhia (Moscow, 1964), 38; I.M. Peterburgskii, “Traditsionnye zaniatiia i orudiia sel’skokhoziaistvennogo truda v proshlom i nastaiashchem,” Mordva Istoriko-kul’turnye ocherki (Saransk, 1995), 119; P. Hajdu, Finno-Ugrian Languages and Peoples, tr. G.F. Cushing (London, 1975), 137; U.T. Sirelius, Jagd und Fischeri in Finnland (Berlin-Leipzig, 1934), Fig. 18; A.I. Mazin, Byt i khoziaistvo Evenkov-Orochonov (konets XIX - nachalo XX v.) (Novosibirsk, 1992), 81; L.V. Khomich, Nentsy: istoriko-etnograficheskie ocherki (Moscow-Leningrad, 1960), 71; S.G. Zhambalova, Traditsionnaia okhota Buriat (Novosibirsk, 1991), 60; A.N. Alekseev, A.I. Gogolev, I.E. Zykov, Arkheologiia Iakutii (Epokha paleometallov i srednevekov’ia) (Iakutsk, 1991), pp. 74, 77, Fig. 15; Clark, Prehistoric Europe, 36. 29 O.V. Ovasiannikov, “Plemennoi tsentr letopisnoi «Pechery» na beregu Ledovitogo Okeana (Ortinskoe gorodishche VI-X vv.),” Novye istochniki po arkheologii severo-zapada (St. Petersburg, 1994), 133-163; idem., “Srednevekovaia Arktika: arkheologicheskie otkrytiia poslednikh let,” AV 3 (1994), 121-129. 30 Ovasiannikov, “Plemennoi tsentr letopisnoi «Pechery»,” pp. 150, 152, Table XII, !16 and p. 158.

140

finds from this site, the settlement is dated from the sixth to the early eleventh centuries

and was perhaps a tribal center of the Pechora.31

FIGURE 1 BLUNT-TIPPED ARROWHEAD FOUND IN NOVGOROD32

31 Ovasiannikov, “Plemennoi tsentr letopisnoi «Pechery»,” 159-161. 32 Gaidukov, Makarov, “Novye arkheologicheskie materialy o pushnom promysle,” 188.

141

Moving south to the Kama basin, at the Shud’iakar settlement, which dates from the

sixth to the fourteenth centuries, 75% of all animal bones (domestic and wild) were of

fur-bearing mammals and 51.51% of these were of beavers.33 A number of blunt-tipped

arrowheads were also discovered at the site.34 But, the association between blunt-tipped

arrowheads and osteological remains is best illustrated at the Finno-Ugrian settlement of

Krutik (probably belonging to the W!s"/Ves’ tribes), dating from the ninth to the tenth

centuries and located in the Beloozero region of northwestern Russia. At this site, 78% of

all wild animal bones belonged to beavers. Alongside beaver remains, archeologists also

discovered a number of blunt-tip arrowheads.35 As will be discussed in Chapter V, such

arrow heads have also been discovered at a number of colonial settlements/merchant

way-station in the Russian alongside bones of various types of fur-bearing animals (e.g.,

Minino, Kema toll-station, and Slavensk portage). In this way, it is clear that the Finno-

Ugrians and the Rus’ colonists who inhabited the far-distant territories of the Russian

North commonly used these arrowheads for hunting fur-bearing animals during the

Middle Ages.

Aside from the find of blunt-tip arrowheads in the Russian North, they also occur in

the core lands of Novgorod. Thus, by 1994, 108 of such objects were found in Novgorod.

They were unearthed throughout the city and chronologically span the entire medieval

era, i.e., from the foundations of Novgorod in the tenth to the sixteenth century.36 Blunt-

33 P.D. Goldina, Lomovatovskaia kul’tura v Verkhnem Prikamie (Irkutsk, 1985), Tables 23 & 25, pp. 148, 150. 34 Goldina, Lomovatovskaia kul’tura, Tables 23 & 25, pp. 148, 150, Fig. XLI, !33, !!38-40, p. 248: discussion of !33 in “Bone Artifact” and !38-40 in “Bone Handles,” p. 74. 35 Golubeva, Kochkurina, Belozerskaia Ves’, p. 84, Fig. 40, !7; pp. 113-117. 36 Smirnova, “Eshche raz o tupykh strelakh,” 147-148.

142

tip arrowheads have also been discovered in Riurikovo gorodishche and Staraia Ladoga.37

There is also no doubt that the many wooden arrows with dull and wide tips discovered in

Novgorod, Staraia Russa, and Staraia Ladoga (particularly those over 50 cm in length),

were not just children’s toys as they are often interpreted, but actual arrows used for the

hunting of fur-bearing animals.38 In this way, not only is it clear that the Novgorodians

and the inhabitants of towns located within its core lands were engaged in active hunting

for fur-bearing animals, but also that they came to barrow this “technology” from the

indigenous Finno-Ugrians who had inhabited northern Russia since the Stone Age.

Some idea of how active hunting for sables or martens took place, perhaps with the

use of blunt-tip arrowheads, can be gathered from the wooden carving on the panel of a

pew (dated to the second half of the fourteenth century) of Novgorodian merchants at the

Church of St. Nicholas in Stralsund, northern Germany [Fig. 2]. The panel depicts men

using sticks for shaking down sables/martens from trees and while other men shoot them

down with arrows. Dogs are also represented chasing sables up trees and snagging them

once on the ground. There is no doubt that dogs were also used for dragging the animals

from their burrows (a sable/marten is seen escaping from the hunters into its borrow on

the panel), as was done many centuries later.39

37 E.N. Nosov, Novgorodskoe (Riurikovo) gorodishche (Leningrad, 1990), Figs. 29: 4, p. 72; 34: 8, p. 84; O.I. Davidan, “Staroladozhskie izdeliia iz kosti i roga,” ASGE 8 (1966), Figs. 4, 10, 11, p. 112, 113. 38 A.V. Chernetsov, A.V. Kuza, N.A. Kir’ianova, “Zemledelie i promysly,” Drevniaia Rus’. Gorod, zamok, selo [Arkheologiia SSSR] (Moscow, 1985), p. 232, Fig. 88: 1-3, p. 240. For the identification of some of these artifacts with toys, see A.S. Khoroshev, “Detskie igrushki iz Novgoroda,” NNZ 12 (Novgorod, 1998), Fig. 1: 9-12, pp. 85-86. Unfortunately, a study (comprehensive or even a brief report) on these arrows has not yet been compiled for any of the towns where these artifacts have been unearthed. 39 Mazin, Byt i khoziaistvo Evenkov-Orochonov, 101-102.

143

FIGURE 2 PANEL OF A PEW OF NOVGORODIAN TRADERS AT THE CHURCH OF ST. NICHOLAS

IN STRALSUND, NORTHERN GERMANY (SECOND HALF OF THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY)40

PASSIVE HUNTING (TRAPPING)

Since a major part of the Finno-Ugrians economy was based on hunting, there was an

ever present dilemma of finding ways by which to maximize the return from hunting

given the amount of time spent on labor (i.e., to kill more animals in less time).

Consequently, special techniques were invented for trapping animals (i.e., passive

hunting) to supplement the yield from active hunting. The earliest written source to

mention the use of traps for catching mammals (beavers in particular) in European Russia

40 J. Schildhauer, The Hansa. History and Culture, tr. K. Vanovitch (Leipzig, 1988), 112.

144

dates to the late eleventh-early twelfth centuries.41 Later accounts confirm the use of traps

in the Russian North during the Middle Ages. Thus, for instance, in describing the

northern lands of “Tataria,” i.e., northern Russia, Marco Polo noted:

I assure you that the people who live in the valleys and mountains of this tract are great trappers. They catch quantities of small animals that fetch a very high price and bring them a handsome profit, such as sable, ermine, vair, ercolin, black foxes, and many other precious animals, from which they make costly furs. They set traps from which nothing escape(s).42

In the middle of the sixteenth century, Olaus Magnus described a great variety of traps

that were used for trapping fur-bearing animals in Northern Europe.43 There is little

question that the Finno-Ugrians used traps many centuries before Olaus wrote his work,

particularly since traps like snares were known to the peoples of Europe already in the

Upper Paleolithic period.44 At a Bronze Age site in the upper Volga region, for example,

archaeologists unearthed the remains of marten skulls, many of which bore identical

puncture marks in the same area of the skull, suggesting that all of them were killed by a

clasp-like trap device with sharp spikes.45

Based on ethnographic records, the traditional traps used by the peoples of the

Russian north were all made of perishable materials (e.g., wood, twigs, string, thread,

ropes, and horse mane) or were constructed within the natural forest surroundings (e.g., a

dugout pit covered with leaves and branches) [Fig. 3: a-f]. Therefore, one cannot expect

them to be found during the archaeological excavations of Finno-Ugrian burial-grounds 41 Pravda Rus’kaia, “Abbreviated Redaction,” in Laws of Rus’, art. 21, 24, p. 37. 42 Marco Polo, The Travels, 331. 43 Olaus Magnus, Description of the Northern Peoples, Rome 1555, 3, tr. P. Fisher and H. Higgens, ed. P. Foote [Works Issued by the Hakluyt Society, 2nd Ser. vol. 188] (London, 1998), 903. 44 Clark, Prehistoric Europe, 27, 31, 39. 45 E.I. Goriunova, Etnicheskaia istoriia Volgo-Okskogo mezhdurech’ia [MIA SSSR 94] (Moscow, 1961), 170; Tsalkin, K istorii zhivotnovodstva i okhoty, 65. Unfortunately, the number of skulls with such puncture holes has not been published.

145

FIGURE 3 KOMI TRAPS FROM THE EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY46

and settlements.47 However, there is one exception. One hunting pit was found by

archaeologists near a Mordva settlement dating to the fourteenth century. At the bottom

46 Konakov, Komi, 101, 109. 47 Even when hunting-pits are found, it is nearly impossible to date them. For example, whole sets of hunting-pits (from 2-3 to 60 in a row) have been excavated in the area of the eastern Urals. However, since no datable artifacts were found inside these pits and no settlements were located near them, it cannot be determined when they were used. See L.L. Kosinskaia, “Razvedochnye raboty na severe Tiumenkoi oblasti,” AOUP (Syktyvkar, 1994), 72. It should be noted that R.L. Rozenfel’dt reports that traps have been discovered in graves dating to the twelfth-fourteenth centuries at the Lenskii cemetery of the Vym’ (post-Vanvizdino) culture. See R.L. Rozenfel’dt, “Vymskaia kul’tura,” Finno-ugry i balty v epukhu srednevekov’ia [Arkheologiia SSSR], ed. V.V. Sedov (Moscow, 1987), 126. However, I have been unable to follow his references to this find and none are mentioned in E.A. Saveleva’s monographs (Perm’

146

of the pit, archaeologists uncovered a sharp stake dug into the ground with a pointed end

up. No doubt, branches and leaves were placed to cover the pit so that when an animal,

such as a fox or wolf, stepped on them, it would fall and become impaled on the stake’s

sharp point.48 Very similar pits were constructed by a number of groups of Finno-Ugrians

as late as the early twentieth century. Lastly, it is also possible that some animals may

have been “hunted” with poison, particularly those that would not be eaten (i.e., some

types of fur-bearing animals like sables or martens).49

Since very little information is available about the types of traps used during the early

Middle Ages, it is necessary to turn to ethnographic materials for some clues about the

trapping practices, projecting their use back to an earlier period. Various types of traps

were widely used throughout northern Eurasia well into the early twentieth century.50

Ethnographic reports tell us, for example, that for trapping fox in the nineteenth century

the Karelians used the käpälälauta (i.e., käpälä = “paw,” lauta = “board;” hence, “paw-

board”). This trap, probably of very early origin, was constructed by cutting a tree down

to its stump and splitting it into two wedges leaving the central part of the stump whole.

Vychegodskaia: k voprosu o proiskhozhdenii naroda komi (Moscow, 1971), 96-101 and Vymskie mogil’niki XI-XIV vv. (Leningrad, 1987)), where she discusses the materials from this cemetery. 48 E.I. Goriunova, “Selishche Polianki,” KSIA 15 (1947), 106. 49 It would be interesting to note that the Komi and Finns were known to use poison for hunting wolves, fox, and polar foxes. The Komi were known to use strychnine for this purpose. See Konakov, Komi, 112; Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi, 84; I. Talve, Finnish Folk Culture [Studia Fennica Ethnologica 4], tr. S. Sinisalo (Helsinki, 1997), 73. 50 E.g., Finns, Letts, Karelians, Veps, Komi, Mari, Mordva, Udmurt, Ob’-Ugrians, Evenki, Iakut, Buriat, etc.; see Talve, Finnish Folk Culture, 73-74; Sirelius, Jagd und Fischeri, 53-86; Z. Ligers, Die Volkskultur der Letten: Ethnographische forschungen I (Riga, 1942), 110-119; Manninen, Die finnisch-ugrischen Völker, 267-272; Konakov, Komi, 94-114; Pimenov, Vepsy, 205; Taroeva, Material’naia kul’tura Karel, 42-45; V.A. Maksimov, Votiaki: Kratkie istoriko-etnograficheskii ocherk (Izhevsk, 1925), 30; Sepeev, Vostochnye mariitsy, 91-95; Kriukova, Material’naia kul’tura mariitsev, 31-33; Kozlova, Etnografiia narodov Povolzhia, 38; Peterburgskii, “Traditsionnye zaniatiia,” 119; M.F. Zhiganov, “Iz istorii khoziaistva Mordvy v XIII-XVI vv.,” Issledovaniia po material’noi kul’ture mordovskogo naroda [TIE 86] (Moscow, 1963), 65-66; Kodolányi, “North Eurasian,” 153-156; Hajdu, Finno-Ugrian Languages and Peoples, 137, 149. Also see Mazin, Byt i khoziaistvo Evenkov-Orochonov, 85-92; V.P. Zakharov, Pushnoi promysel i torgovlia v Iakutii (konets XIX - nachalo XX v.) (Novosibirsk, 1995), 30-32; Zhambalova, Traditsionnaia okhota Buriat, 32-35; Khomich, Nentsy, 65-74. Also see Clark, Prehistoric Europe, 27, 31, 39.

147

Bait (meat) was placed on the center to attract the fox. When the fox attempted to reach

the bait with its paw, the paw fell into one of the wedges, thereby trapping he animal

[Fig. 4]. Such primitive, but ingenious, devices freed the hunters from actively pursuing

fox in a hunt and prevented the fox skin from being damaged by an arrow.51

Another simple but cleaver method used for trapping ermine was with the loukku (=

“hole,” “opening”). This trap was made from a simple board, split in half, with a hole in

the middle. The two halves were rejoined one on top of the other with the hole in the

FIGURE 4 KÄPÄLÄLAUTA52

middle and bait was placed on a stick which also held the one half of the board from

collapsing on the other. Once the ermine came to take the bait from the stick, it triggered

the upper board to fall on its paw, thereby trapping the animal. Since it was difficult to

51 Taroeva, Material’naia kul’tura Karel, 42-43. 52 Taroeva, Material’naia kul’tura Karel, 42-43.

148

release the animal from the trap without it escaping, the entire trap with the animal was

placed into a sack before its paw was freed from the trap.53

Some of the most effective devices used for trapping fur-bearing animals were the so-

called collapsing- or clasp-traps which were designed to crush the skulls of animals

without damaging their skins [Fig. 3: b-c]. As mentioned above, clasp-traps appear to

have been used by the Finno-Ugrians already in the Bronze Age. These traps were

specifically designed not only to trap animals, but also to protect them, once caught, from

being devoured by animals which might visit the trap before the hunter (i.e., once the trap

collapsed on the animal, it not only killed it but covered it until the hunter came to

retrieve it).54 The clasp-traps were used for catching ermine, mink, squirrel, and other

small fur-bearing mammals. Hunters would have from 50-200 such traps set up during

the trapping season.55 Some traps, like the nal’k, functioned for up to thirty to thirty-five

years and hunters used up to fifty such traps at a given time.56 Thus, once traps were

made, they could function for quite some time, some for up to a generation.

Beaver was of particular importance in hunting and trapping. Aside from the very fine

and durable quality of their pelts, beaver fat and castor oil were highly prized in medicine

and used as a base in perfumes from Roman times, if not earlier, until recently.57 The

meat of the beaver is also edible and was considered a delicacy by many peoples

53 Taroeva, Material’naia kul’tura Karel, 43. The same type of trap was also known to the Karelians, Udmurt, and Komi. 54 Konakov, Komi, 95. 55 Konakov, Komi, 98, 100-102. 56 Konakov, Komi, 98. 57 A.M. Kolosov, N.P. Lavrov, S.P. Naumov, Biologiia promyslovookhotnich’ikh zverei SSSR (Moscow, 1979), 416; V.N. Skalon, Rechnye bobry Severnoi Azii (Moscow, 1951), 86; J.A. Spriggs, “The British Beaver – Fur, Fact and Fantasy, Leather and Fur: Aspects of Early Medieval Trade and Technology, ed. E. Cameron (London, 1998), 94. It should be noted that castoreum was also highly prized in medicines in the Islamic world, including that of Central Asia. See Ibn S!n" (Avicenna), Kanon vrachebnoi nauki I-V (Tashkent, 1979-1982), references found throughout the volume.

149

inhabiting northern Russia.58 Instead of skinning the animals once they were killed and

discarding their bodies in the forest, hunters brought them (or at least the lower part of

the body) back to the settlements where they were skinned and consumed;59 thus, the

great numbers of beaver bones found at many medieval Finno-Ugrian settlements (see

Table II).

Sites Beaver

KRUTIK 78.06% SHCHERBINO 44.7%

MERIA AND MORDVA SITES 55.5% IDNAKAR 96%

VIS II AND KUZVOMYN 39.5%

TABLE II The Percentage Based on the Total Number of Fur-Bearing

Animal Bones Found at Sites60

The settlement of Krutik in the Beloozero region, where a great many beaver remains

have been discovered, was already discussed above. Aside from this site, the Finno-

Ugrians of the upper and middle Kama basin seem to have been particularly active in

harvesting beavers from their forested waterways. Thus, for instance, at the Verkhnii

Utchan settlement dating from the sixth to the ninth centuries, 85.7% of all bones

unearthed belonged to fur-bearing animals and of these 83.3% belonged to beaver.61 An

even more impressive collection of beaver bones comes from Idnakar, an Udmurt

settlement dating from the ninth to the thirteenth centuries. Here, archaeologists

58 Skalon, Rechnye bobry, 86; al-!arn!"# in Puteshestvie, 35. Also see the fifteenth-century Novgorodian tale in Tekst-Kentavr o Sibirskikh Samoedakh, ed. A. Pliguzov (Moscow, 1993), 96, in which it is specifically noted that beaver was consumed by the Samoyeds. 59 Andreeva, “Fauna poseleniia Krutik,” 183. 60 Data for this chart derives from Dubynin, “Shcherbitskoe gorodishche,” Table, 1, p. 244; Andreeva, “Fauna poseleniia Krutik,” p. 183; Tsalkin, K istorii zhivotnovodstva i okhoty v Vostochnoi Evrope, Fig. 13, p. 79; Burov, Drevnii Sindor, Table 9, p. 159; Petrenko, “Rezul’taty issledovanii osteologicheskikh meterialov,” Table 1, p. 73. 61 Tables 23 & 25, pp. 148, 150.

150

discovered that 96% of all fur-bearing animals belonged to beavers. This is the highest

percentage of beaver bones found at any one Finno-Ugrian site known to the author.

What is interesting is that it appears that during the later part of the settlement’s

existence, beavers that were hunted were becoming smaller in size and fewer in numbers,

suggesting that their population had diminished during the course of the Middle Ages,

probably due to over-hunting.62

No doubt, a large number of beavers were hunted with the use of the blunt-tip

arrowheads, but many were also caught with the use of traps. Like most other trapping

devices, archaeologists have not been able to discover beaver traps. However, some

information about the techniques of trapping and hunting beavers has been recorded in

the literary sources. Although written records mention beaver lodges and hunting for

beavers in northern Russia from the late eleventh-twelfth centuries, only later sources

relate specific information about how they were caught.63 One of the most descriptive of

these accounts dates to the mid-fifteenth century. It mentions that nets, dogs, baskets, and

some other equipment that is now unidentifiable were used for hunting beavers.64 Even

though it is impossible to identify all of the equipment noted in the source, it is clear that

the text speaks of two main types of devices: active and passive.65 The passive devices

were either conical traps (similar to those used for fishing) or a device made of several

62 O.G. Bogatkina, “Arkheozoologicheskie issledovaniia materialov gorodishchia Idnakar,” Materialy issledovanii gorodishcha Idnakar IX-XIII vv. (Izhevsk, 1995), 148-149. 63 Pravda Rus’kaia, “Abbreviated Redaction” art. 21, p. 37; “Kupchaia Mikhaila i Ignatiia Varfolomeevichei u ‘velikikh smerdov’ Filippa, Rodiona i Anan’i Grigor’evichei na dva zhereb’ia reki Maloi Iury s ugod’iami,” GVNP, !195, p. 228; S.B. Vaselovskii, Feodal’noe zemlevladenie v Severo-Vostochnoi Rusi I:2 (Moscow-Leningrad, 1947), 375; “Zhalovannaia gramota velikogo kniazia Ivana III Vasil’evicha zhiteliam Permi Vychegodskoi,” Isoriko-filologicheskii sbornik 4 (Syktyvkar, 1958), 243-244; V.A. Mal’m, “Promysly drevnerusskoi derevni,” Ocherki po istorii russkoi derevni X-XIII vv. [TGIM 32] (Moscow, 1956), 112-113; and, the amusing tale about beavers and their lodges by al-!arn!"# in Puteshestvie, 31-32. Also see Skalon, Rechnye bobry, 100-101. 64 Skalon, Rechnye bobry, 100. 65 Skalon, Rechnye bobry, 100.

151

sharp wooden stakes that were stuck in riverbeds in the form of a triangle. The beavers

could enter the latter through the side, but were unable to escape it.66 Dogs were also used

for dragging beavers out of their lodge burrows; thereafter, hunters caught them with

nets.67 Since nets and dogs were known to most medieval Finno-Ugrians, it is very likely

that they were also used for hunting beavers as well as other animals.68

An eighteenth-century source also relates that beaver were hunted with bows and

arrows when they were outside of their lodges.69 As noted, such arrows could have been

equipped with blunt-tip arrowheads. Finally, ethnographic records inform that traps, net-

baskets, arrows, harpoons, and clubs were also used in parts of northern Russia in the last

century for hunting beaver.70 During the winter, clubs were used for finding beaver

lodges by hitting the ice to identify empty areas where beavers lived and breaking the ice

with it; afterwards, beavers were extracted from their burrows with hooks attached to

sticks.71 The tradition of using spears and harpoons for hunting beaver in northern Russia

dates to a very early period, as is confirmed by the finds of a pierced beaver skull with a

part of a broken bone harpoon still inside at a Stone Age site in the upper Volga region.72

Various harpoons and spears that may have been used for this purpose have also been

found at a number of medieval Finno-Ugrian sites.73

66 Skalon, Rechnye bobry, 101. 67 Skalon, Rechnye bobry, 101. 68 In view of the finds of clay and/or stone sinkers from fishing nets, bone and/or metal needles used for weaving net, and wooden and/or bark floats from nets at most medieval Finno-Ugrian sites, it is clear that they were well familiar with nets. In general, nets were known in northern Eurasia from the Stone Age. See Clark, Prehistoric Europe, 45-46. 69 Skalon, Rechnye bobry, 101. 70 Sepeev, Vostochnye mariitsy, 91. The Iakut of Siberia were also known for using regular conical fishing traps or nets for catching beavers. See Zakharov, Pushnoi promysel i torgovlia v Iakutii, 30. 71 Skalon, Rechnye bobry, 101. 72 D.A. Krainov, “Issledovaniia Verkhnevolzhskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1972 (Moscow, 1973), 69. 73 See, for instance, Semenov, “Varninskii mogil’nik,” 34-35, 69; Dubynin, “Shcherbitskoe gorodishche,” 222-223, 240, 245; Arkhipov, Mariitsy, 57-58, 74; Leont’ev, Arkheologiia meri, pp. 56, 136, 138, and Fig.

152

According to ethnographic records, beavers were hunted in late fall and winter –

mainly December and January.74 Since the coats of beavers do not change much in their

quality throughout the year, it is likely that the preference for hunting them during the

winter months has something to do with the fact that the supply of castor oil in a beaver is

at its peak during the months of January and February.75 To prevent a leakage of castor

oil from dead beavers, hunters froze them on their backs before transporting them from

the place of kill.76

Ethnographic evidence shows that some hunters took measures to prevent the

extinction of beavers. After a successful raid on a beaver lodge, some hunters did not

return to the site for two-three years, i.e., about the time it took a beaver to mature.77 The

numerous finds of beaver bones at the same settlements spanning the course of several

centuries attests to the practice of such conservation methods in the Middle Ages. It has

been argued correctly that such deposits of bones could not have been possible if the

inhabitants of the settlements had destroyed the beaver population by excessive hunting

soon after the settlements were founded. Since beavers were found over the course of

centuries at the same sites, hunters must have maintained some conscious control over the

beaver population.78 In fact, some scholars have even suggested that special beaver

86:20; E.A. Riabinin, “The Ancient Site of Unorozh, End of the First Millennium A.D.,” Cultural Heritage of the Finno-Ugrians and Slavs (Tallinn, 1992), 129; E.I. Goriunova, “Raboty srednerusskoi ekspeditsii,” KSIA 79 (1960), 89; Golubeva, Kochkurina, Belozerskaia Ves’, 55, 92, 98; G.M. Burov, “Arkheologicheskie nakhodki v statichnykh torfianikakh basseina Vychegdy,” SA 1 (1966), 167; idem., V gostiakh u dalekikh predkov (Syktyvkar, 1968), 16-17, 39-40, 62-63; idem., Vychegodskii krai: Ocherki drevnei istorii (Moscow, 1965), 79, 134, 154; idem., Drevnii Sindor, 138, 154, Figs. XXXIII and XXXIV. 74 Skalon, Rechnye bobry, 101. 75 Skalon, Rechnye bobry, 101. 76 Skalon, Rechnye bobry, 104. 77 Skalon, Rechnye bobry, 104. 78 Skalon, Rechnye bobry, 105-106.

153

“farms” or preserves may have existed near medieval Finno-Ugrian settlements,

specifically for raising beavers to maintain a constant population of these animals.79

HUNTING-TRAPPING PATTERNS

Ethnographic records reveal that each Finno-Ugrian hunter in the Russian north

owned at least one in the forest near his settlement which he exploited for hunting and

gathering.80 Many other native peoples of northern Eurasia were also known to have had

such patches as late as the early twentieth century.81 Professional Russian hunters-

trappers used nearly identical patch systems in Siberia during the seventeenth century.82

Although written records speak about such patch systems from the late fourteenth century

on,83 there is no doubt that they existed much earlier.

The hunting patches were hereditary and used only by their owners who were usually

male heads of the household. Patch owners cut special ownership markings (tamgi) on

trees to distinguish their patches from those belonging to neighboring hunters-trappers. In

the late nineteenth century, the hunting patches were located at significant distances from

the settlements (from 25-300 km). Since the volume of wildlife had significantly declined

79 P.A. Kosintsev, “Skotovodstvo naseleniia Priural’ia,” Problemy finno-ugorskoi arkheologii Urala i Povolzh’ia (Syktyvkar, 1992), 153; M.V. Fekhner, “Bobrovyi promysel v Volgo-Okskom mezhdurech’e,” SA 3 (1989), 71-72. 80 Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi, 69-73; Konakov, Komi, 169-171. 81 E.g., Finns, Mordva, Karelians, Ob’-Ugrians, Buriat, Veps, and others. See Talve, Finnish Folk Culture, 72; J.-P. Taavitsainen, “Wide-Range Hunting and Swidden Cultivation as Prerequisites of Iron Age Colonization in Finland,” Suomen Antropologi: Special Issue on Swidden Cultivation 4 (1987), 214-215; Sirelius, Jagd und Fischeri in Finnland, 21-23; Kozlova, Etnografiia narodov Povolzhia, 37; Kodolányi, “North Eurasian,” 157; Zhambalova, Traditsionnaia okhota Buriat, 101; Pimenov, Vepsy, 106; Taroeva, Material’naia kul’tura Karel, 45. Although Pimenov does not make a direct reference to the use of patches by the Veps, he does indicate that the Veps built hunting lodges. Therefore, it can be safely assumed that, as other Finno-Ugrians, the Veps also used patches for hunting. 82 Fisher, The Russian Fur Trade, 156-158. 83 Taavitsainen, “Wide-Range Hunting,” 214.

154

by the late nineteenth century,84 it is likely that during earlier periods hunting patches

were located much closer to the permanent settlements.

A hunting patch consisted of a number of paths along which hunters set up their traps

and hunted with active hunting devices (e.g., bows and arrows, javelins, and slings).

Sometimes certain paths were designated for trapping specific types of animals (e.g.,

squirrels). Since the paths usually crossed streams and small rivers, it was possible for

hunters to place traps for beaver near beaver lodges. The paths usually took one day to

traverse and were circular; thus, at sundown, the hunter returned to the point where he

began at dawn. In length, the paths ranged from 2-3 km to 12-15 km, depending on the

difficulty of the terrain and the types of animals hunted along it.85 It has been noted by

experienced hunters and other experts on hunting practices that this method is much more

effective than hunting without any pattern or regularly treaded path. The regimented

hunting of animals along a path lowers the average age in the population of animals; thus

decreasing the age of fertile animals and thereby increasing their reproductive virility.86

Hunters also appear to have been aware of such factors as the age of the animals they

hunted. Thus, for example, at Krutik, the overwhelming majority of beaver bones found

by archaeologists belonged to young beavers (2-2.5 years of age).87 This may suggest that

hunters were specifically targeting young beavers that were not yet able to reproduce, so

as not to disrupt the population/reproduction process. Similar practices have been

recorded among other hunting peoples of northern Russia.88

84 Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi, 66. 85 Konakov, Komi, 35-38; Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi, 66. 86 Konakov, Komi, 93; Zhambalova, Traditsionnaia okhota Buriat, 33. 87 Andreeva, “Fauna poseleniia Krutik,” 182. 88 Mazin, Byt i khoziaistvo Evenkov-Orochonov, 100.

155

Small but well equipped hunting lodges (vör kerka) [Fig. 5] were built along the paths

where hunters could stay overnight during their expeditions. Often, smaller structures

were built adjoining or very near the hut. These structures were used for storage as well

as for cooking, drying cloths, skinning animals, repairing traps and clothing, and the like.

In order to prevent wild animals, such as bears, from making unwelcome visits to the

lodges, hunters built sheds (often on stilts) at a short distance from the lodge to store

food, furs, and other perishables [Fig. 6].89

FIGURE 5 KOMI VÖR KERKA90

89 Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi, 72; Konakov, Komi, 35-39. 90 Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi, 70.

156

FIGURE 6 KOMI HUNTING STORAGE FACILITY91

Since some of the paths extended further than one day’s journey from the lodge,

hunters constructed several smaller and less equipped lodges along these paths. These

smaller lodges were designed for a one-night stay and storage.92 At the site of the main

lodge, hunters often built themselves bathhouses or saunas which were used not only for

washing, but also for medical purposes.93 The main lodge was usually built next to a

stream or a small river where water and fish could be obtained. The river likewise made

communications and transportation with the outside easier.94

Hunters usually worked in pairs (an older experienced hunter and a younger trainee,

i.e., father and son) twice a year for several months at their hunting patches.95 The first

hunting season usually began sometime in September; however, the seasons varied from

region to region according to the climatic conditions of the area. Equipped with food, a

91 Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi, 71. 92 Konakov, Komi, 35-38; Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi, 66. 93 Konakov, Komi, 35-38; Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi, 72. 94 Konakov, Komi, 35-38; Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi, 66. 95 Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi, 74.

157

sled, a hunting-stick, and skis, the hunters traveled to their lodges.96 Often, hunters also

took along with them special backpacks or sacks made of elk or deer skins for carrying

provisions and the prey they hunted or trapped.97

On arriving at the lodge, before setting out to hunt and trap, the hunters first repaired

their traps from the previous year and made new ones.98 Much of the early part of the

season was dedicated to hunting and trapping fowl for personal consumption. The

remainder of the time was spent on trapping and hunting fur-bearing animals.99 During

the early part of the autumn season, before the snow cover became heavy, squirrel and

forest fowl were hunted and trapped. As the snow began to accumulate, hunters turned to

tracking ermine, fox, otter, and marten.100 At the end of November/early December,

hunters returned to the villages on sleds with their harvest. In the interlude between the

two seasons, while at home, hunters often hunted for hare.101

The second season began in January. The winter season, when their fur was at its best,

was the time for trapping and hunting fur-bearing animals. The winter season was shorter

and ended when the snow began to melt, sometime at the end of late March/early April.

Hunters attempted to return to their villages on sleds before the snow melted.102

However, sometimes hunters would wait until the rivers became navigable, only then

traveling with their goods by boat back to their villages.103 During the spring and, to a

96 Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi, 87. 97 Konakov, Komi, 76; Taroeva, Material’naia kul’tura Karel, 65. 98 Konakov, Komi, 93. 99 Konakov, Komi, 93. 100 Konakov, Komi, 93; Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi, 74. 101 Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi, 74. 102 Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi, 74. 103 Konakov, Komi, 78.

158

much lesser extent, in summer months, hunters trapped and hunted water and forest fowl.

In general, however, hunting during the summer months was rarely practiced.104

Often, hunters combined hunting and fishing on their trips to the lodges. Some of the

older hunters or those with large families would stay at their lodges the entire summer

fishing and foraging (e.g., for pine-nuts) before the coming of the fall hunting season.105

Sometimes hunters traveled in boats to their hunting lodges in the early fall with their

wives where the couple trapped forest fowl and fished. Before frost set in, the women

returned to the villages with their harvest while the men stayed behind to hunt squirrels

and other fur-bearing animals. Later in the fall, the men returned to the villages in sleds

with their acquisitions.106

FIGURE 7 KOMI HUNTING PATCHES NEAR THE VILLAGE OF ULICHPOM107

104 Konakov, Komi, 94. 105 Konakov, Komi, 92. 106 Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi, 74. 107 Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi, 73.

159

To better understand how the hunting patch system functioned, it is necessary to

examine the activities of an early twentieth-century hunter along his hunting patch. The

hunter began his route from the lodge nearest to his village (Ulichpom) by land [Fig. 7].

To this lodge he brought food as well as other supplies and picked up traps left there the

previous year. Next, over a one-day journey (day 1), he traveled to the second lodge and

set up the traps along the way. During the following two days (days 2 and 3) he made two

one-day-journeys around the second lodge (the central lodge) to set up more traps which

were stored at the site and returned to the same spot on both days to spend the night. On

the fourth day, he made a one-day journey to the third lodge and, on the way, set up more

traps. At the third lodge, he once again picked up more traps and made two one-day-

journeys (days 5 and 6) around the lodge setting them up and returning on both days back

to the lodge for the night. On the seventh day, he traveled back to the second lodge by a

different route and set up more traps. On the next day (day 8), he traveled by a different

route to the first lodge and set up more traps. After setting up the traps along all the paths,

the hunter repeated the journey described above, only now he harvested the prey caught

in the traps and took the animals to the lodges where he skinned and stored them in the

shed.108

Although the ethnographic records do not speak of this, it is very likely that as the

hunter traversed his trapping grounds, he also hunted with bow and arrow or some other

active devices to supplement his catch. On the last trip before departing for the village, he

made the final round to pick up the traps and bring them back to the lodges for storage.

During this last round, he also gathered all of the pelts he trapped and hunted which were

stored in the sheds. 108 Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi, p. 72 & Fig. 19.

160

Since the hunting patches were mostly located on the upper reaches of riverways,109 it

is likely that hunters often relied on down-river transport for shipping the products of the

forest (fur, castor oil, and meat) to the village. Transport back to the villages from

hunting lodges was commonly carried out in dugout boats. Hunters usually made their

own dugouts seasonally for a specific purpose, like transporting cargo down-river in

spring. Dugouts were made during the winter, often at the spot where the tree was felled.

Thereafter, they were dragged back to the hunting lodges where they would rest until the

spring journey back to the villages. Since the dugouts were used for only one season, they

might be considered as “disposable.” These boats were small and light in weight; thus,

they could be easily carried over portages. At the same time, their small size and low

starboard sides prohibited their use along large rivers and in lakes and limited their

carrying capacity.110 Based on ethnographic accounts, the dugout’s carrying capacity was

ca. 200 kg and could accommodate one to two passengers with cargo.111 However, since

pelts are light in weight and do not take up much space, these boats were a sufficient

form of transport for the Finno-Ugrians in travel from the lodges to their permanent

settlements. As will be discussed in Chapter VII, such boats were well known to the

Finno-Ugrians from the Stone Age.

In addition to having permanent hunting patches and lodges, hunters and trappers in

the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were also known to have ventured

beyond their hunting patches. This meant that hunting and trapping were carried out in

lands outside the direct vicinity of the hunters’ settlements. Consequently, hunters had to

construct temporary housing called chom (i.e., a simple, often conical shaped, tee-pee- 109 Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi, 70, 75; Konakov, Komi, 121-134. 110 Konakov, Komi, 78. 111 Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi, 132; Konakov, Komi, 78.

161

like structure made of wood, bark, hay, and hides) for themselves when out hunting and

trapping in distant places. These structures were seasonal and were often used as sleeping

quarters for one night. In the event it was necessary to stay longer, the hut was reinforced

to be more secure. Other hunting peoples of northern Eurasia also built such structures as

late as the early twentieth century.112 Presumably, this type of hunting was carried out

when the private hunting patches did not provide an adequate volume of game,

particularly if the hunters wanted a larger yield of furs to be sold to traders or given as

tribute. Hunters were known to have gone out on such long-distance hunts during all

seasons of the year.113

It is of interest to note that a picture of a chom has been discovered by archaeologists

in Novgorod at a yard belonging to tribute collectors who had close contacts with the

Russian North. It was drawn on a bottom of a birch-bark container dating to the twelfth

century with a representation of a man inside a tee-pee-like tent waving an ax in one of

his hands [Fig. 8].114 There is little question that this drawing represents a so-called

vezhnik or “tent-person,” a Finno-Ugrian inhabitant of the far-Russian North.115

112 Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi, 46-51; Pimenov, Vepsy, Pic. 7:3,4; Sirelius, Jagd und Fischeri, 22; idem., Suomen kansanomaista kulttuuria 2 (Helsinki, 1921), Figs. 154-155, 157, 159, 160-163; Hajdu, Finno-Ugrian Languages and Peoples, 139; Mazin, Byt i khoziaistvo Evenkov-Orochonov, p. 12, Fig. 1; Khomich, Nentsy, 101-108. 113 Konakov, Komi, 46-51. 114 E.A. Rybina, “Applied Art,” The Archaeology of Novgorod, Russia: Recent Results from the Town and its Hinterland [The Society for Medieval Archaeology: Monograph Series 13], ed. M.A. Brisbane; tr. K. Judelson; gen. ed. R. Huggins (Lincoln, 1992), 169-170, Fig. V.4: 4; idem., “Risunki srednevekovykh novgorodsev (po arkheologicheskim materialam),” Istoriia - arkheologiia: Traditsii i perespektivy (Moscow, 1998), Cat. !31, p. 20, Fig. 3: 1. 115 For a recent discussion of the term vezha and vezhnik, see A.P. Novosel’tsev, “Termin «vezha» v drevnerusskikh istochnikakh,” DGNT SSSR: 1987 (Moscow, 1989), 13-18.

162

FIGURE 8 PICTURE OF A VEZHNIK (“TENT PERSON”) ON THE BOTTOM

OF A BIRCH-BARK CONTAINER116 (12TH CENTURY)

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, hunters were known to go out in

parties when hunting at great distances from their settlements.117 Ethnographic records

relate that when heading out in groups to hunt and trap, hunters built several small

temporary shelters and storage facilities. In many ways, these shelters were much like the

temporary huts built by individual hunters noted above; however, these huts were more

stable and secure. Usually, these huts held up to six people; therefore, most of the hunting

parties consisted of no more than six individuals.118

Lastly, it is important to consider that men were trained as hunters from early

childhood, something that is a necessity if one were to become an expert hunter. All

animals have special habits and biological clocks that dictate everything ranging from

116 Rybina, “Risunki srednevekovykh novgorodsev,” Cat. !31, p. 20, Fig. 3: 1. 117 Since the forests of the Russian north during the Middle Ages were still rich with various game, it is unlikely that there was a necessity to venture far from the settlements to hunt and trap. 118 Konakov, Komi, 46-51.

163

their habitat to the quality of their pelts.119 Therefore, a successful hunter had to learn

animal migration patterns, tracks, the food they eat in order to trap or lure them, and

many other tricks of the trade. Furthermore, in order to survive, it was critical to become

very well trained and highly skilled at hunting and trapping as well as in surviving in the

severe natural environment of the Russian north. Consequently, from childhood, boys

received formal and informal training on how to become successful hunters. As noted

above, elder hunters took young hunters with them to the lodges for training. During

these trips the older hunter not only explained how the different traps functioned, but

every other detail related to hunting and surviving in the forest. Detailed information

related to such questions as animal tracks, habitat and habits of animals, orientation in the

forests (according to the stars by night and the tree bark by day) and topography,

communicating with other hunters, and many other hunting and survival strategies were

passed down during these trips from the older, experienced hunter to his apprentice. Oral

traditions related to hunting, found in heroic songs, lullabies, ballads, fairy-tales,

proverbs, and sayings supplemented the education of the youth in becoming skilled

hunters from their very early years.120

There were also many informal ways by which the youth could become professional

hunters from personal experience. The most important and earliest informal training came

in the form of children’s games and toys. Wooden bows and arrows were some of the

most popular toys which taught the young the skills of a good marksman. Some games

taught the skills of how to approach animals quietly while others taught children patience,

how to survive exposure to snow and cold, and ways of finding people who were buried 119 For an excellent discussion of the “hunter’s calendar,” see G.P. Dement’ev, Kalendar’ okhoty (Moscow, 1953), 221-234. 120 Taroeva, Material’naia kul’tura Karel, 44.

164

in snowdrifts.121 Other hunting peoples of northern Russia had many similar types of

toys, games, and childhood training.122

From the age of 6-7, children were involved in trapping small birds. Slightly later,

they began making their own traps with which they caught small forest fowl (crossbills)

as a pastime. This “pastime” activity considerably supplemented the food supply of the

household (in good years up to two thousand crossbills a year per child).123 With such

experience at hand, beginning about age 8-9, hunters began taking their children to the

lodges for formal training. Within a few years, the teenagers (14-15 year of age) were

ready to participate fully in hunting and trapping activities. As the youth matured into an

adult, he became eligible to inherit his deceased father’s hunting patch. If there was more

than one son in the family, the younger son inherited his father’s patch while the elder

brothers left the household to establish their own households and hunting patches.124

* * *

Before ending the discussion on the process of procuring pelts from the forests, it

would be of interest to consider how the pelts were processed before they were exported

to the markets. While medieval written sources do not describe where, when, and how

pelts were treated once skinned off the animals, early modern accounts, modern

ethnographic reports, archaeological materials, and pictorial evidence shed much light on

these questions. When they speak of the matter, most written accounts relate that hunters

121 Konakov, Komi, 228-229. 122 See, for example, the toys, games, and other types of formal and informal training of the Mansi children in E.G. Fedorova, “Rebenok v traditsionnoi mansiiskoi sem’e,” Traditsionnoe vospitanie detei u narodov Sibiri (Leningrad, 1988), 87-90. 123 Fedorova, “Rebenok v traditsionnoi mansiiskoi sem’e,” 229. 124 Fedorova, “Rebenok v traditsionnoi mansiiskoi sem’e,” 167.

165

began to process their pelts at the place of kill. This is supported by the depiction found

on the above-mentioned panel of the pew of Novgorodian traders at the Church of St.

Nicholas in Stralsund [Fig. 9] where one finds a hunter removing the skin from a marten

or sable using a knife at the place of kill in the forest.

FIGURE 9 PANEL OF A PEW OF NOVGORODIAN TRADERS AT THE CHURCH OF ST. NICHOLAS IN

STRALSUND, NORTHERN GERMANY (SECOND HALF OF THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY)125

Traditionally, skins were pealed off the animals turning the fur inside out, just as one

removes a nylon stocking. The remaining animal fat, flesh, and membrane were then cut

away from the skin with various types of knives and scrapers.126 Special flint, stone, or

bone scrapers used specifically for processing skins have been reported from medieval

sites stretching from the Perm’ (Vychegda river) region in the far Russian North to the

125 Schildhauer, The Hansa, 112. For those curious, the individual on the right with an ax is involved in the procurement of wax or honey from wild bees. Note the bear holding a container in the forefront in the right corner craving honey. Both (particularly wax) were major Novgorodian exports. 126 Mazin, Byt i khoziaistvo Evenkov-Orochonov, 110.

166

Oka-middle Volga area in central areas of European Russia in the south.127 No doubt, the

great many iron knives found throughout the Finno-Ugrian world of northern Russia were

also used for this purpose. For treating large skins such as those of wolves or bears,

special wooden T-shaped pegs were used to clamp the skins to the ground and stretch

them so as to permit the worker to easily scrape off the flesh and fat from the skins.

Being stretched out, the skins also became more elastic. Such artifacts dating to the sixth-

seventh centuries have been discovered by archaeologists in the Perm’ region.128

After the skin had been removed from the animal and cleaned, it was exposed to a

process that would prevent it from spoilage – usually this meant drying it. For instance, in

the nineteenth century, Mari hunters-trappers processed their squirrel pelts by leaving

them turned inside out with fur facing the inside and drying them stretched out on a two-

pronged branch sharpened at its ends: the hind paws were inserted into the two ends of

the branch and the head into the end which joined the two branches. Once dried, the pelts

were sold.129 Unlike the Mari, the Evenki of Siberia in the nineteenth-early twentieth

centuries dried their squirrel pelts without stretching them on racks. However, they did

use similar, but more complex devices for drying pelts of sable and other animals [Fig.

127 G.M. Burov, “Dereviannye orudiia s poseleniia Vis II v basseine Vychegdy (seredina I tysiacheletiia n.e.),” AV 7 (2000), 189-191; K.S. Korolev, “Poselenie Vanvizdinskoi kul’tury Shoinaty VI,” Pamiatniki material’noi kul’tury na Evropeiskom Severo-Vostoka [MAESV 10] (Syktyvkar, 1986), 97; A.M. Murygin, S.M. Pliusnin, “Poselenie Iadmas I v basseine Srednei Mezene,” Vzaimodeistvie kul’tur severnogo Priural’ia v drevnosti i srednevekov’e [MAESV 12] (Syktyvkar, 1993), 104; K.S. Korolev, “Raboty v Ugdymskom arkheologicheskom komplekse,” AOUP (Syktyvkar, 1989), 16; idem., “Raboty v Shoinatyiskom mikroraione,” AO: 1975 (Moscow, 1976), 24; idem, “Issledovaniia v basseine Vychegdy,” AO: 1977 (Moscow, 1978), 16; V.A. Semenov, “Razvedki v Ust’-Kulomskom i Sysol’skom raionakh Komi ASSR,” AO: 1977, 37; V.S. Stokolos, A.M. Murygin, “Issledovaniia na Mezenskikh novostroikakh,” AO: 1977, 39; idem., Raskopki v raione pos. Usogosk,” AO: 1978 (Moscow, 1979), 40; P.D. Stepanov, Osh-Pando (Saransk, 1967), 79; G.A. Arkhipov, Mariitsy IX-XI vv. (Ioshkar-Ola, 1973), 47; K.A. Smirnov, “Veshchevoi kompleks D’iakovskikh gorodishch,” D’iakovskaia kul’tura (Moscow, 1974), 62; Dubynin, “Shcherbitskoe gorodishche,” 223; R.L. Rozenfel’dt, “Vanvizdinskaia cul’tura,” Finno-ugry i, 120. 128 Burov, “Dereviannye orudiia s poseleniia Vis II,” 191-193. 129 Kriukova, Material’naia kul’tura mariitsev, 38.

167

10].130 Aside from drying skins in the open air, in the seventeenth century, Siberian

hunters were known to have smoked their sable skins while still in the forests so as to

prevent them from spoiling.131

FIGURE 10 PELT-DRYING MECHANISMS OF THE EVENKI OF SIBERIA

(NINETEENTH-EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURIES)132 (A & C - Used for Sables; B – Used for Kolonok [A Predatory Animal of the Marten Family])

While cleaning and drying skins preserved furs from spoilage, they were not durable

and pliable enough to be sew into clothing. The next stage in the processing of pelts

would have involved further curing by subjecting them to a biochemical and physical

treatment. Unfortunately, there is no way to determine if the skins underwent this process

in the forests of the Russian North before they were exported to Novgorod. In recent

130 Mazin, Byt i khoziaistvo Evenkov-Orochonov, 102, 104-105. 131 Fisher, The Russian Fur Trade, 157; V.P. Levasheva, “Obrabotka kozhi, mekha i drugikh vidov zhivotnogo syr’ia,” Ocherki po istorii russkoi derevni X-XIII vv. [TGIM 33] (Moscow, 1959), 52. 132 Mazin, Byt i khoziaistvo Evenkov-Orochonov, pp. 102-103, Figs. 112-113.

168

times, Mari hunters-trappers sold pelts on the market that had only been dried.133

However, when the various peoples of northern Russia used pelts for their own needs,

they were known to have processed their pelts fully so that they could easily be sew into

clothing and worn. Since furs were worn in the Russian North for millennia prior to the

advent of Novgorod’s fur trade, it would be natural to expect that the Finno-Ugrians

knew how to cure their pelts. It is likely that they delivered them to the markets and the

tribute collectors in their cured state.

Although tanning and leatherworking were well developed and widespread in

Novgorod from the early years of the city’s history,134 it is very doubtful that the

hundreds of thousands of pelts brought to the city annually could have been processed by

the city’s artisans. It should be added that the pelts that were processed in Novgorod were

handled by special furriers. As will be discussed in Chapter VII, based on sources from

the second half of the sixteenth century, surprisingly few such furriers were found in the

city. For this reason, it is probable that the pelts entering Novgorod had already been

treated at or near the site of their acquisition in the forests of the Novgorodian lands.

Based on ethnographic evidence and some archaeological remains, it is possible to

speculate how the peoples of the Russian North processed their pelts before they were

sent to the Novgorodian market. For instance, in the nineteenth-early twentieth century,

the Evenki coated their pelts with sour milk and placing them in warm places to dry one

to three days, depending on the type of fur treated. Thereafter, once the pelts were

133 Kriukova, Material’naia kul’tura mariitsev, 38. 134 S.A. Iziumova, “K istorii kozhevennogo i sapozhnogo remesel Novgoroda Velikogo,” TNAE 2 [MIA SSSR 65] (Moscow, 1959), 192-222.

169

pliable, they were further worked and stretched by hand to make them more elastic.135

Concoctions made of water and fermented oat flour were used by other peoples of

European Russia as late as the nineteenth century for softening large skins. After this

biochemical process, the skins were worked with hand-held hooks for further tenderizing.

Iron and wooden hooks used for this purpose have been discovered in pre-Mongol Rus’

sites including Staraia Ladoga. Skins of smaller animals such as squirrel, sable, and

young martens were coated on the inside with dough and left for a day to moisten, after

which they were scraped and rubbed down with chalk to eliminate moisture and fat. After

this process, the skins were sprinkled with fermented malt and stretched out in a drying

rack, similar to those described above.136 Similar methods of treating pelts of fur-bearing

animals were observed in Western Europe in the Middle Ages and later centuries.137

Overall, it is impossible to ascertain with accuracy the exact methods used by the

Finno-Ugrians for treating their pelts before they were shipped to Novgorod. However,

since they used furs for clothing many millennia prior to the advent of the Novgorodian

fur trade, it would be natural to expect them to have had sufficient, if not advanced-for-

the-age, technologies for curing pelts of fur-bearing animals. In view of the huge

numbers of pelts entering Novgorod each year, it would be difficult to believe that they

would have been cured in the city. Most pelts must have been treated and made ready for

the market of Novgorod in the far distant lands where they were hunted and trapped. The

treatment of animal skins and the time, effort, and technologies it required, are also key

135 Mazin, Byt i khoziaistvo Evenkov-Orochonov, 112; Iziumova, “K istorii kozhevennogo i sapozhnogo remesel,” 194 136 Levasheva, “Obrabotka kozhi, mekha i drugikh vidov zhivotnogo syr’ia,” 52-53. 137 For the technical and chemical aspects of curing pelts, see R. Thomson, “Leather Working Process,” Leather and Fur, 8-9.

170

components in the structure of the Novgorodian fur trade, an issue often neglected in

scholarship. Much of this burden, apparently, fell on the Finno-Ugrian hunters-trappers.

* * *

In conclusion, Islamic, Rus’, Italian, and Norse medieval texts speak of the great

abundance of highly-valued fur among the Finno-Ugrians of the Russian North.

Archaeological finds from the regions inhabited by Finno-Ugrians show that these

peoples, were, indeed, highly involved in the acquisition of pelts during the course of the

Middle Ages. Alongside the numerous finds of bones belonging to fur-bearing animals at

their settlements, archaeologists also encounter blunt-tipped arrowheads which were used

specifically for hunting fur bearing animals without damaging their skins.

The medieval accounts on the Finno-Ugrians are too few and fragmentary to offer

much detail on their hunting practices. Likewise, archaeological evidence only offers

material remains which do not reveal the structure of the Finno-Ugrian hunting habits.

When combining these two sources of evidence with the ethnographic records on the

Finno-Ugrian hunting traditions, however, it is possible to reconstruct not only their

specific methods of hunting and trapping fur-bearing animals, but entire processes of how

these peoples obtained vast quantities of pelts from the forests of the Russian north. On

examining all of the evidence, it becomes clear that the Finno-Ugrians were highly adept

hunters with exquisite survival strategies. They used various passive and active devices

and techniques for hunting and trapping fur-bearing animals, and they learned these

methods of obtaining pelts from their early childhood. From generation to generation, the

methods of hunting and trapping fur-bearing animals were retained in the traditions of the

Finno-Ugrian peoples of northern Russia, thereby assuring the Novgorodian fur markets

171

with constant and abundant supplies of pelts. Without their unique skills of obtaining

huge numbers of pelts annually, the Novgorodian fur trade would not have existed.

Lastly, the available evidence suggests that the work of the Finno-Ugrians did not end

with the capture of fur-bearing animals. Before shipping them beyond their lands for sale

or as tribute, pelts had to be processed. This involved curing the pelts so that they would

be tender and pliable enough to be sewn into clothing and made more durable. While the

exact processes utilized by the peoples of the Russian North during the Middle Ages for

the treatment of pelts are unknown, it is clear that this task added an extra step in the

structure of the Novgorodian fur trade, one that would have involved Finno-Ugrian labor,

time, and special know-how.

CHAPTER IV

GENERAL CHARACTERISTIC OF FINNO-UGRIAN TRADE WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS

The previous chapter focused on the highly developed hunting and trapping skills of

the Finno-Ugrians during the Middle Ages. Given the proper incentives, these hunters

could provide hundreds of thousands of pelts annually from the northern Russian forests.

However, most Finno-Ugrians lived at great distances from the peoples interested in

obtaining their fur. The Novgorodians had to provide incentives to the Finno-Ugrians not

only to hunt and trap hundreds of thousands of fur-bearing animals annually, but also do

so regularly (year in and year out) in order to satisfy a demand that was constant. One

such incentive was the need for various commodities, not available to the Finno-Ugrians,

but accessible to other peoples of northwestern Eurasia.

TRADE AND ITS STRUCTURE

The pattern of the Novgorodian-Finno-Ugrian fur trade is traceable in a number of

medieval texts and numerous archaeological and numismatic finds. Snorre Sturlason,

writing in the mid-thirteenth century, described how Scandinavian merchants came to the

Vina (Northern Dvina) River in Bjarmaland/Permia to buy beaver and sable at a market

set up by the Finno-Ugrians.1 Writing several decades earlier, Saxo Grammaticus also

mentioned that the Finno-Ugrians traded animal skins with their neighbors.2 Although

elusive on many points, the Islamic sources make reference to the fur trade. Ibn Fa!l!n, a

traveler to the middle Volga region in 921/22, noted that Volga Bulgh!r merchants

1 Snorre Sturlason, Heimskringla Saga, tr. A.H. Smith (New York, reprint 1990), 360. Also see this passage quoted in Chapter III. 2 Saxo Grammaticus, The History of the Danes I, tr. P. Fisher, ed. H.E. Davidson (London, 1979), 9.

173

traveled to the W!s" and obtained from them “sables and black foxes.”3 Al-!arn#$! –

another voyager to eastern Europe in 1136-1150 – also observed that Volga Bulgh!r

merchants traveled to the W!s" to trade for sables.4 Marvaz!, a close contemporary of al-

!arn#$!, added that Volga Bulgh#r merchants journeyed to the Y"ra and traded various

items for “excellent sable and other fine furs.”5 Speaking of the “Land of Darkness,” or

the northeastern-most areas of the European Russian North, Marco Polo (1254-1324) also

observed that traders traveled to the peoples of northern Russia to purchase their furs and

that they “make a huge profit” from selling them.6

Written sources reveal that some groups of merchants, like the Volga Bulgh#rs,

attempted to establish monopolies by acting as middlemen in the fur trade between the

Finno-Ugrians of the north and the Islamic merchants of the south. This is clearly seen in

al-!arn#$!’s account:

The peoples inhabiting the [regions of the] W!s" and Y"ra are forbidden to enter the lands of [Volga] Bulgh#ria, since when they enter, even during the hottest periods, the air and water become cold, as in winter, and people’s crops are ruined. And this has been tested among them. I saw a group of them in Bulgh#r during the winter: [they] are red in the face, having blue eyes, their hair is blond as flax, and during such cold they wear summer clothing. Some of them wear coats made of fabulous beaver pelts, the fur of which is turned inside out.7

3 Ibn Fa!l#n, The Ris!la of Ibn Fa!l!n: An Annotated Translation with Introduction, J.E. Mckeithen (Ann Arbor, dissertation microfiche, 1979), 110. 4 Ab" %#mid al-!arn#$! in Puteshestvie Abu Hamida al-Garnati, tr. O.G. Bol’shakov, comm. A.L. Mongait (Moscow, 1971), 31. 5 Marvaz!, Sharaf al-Zam!n "!hir Marvaz" on China, the Turks and India, tr. V. Minorsky (London, 1942), 34. 6 Marco Polo, The Travels, tr. R.E. Latham (London, 1958), 331. Also see this passage quoted in Chapter III. 7 Al-!arn#$! in Puteshestvie, 34-35.

174

While al-!arn!"#’s explanation for why the W#s$ and Y$ra were prohibited to visit the

middle Volga region in the summer is obviously a local tale, it is significant,

nevertheless, that there were such restrictions. The summer months were the peak season

for the visitation of foreign merchants such as the Rus’ who sailed to middle Volga

region in their boats.8 The Volga Bulgh!rs, not wishing that the Finno-Ugrians trade

directly with these merchants, restricted them from coming to the main market in the

capital of Bulgh!r during this season.

Just as the Volga Bulgh!rs contrived fantastic legends to dissuade the Finno-Ugrians

from coming south in the summer months to trade with visiting foreign merchants, they

also contrived legends to frighten and discourage visiting merchants from making their

way to the Russian North in order to trade directly with the Finno-Ugrians. The best

example of such tales comes from the Islamic author Ibn %awqal who in 977-980 wrote

the following:

Concerning Arta, it is unknown if any foreigners travel there, since they kill any foreigner who come to their land. They only travel down the river for trade, but do not tell about their affairs and about their merchandise and do not permit anyone to follow them back to their land. From Arta are brought black sables, black foxes, and lead.9

8 Ibn Fa!l!n, Ris!la, 133. 9 Ibn %awqal in V.V. Bartol’d, Sochineniia II:1 (Moscow, 1963), 836. It should be noted that the mention of lead among Arta’s articles of trade suggests that they had access to non-ferrous metals imported from the Baltic via northwestern Rus’.

175

Very similar accounts are found in other medieval Islamic sources which also refer to the

land or its people as Ara/Arsa/Ary!n-.10 While the identity of these people is still

disputed (i.e., were they Rus’ or a Finno-Ugrian tribe?), what is clear is that the Volga

Bulgh!rs related frightening tales about the Ara to the visiting Islamic merchants in order

to dissuade them from making their own, direct trade connections with people who had

immediate access to pelts.11

The written sources reveal that the trade of pelts with the Finno-Ugrians of the far

north of Russia involved complex trade relations also that included intermediaries. Some

of the Finno-Ugrians sold or resold to the visiting merchants pelts that they obtained from

their more northeasterly neighbors. Thus, in the Old English text of the early tenth

century, Ohthere the Norwegian merchant-traveler, an eyewitness to what he described,

mentioned that the Biarmians/Beormas collected tribute in the form of marten pelts from

the Terian Lapps (Terfinnas). These pelts the Biarmians later sold to the Norwegians.12

Al-!arn!"# noted that the Volga Bulgh!r merchants traveled to the lands of the W#s$

to trade for sables. Among the items Volga Bulgh!r merchants exchanged for pelts were

sword blades manufactured in the Caliphate which the W#s$, in turn, used to obtain pelts

from the Y$ra.13 This information leaves little doubt that the W#s$ were playing the role

of middleman, exchanging goods they obtained from the Volga Bulgh!rs for furs, which

10 B.N. Zakhoder, Kaspiiskii svod svedenii o Vostochnoi Evrope (Gorgan i Povolzh’e v IX-X vv.) (Moscow, 1962), 32. Also see O. Pritsak, “The Name of the Third Kind of R!s and their City,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (April, 1967), 2-9. Al-!arn!"# (Puteshestvie, 31) did not relate this story, but did note that they “hunt for beaver, ermine, and superb squirrels. ...Excellent beaver pelts come from them.” 11 Pritsak, “The Name of the Third Kind of R!s,” 8. 12 Ohthere’s account in O. Pritsak, The Origin of Rus’ I (Cambridge, Mass., 1981), 695-696. 13 Al-!arn!"# in Puteshestvie, 31, 33-35.

176

they would resell in return for more pelts to the more distant Y!ra. The fact that the W"s!

(also know as Ves’/Vasinabroncas/Vuizunbeire/Wizzi in medieval Rus’, Latin, and

German sources),14 played a middlemen role in this trade should not be surprising, since

this tribal grouping was the immediate northwestern neighbors of the Volga Bulgh!rs.

Interestingly, the Y!ra, themselves, were also playing the part of intermediaries as they

traded imported goods, such as knives and axes, with the more distant peoples of the

Russian North. The several accounts which speak of this trade need to be studied

together.

Ibn #awqal noted that the Rus’ obtained expensive pelts from the lands of the Gog

and Magog peoples.”15 The Gog and Magog mentioned by Ibn #awqal are a Biblical-

mythical peoples, believed to have been enclosed inside mountains by Alexander the

Great.16 They are noted also in the Russian Primary Chronicle under the entry for the

year 1096 which relates a story told to the chronicler by Giuriata Rogovich, the mayor of

Novgorod from 1088-1117.17 His story was based on the eyewitness account of his

subordinate whom he sent to the lands of the Pechora to collect tribute. While in the

Pechora region, he traveled further north/northeast and encountered Iugra/Y!ra tribes

14 For these peoples in the medieval texts, see RPC, 52, 55, 59, 60; Jordanes, The Gothic History of Jordanes, tr. C.C. Mierow (Princeton, 1915), XXIII: 116, p. 84; Geographus Bavarus (Fol. 149v) in A.V. Nazarenko, Nemetskie latinoiazychnye istochniki IX-XI vekov (Moscow, 1993), 15, 37-41; Adam of Bremen, History of the Archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen, tr. F.J. Tschan (New York, 1959), 196. Also see the following for the survey of the archaeological monuments left by these peoples: E.A. Riabinin, Finno-ugorskie plemena v sostave Drevnei Rusi (St. Petersburg, 1997), 82-112; L.A. Golubeva, “Ves’,” Finno-ugry i balty v epukhu srednevekov’ia, ed. V.V. Sedov (Moscow, 1987), 52-64. 15 Ibn #awqal in Bartol’d, Sochineniia, 848. 16 For an in-depth study of these legendary peoples, see A.R. Anderson, Alexander’s Gate, Gog and Magog, and the Inclosed Nations (Cambridge, Mass., 1932). 17 For this character, see V.L. Ianin, Novgorodskie posadniki (Moscow, 1962), 16, 21, 27, 28, 41, 54, 61, 73.

177

who were “dwelling in the north with the Samoyeds.”18 These Iugra related to him the

following:

We have encountered a strange marvel, with which we had not until recently been acquainted. This occurrence took place three years ago. There are certain mountains which slope down to an arm of the sea, and their height reaches to the heavens. Within these mountains are heard great cries and the sound of voices; those within are cutting their way out. In that mountain, a small opening has been pierced through which they converse, but their language is unintelligible. They point, however, at iron objects, and make gestures as if to ask for them. If given a knife or an axe, they supply furs in return. The road to these mountains is impassable with precipices, snow, and forest. Hence we do not always reach them, and they are also far to the north. 19

The passage ends with the chronicler’s recitation of the legend of how Alexander of

Macedon shut up “eastern countries as far as the sea called the Land of the Sun…”

“…and these corrupt nations, which dwell in the northern mountains, shall also issue

forth at God’s command.20 This account makes it clear that the Iugra tribes were

exchanging goods such as knives and axes for pelts with other peoples of the distant

Russian North. Giuriata’s information can be supplemented by several references from

Muslim testimony regarding the same peoples and their trading practices. Thus, al-

!arn!"# also notes that the Y$ra had trading partners who dwell in the “Land of

Darkness.” He writes:

Merchants say that [the Land of] Darkness is not far from them (i.e., Y$ra) and that the people Y$ra go to this Darkness with torches. [There] they find a huge tree which looks like a large settlement and on it [sits] a large animal, and [they] say that it is a bird. And [they] bring with them goods which [each] merchant places separately, places a sign on them, and then leaves. Thereafter, they return and find goods which one needs from their country. And each person finds next to his goods something from these items; and, if he agrees, then [he] takes it and if [he does] not,

18 RPC, 184; PVL, 107-108, 245-246. 19 RPC, 184. 20 RPC, 184-185.

178

takes his own things and leaves others. There is no deceit. No one knows the people from whom [these] goods are exchanged.21

Thus, it appears that Ibn !awqal, Iugra’s account to Giuriata’s servant, and al-!arn"#$ all

describe one in the same people with whom the Iugra/Y%ra maintained commercial

relations: they were most likely the Samoyed tribes, located in the northeastern Urals-

lower Ob’ River in northwestern Siberia.22 Indeed, located on the Asian side of the Urals,

it would have appeared to their European neighbors that they lived beyond the edge of

the world, enclosed inside mountains (i.e., the Urals).

Although al-!arn"#$ does not informs his readers about the nature of the goods traded

by the Y%ra with the people of the “Land of Darkness”/Samoyeds and what they received

in exchange for them, the Iugra/Y%ra themselves related to Giuriata’s servant that they

traded iron objects such as knives and axes for furs. It is safe to suggest that the Y%ra

exchanged various items brought to them by Volga Bulgh"r, Novgorodian, and Finno-

Ugrian intermediaries, such as the W$s%. As discussed below, knives, axes, and other iron

implements were in great demand in the Russian North, most of which were southern

imports. In return for these goods, the Y%ra traded their own pelts and those they

obtained from the Samoyeds for more imported goods to continue and increase the

volume of exchange. 21 Ab% !"mid al-!arn"#$ in Puteshestvie, 31-33. 22 For a general discussion on the medieval Samoeds/Samodeitsy and their archaeological cultures, see V.N. Chernetsov, W. Moszy!ska, Pre-History of Western Siberia [Arctic Institute of North America, "9] ed. H.N. Michael (Montreal-London, 1974), 197-238; V.A. Mogil’nikov, “Ugry i Samodeitsy Urala i Zapadnoi Sibiri,” Finno-ugry i balty v epukhu srednevekov’ia, ed. V.V. Sedov (Moscow, 1987), 163-164, 207, 216, 224, 227, 321, 234.

179

The use of intermediaries is common in the fur trade and, in fact, necessary when

considering the huge territories encompassed by such trade. The distance from Novgorod

to the foothills of the Urals on the European side is some 1,600 kilometers as the crow

flies. Similar distances were involved in the early modern and modern fur trade in North

America and the native hunters-trappers who were located closest to the trading posts

acted as middlemen between the Europeans and the more-distant native hunters-trappers.

The great distances as well as the transportation difficulties and dangers involved in

traveling hundreds of miles to the trading post discouraged the more remote natives from

trading directly with the Europeans. It was simply more practical to deal with

intermediaries.23

However, there were other reasons as well for the enlistment of middlemen, such as

desire of tribes or nations of Indians to exploit the role of middlemen for economic gain.

Other tribes wished to limit their enemies’ or their enemies’ allies’ contacts with the

Europeans from whom they purchased weapons or other strategic goods which could be

used as “gifts” for solidifying alliances.24 Quite likely, the Finno-Ugrians of northern

Russia had similar reasons for playing the role of middlemen between the visiting

Novgorodian, Volga Bulgh!r, and Scandinavian fur merchants and the more remote

hunters-trappers of the Russian North.

The above-quoted accounts from Giuriata and al-!arn!"# clearly describe the so-

called “silent trade,” or exchange that did not involve verbal communication, that was

23 A.J. Ray, D. Freeman, ‘Give Us Good Measure:’ An Economic Analysis of Relations Between the Indians and the Hudson’s Bay Company Before 1763 (Toronto, 1978), 45-47; R. White, The Middle Ground. Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815 (Cambridge, 1991), 105-108. 24 Ray, Freeman, ‘Give Us Good Measure’, 45-47; White, The Middle Ground, 105-108.

180

used by the Y!ra to trade with the people of the “Land of Darkness”/Samoyeds. Al-

B"r!n" (973-1048), another Muslim author, also speaks about the use of “silent trade” by

the Y!ra when he states that the “Inhabitants of Y!ra, due to their savagery and timidity,

trade as follows: “they leave their goods in some place and depart. In the same way the

people of the land of (Sri) Lanka, located in the sea trade cloves.”25 Later medieval

Muslim authors – #Awf", Ab!’l Fid$’, al-#Umar", and Ibn Ba%%!%a – also speak of this

“silent trade” carried on between the Finno-Ugrians of the Russian North and their

southern neighbors.26 Reference to “silent trade,” conducted by Rus’ merchants at

temporarily abandoned Samoyed settlements (where food and drink was left for them by

the shy natives), is also described in a fifteenth-century Novgorodian “Tale of the

Unknown Peoples in the Eastern Land.”27 In fact, “silent trade” continued to be used by

the Russian fur merchants with the Samoyeds and other peoples of the North into the

seventeenth century.28 Thus, just as the Y!ra tribes had to implement “silent trade” to

negotiate their commercial activities with the Samoyeds, the Volga Bulgh$r, Rus’, and

Scandinavian merchants had to use “silent trade” in their commerce with the Y!ra and

other tribes of the Russian North. This “silent trade” was one way of overcoming the

language barriers among the diverse linguistic groups who came to trade pelts in the far

Russian North.

25 B"r!n" in Abu Reikhan Biruni (973-1048), Izbrannye proizvedeniia, 3, tr. P.G. Bulgakov (Tashkent, 1966), 156. 26 The Travels of Ibn Ba!!"!a, A.D. 1325-1354, II, ed. H.A.R. Gibb (Cambridge, 1962), 491-492, n. 287. 27 Tekst-Kentavr o Sibirskikh Samoedakh, ed. A. Pliguzov (Moscow, 1993), 81, 94-95, 98-99, 103-104. 28 R.H. Fisher, The Russian Fur Trade, 1550-1700 (Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1943), 154-155.

181

In addition to the use of “silent trade,” sources also reveal that commercial relations

between the Finno-Ugrians and their neighbors could be negotiated face to face even

when neither side could speak the other’s language. One such account comes from the

thirteenth-century Norse Yngvar’s Saga which mentions that Vikings traded pelts with

the “natives” (i.e., Finno-Ugrians) “though neither side could understand what the other

was saying.”29 According to the story, the “natives gathered under the lee-side of the

cliff, offering various merchandise,”30 including furs. The Viking trading activity

described in the saga, however, ended badly since one of the “Russians” in the Viking

band “tried to break an agreement he just made to buy some furs.”31 Thereafter, the

Vikings proceeded to slaughter the Finno-Ugrians in great numbers, since they had no

protective armor.32

Writing in the middle of the sixteenth century, Olaus Magnus not only leaves an

account of the way the Finno-Ugrians traded and mentions the goods they desired for

their pelts but also provides an illustration of a Finno-Ugrian market scene [Fig. 1]:

…they do not signify agreement by word of mouth, for the race is made up of many tribes; this is not due to any natural incapacity or the ways of barbarians, but because each tribe has a tongue peculiar to itself and scarcely known to the rest of its neighbors. Places are appointed, too, either on flat ground in the country or on frozen lakes, where each year they hold a kind of market for carrying on this trade; here they may display to everyone goods which they can safely say they have produced by their own skill, either at home or abroad. Nor do they refrain in the meantime from similar trading when their wants are offered to them by foreigners.33

29 Vikings in Russia: Yngvar’s Saga and Eymund’s Saga, tr. H. Pálsson and P. Edwards (Edinburgh, 1989), 62. 30 Vikings in Russia, 62. 31 Vikings in Russia, 62. 32 Vikings in Russia, 62. 33 Olaus Magnus, Description of the Northern Peoples, Rome 1555, 1, tr. P. Fisher and H. Higgens, ed. P. Foote [Works Issued by the Hakluyt Society, 2nd Ser. vol. 182] (London, 1998), 201-203.

182

FIGURE 1 Engraving From Olaus Magnus of a Market Scene, 155534

DEMAND AND SUPPLY IN THE RUSSIAN NORTH

The written sources discussed above relate some information on the nature of the

goods involved in the fur trade between the Finno-Ugrians and their neighbors. Thus,

trade of iron knives and axes for pelts among various Finno-Ugrian tribes is noted in the

Russian Primary Chronicle. Al-!arn!"# expands this list of iron trade items by noting the

export of Muslim sword blades by Volga Bulgh!r merchants to the W#s$ who, thereafter,

traded them with the Y$ra for pelts. Marvaz# also relates that Volga Bulgh!r merchants

traded clothes, salt and “other things” in exchange for Y$ra pelts.35 Many of these trade

goods are also mentioned by Olaus Magnus when he described the way trade was carried

out by the Finno-Ugrians:

34 Olaus Magnus, Description of the Northern Peoples 1, 201. 35 Marvaz#, Sharaf al-Zam!n !!hir, 34.

183

The wares which are handled there, following the wishes and custom of the merchants, are of every kind, that is to say, valuable pelts from various animals; then silver for use at table and for the adornment of women (which can never be satisfied); then grain of different kinds; metals, including iron and copper; lastly, pieces of cloth and foodstuffs.36

Slightly earlier in his account, Olaus specified that the cloth was made of wool and linen,

adding that salt and fish were among the other items of trade.37 Furthermore, by

examining Olaus’ engraving [Fig. 1], it becomes clear that knives and axes were among

the iron implements traded for pelts. Olaus’ close contemporary, Heinrich von Staden, a

German mercenary employed by Tsar Ivan IV, noted that the Samoyeds trapped and

hunted sables and sold them to the Russians in exchange for “cloth, kettles, bacon, butter,

helmets, and oat flour.”38 Later, he added chain mail to this list.39 Another contemporary

of Olaus, Sigmund von Herberstein, a German traveler to Muscovy, similarly, describes a

makeshift seasonal rural market where iron items such as knives, spoons, needles, and

choppers as well as coats, shirts, hats, and looking-glasses for Finno-Ugrian furs were

exchanged.40 The other edition of Herberstein’s work mentions “flax and linen clothing,

knives, axes, needles, mirrors, wallets, and other such things.”41 While some of the items

mentioned by Herberstein such as looking-glasses (invented in the fourteenth century),

wallets, and mirrors were obviously early modern additions to the inventory of goods

traded with the Finno-Ugrians, most articles of trade fall into the same categories

mentioned in medieval Arabic sources – iron items and clothing. 36 Olaus Magnus, Description of the Northern Peoples 1, 203. 37 Olaus Magnus, Description of the Northern Peoples 1, 202. 38 Heinrich von Staden, The Land and Government of Muscovy: A Sixteenth-Century Account, tr. and ed. T. Esper (Stanford, 1967), 62. 39 Heinrich von Staden, The Land and Government of Muscovy, 81. 40 Sigmund von Herberstein, Description of Moscow and Muscovy, 1557, tr. J.B.C. Grundy, ed. B. Picard (New York, 1969), 83-84; Sigizmund Gerbershtein, Zapiski o Moskovii, tr. A.I. Maleina and A.V. Nazarenko, ed. V.L. Ianin (Moscow, 1988), 126, 153. 41 Sigizmund Gerbershtein, Zapiski o Moskovii, 126.

184

In the fifteenth-century Novgorodian “Tale of the Unknown Peoples in the Eastern

Land,” mention is made of the trade of “silver, gold, and stones” (probably beads).42

Indeed, beads, inexpensive jewelry, iron objects (knives, axes, and sledgehammers),

copper items, tin, grain, and cloth were all items used in the fur trade with the natives of

Siberia as late as the seventeenth century.43 In this way, written sources, coming from

diverse regions and a wide chronology, all agree on most of the types of goods traded for

Finno-Ugrian pelts: items made of ferrous and non-ferrous metals, food, cloth, and

clothing. The non-literary sources both confirm the trade of goods mentioned in the

written accounts as well as expand the list.

NON-FERROUS METALS

When considering the types of goods exchanged by visiting merchants for the Finno-

Ugrian pelts, above all, it must be understood that the territories of northern European

Russia lacked natural deposits of silver, while other non-ferrous metals such as copper,

lead, and tin were very scarce in many parts of the Finno-Ugrian world, particularly in

the polar lands. This would explain why in the sources discussed above, there are several

references to the use of non-ferrous metals in the fur trade with the Finno-Ugrians. These

metals were essential to the Finno-Ugrians for a number of reasons. For example, copper

and tin were required for smelting bronze to make jewelry and artwork, which, in turn,

the Finno-Ugrians also used in their religious rituals.

42 Tekst-Kentavr, 98. 43 R.H. Fisher, The Russian Fur Trade, 1550-1700 (Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1943), 60. Also see Document !2 from 1598 in Soslovno-pravovoe polozhenie i administrativnoe ustroistvo korennykh narodov Severo-Zapadnoi Sibiri (konets XVI-nachalo XX veka), ed. A.Iu. Konev (Tiumen’, 1999), 44.

185

Literary and archaeological evidence reveal much about the Finno-Ugrian practice of

ritually depositing various items deemed as luxuries, including non-ferrous metals, in

their pagan sanctuaries. An excellent example of this comes from Snorre Sturlason’s

Heimskringla Saga, written in the mid-thirteenth century, which describes the activities

of a band of Vikings on their visit to the Finno-Ugrian lands of northern Russia:

Then said Tore (!orri): “In this stead there is a howe wherein gold and silver and earth are mixed together; thither shall the men go; but in the stead stands the Bjarmers’ god which is called Jomale; none must be so bold as to rob him.” They then went to the howe and took as many goods as they could and bore them away in their clothes; much earth came therewith, as was to be expected. … Tore went back to the Jomale and took a silver bowl which stood on his knees, and it was full of silver pennies.44

The Örvar Odds Saga, also written in the mid-thirteenth century, describes the

Permian/Bjarmian peoples of the far north of Russia and relates a somewhat similar

account:

There’s a mound further up on the banks of the river Dvina, made up of two parts, silver and earth. A handful of silver has to be left there for every man who leaves this world, and the same amount of earth for every one who comes into it.45

These two sources clearly illustrate not only that the Finno-Ugrians of northern Russia

had access to silver coins and vessels during the Middle Ages, but also that they interred

large deposits of them in the grounds of their temples/sanctuaries for religious purposes.

Another Norse source, the fourteenth-century Sturlaugs Saga – also speaks of a

Bjarmian sanctuary “ornamented with gold and precious stones” that was raided by the

Vikings.46 While it is unlikely that gold or precious stones were ever actually used in

44 Snorre Sturlason, Heimskringla, 361. 45 Örvar Odds Saga in Severn Viking Romances, tr. H. Pálsson and P. Edwards (London, 1985), 36. 46 Sturlaugs Saga in O.J. Zitzelsberger, The Two Versions of Sturlaugs Saga Starfsama: A Decipherment, Edition, and Translation of a Fourteenth Century Icelandic Mythical-Heroic Saga (Düsseldorf, 1969), 348.

186

Finno-Ugrian sanctuaries in any notable quantities (since these two commodities are very

rarely found in European Russia by archaeologists, nor is there any evidence for the

importation of any significant quantities of gold or precious stones into Russia during the

Middle Ages), it is clear that the Norse peoples were very familiar with the Finno-Ugrian

practices of depositing non-ferrous metals and precious objects inside their sanctuaries.

Although recollections of these practices were retained in Norse legends and written

down many generations later in a less than accurate form, the Finno-Ugrian religious

rituals apparently left a major impression on the Vikings who visited them.

The evidence found in the sagas is substantiated by the late medieval Rus’ texts which

speak of Finno-Ugrian sanctuaries. In the Vita of Stephan of Perm’ (written in the late

fourteenth-early fifteenth century), there is an explicit reference to the deposition of

“…gold or silver, or copper, or iron, or tin…” in Finno-Ugrian (Permian) pagan

sanctuaries.47 It also mentions that St. Stephan, a Rus’ Christian missionary to the

Permians in the second half of the fourteenth century, gathered and burned all the items

that were brought to the sanctuaries as offerings or as decorations for the idols: “sables,

or martens, or ermines, or beavers, or foxes, or bears, or lynx, or weasels, or squirrels.”48

Clearly, the Finno-Ugrians were bringing as offerings to their gods the two most prized

items they had – metals and fur-bearing animals.

The above written sources which speak of the availability of coins, dishware, and

various other metal objects and even fur-bearing animals among the Finno-Ugrians and

their use of them at their sanctuaries are supported by numerous archaeological remains.

It should be noted that the second version of the saga notes silver in addition to gold and precious stones (p. 389). 47 Sviatitel’ Stefan Permskii, ed. G.M. Prokhorov (St. Petersburg, 1995), 117. 48 Sviatitel’ Stefan Permskii, 115, 117.

187

Thus, in addition to the finds of Sasanian, Islamic, Byzantine, West European, and Rus’

coins at a great many medieval Finno-Ugrian graves49 and settlements in northern

Russia,50 silver coins – just as the written sources mention – have been discovered at

Finno-Ugrian sanctuaries of northern Russia: Adaksk, Kaninsk, Un’insk, Shaitansk, and

Eshmessk Caves as well as at Kheibidia-Pedara.51 The importation of coins, almost

exclusively made of silver, into northern Russia began in the mid-sixth century and lasted

until the early twelfth century, when silver coins ceased being imported into European

Russia.52 As noted in Chapter I, most of these coins were imported to European Russia in

direct connection with the fur trade. Hence, on receiving these coins in exchange for their

pelts, the Finno-Ugrians deposited a portion of them in their sanctuaries.

Silver coins were also used by the Finno-Ugrians in other ways. Some were melted

down and recast into jewelry that suited their aesthetic tastes.53 Others were worn as parts

of necklaces or headdresses by women and pendants by men, and sometimes

49 See, for instance T.V. Ravdina, Pogrebeniia X-XI vv. S monetami na territorii Drevnei Rusi: Katalog (Moscow, 1988); R.F. Vil’danov, “Monety v khronologii Rozhdestvenskogo arkheologicheskogo kompleksa,” Oborinskie chteniia: Materialy arkheologicheskikh konferentsyi 1 (Perm’, 2000), 20-22. 50 L.A. Golubeva, S.I. Kochkurina, Belozerskaia Ves’ (po materialam poseleniia Krutik IX-X vv.) (Petrozavodsk, 1991), 43-46; M.G. Ivanova, Idnakar: Drevneudmurtskoe gorodishche IX-XIII vv. (Izhevsk, 1998), 202. 51 See, A.M. Murygin, Pechorskoe Priural’e: epokha srednevekov’ia (Moscow, 1992), 16, 39 and N.A. Makarov, Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain Drevnei Rusi v XI-XIII vekakh (Moscow, 1997), 34-36. 52 For the earliest imports of silver coins into the Russian north, see Th.S. Noonan, “The Fur Road and Silk Road: The Relations Between Central Asia and Northern Russia in the Early Middle Ages,” Kontakte zwischen Iran, Byzanz und der Steppe, ed. C. Bálint [Varia Archaeolgica Hungarica, Bd. IX] (2000), 288ff; idem., “Khwarasmian Coins of the Eighth Century from Eastern Europe: The Post-Sasanian Interlude in the Relations Between Central Asian and European Russia,” AEMAe 6 (1988), 242-258; R.D. Goldina, A.B. Nikitin, “New finds of Sasanian, Central Asian and Byzantine coins from the region of Perm’, the Kama-Urals area,” Studies in Silk Road Coins and Culture [Papers in honor of Professor Ikuo Hirayama on his 65th birthday], ed. K. Tanabe, J. Cribb, H. Wang (Kamakura, 1997), 111-130. For the termination of the coin inflow to Russia in the early twelfth century, see Chapter I of this study. 53 V.Iu. Leshchenko, “Ispol’zovanie Vostochnogo serebra na Urale” in V.P. Darkevich, Khudozhestvennyi matall Vostoka: VIII-XIII vv. (Moscow, 1976), 118.

188

subsequently deposited with the dead in graves where archaeologists locate them today.54

In many cases, the coins found in graves have holes or loops made of bronze or other

metals attached to them so that they could be worn as pendants or sewn onto clothing for

A B

FIGURE 2

Modern Finno-Ugrian Women’s Costumes with Coins: A – Southern Udmurt (1950); B – Eastern Mari (1955)55

54 N.I. Shutova, “Zhenskaia odezhda naseleniia basseina Cheptsy v kontse I tys. n.e. (opyt rekonstruktsii),” Kul’tury stepei Evrazii vtoroi poloviny I tysiacheletiia n.e. (iz istorii kostiuma) (Samara, 2000), 134-135; N.B. Krylasova, “Kostium srednevekovogo naseleniia Verkhnego Prikam’ia,” Problemy Finno-ugorskoi arkheologii Urala i Povolzh’ia (Syktyvkar, 1992), 137-140. 55 Kozlova, Etnografiia narodov Povolzh’ia, Figs. 6 & 11, pp. 74, 83.

189

decoration. The overwhelming majority of the coins found at the Finno-Ugrian

cemeteries in the southeastern Ladoga, for instance, had loops attached.56 Similar

circumstances are found among the medieval Udmurt to the east.57 The tradition of

wearing coins as part of the dress among Finno-Ugrian women is so strong that even

today one can still find Finno-Ugrians of European Russia, particularly those living along

the Volga basin, wearing coins as part of their national costume [Fig. 2].58

Aside from coins, from the mid-sixth to the thirteenth centuries, silver, copper, and

bronze were exported to the Finno-Ugrians in the form of Byzantine and Sasanian vessels

and dishware (platters, bowls, cups, and pitchers).59 To date, at least one hundred twenty

vessels have been discovered from a region stretching from the Novgorodian lands to

western Siberia.60 Of these, more that seventy were discovered at thirty sites of the

middle and upper Kama.61 It should be noted that almost all of these vessels come from

specially-made deposits or sacrificial pits inside sanctuaries.62 Some of these were used

as sacrificial objects while others were implemented in the performance of religious

56 S.I. Kochkurina, Iugo-vostochnoe Priladozh’e v X-XIII vv. (Leningrad, 1973), 50. 57 A.G. Ivanov, Etnokul’turnye i ekonomicheskie sviazi naseleniia basseina r. Cheptsy v epokhu srednevekov’ia (Izhevsk, 1998), 122-123. 58 V.N. Belitser, Narodnaia odezhda mordvy [TIE 101] (Moscow, 1973), 93-138; idem., Narodnaia odezhda udmurtov [TIE 10] (Moscow, 1951), 56-63, 71-74; K.I. Kozlova, Etnografiia narodov Povolzh’ia (Moscow, 1964), 81-82; T.A. Kriukova, Material’naia kul’tura Mariitsev XIX veka (Ioshkar-Ola, 1956), 138-140; G.A. Sepeev, Vostochnye mariitsy (Ioshkar-Ola, 1975), 164-168, 185-190, 195-203; S.Kh. Lebedeva, L.S. Khristoliubova, “Traditsionnaia odezhda i ukrasheniia,” Udmurty: Istoriko-etnograficheskie ocherki (Izhevsk, 1993), 137-141; V.A. Balashov, A.S. Luzgin, T.P. Prokina, “Odezhda,” Mordva: Istoriko-kul’turnye ocherki (Saransk, 1995), 183-186; V.E. Vladykin, L.S. Khristoliubova, Etnografiia udmurtov (Izhevsk, 1997), 76-81. 59 For these finds and their interpretations, see Darkevich, Khudozhestvennyi matall Vostoka; V. Leshchinko, Serebro Zakamskoe (Perm’, 1974); Th.S. Noonan, “Russia, the Near East, and the Steppe in the Early Medieval Period: An Examination of Sasanian and Byzantine Finds from the Kama-Ural Region,” AEMAe 3 (1983), 269-302. Also see E.P. Kazakov, “O khudozhestvennom metalle ugrov Uralo-Povolzh’ia v srednevekovykh kompleksakh Vostochnoi Evropy,” AEMAe 11 (2000-2001), 7-24. 60 Darkevich, Khudozhestvennyi matall Vostoka, 8-61; Noonan, “The Fur Road and Silk Road,” 285. 61 P.D. Goldina, Lomovatovskaia kul’tura v Verkhnem Prikamie (Irkutsk, 1985), 118. 62 Goldina, Lomovatovskaia kul’tura, 118.

190

rituals such as in the serving of sacrificial meat or drink.63 The round platters could have

functioned as mirrors for shamanic rituals.64 Clearly, the Finno-Ugrians of this region

developed very active commercial ties with their southern neighbors by way of which

they traded their pelts for various vessels used in their religious practices.

However, not all imported vessels and dishware was destined for religious use by the

Finno-Ugrians. Some of the copper and bronze cauldrons also served in food

preparation.65 Likewise, it has been observed that a portion of the imported dishes such as

cups and platters were utilized by Finno-Ugrian tribal leaders in the consumption of food

and beverages and functioned as status symbols.66 These vessels and dishware may also

have been exchanged as gifts among the various Finno-Ugrian tribes and their chiefs,

thereby serving a diplomatic function.67 This suggestion is supported by what we know of

the Great Lakes Indians of North America who traded their pelts for European goods not

to satisfy their economic interests, but rather to solidify their political and diplomatic

alliances with neighbors. By acquiring imported goods and thereafter passing them off as

presents or tokens of favor, Indian tribal chiefs and other leading men exercised political

leverage within their own tribes and outside of them.68 In this way, imported vessels and

dishware had numerous uses in the Finno-Ugrian world of northern Russia.

63 Goldina, Lomovatovskaia kul’tura, 118. 64 For the importance and use of mirrors in shamanist rituals, see K.L. Bannikov, E.A. Kuznetsova, “O smyslovykh znacheniiakh shamanskikh zerkal: problemy teoreticheskogo osmysleniia kul’tovykh artefaktov,” Sibir’ v panorama tysiacheletii (Materialy mezhdonarodnovo simpoziuma) 2 (Novosibirsk, 1998), 51-55. 65 K.A. Rudenko, Metallicheskaia posuda Povolzh’ia i Prikam’ia v VIII-XIV vv. (Kazan’, 2000), 69-71. 66 Leshchenko, “Ispol’zovanie Vostochnogo serebra na Urale,” 188. 67 Leshchenko, “Ispol’zovanie Vostochnogo serebra na Urale,” 188. 68 Ray, Freeman, ‘Give Us Good Measure’, 226-227; White, The Middle Ground, 98-102; B.M. White, “‘Give Us a Little Milk’. The Social and Cultural Meanings of Gift Giving in the Lake Superior Fur Trade,” Minnesota History 48: 2 (1982), 260-271.

191

Lastly, in connection to the issue of vessels and dishware, there is a curious entry in

the Novgorodian chronicle. Under the year 1193, the chronicle records that Novgorodian

tribute collectors gathered sables as well as silver from the Iugra.69 E.A. Rybina is

probably correct in suggesting that this silver was none other than the Eastern silver

dishes and other silver items that were brought to northern Russian from the East

beginning with the sixth century in exchange for Finno-Ugrian pelts.70 After all, all the

available silver in this region must have been imported, since there were no natural

deposits of this metal in northern Russia. In addition, as noted above, the Heimskringla

Saga also made mention of the availability of a silver bowl at a Permian sanctuary. A

silver cauldron, stolen from a “giant” by a Viking raider who was sailing through the

deep forests of Russia is also mentioned in the Yngvar’s Saga.71 A cauldron filled with

silver is noted in connection with the land of giants in the Örvar Odds Saga.72 In general,

in Norse literature, the mythical land of “giants” or “Giantland” is commonly associated

with the Arctic regions of Europe,73 areas inhabited by the Finno-Ugrians. Clearly,

visitors to the lands inhabited by the Finno-Ugrians were impressed by their possessions

of many silver objects and attempted to remove them by robbery or tribute collection.

In addition to coins and dishware, non-ferrous metals entered the lands of the Finno-

Ugrians in the form of ingots made of silver, copper, lead, and tin (ranging from 25g to

200g each in weight). These ingots have been discovered throughout the medieval Finno-

Ugrian world of northern and central Russia. For instance, at the sanctuary of Ust’-

69 Novgorodskaia pervaia letolis’ starshego i mladshego izvodov, ed. A.N. Nasonov (Moscow-Leningrad, 1950), 40. 70 E.A. Rybina, Torgovlia srednevekovogo Novgoroda: Istoriko-arkheologicheskie ocherki (Velikii Novgorod, 2001), 228-229. 71 Vikings in Russia, 51. 72 Severn Viking Romances, 79. 73 Severn Viking Romances, 9.

192

Sylvenskoe in the Perm’ region of the Kama basin, dated to the second half of the

seventh century, archaeologists unearthed a silver ingot (40 cm in length, cut in half)

alongside 200 imported glass, carnelian, and rock-crystal beads, “other silver ingots,”

seven Byzantine, two Sasanian, and one Khw!razmian silver coins, and bronze and silver

jewelry.74 Other ingots were discovered in the middle-Volga/Oka region (a silver, bronze,

and 15 tin ingots weighing between 129-140g each, alongside 1,274 Islamic dirhams at a

Meria site;75 tin, copper, and bronze at a Mordva site76) as well as in the Vychegda basin

(bronze77 and “metal ingots”78 at a Vanvizdino site). Many more ingots have been

discovered at other Finno-Ugrian sites, but, since a comprehensive catalog of these items

has not yet been compiled, these several examples will suffice at present.79

Bronze ingots found at the Finno-Ugrian Mordva site of Osh-Pando in central

European Russia and Staraia Ladoga were accompanied by a mold for making them,80

showing that some of the non-ferrous metals were recast into ingots within or at the

peripheries of the Finno-Ugrian territories. These ingots were probably used in trade and

shipped to areas where these metals were more difficult to obtain, such as the northern-

most territories of European Russia.81 Such a suggestion is validated by the chemical

74 A.V. Goldobin, A.N. Lepikhin, A.F. Mel’nichuk, “Issledovaniia sviatileshch Zheleznogo Veka v Permskom Prikam’e,” AOUP (Syktyvkar, 1991), 40-41. 75 A.E. Leont’ev, Arkheologiia meri. K predystorii Severo-Vostochnoi Rusi (Moscow, 1996), 126, 206-208, 214, 257. 76 I.M. Peterburgskii, “Raskopki v doline r. Vad,” AO: 1980 (Moscow, 1981), 150; P.D. Stepanov, Osh-Pando (Saransk, 1967), 82. 77 K.S. Korolev, “Raboty na Vychegde,” AOUP (Syktyvkar, 1991), 14. 78 K.S. Korolev, “Raboty v Ugdinskom arkheologicheskom komplekse” AOUP (Syktyvkar, 1989), 16. 79 For more on this issue and the potential use of these ingots as currency in the middle Volga region, see A.G. Mukhamediev, “Bronzovye slitki – pervye matallicheskie den’gi Povolzh’ia i Priural’ia,” SA 3 (1984), 219-222; idem., Drevnie monety Povolzh’ia (Kazan’, 1990), 70-75. 80 Stepanov, Osh-Pando, 82; E.A. Riabinin, “Novye otkrytiia v Staroi Ladoge (itogi raskopok na Zemlianom gorodishche v 1973-1975 gg.),” Srednevekovaia Ladoga (Leningrad, 1985), 62, Fig. 32:14; O.I. Davidan, “Bronzoliteinoe delo v Ladogi,” ASGE 21 (1980), 59, Fig.1:7. 81 Mukhamediev, “Bronzovye slitki,” 219-222.

193

analysis of the bronze ingots found at Finno-Ugrian sites in the Vychegda basin of

northern Russia which show that the ingots discovered there have the same metallurgical

properties as the locally-made jewelry, thereby indicating that bronze ingots were

imported there specifically for the purpose of being recast into local jewelry.82 In this

way, it appears that the Finno-Ugrians of the northern-most areas of Russia sometimes

relied on the importation of ingots for the production of their jewelry. These ingots were

most likely traded for pelts.

In addition to silver ingots, it has been determined that coins and other objects such as

imported dishware were melted down by the Finno-Ugrians and used in making various

items. Thus, in the upper and middle Kama region, the Finno-Ugrians made jewelry

according to local tastes as well as death-masks that were interred with the deceased.83

Alongside the many various jewelry pieces produced by the Finno-Ugrians of the Russian

North are small (ca. 5-12 cm in length) bronze plaques executed in the so-called Permian

Animal style,84 often found in special deposits or sacrificial pits such as the Peshkov,

Ust’-Kisherts, and Ukhtinsk hoards [Fig. 3].85 These plaques represent the tribal totems

of the so-called “messenger of the clan” in the form of a bear or the “elk-man” who, as

has been interpreted, is seen carrying offerings or sacrifices in the form of various animal

heads alongside pelts of small fur-bearing animals, thereby pleading with the gods for the

well-being of the clan.86 The offering of pelts as religious sacrifices found on these

82 G.M. Burov, Drevnii Sindor (Moscow, 1967), 138, 148. 83 Leshchenko, “Ispol’zovanie Vostochnogo serebra na Urale,” 188. 84 For the Permian Animal style, see V. Oborin, Drevnee iskusstvo Prikam’ia: Permskii zverinyi stil’ (Perm’, 1976). 85 E.I. Oiateva, “‘Darstvennye plastiny’ v khudozhestvennoi metallicheskoi plastike Prikam’ia I – nachala II tysiacheletiia n.e.,” ASGE 33 (1998), 148. 86 Oiateva, “‘Darstvennye plastiny’,” 158, 161-162.

194

plaques vividly recollects the testimony of the Vita of Stephan of Perm’ where we learn

that the Finno-Ugrians brought all sorts of furs to their sanctuaries.87

FIGURE 3 Permian Animal Style Plaques of a

“Messenger of the Clan” in the Form of “Elk-Man”88

Archaeological evidence supports the ritual practice of sacrificing animal skulls and

fur-bearing mammals at medieval Finno-Ugrian sanctuaries, particularly those discovered

in the Pechora-Urals region.89 For example, at the Kaninsk Caves sacrificial site, aside

87 Sviatitel’ Stefan Permskii, 117. 88 Oiateva, “‘Darstvennye plastiny’,” Fig. 2, p. 149; Fig. 4, p. 152. 89 Murygin, Pechorskoe Priural’e, 53. Also see N.N. Balina, “K arkheologicheskoi rekonstruktsii Kaninskogo i Un’inskogo peshchernykh sviatilishch na Pechorskom Urale,” Sviatilishcha: arkheologiia

195

from the finds of bones of large animals such as bear (38.3% – mostly their skulls [87.7%

of the total bear bones]), elk (14.52%), and caribou (6.53%), the remainder belonged to

fur-bearing mammals: beaver (9.9%), water field-vole (9.4%), polar hare (6.53%), and

squirrel (6.46%). At the Un’insk Caves sanctuary, the osteological remains include

caribou (33.8%), bear (12.4%), marten (10.1%), and beaver (14.2%). At some sacrificial

sanctuaries, such as the Kheibidia-Pedara, caribou (93.3%) – mostly their skulls (81.1%

of total) – dominated over all the other animal remains. Beaver bones (81.8%) –

overwhelmingly their skulls (93.3%) – were found at other sacrificial sites – such as the

Eshmessk Caves. Overall, fur-bearing animals found at the Kaninsk and Un’insk Caves

represent 30.6% and 45.7%, respectively, of all the animal bones discovered by

archaeologists.90

BEADS

From the early Middle Ages until modern times, the Finno-Ugrians had a strong taste

for various types of beads. As mentioned above, in the fifteenth-century Novgorodian

“Tale of the Unknown Peoples in the Eastern Land” there appears to be a reference to the

use of beads (“stones”) in the trade of pelts with the Samoyeds. Seventeenth-century

Siberian sources also noted the use of beads in the fur trade. It is often forgotten that in

addition to dirhams and other silver coins, during the Middle Ages, hundreds of

thousands, but probably millions, of glass, ceramic, paste, bronze, coral, and stone

(amber, amethyst, rock-crystal, chalcedony, carnelian, jasper, and marble) beads were

rituala i voprosy semantiki (St. Petersburg, 2000), 162-166; T.V. Istomina, “Srednevekovye ritual’nyi kompleks Lek-Izhman II na reke Izhme,” Severnoe Priural’e v epokhu Kamnia i Metalla [MAESV 15] (Syktyvkar, 1998), 115. 90 Murygin, Pechorskoe Priural’e, 53-54.

196

imported to European Russia from the Islamic East, Byzantium, and the Baltic to pay for

pelts.91 Unfortunately, beads have not received the attention that they deserve in scholarly

literature and, thus, it is often difficult to determine their origin, chronology, and the

quantities imported. For this reason, beads are usually overlooked in the discussion of the

pre-Mongol Rus’ fur trade. However, beads, alongside silver coins, were highly prized by

the peoples of European Russia and probably constitute the largest import-commodity

next to coins. In general, the use of beads in the fur trade is a very common phenomenon

and could be found not only throughout medieval northwestern Eurasia, but also in the

European fur trade in North America during the early modern and modern periods.92

The significance of beads in the Rus’ fur trade is attested in the Arabic sources. For

instance, after discussing the great value the Rus’ attached to dirhams which they

obtained in exchange for furs, Ibn Fa!l!n noted that “The most splendid ornaments

among them [are those] that are made of the ceramic material found on their [sword

hilts93], which they greatly overate. They buy them at a dirham a bead and string them

91 For a short but insightful discussion of Oriental glass bead imports into early medieval Eastern Europe, see J. Callmer, “The Influx of Oriental Beads into Eastern Europe During the 8th Century A.D.,” Glass Beads: Cultural History, Technology, Experiment and Analogy [Studies in Technology and Culture 2, 1995] (Lejre, 1995), 49-54. 92 J. Callmer, Trade Beads and Bead Trade in Scandinavia, ca. 800-1000 A.D. [Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Sr. 1N, 4°. !11] (Malmö, 1977), 174-179. For the use of beads in Native American dress, their trade with the Europeans for furs, and their finds at archaeological sites in North America, see White, The Middle Ground, 102; W.E. Simeone, Rifles, Blankets, and Beads: Identity, History, and the Northern Athapaskan Potlatch [The Civilization of the American Indian Series, 216] (Norman, Okla. 1995), 21, 23, 49, 51, 54-57, 163; K. Karklins, Glass Beads (Hull, Quebec, 1985); W.C. Orchard, Beads and Beadwork of the American Indians: A Study Based on Specimens in the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, 2nd ed. (New York, 1975); J. Witthoft, “Archaeology as a Key to the Colonial Fur Trade,” Minnesota History 40: 4 (1966), 206-207. 93 J.E. Mckeithen accepts the traditional reading of the Arabic word “sufan” in the text, meaning: “ship.” O.G. Bol’shakov (“Utochneniia k perevodu ‘zapiski’ Ibn Fadlana,” DGVE: 1998 (Moscow, 2000), 59), however, suggests the texts states “safan,” meaning “skin of a ray/skate, which is used on the hilts of swords. Swords with hilts, which are overlaid with the skin of a skate with mounds that look like beads, are well known to specialists.” The reading of “sword hilts,” instead of “ships,” in this context, is much more convincing.

197

into necklaces for their women.”94 While the Rus’ gave their women many imported

beads as gifts, there is no question that they also used huge quantities in their fur trade

with the Finno-Ugrians.

Ibn Fa!l!n’s testimony about the great appreciation for beads among the peoples of

northern Russia and the use of beads in connection to the fur trade is well documented by

archaeological finds. Beads have been discovered in various quantities and types at

practically all of the medieval Finno-Ugrian cemeteries, settlements, and sanctuaries

excavated throughout the Russian North.95 While a comprehensive study examining all of

the beads found at these sites has yet to be conducted, several examples can be given to

provide a sample of their widespread use. For example, in the Kama basin, at the Agafon

I cemetery (fifth-ninth centuries), 218 beads were discovered in fifty graves (an aver. of

ca. 4 per grave); at the Averinsk II cemetery (fifth-ninth centuries), 1,825 came from

ninety-three graves (an aver. of ca. 20 per grave); and, at the Agafon II cemetery (ninth-

twelfth centuries), 815 beads came from fifty-nine graves (an aver. of ca. 14 per grave).96

West of the Kama basin, in the Viatka River region, archaeologists also discovered

significant quantities of beads. For instance, at the Tol’enskii cemetery, dating from the

ninth to the early tenth centuries, 1,886 beads were found in one-hundred thirty-four

graves (an aver. of ca. 14 per graves).97 At the Udmurt cemeteries along the Cheptsa

94 Ibn Fa!l!n, Ris!la, 129-130. 95 In addition to the literature cited below, also see K.A. Smirnov, “Veshchevoi kompleks D’iakovskikh gorodishch,” D’iakovskaia kul’tura (Moscow, 1974), 57-59; I.G. Rozenfel’dt, Drevnosti zapadnoi chasti Volgo-Okskogo mezhdurech’ia v VI-IX vv. (Moscow, 1982), 61-67; Burov, Drevnii Sindor, 160-161; P.D. Goldina, O.P. Koroleva, “Busy srednevekovykh mogil’nikov verkhnego Prikam’ia,” Etnicheskie protsessy na Urale i c Sibiri v Pervobytnuiu epokhu (Izhevsk, 1983), 40-71; Golubeva, Kochkurina, Belozerskaia Ves’, 113-117; Ivanova, Idnakar, 202-205. 96 Goldina, Koroleva, “Busy srednevekovykh mogil’nikov verkhnego Prikam’ia,” 40-71. 97 V.A. Semenov, “Tol’enskii mogil’nik IX – nachala X vv.,” Novye issledovaniia po drevnei istorii Udmurtii (Izhevsk, 1988), 32.

198

basin, of the total of ninety-nine graves, 5,507 glass and 98 stone beads were discovered

(an aver. of ca. 56 per grave).98 Five-hundred sixty seven imported beads have also been

discovered at the settlement of Idnakar on the Chepta river (a tributary to the lower

Kama), inhabited by the medieval Udmurt.99 Beads were also excavated in large numbers

in cemeteries north of the Kama-Viatka basins. Thus, 308 beads come from the total of

two hundred eighteen graves of the Kichil’komsk I cemetery in the Vychegda River basin

dating from the tenth to the eleventh centuries.100 At the Pozhegskoe gorodishche in the

upper Vym’ river, 209 glass, stone, amber, metal, and clay beads were discovered dating

from the twelfth through the fourteenth centuries.101 As will be seen in Chapter V, huge

quantities of beads have also been found in the regions of Lakes Beloe, Onego, and

southeastern Ladoga.

Finally, perhaps one of the finest examples of the connection between beads and the

fur trade come from Krutik, a settlement located on the right bank of the Sheksna River

and just 6 kilometers south of Lake Beloe. As discussed in the previous chapter, during

the ninth and tenth centuries, the inhabitants of this site specialized in hunting beavers

and in the trade of their pelts, as is evidenced by the finds of blunt-tip arrowheads and

huge numbers of beaver bone remains at the settlement. Alongside these finds,

archeologists discovered 431 beads of various types, 13 dirhams, as well as scales and

weights of Islamic origin used for weighing silver.102 The association of beads and silver

98 M.G. Ivanova, Pogrebal’nye pamiatniki severnykh Udmurtov XI-XIII vv. (Izhevsk, 1992), 46-49. 99 M.G. Ivanova, Idnakar. Drevneudmurtskoe gorodishche IX-XIII vv. (Izhevsk, 1998), 202-205. 100 E.A. Savel’eva, Vymskie mogil’niki XI-XIV vv. (Leningrad, 1987), 145. 101 E.A. Savel’eva, N.A. Pavlova, “Busy Pozhegskogo gorodishcha,” Vzaimodeistvie kul’tur severnogo Priural’ia v drevnosti i srednevekov’e [MAESV 12] (Syktyvkar, 1993), 158-175. 102 Golubeva, Kochkurina, Belozerskaia Ves’, pp. 43-46; p. 84, Fig. 40, !7; p. 110, Fig. 48, !11-14; pp. 113-117.

199

coins found at this site with the fur trade of the medieval Russian North cannot be made

clearer.

Based on the study of Finno-Ugrian graves, beads were worn mostly by women and

covered their costumes from their shoes to their hats.103 Hence, it is little wonder that

such huge quantities of beads have been discovered in the Finno-Ugrian areas of the

Russian North. As in the case of coins, many Finno-Ugrian women of European Russia

continued to adorn themselves and their costumes with beads well into the twentieth

century.104 Cowry shells were also used alongside beads for the same purpose until the

twentieth century.105 Found throughout European Russia at Finno-Ugrian cemeteries and

settlements, these shells were imported from the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean from the

ninth century, at the latest, until modern times.106

FERROUS METALS

The Finno-Ugrians, particularly those inhabiting the northernmost regions, were also

very interested in obtaining items of ferrous metals, such as iron implements, since any

locally-produced goods, if at all available, were made of low grade bog iron from which

103 Krylasova, “Kostium srednevekovogo naseleniia Verkhnego Prikam’ia,” 138-141; Shutova, “Zhenskaia odezhda naseleniia basseina Cheptsy,” 134-136; G.A. Arkhipov, Mariitsy IX-XI vv. (Ioshkar-Ola, 1973), 24-25. 104 R.F. Taroeva, Material’naia kul’tura Karel (Moscow-Leningrad, 1965), 168; V.N. Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi [TIE 45] (Moscow, 1958), 279; idem., Narodnaia odezhda mordvy, 93-138; idem., Narodnaia odezhda udmurtov, 56-63, 71-74; Kozlova, Etnografiia narodov Povolzh’ia, 81-84; Kriukova, Material’naia kul’tura Mariitsev, 138-140; Sepeev, Vostochnye mariitsy, 164-168, 185-190, 195-203; Lebedeva, Khristoliubova, “Traditsionnaia odezhda i ukrasheniia,” 137-141; Balashov, Luzgin, Prokina, “Odezhda,” 183-186. 105 See above note for references to the use of these shells in the ethnographic materials. 106 Arkhipov, Mariitsy IX-XI vv., 22; M. Schilder, Die Kaurischnecken. Das Leben der Tiere und Pflanzen in Einzeldarstellungen 46 (Leipzig, 1952), 41.

200

to make them.107 The Finno-Ugrians held blacksmiths and their work in high esteem,

granting them a status secondary only to the shaman priest.108 One of the main heroes –

Väinämöinen – in the Finnish national epic the Kalevala, was a blacksmith who not only

practiced his craft, but had magical powers.109

It was already mentioned that a Novgorodian tribute collector was informed by the

Iugra/Y!ra that they exchanged iron objects such as knives or axes for furs with their

Finno-Ugrian neighbors, probably the Samoyeds. Olaus Magnus, like his contemporaries,

also noted that iron items (including knives and axes, as depicted on his engraving) were

popular among the Finno-Ugrians. Similarly, the Örvar Odds Saga, relates the following

about what the Permians offered the visiting Vikings: “They want to exchange weapons

with you, silver for steel.”110 The Vita of Stephan of Perm’, likewise, notes the existence

of iron objects inside the Finno-Ugrian sanctuaries, indicating that they placed a high

value on them.111

Al-!arn"#$ provides a bit more information on the trade of iron items for furs in the

far north of Russia, observing that Volga Bulgh!r merchants brought swords imported

from the Islamic cities of Zanj"n, Abhar, Tabr$z, and I%bah"n to the W$s! who, in turn,

107 For a discussion of the various Finno-Ugrian cultures’ production of iron, see V.I. Zav’ialov, “Zhelezoobrabotka u finmo-ugrov Priural’ia,” Ocherki po istorii drevnei zhelezoobrabotki v Vostochnoi Evrope (Moscow, 1997). For the scarcity or poor quality of iron objects produced in the far north of Russia, see V.I. Zav’ialov, N.N. Chesnokova, “Zheleznye predmety Lozymskogo poseleniia (vanvizdinskaia kul’tura),” SA 2 (1991), 208-215 and K.S. Korolev, “Poselenie Ugdym IV na srednei Vychegde,” Severnoe Priural’e v epokhu Kamnia i Metalla, 94-95. Also see B.A. Rybakov, Remeslo drevnei Rusi (Moscow, 1948), 123-124, for a discussion of the use of bog-iron in medieval Rus’ metallurgy. 108 M. Eliade, Shamanism. Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy [Bollingen Series LXXVI], tr. W.R. Trask (Princeton, 1974), 470. 109 The Kalevala or Poems of the Kaleva District, comp. by E. Lönnrot, tr. F.P. Magoun, Jr. (Cambridge, Mass.- London, 1963), especially 47-50, 131. 110 Severn Viking Romances, 37. 111 Sviatitel’ Stefan Permskii, 117.

201

took them to the Y!ra and traded them for “sable skins and for male and female

slaves.”112 The author added that the W"s! merchants brings to the Y!ra “these swords

along with cow and ram bones and receive in payment skins of sable from which they

gain much profit.”113

It is interesting that al-!arn#$" noted that swords brought by the Volga Bulgh!rs are

“in the shape of wedges, lacking hilts and without ornaments, only metal as it comes out

of the fire. …And these swords are just the type that is right for taking to the Y!ra.”114

This observation strongly suggests that the Y!ra used the imported swords not as

weapons, but as harpoons. This suggestion is supported by the fact that al-!arn#$" states

that when the Y!ra go out to sea in their boats, they throw the swords in the water and,

with the help of “Allah,” they obtain “fish in the form of a huge mound,”115 which were

probably whale and other large Arctic marine animals. He also adds that every Y!ra

112 Al-!arn#$" in Puteshestvie, 33-35. 113 Al-!arn#$" in Puteshestvie, 33. It may seem very strange that such items as cow and ram bones would have been traded for pelts in the northernmost areas of Russia. However, there may be a simple explanation for this. Based on the osteological remains unearthed at Ortinsk settlement, there is no evidence of local animal husbandry – only bones of wild animals (including large-hoofed animals like caribou and moose) have been found at the site. Here, bone was used in craft production, particularly in the manufacture of arrowheads and parts of bows (O.V. Ovsiannikov, “Plemennoi tsentr letopisnoi ‘Pechery’ na beregu Ledovitogo Okeana (Ortinskoe gorodishche VI-X vv.),” Novye istochniki po arkheologii severo-zapada (St. Petersburg, 1994), 157-158). Presumably, the locally available bones would have sufficed for making these artifacts. On the other hand, bone was also used in pre-modern times in metallurgy for burning as sources of fuel in forges. Bones, particularly those that have not yet been dried and have not lost their natural fat content, retain twice as much heat as charcoal. In fact, the use of bone in bronze-making was indispensable in pre-modern times; see A.P. Borodovskii, Drevnee kostoreznoe delo iuga Zapadnoi Sibiri (Novosibirsk, 1997), 115. Curiously, at the Ortinsk settlement archaeologists discovered evidence of iron and bronze industries (Ovsiannikov, “Plemennoi tsentr letopisnoi ‘Pechery’,” 158). Thus, in view of the absence of local animal husbandry in coastal regions of the Barents Sea and the limited quantity of trees found in the tundra/arctic zone of Russia, it may well be that people had to rely on outside supplies of fuel in the form of bones for their metal-working industry. 114 Al-!arn#$" in Puteshestvie, 33-34. 115 Al-!arn#$" in Puteshestvie, 34

202

inhabitant needs to have a sword every year, so as to toss it out into the sea.116 Clearly,

the author was making the observation, albeit a misinformed one, of the great need of the

Finno-Ugrians of the coastal region of the Russian Arctic for iron swords to use as

harpoons, without which they may not have easily survived.117

FIGURE 4 Finno-Ugrian Drawing on Imported Dishware

Depicting Shamans with Knives/Swords118

116 Al-!arn!"# in Puteshestvie, 34. 117 For a discussion of some important aspects of the Finno-Ugrian marine hunting, their acquisition of walrus ivory, and its trade, see R.K. Kovalev, “‘Fish Teeth’ – The Ivory of the North: Russia’s Medieval Trade of Walrus and Petrified Mammoth Tusks” (in preparation). 118 Darkevich, Khudozhestvennyi matall Vostoka, pp. 182-183 Figs. 22 & 26b.

203

The importance of knives or swords to the Finno-Ugrians is also demonstrated by the

pictures they drew on some of the imported Sasanian and Byzantine dishware. These

include sketches of Finno-Ugrians, probably shamanic priests, performing their religious

rituals as they hold two long knives or swords in their hands [Fig. 4]. Clearly, the Finno-

Ugrians viewed swords and knives as highly prized commodities in connection with

utilitarian or religious functions.

The great demand for iron due to its deficit in the northernmost regions of Russia is

also attested to archaeologically. At the Ortinsk settlement (located at the confluence of

the Pechora river with the Barents Sea119) archaeologists discovered iron knives that were

significantly worn through intense use, suggesting that iron was, indeed, scarce and

probably viewed as a high-value commodity by the peoples inhabiting this part of

northern Russia.120 Perhaps not coincidentally, at the same exact site, archaeologists also

unearthed a number of finds that are directly connected to the fur trade: a fragment of a

blunt-tip arrowhead and bones of beaver, fox, polar fox, and hare.121 Several dozen

imported glass and ceramic beads dating from the ninth to the eleventh centuries were

also discovered at the site. Based on all the finds, the settlement is dated from the sixth to

the early eleventh centuries and perhaps functioned as a tribal center for the Pechora.122

Another interesting site that sheds some light on the types of items valued highly by

the Finno-Ugrians of the Russian North is the Gorodets sacrificial sanctuary near the

Gnilka River, a tributary to the Pechora. Here, archaeologists discovered more than 2,000

objects including iron axes, knives, arrowheads, “strike-a-lights,” copper cauldrons,

119 Ovsiannikov, “Plemennoi tsentr letopisnoi ‘Pechery’,” 133-163; idem., “Srednevekovaia Arktika: arkheologicheskie otkrytiia poslednikh let,” AV 3 (1994), 121-129. 120 Ovsiannikov, “Plemennoi tsentr letopisnoi ‘Pechery’,” 149. 121 Ovsiannikov, “Plemennoi tsentr letopisnoi ‘Pechery’,” pp. 150, 152, Table XII, !16 and p. 158. 122 Ovsiannikov, “Plemennoi tsentr letopisnoi ‘Pechery’,” 159-161.

204

jewelry, and glass beads, all of which were intentionally ruined or broken by the Finno-

Ugrians who brought them there as sacrificial offerings. A bronze idol and small copper

“reliquary” boxes containing bones of animal that had been sacrificed were also

discovered inside the sanctuary. All of these finds – dating from the sixth to the tenth

centuries – point to the sacrificial nature of this site123 and illustrate the types of items

greatly valued by the peoples of the Russian North during the early Middle Ages.

The Gorodets sanctuary continued to exist into the thirteenth century. Finds from this

site dating from the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries include fragments of iron axes,

arrowheads (mostly for hunting), strike-a-lights, more than 150 links of chain mail and

several pieces of iron and bronze armor plates, and various pieces of bronze jewelry. It is

significant that most of these items were of northern Rus’ origin (i.e., produced in the

northern regions of the core Rus’ lands), and some are analogous to the artifacts

discovered in Novgorod,124 thereby suggesting that they had their origins in this city and

were imported to the site in exchange for pelts.

Imported iron knives, arrowheads, spearheads, and fragments of iron cauldrons were

found alongside silver Sasanian and Islamic coins, silver cups, bronze bracelets, belt

buckles, parts of belts as well as glass, paste, stone, and bronze beads as well as bronze

jewelry at the Kheibidia-Pedara sanctuary in the Pechora-Urals region.125 Thus, as at the

other sites discussed above, at this sanctuary the Finno-Ugrians sacrificed imported items

deemed luxuries, most of which came there as a result of the fur trade with their

neighbors.

123 Ovsiannikov, “Srednevekovaia Arktika,” 124-125. Also see O.V. Ovsiannikov, “The Gorodetz sanctuary of the 12th-13th Centuries on the Pechora River,” ISKOS 9 (Helsinki, 1990), 99-105. 124 Ovsiannikov, “Srednevekovaia Arktika,” 126-127. Also see Ovsiannikov, “The Gorodetz sanctuary,” 99-105. 125 Murygin, Pechorskoe Priural’e, 39-52.

205

Lastly, it should be pointed out that the exchange of relatively inexpensive tools and

utensils made of ferrous metals for pelts appears to have been a universal feature of the

fur trade in both northern hemispheres of the globe in the pre-modern era. As with beads

– one of the most common trade items in the fur trade in northern Eurasia as well as

North America – iron knives, axes or hatchets, cauldrons or kettles, and other similar

implements were the most typical items exchanged for Finno-Ugrian and American

Indian pelts.126 Like many of the medieval Finno-Ugrians of northern Russia, the Native

Americans lacked the technology and/or the raw materials necessary for the production of

iron objects. However, in both cases, fur traders, be they medieval Scandinavian, Rus’, or

Volga Bulgh!r or early modern and modern Dutch, British, or French, had access to

inexpensive iron tools and utensils which they were more than ready to trade for costly

pelts.

OTHER GOODS

Lastly, items other than those noted above were also traded with the Finno-Ugrians

for their pelts. It was already noted that Marvaz" mentioned that Volga Bulgh!r

merchants traded clothes, salt and “other things” in exchange for furs with the Y#ra.

Olaus Magnus, Heinrich von Staden, Sigmund von Herberstein, and seventeenth-century

Siberian sources, likewise, mentioned the exchange of various types of cereals,

foodstuffs, cloth and clothing. The exchange of cloth for pelts in particular probably

explains the discovery of Byzantine, Near Eastern, and Central Asian silks at a number of

126 Ray, Freeman, Give Us Good Measure, 226-227; White, The Middle Ground, 97.

206

medieval Finno-Ugrian cemeteries.127 Cloth and blankets, as well, were very common in

the European fur trade with the American Indians.128 Inhabiting the distant northern

climes of the globe, the native peoples of the northern hemisphere either lacked or had a

deficit of the vegetable and/or animal fibers from which to prepare cloth for making

clothing. In view of the climate, agricultural products were also in great demand in this

region of the globe. Unfortunately, cloth, clothing, salt, and foodstuffs are very perishable

and thus are very rarely preserved to be later found by archaeologists. Therefore, it is

difficult to gauge the volumes of such imports. Nevertheless, it is clear that there were

many other items the Finno-Ugrians were willing to trade their pelt for with their

neighbors.

* * *

In conclusion, medieval Norse, Latin, Rus’, and Arabic written sources reveal that

trade was an important method of acquiring furs from the Finno-Ugrians of the far north

of Russia by Scandinavian, Rus’, and Volga Bulgh!r merchants who visited them

specifically for that purpose. Sometimes, due to the great distances, difficulties, and

dangers involved in travel, this trade involved Finno-Ugrian intermediaries who had more

direct contacts with the far-northern regions of Russia. These middlemen traded items

they themselves had imported to obtain pelts from the more distant Finno-Ugrian tribes

or collected pelts from these peoples as tribute which they later resold to visiting

merchants. It is also possible that some Finno-Ugrian tribes became intermediaries 127 L.V. Efimova, “Tkani iz finno-ugorskikh mogil’nikov I tys. n.e.,” KSIA 107 (1966), 134; M.V. Fekhner, “Izdeliia zolotogo shit’ia iz kurganov basseina r. Oiati” in S.I. Kochkurina, A.M. Livenskii, Kurgany letopisnoi Vesi X-nachala XIII veka (Petrozavodsk, 1985), 204-207; A.K. Elkina, “Issledovanie kollektsii drevnego tekstilia iz arkheologicheskikh pamiatnikov Udmurtii,” Novy issledovaniia po drevnei istorii Udmurtii (Izhevsk, 1988), 146-152. 128 Simeone, Rifles, Blankets, and Beads, 59-60; Ray, Freeman, ‘Give Us Good Measure,’ 226-227; White, The Middle Ground, 97.

207

specifically to prevent their potentially unfriendly neighbors from gaining direct access to

the trade of strategic goods such as weapons or items that could be used by them as

diplomatic gifts to form alliances.

Sources speak of how merchants, by way of “silent trade,” overcame language

barriers while negotiating transactions with peoples whose language was completely

unknown to them. Because many sources of different backgrounds speak of such a

trading arrangement, it appears that this form of trade functioned over many centuries and

among traders of various origins. At other times, both sides negotiated their transactions

face to face, despite their inability to communicate verbally. Occasionally, such dealings

caused misunderstandings and, consequently, incited conflict between the trading

partners.

The written as well as archaeological evidence shows that the Finno-Ugrians of the

Russian North had access to a considerable number of silver objects in the form of coins

and vessels. These items were exchanged for furs. The Finno-Ugrians used the imported

silver in their costumes as well as in their religious practices, most notably in ritual

sacrificial depositions at their sanctuaries. Imported dishware also functioned as prestige

items among the Finno-Ugrian elite and may have been exchanged as gifts between the

various Finno-Ugrian tribal chiefs.

In return for their pelts, the Finno-Ugrians received non-ferrous metals in the form of

ingots from their neighbors, which they melted down and crafted them into local artwork,

such as the bronze Permian Animal style “messenger of the clan” plaques. These plaques

were often given as an offering to the gods in ritual deposits. They depict the sacrifice of

animals, often fur-bearing, to their gods, thereby recalling the testimony found in the Vita

208

of Stephan of Perm’ which speaks of identical rituals. The reality in the performance of

such rituals is well illustrated and bolstered by the osteological evidence coming from

actual Finno-Ugrian sanctuaries where archaeologists uncovered the remains of sacrificed

animals, including fur-bearing, mammals. The sacrifice of animals and the ritual

destruction or burial of items deemed luxuries, such as non-ferrous metal, appear to have

been fundamental to the Finno-Ugrian religious practices which, in large part, had to be

supported by the constant importation of new metals from the outside and the regular

acquisition of fur-bearing animals from their forests which could be traded. Sources also

reveal that outsiders visiting northern Russia during the Middle Ages, such as Vikings,

Rus’, or Volga Bulgh!rs, took note of the expensive silver objects found among the

Finno-Ugrians and, when the opportunity arose, these visitors looted the Finno-Ugrian

silver, or forced them to pay tribute with it.

Written and archaeological evidence illustrates that the Finno-Ugrians of northern

Russia had a great demand for beads of all types during the course of the Middle Ages.

As with many other peoples inhabiting the northern hemisphere of the globe, they were

ready to trade their pelts in exchange for beads with visiting merchants. Like coins, beads

were an integral part of many Finno-Ugrian costumes and were used as adornment, a

custom that was retained well into the twentieth century among these peoples.

Due to the scarcity or the poor quality of the iron used for the forging of tools and

other utilitarian objects in northernmost Russia, imported items made of ferrous metals

were in great demand. The significance that the Finno-Ugrians attached to iron objects is

well attested to in the written sources as well as the archeological and even pictorial

evidence. As with items made of non-ferrous metals and beads, the Finno-Ugrians were

209

eager to trade their one prized commodity – furs – in exchange for high-quality iron

implements, be they axes, knives, swords, arrowheads, and other tools with their

neighbors. Lastly, cloth and probably clothing made of flax, hemp, or silk as well as grain

were also objects of trade, all items that the Finno-Ugrians either lacked or were in

deficit.

Taken altogether, the Finno-Ugrians sold their furs for items that they could use as

everyday implements, as adornment, in their religious rituals, and as items of

luxury/prestige among the elite. Imported items were also traded by the Finno-Ugrians

within their own world of northern Russia. Likewise, imported artifacts of all types could

also have been used as gifts between the various tribes and their leaders. In this way, the

objects the Finno-Ugrians received from their neighbors in exchange for their pelts

played a fundamental role in their economic, religious, and socio-political life.

Finally, in connection to all of the above, it is instructive to note that many parallels

can be drawn between the fur trade of medieval northwestern Eurasia and early modern

and modern North America. In both northern hemispheres of the globe, the peoples who

had access to pelts were willing to trade them for beads, iron implements, textiles, and

other commodities. Just as the Native Americans did, the Finno-Ugrians of medieval

northern Russia used the imported items as decorations, status symbols, and in their

political-diplomatic relations within and outside of their tribes. Such parallels should not

be surprising in view of the fact that, on the one hand, both of these peoples primarily

practiced a hunting-gathering economy and, on the other, dealt with visiting merchants

who had the technology and the extensive commercial networks that provided them with

the necessary items with which to trade for their pelts.

CHAPTER V

NOVGORODIAN TRADE WITH THE RUSSIAN NORTH

ORIGINS AND GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

During the ninth and much of the tenth century, the core lands of Novgorod seem to

have provided sufficient numbers of pelts for its trade with the Islamic East and

Byzantium not to warrant the Novgorodian to look far beyond their lands for additional

supplies. Imported items commonly used in the fur trade such as coins and beads were

very rarely exported to the north of Novgorod during this period. However, this situation

began to change with the close of the tenth century. From about this time until the

Mongol conquest in ca. 1240, there is considerable evidence for Novgorod’s exportation

of coins, beads, jewelry, and other objects to as far as the Arctic region of northern

Russia in the north to the foothills of the Urals in the east. It is quite likely that

Novgorod’s expansion of trade relations with the far north and northeast of Russia was

directly connected to a desire to locate additional sources of pelts in order to satisfy the

newly opened fur markets with the Baltic beginning with the last decades of the tenth

century.

Contrary to what one may imagine, literary evidence on direct trade ties between

Novgorodians and the Finno-Ugrians of northern Russia during the pre-Mongol era are

nonexistent. In view of Novgorod’s great role in the fur trade during the Middle Ages,

one would expect that at least some sources would speak of the city’s trade contacts with

the far-distant northern lands which provided the bulk of Novgorod’s furs. However, the

abundant archaeological and numismatic data can help shed much light on what was

211

traded by the Novgorodians for pelts, with whom, when, and what routes were used for

this trade.

FIGURE 1 Topography of Coin Finds of the Tenth-Eleventh Centuries in Burials

From the Upper Volga-Northeastern Novgorodian Lands1

Some of the most compelling evidence showing Novgorod’s developing trade

connections with the Russian North comes from the finds of imported coins discovered in

the southeastern Lake Ladoga region, an area that lay to the northeast of Novgorod and

functioned as its main gateway to the Russian North. While this area was already

commercially connected to the Volkhov river basin (Staraia Ladoga in particular) since

the late ninth-early tenth century, these contacts greatly intensified in the late tenth.2 Thus

1 Map derives from T.V. Ravdina, Pogrebeniia X-XI vv. s monetami na territorii Drevnei Rusi: Katalog (Moscow, 1988), 6-7. 2 For an overview of the literature on this issue, see E.A. Riabinin, Finno-ugorskie plemena v sostave Drevnei Rusi (St. Petersburg, 1997), 89-91.

212

far, Sasanian, Islamic, West European, and Byzantine coins have been unearthed in at

least forty-two burials in the region between the Svir’ and the Sias’ rivers, an area which

included the Oiat’, Pasha, Tikhvinka, Kapsha, and other smaller river basins. This is the

highest concentration of coins found in graves discovered anywhere within the territories

of European Russia [Fig. 1].3

Most coins discovered in the southeastern Ladoga region date to the late tenth and

eleventh centuries, and the overwhelmingly majority of them are eleventh-century West

European deniers. The few coins that are dated to an earlier period (pre-late tenth

century) – such as several Sasanian drachms, a handful of Islamic dirhams, and a few

West European deniers – entered this region along with later coins and were deposited in

graves concurrently with them, mostly in the late tenth and eleventh centuries.4 In this

way, numismatic evidence suggests that the Novgorodians began to establish commercial

connections with lands to their northeast sometime in the late tenth century, with this

trade expanding in the eleventh. In light of this evidence, it appears that the developing

Novgorodian trade with the Russian North coincides with the importation of silver coins

from lands west of Novgorod and the expansion of the Novgorodian fur trade relations

with the Baltic via which they received silver.5

The most revealing archaeological discovery demonstrates a microcosm how the

Novgorodian fur trade network with the northeast was evolving and functioning at the

turn of the eleventh century. It is a grave of a man in mound !10 uncovered at the

3 Ravdina, Pogrebeniia X-XI vv. s monetami, graves !!!2, 3, 5, 8, 19, 27, 29, 32-33, 46-48, 64, 75, 77, 83, 88, 94, 100, 107-108, 111, 114, 117, 125, 130, 134, 136, 140, 142, 145, 147-148, 153, 160, 167, 180, 184, 197, 202, 225-226, 231; S.I. Kochkurina, A.M. Livenskii, Kurgany letopisnoi Vesi X-nachala XIII veka (Petrozavodsk, 1985), 177-178. 4 Ravdina, Pogrebeniia X-XI vv. s monetami, 134-135. 5 For the importation of West European silver coins into the lands of Novgorod, see Chapter I.

213

Niubinichi cemetery in the southeastern Lake Ladoga region [Fig. 1: 147], which

contained a blunt-tip arrowhead (a Finno-Ugrian instrument utilized for hunting fur-

bearing animals); a small hoard of four S!m!nid dirhams and one Sasanian drachm; two

cups and a crossbeam from an imported scales used for weighing silver (Islamic or West

European in origin); a Frankish sword (intentionally broken into parts – a common

Scandinavian practice when burying a sword with the dead); a “strike-a-light” and a flint

stone; a knife handle wrapped in silver wire; a part of a leather belt with a buckle, most

probably of Volga Bulgh!r manufacture;6 fragments of a woolen belt (such belts were

worn by Finno-Ugrians as late as the twentieth century to ward off evil spirits); various

women’s jewelry pieces (silver bracelets, silver and bronze rings, and a silver fibula of

Scandinavian origin [Fig. 2: 11]7); and, shards of pots which included fragments of a

Saltovo jug (manufactured within the territories of Volga Bulgh!ria) [Fig. 2]. The latest

of the five coins dated to 997/98-999/1000, indicating that the man was buried shortly

thereafter, i.e., at the turn of the eleventh century.8

6 Belt buckles with similar design are characteristic of Volga Bulgh!r workshops and date from the late tenth through the eleventh centuries. These items were most likely exported from the lands of the middle Volga-lower Kama region to the upper Volga and into the Lake Ladoga region via the Volga Bulgh!r commercial center of Izmeri. I should like to thank E.P. Kazakov for his assistance in identifying the origin of this belt buckle. For the Izmeri settlement, see E.P. Kazakov, Bulgarskoe selo X-XIII vekov nizovii Kamy (Kazan’, 1991), 15-18, 22-28. 7 For the typology of these fibulae, see I. Jansson, “Ovale Schalenspangen,” Birka Untersuchungen und Studien II:1 [Systematische Analysen der Graberfunde] (Stockholm, 1984), 58. I should like to thank E.N. Nosov for guiding me to this reference. 8 Kochkurina, Livenskii, Kurgany letopisnoi Vesi, 136-138. For the discussion of the jug, see M.D. Poluboiarinova, Rus’ i Volzhskaia Bolgariia v X-XV vv. (Moscow, 1993), 107.

214

FIGURE 2 Finds From Mound !10 of the Niubinichi Cemetery

1 & 2 – temple rings; bracelets – 3, 17, 18; finger rings – 4-6; blunt-tip arrowhead – 7;9 fragment of a handle wrapped with silver wire – 8; bell – 9; parts of scales – 10, 12, 15; fibula – 11; “ strike-a-light” –

13; sword – 14 & 19; remains of a belt with bronze decorations – 1610

The artifacts discovered in this grave come from a variety of regions stretching from

central Europe to Central Asia: the Frankish kingdom, Scandinavia, the Finno-Ugrian

world, Volga Bulgh!r, and the S!m!nid am"rate. While it is impossible to determine the

ethnic identity of this individual based on the grave-finds,11 it is clear that the individual

9 Kochkurina and Livenskii mistakenly identify the blunt-tip arrowhead as a “decorated bone handle.” However, based on the finds of more than a hundred similar artifacts, this is a typical blunt-tip arrowhead found throughout northern and central Russia. See Chapter III. 10 Kochkurina, Livenskii, Kurgany letopisnoi Vesi, p. 137, Fig. 60. 11 There have been many studies dedicated to the cemeteries of the southeastern Ladoga region, most of which show that this area was inhabited by a multi-ethnic Finno-Ugrian, Slavic, and Scandinavia population. For some of the newest research and insights, see S.V. Bel’skii, “Voprosy proiskhozhdeniia i osnovnye napravleniia razvitiia pogrebal’nogo obriada v Iugo-Vostochnom Priladozh’e (860-950-e gody),”

215

buried in this grave was a hunter-trapper, trader, and an armed explorer working along

the newly developing trade routes leading from the Novgorodian lands to the

north/northeast of northern Russia. Using blunt-tip arrowheads, he obtained furs which he

sold for imported silver coins, probably weighed on his imported scales. With the coins,

he presumably was able to purchase imported pottery, the Frankish sword, a Volga

Bulgh!r belt buckle, and the imported jewelry. With his sword, he defended his wealth

and himself as he ventured further north on his quest to discover new sources of furs.

Quite likely, the deceased also used the silver coins and the bits of women’s jewelry to

trade for more pelts with the Finno-Ugrians living further north.

The topography of the coin finds discovered at various burial sites in the southeastern

Ladoga region clearly define this area as one of the most important sources of pelts for

the Novgorodian fur trade in the late tenth and eleventh centuries. The inhabitants of this

region were actively engaged in the procurement of pelts, in exchange for which they

obtained silver coins and other goods (see below). However, finds of coins to the

northeast of this region show that a route to other fur-rich regions of northern Russia

extended from here deeper into the Russian North.

To date, thirty-three single finds and fifteen hoards of Islamic, West European, and

Byzantine coins have been discovered between the Svir’ (located east of Lake Ladoga)

and the Pechora (located at the foothills of the western Urals) river basins in northern

European Russia. Of the fifteen hoards, only two (the Pan’kino hoard, perhaps dating to

Ladoga i religioznoe soznanie [Tretie chteniia pamiati Anny Machinskoi – Staraia Ladoga, 20-22 dekobria 1997 g. Materialy k chteniiam] (St. Petersburg, 1997), 130-136; O.I. Boguslavskii, “Iuzhnoe Priladozh’e v sisteme transevraziiskikh sviazei IX-XII vv.,” Drevnosti Severo-Zapada (St. Petersburg, 1993), 132-157; idem., “Iuzhnoe Priladozh’e. Istoriko-kul’turnye regiony i ikh vzaimodeistvie,” Drevnosti Povolkhov’ia (St. Petersburg, 1997), 83-104.

216

the second half of the ninth century12 [Fig. 1: 26] and the Petrozavodsk hoard, perhaps

dating to the tenth century13 [Fig. 1: 3]) were composed of Islamic dirhams, while the rest

contained mostly West European deniers which overwhelmingly date to a period after the

second half of the eleventh century. Byzantine silver coins or miliaresia constitute a very

insignificant part of the hoards and represent very few individual finds.14

The single coin finds in the Russian North occur in burials and within the layers of

settlement and sacrificial sanctuaries. As with the hoards, single finds of West European

deniers greatly predominate over the single finds of dirhams and most are found in

complexes dating to the eleventh century.15 Thus, it is clear that dirham importation and

circulation was practically non-existent in the northernmost regions of Russia during the

tenth century, the peak period in the importation of these coins into Russia from the

Islamic East. On the other hand, the finds of deniers are significantly larger (two hoards –

Lodeinoe Pole I and III – contained more than 1,000 deniers) [Fig. 3: 15 & 17] as

compared to dirhams, and chronologically correspond with their peak of importation

from the Baltic into Novgorod: of the twelve datable hoards, seven date to the period

12 It should be noted that the Pan’kino hoard consisted of twenty-six dirhams, of which only five were identified. The latest of these coins dated to 863/64. If these five dirhams are representative of the hoard, it can be assumed that it was deposited sometime in the second half of the ninth century. See Th.S. Noonan, Dirham Hoards from Medieval Western Eurasia, c. 700-c. 1100 [Commentationes De Nummis Saeculorum IX-XI in Suecia Repertis. Nova series 13] (Stockholm) (in preparation). 13 It is not clear whether this was an entire hoard or only a small part of one. It contained one whole dirham and many dirham fragments. Up to 60 coin fragments were given to the local governor and only one of them was identified: a S!m!nid dirham dated to 946/47. Since there is so little information about this hoard, it is difficult to say with any certainty that it was purely a dirham hoard and its date is very tentative. At best, it can be dated to no earlier than 946/47. See Noonan, Dirham Hoards from Medieval Western Eurasia. 14 N.A. Makarov, Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain Drevnei Rusi v XI-XIII vekakh (Moscow, 1997), 34-37. Byzantine silver coins were imported into Rus’ as well as other countries of northern Europe in minuscule quantities. Their appearance in these areas is probably due more to the raiding activities of the Rus’ and the wages the Rus’-Varangians earned as mercenaries serving in Byzantine armies than as a result of trade. See Th.S. Noonan, “The Circulation of Byzantine Coins in Kievan Rus’,” Byzantine Studies/Etudes Byzantines 7: 2 (1980), 144-188. 15 Makarov, Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain, 34-37.

217

after the 1040s. Overall, the climax in the importation of West European deniers occurred

from the middle of the eleventh century until its end.

FIGURE 3 Finds of Islamic, West European, and Byzantine Coins in the Russian North

A – West European single-coin finds; B – West European coin hoards; C – Islamic single-coin finds; D – Islamic coin hoards; E – hoards containing West European and Islamic coins;

F – Byzantine single-coin finds16

The most impressive find of coins in the Russian North is the Arkhangel’sk hoard

[Fig. 3: 9] which contained three dirhams, 1,906 deniers, and various pieces of jewelry,

16 Map based on Makarov, Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain, p. 36, Fig. 12.

218

many of which were of northwestern Rus’ origin.17 This find is the most northerly and

largest pre-Mongol era hoard discovered in northern Russia and, based on the latest

coins, is dated to the 1130s. It has been suggested that the owner of this hoard intended to

use the silver for trade with the northern lands, i.e., with the Finno-Ugrians, probably for

pelts.18 The fact that the hoard contained many items of northwestern Rus’ origin, and

because of its large number of West European coins, strongly suggests that it had its

origins in the lands of Novgorod – the region, as noted, that acted as the main gateway

for the importation of silver into Russia from the Baltic from the late tenth century.

The topography of denier hoards and single coin finds help to establish the main

routes used to reach the Finno-Ugrian lands of northern Russia by the fur traders from the

lands of Novgorod. Unlike dirham hoards, they occur throughout the entire region

spanning the Svir’ to the Pechora river basins. Of the thirteen denier hoards, five come

from the Svir’ basin, two from the northern Onega river region, three from along the

Northern Dvina, one from the Vaga, one from the Sukhona, and one more from the

region between Lakes Beloe and Onego [Fig. 3]. The five hoards found along the Svir’

river, two of which are unusually large for the area (containing more that 1,000) coins,

suggest that this river was intensely used by fur merchants as an artery of trade. High

concentrations of coin hoards along the Svir’ should not be surprising, since it connects

Lake Ladoga with Lake Onego from which it was possible to pass deep into the Russian

North by traveling northeast by way of the Onega and Northern Dvina rivers. The

alternative route lay to the southeast, connecting the Lake Beloe region, from which it

was possible to reach the Sheksna-Sukhona-Vychegda-Northern Dvina river system. This 17 E.N. Nosov, O.V. Ovsiannikov, V.M. Potin, “The Arkhangelsk Hoard,” FA 9 (1992), 3-21; O.V. Ovsiannikov, “Srednevekovaia Arktika: arkheologicheskie otkrytiia poslednikh let,” AV 3 (1994), 128-129. 18 Nosov, Ovsiannikov, Potin, “The Arkhangelsk Hoard,” 16.

219

southeastern route is documented by the numerous individual denier finds in the burials

of the Kema toll station (80 deniers) which lay en route of the Badozhsk portage, at the

burials on the Slavensk portage (5), at the Kichil’kovsk I cemetery (50 deniers), a number

of Vym’ burials as well as the three hoards of deniers discovered on the Sukhona and the

upper regions of the Northern Dvina rivers.19 Thus, the Svir’ acted as the key route

leading from the southeastern Lake Ladoga region – the area where we find the highest

concentration of coins in graves anywhere in Russia – to the fur-rich areas of the far

Russian North.

Another development that coincides with the rise of Novgorod’s trade with the Baltic

in the last decades of the tenth century and the importation of West European coins into

northwestern Russia is the foundation of new settlements, dating from the tenth to the

eleventh centuries, in the vicinity of Lake Onego (including Lake Vodlo and the Vodla

river), which had been void of any sites of habitation for centuries. Based on their thin

and poor (judging by the number of artifacts discovered) cultural layers, archaeologists

conclude that these new settlements functioned as temporary or seasonal places of habitat

for hunters-trappers.20 In other words, they were most likely used by people as hunting

lodges or vör kerkas, visited during certain times of the year specifically for hunting and

trapping wild game (see Chapter III). Such a suggestion is supported by the finds of

beaver bone remains at the settlement of Chelmuzhi (dated to the tenth-eleventh

centuries), located on the northern coast of Lake Onego [Figs. 1: 219 & 3: 5]. Next to the

settlement lay two small cemeteries at which archaeologists discovered burials with

twelve individuals. In these graves were deposited everyday items (a spindle-whorl,

19 Makarov, Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain, 34-37. 20 S.I. Kochkurina, A.M. Spiridonov, Poseleniia drevnei Karelii (Petrozavodsk, 1988), 131-138.

220

scissors, knives, “strike-a-lights,” flints, whetstones, combs, and an iron frying pan or

cauldron), jewelry (fibulas, amulets, pendants, silver temple and finger rings, bracelets,

and belt buckles), fourteen silver coins (2 dirhams, 1 imitation dirham, 8 deniers, and 3

miliaresia), weapons (bludgeon, battleaxes, and spearheads), more that 854 beads of

various types, and the remains of woolen and fur clothing.21 Clearly, these are very rich

graves, in relative terms for northern Russia of the period, and this wealth, no doubt, was

accumulated by the inhabitants as a result of their trade of pelts.

Some of the burials uncovered at the Chelmuzhi cemetery are very similar to those

unearthed in the area of southeastern Ladoga in their burial rituals, layout of the graves,

and inventory, all suggesting that the individuals interred here were Finno-Ugrians with a

strong Slavic influence who had close connection with the southwest.22 Likewise, the few

artifacts that were discovered at the settlements in the Lake Onego region (be they luxury

goods such as jewelry or everyday items like bronze cauldrons) were mostly imports

from the Rus’ lands, thereby again suggesting that the people inhabiting these settlements

were primarily engaged in the procurement of pelts which they traded for items they did

not produce themselves.23 Thus, it appears that some of the people inhabiting the

southeastern Lake Ladoga region who had access to silver coins, beads, jewelry, and

other items imported from the lands of Novgorod used them to trade for furs with the

people of the more remote areas, such as those inhabiting the Lake Onego region.

It may be suggested that someone like the individual buried in grave !10 at

Niubinichi in the southeastern Ladoga region traveled to settlements such as Chelmuzhi

21 S.I. Kochkurina, Pamiatniki Iugo-Vostochnogo Priladozh’ia i Prionezh’ia v X-XIII vv. (Petrozavodsk, 1989), 249-255. 22 Kochkurina, Pamiatniki Iugo-Vostochnogo Priladozh’ia i Prionezh’ia, 250. 23 Kochkurina, Spiridonov, Poseleniia drevnei Karelii, 131-132, 134-135.

221

to hunt and trap fur-bearing animals, to purchase pelts from its inhabitants, or do both.

Quite possibly, such individuals were also the ones who brought the hoards of silver

coins and other objects discovered north/northeast of southeastern Ladoga to trade for

pelts with hunters-trappers permanently located deep in the Russian North. While the

identity of these individuals is impossible to prove, it is very clear is that the

establishment of settlements northeast of Lake Ladoga in the tenth-eleventh centuries

coincides with the development of Novgorod’s fur trade with the Baltic and the

importation of silver coins into northwestern Russia. There is little question that these

newly-established settlements were founded specifically to furnish Novgorod with pelts

for its growing fur trade with the Baltic.

In general, finds of beads in northern Russia closely follow the pattern of coin finds.

For example, a high concentration of beads of various types (2,618 – glass, cornelian, and

metal) has been excavated in the southeastern Ladoga region.24 All of these beads come

from 668 burials, mostly from female graves.25 Further east/northeast, glass beads dating

from the tenth to the mid-thirteenth centuries have been discovered in at least ninety

locations: thirty sites in the Lake Beloe region (including four places where there were

more than 100 at each and two sites with more than 1,000); ten sites in the Lake Onego

region26 (including one grave with 580 beads and another with 15927 – at the Chelmuzhi

cemetery) and ten in Kargopol’ and Vaga areas; five in the Sukhona basin; twenty in the

Vychegda basin; and, the rest in the Pechora and the Vyigach’ regions.28 While some of

the beads found in the northeastern-most regions, such as the ones from the Vychegda

24 S.I. Kochkurina, Iugo-Vostochnoe Priladozh’e v X-XIII vv. (Leningrad, 1973), 23-27. 25 Kochkurina, Iugo-Vostochnoe Priladozh’e, 11, 23. 26 Makarov, Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain, 37. 27 Kochkurina, Pamiatniki Iugo-Vostochnogo Priladozh’ia i Prionezh’ia, 251, 254. 28 Makarov, Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain, 37.

222

and the Pechora, could have entered the Russian North via the lands of the Volga

Bulgh!rs of the middle Volga-lower Kama rivers, the overwhelming majority came there

by way of the lands of Novgorod.29 As with coin, the overall topography of bead finds

shows two main channels of export into the Russian North: one through the southeastern

Lake Ladoga-Lake Onego region and the other through Lake Beloe.30

Most beads found in the Russian North were Byzantine and Islamic imports that were

brought there via the northwestern Rus’ lands. This is particularly true for the beads

dating to the tenth-eleventh centuries when beads were most abundant in the cultural

layers of Novgorod.31 However, many beads exported to the Russian North were also of

local Rus’ manufacture – produced in Staraia Ladoga, Kiev, and Novgorod. Thus, from

the ninth century, if not half a century earlier, there is evidence for the production of

beads – mainly made of glass and amber – in Staraia Ladoga.32 Beads believed produced

in Staraia Ladoga have been found throughout the core lands of Novgorod and

southeastern Lake Ladoga, thereby showing the areas with which the town maintained

commercial relations, whether direct or indirect.33

29 Makarov, Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain, 37. 30 Makarov, Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain, 37. 31 Iu.L. Shchapova, “Ukrasheniia iz stekla,” Drevniaia Rus’: Byt i kul’tura, ed. B.A. Kolchin, T.I. Makarova [Arkheologiia] (Moscow, 1997), 81-82. 32 It is possible that beadmaking began in Ladoga as early as the second half of the eighth century, or the time the town was founded. See Th.S. Noonan, R.K. Kovalev, H.M. Sherman, “The Development and Diffusion of Glassmaking in Pre-Mongol Russia,” The Prehistory and History of Glassmaking Technology: Ceramics and Civilization 8, ed. P. McCray and W.D. Kingery (Westerville, OH, 1998), 293-314; E.A. Rjabinin, V. Galibin, “New Data Concerning Early Glass Beadmaking in Ladoga (In the 8th to 10th Centuries),” Glass Beads, 109-112; Z. L’vova, D. Naumov, “K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii stekliannykh bus VIII-X vv. Staroi Ladogi,” Slavia antiqua 17 (1970), 179-186. For the production of amber beads in Ladoga, see O.I. Davidan, “Iantar’ Staroi Ladogi,” ASGE 25 (1984), 118-126. For cornelian beads in Ladoga, see O.I. Davidan, “Serdolikovye izdeliia iz Staroi Ladogi,” ASGE 33 (1998), 123-132. 33 Z.A. L’vova, “K voprosu o prichinakh proniknoveniia stekliannykh bus X – nachala XI veka v severnye raiony vostochnoi Evropy,” ASGE 18 (1977), 106-107.

223

Staraia Ladoga continued to function as a major bead-producing center into the later

centuries. While there were fluctuations in the volume of bead production in Staraia

Ladoga, from the 930s until the early eleventh century, beadmaking appears to have been

a major industry in the town.34 The manufacture of beads in Staraia Ladoga must have

been huge for the period. According to the latest published data, archaeologists have

discovered 12,000 beads in the cultural layers of the town.35 The great numbers of beads

that were available in early medieval Staraia Ladoga is well illustrated by the account

found in the Rus’ chronicles. Under the year 1114, it informs us that when a stone wall

was being erected near the bank of the Volkhov river, children found many “glazki”

(beads) that washed up alongside the bank of the river as a result of construction work.36

One can only imagine how many thousands of beads were available in Staraia Ladoga

during the Middle Ages to trade for pelts with the Finno-Ugrians.

The location of Staraia Ladoga along the main Novgorodian route leading to

Zavoloch’e made it an ideal place where traders could obtain beads (imports or locally

made) before continuing their voyage to the southeastern Ladoga region and beyond to

trade for pelts with the Finno-Ugrians. Perhaps not coincidentally, immediately after the

mention of beads in the chronicle under 1114, there is a story “told by old men” who

traveled from Ladoga to the Iugra and Samoyeds in whose lands they could find

34 Z.A. L’vova, “Stekliannye busy Staroi Ladogi, Chast’ II: Proizkhozhdenie bus,” ASGE 12 (1970), 89-90. Also see E.A. Riabinin, “Busy Staroi Ladogi (po materialam raskopok 1973-1975 gg),” Severnaia Rus’ i ee sosedi v epokhu rannego srednevekov’ia (Leningrad, 1982), 165-173. 35 Noonan, Kovalev, Sherman, “The Development and Diffusion,” 296. This figure, derived from dated published reports, is now clearly outdated. According to Iakov Frenkel of the Hermitage State Museum in St. Petersburg (verbal communications made to H.M. Sherman), the total number of beads found in Staraia Ladoga is ca. 20,000. 36 PSRL, 2: 277. On a personal note, during the 1991 archaeological season in Staraia Ladoga, for the sake of amusement, using a sieve, I found dozens of glass beads along the shore of the Volkhov near the old fortifications. These beads, like the ones found by children in 1114, came from the area of the old fortification which is being eroded by the Volkhov.

224

“innumerable” numbers of pelts.37 Whether these “old men” were fur traders or tribute

collectors, or both, is not clear. However, what is evident is that Ladoga played a key role

in the Novgorodian fur trade with the Russian North and, in fact, acted as its main point

of entry to the southeastern Ladoga region.

Kiev began to produce glass beads by the mid-eleventh century and these items found

their way to Novgorod very soon thereafter and thence were shipped to the Russian North

alongside all of the other imported beads (glass, stone, and amber) from the south. From

the mid-twelfth century, Novgorod, itself, began to manufacture glass beads. For the next

one hundred years, bead production continued rising steadily and reached its peak by the

mid-thirteenth century.38 There is little question that these beads were, in large part,

manufactured to accommodate the Finno-Ugrian demand for this commodity. This would

be particularly true when the importation of foreign silver coins to the lands of Novgorod

declined and ended by the early twelfth century. It can even be suggested that the

development of glass bead production in Novgorod was inspired by the decline and total

termination in the import of coins to its lands. In other words, Novgorodians may have

begun to produce beads specifically to compensate the decreasing supply of coins and

their eventual total disappearance.

In addition to the coins and beads, there is evidence for the importation of Eastern

vessels made of silver into the lands of the Finno-Ugrians by the Novgorodians. One such

example is the twelfth-century silver dish of Byzantine origin found at the site of

Berezovo, located on the Asian side of the Urals, an area inhabited by the Samoyeds. The

dish had an inscription “35 grivnas” written in Old Rus’, which, according to 37 PSRL 2: 277; PVL, 126-127, 265. 38 Shchapova, “Ukrasheniia iz stekla,” Fig. 12; idem., “Stekliannye busy drevnego Novgoroda,” TNAE 1 (Novgorodskaia ekspeditsiia) [MIA SSSR 55] (Moscow, 1956), 164-179.

225

paleography, was written by a Novgorodian.39 Hence, it appears that this dish was

imported to Novgorod from Byzantium and, thereafter, exported to the region of the

Urals inhabited by Ugrian peoples, probably in exchange for pelts. It is possible that other

dishware discovered in northern Russia also came there via Novgorod, but, since they do

not contain Rus’ graffiti, it is difficult to determine the exact direction from which they

came.

As discussed in Chapter I, Novgorodians imported non-ferrous metals such as silver,

tin, lead, brass, and copper, which, in fact, constituted the largest import item into

Novgorod from the Baltic beginning with the last decades of the tenth century. In

addition to silver coins, these metals came in the form of sheets, ingots, rods, and wire.40

Once in the city, most of the metals were melted down and reworked into jewelry and

other luxury items in the Novgorodian workshops. It is important to note that many of

these workshops were located within the yards of Novgorodian boyars who employed

their private craftsmen for the execution of their jewelry orders.41 Most of the items

produced at these workshops were made for the local Novgorodians, but also appealed to

39 V.P. Darkevich, Svetskoe isskustvo Vizantii: Proizvedeniia vizantiiskogo khudozhestvennogo remesla v Vostochnoi Evrope, X-XIII vv. (Moscow, 1975), 81. 40 E.A. Rybina, Torgovlia srednevekovogo Novgoroda: Istoriko-arkheologicheskie ocherki (Velikii Novgorod, 2001), 229-237; N.V. Ryndina, “Tekhnologiia proizvodstva novgorodskikh iuvelirov X-XV vv.,” TNAE 3 (Novye metody v arkheologii) [MIA SSSR 117] (Moscow, 1963), 207-213. 41 P.I. Zasurtsev, “Usad’by i postroiki drevnego Novgoroda,” TNAE 4 (Zhilishcha drevnego Novgoroda) [MIA SSSR 123] (Moscow, 1963), 71; B.A. Kolchin, A.S. Khoroshev, V.L. Ianin, Usad’ba novgorodskogo khudozhnika XII v. (Moscow, 1981), 129-135. Unfortunately, most of the numerous workshops unearthed during the excavations of the Troits dig still await study and publication. However, the preliminary published reports on the dig speak of much evidence of jewelry production in this area of Novgorod. These finds include a doze or so jewelry-molds, crucibles, ladles, tongs, pincers, weights and scales used for weighing non-ferrous metals, scraps of non-ferrous metals in the form of wire, sheets, and ingots. See V.L. Ianin, et al, “Novgorodskaia ekspeditsiia,” AO: 1982 (Moscow, 1984), 38; idem., “Novgorodskaia ekspeditsiia,” AO: 1983 (Moscow, 1985), 40; idem., “Novgorodskaia ekspeditsiia,” AO: 1984 (Moscow, 1986), 37; idem., “Raboty Novgorodskoi ekspeditsii v 1989 g.,” NNZ 3 (Novgorod, 1990), 5-6; idem., “O rabotakh Novgorodskoi arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii v Liudinom kontse (Troitskii raskop),” NNZ 7 (Novgorod, 1993), 11; idem., “Raboty Novgorodskoi arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii na Troitskom raskope v 2000 g.,” NNZ 15 (Novgorod, 2001), 10. Since the jewelry-mold had not been published, it cannot be determined presently what types of ornaments were cast using them.

226

wide range of Finno-Ugrian tribes of the Russian North, e.g., chimes-miniature bells

worn in clothing, various types of bracelets, finger-rings, necklaces, broaches, and other

ornaments. A great many of these items were exported to the Russian North and, in some

areas such as the Perm’ region, constituted about 50% of all imported jewelry.42 Not

surprisingly, in this same region archaeologists have discovered mixed Slavic and Finno-

Ugrian settlements (e.g., Pozhegskoe gorodishche [Fig. 3]) where bones of hare, beaver,

lynx, and squirrel have also been found.43

Aside from producing various ornaments for local consumption which seeped out of

the city as part of the fur trade, a part of the jewelry made by Novgorodian craftsmen was

specifically fashioned to appeal to the religious and aesthetic tastes of the Finno-

Ugrians.44 Making these so-called zoomorphic” pendants/amulets [Fig. 4],45 in

accordance with the Finno-Ugrian desires, was not difficult for the Novgorodians. Based

on the finds of typical Finno-Ugrian jewelry throughout the city as early as the tenth-

42 E.A. Savel’eva, Vymskie mogil’niki XI-XIV vv. (Leningrad, 1987), 148. For other studies describing various jewelry of Novgorodian or “northwestern Rus’” origin in the Finno-Ugrian world of the Russian North, see E.A. Savel’eva, N.A. Pavlova, “Busy Pozhegskogo gorodishcha,” Vzaimodeistvie kul’tur Severnovo Priural’ia, 158-175; E.A. Savel’eva, “Nachal’nye etapy drevnerusskoi kolonizatsii Evropeiskogo Severo-Vastoka,” Vzaimodeistvie kul’tur severnogo Priural’ia v drevnosti i srednevekov’e [MAESV 12] (Syktyvkar, 1993), 130-132; A.G. Ivanov, Etnokul’turnye i ekonomicheskie sviazi naseleniia basseina r. Cheptsy v epokhu srednevekov’ia (Izhevsk, 1998), 156-162. 43 E.A. Savel’eva, M.V. Klenov, “Pozhegskoe gorodishche,” Slavianskaia arkheologiia 1990. Rannesrednevekovyi gorod i ego okruga [Materialy po arkheologii Rossii 2] (Moscow, 1995), 180-194. E.A. Savel’eva, “Nachal’nye etapy drevnerusskoi kolonizatsii Evropeiskogo Severo-Vastoka,” Vzaimodeistvie kul’tur severnogo Priural’ia v drevnosti i srednevekov’e [MAESV 12] (Syktyvkar, 1993), 131-139. It should be noted that in her 1990 conference paper coauthored with M.V. Klenov, E.A. Savel’eva argued that Pozhegskoe was a Novgorodian trade/tribute-collection outpost in the Vym’. In her 1993 study, she comes to the conclusion (based on the larger numbers of items discovered at the site and house-building techniques which point to stronger contacts with northeastern Rus’) that the settlement was established by colonists from the Rostov-Suzdal’ principality. However, as N.A. Makarov noted in his recent study on the colonization of the Russian North, it is very difficult, if at all possible, to distinguish Novgorodian colonial settlements from those of the Rostov-Suzdal’. In fact, there is not one site in the region that can be specifically connected to Novgorodians or Suzdalians. See Makarov, Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain, 167. 44 E.A. Riabinin, Zoomorfnye ukrasheniia drevnei Rusi X-XIV vv. [Arkheologiia SSSR: svod pamiatnikov, E1-60] (Leningrad, 1981), 12-15. 45 For the semantics and mythological interpretation of this jewelry, see Riabinin, Zoomorfnye ukrasheniia drevnei Rusi, 54-61.

227

eleventh centuries and continuing into the later Middle Ages, it is clear that Finno-

Ugrians lived in the same yards as the Slavic peoples of Novgorod.46 As a result, not only

FIGURE 4 “Zoomorphic” Pendants/Amulets47

did the jewelry fashions in Novgorod carry a large Finno-Ugrian component, but the

same workshops producing jewelry for the citizens of Novgorod also manufactured

jewelry designated specifically for export to the far-distant lands of northern Russia

46 L.V. Pokrovskaia, Ukrasheniia Baltskogo i Finno-ugorskogo proiskhozhdeniia srednevekovogo Novgoroda: sistematizatsiia, khronologiia, topografiia (Aftoreferat: Moscow, 1998), 14-29; idem., “Finno-ugorskie ukrasheniia v gorodskom ubore srednevekovogo Novgoroda,” NNZ 14 (Novgorod, 2000), 139-149. 47 Riabinin, Zoomorfnye ukrasheniia drevnei Rusi, p. 98, Table I.

228

inhabited by the Finno-Ugrians. In connection to this, it is of great interest to note that

some of these workshops were located inside yards belonging to Novgorodian boyars

who had intimate contacts with the Russian North through their collection of tribute in

the form of pelts from the Finno-Ugrians of this region.48 Thus, it appears that these same

individuals engaged in some trade for furs using the products of their workshops with the

same people from whom they collected tribute.

Novgorodian-made “zoomorphic” pendants/amulets have been discovered throughout

the Russian North (including Lake Ladoga, Northern Dvina, and the Kama regions) and,

in fact, some made their way as far as the Lapp region of Fennoscandia.49 The appearance

of these artifacts is first recorded at sites dated to the turn of the eleventh century in the

Novgorodian and Pskov lands, from where they were diffused to the Lake Ladoga region

in the same period and, thereafter, were exported to other areas of the Russia North in the

following two centuries.50 In this way, the appearance and manufacture of this jewelry

and its diffusion outside the core Novgorodian lands seems to follow the pattern of the

development of Novgorodian contacts with the Russian North and the trade of pelts with

the Finno-Ugrian peoples who inhabited the area.

Items made of ferrous metals of Novgorodian origins discovered in the Russian North

have already been noted. Under the year 1096, the Russian Primary Chronicle records

that knives, axes, or other iron objects were traded by the Iugra tribes for pelts with their

48 R.K. Kovalev, “Birki-sorochki: upakovka mekhovykh shkurok v Srednevekovom Novgorode,” NIS 9 (St. Petersburg, in the press); A.B. Varenov, “Karel’skie drevnosti v Novgorode (Opyt topografirovaniia),” NNZ 11 (Novgorod, 1997), 94-102; Pokrovskaia, Ukrasheniia Baltskogo i Finno-ugorskogo proiskhozhdeniia, 14-26; idem., “Usad’ba B Nerevskogo raskopa i usad’ba E Troitskogo raskopa (sravnitel’nyi analiz kompleksnogo iuvelirnykh ukrashenii Nerevskogo i Liudina kontsov srednevekovogo Novgoroda),” NNZ 14 (Novgorod, 2000), 67-77. 49 N.A. Makarov, “Russkii sever i Laplandiia: torgovye sviazi XI-XIII vv.,” RA 1 (1993), 68-70. 50 M.V. Sedova, Iuvelirnye izdeliia drevnego Novgoroda (X-XV vv.) (Moscow, 1981), Fig. 8, pp. 28-30. Also see E.N. Nosov, “Traces of Finno-Ugrian Culture in Novgorod,” ISKOS 9 (1990), 84-85.

229

more distant Finno-Ugrian neighbors.51 It is quite possible that these iron tools had their

origin in Novgorod and that the axes discovered in the Russian North, particularly those

unearthed at Finno-Ugrian sanctuaries,52 were Novgorodian imports. Thus, one axe

(dating to the eleventh-twelfth centuries) unearthed by archaeologists at the fortified hill

T!n w!rup-!kwa in the basin on the Ob’ river in northwestern Siberia, a region inhabited

by Samoyed tribes, is believed to be of Novgorodian origin.53 A portion of the padlocks

discovered inside Finno-Ugrian sacrificial sanctuaries and cemeteries in the Russian

North may also have been of Novgorodian manufacture, brought there as a result of the

fur trade.54 For instance, metallurgical analysis of twelfth-thirteenth-century iron

implements (keys and padlocks), discovered at the medieval Udmurt settlement of

Idnakar on the Chepta river, a tributary to the lower Kama, shows that the objects were

made in accordance with Novgorodian iron-smelting technologies. Iron items discovered

at other medieval Udmurt sites also show the same results.55 It should be noted that these

artifacts may have been items of imports or simply left behind at the sites by

Novgorodian merchants. In either case, these finds suggest the existence of commercial

contacts between Novgorod and the Cheptsa river during the twelfth-thirteenth centuries.

Indeed, Novgorod produced knives, axes, cauldrons, padlocks, and many other iron

goods in great abundance and used sophisticated-for-the-time technologies of

51 RPC, 184-185; PVL, 107-108, 245-246. 52 Makarov, Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain, 34. 53 V.N. Chernetsov, W. Moszy"ska, Pre-History of Western Siberia [Arctic Institute of North America 9] ed. H.N. Michael (Montreal-London, 1974), 224. 54 For the finds of the padlocks in the Russian north, see Makarov, Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain, 39. 55 M.G. Ivanova, Idnakar. Drevneudmurtskoe gorodishche IX-XIII vv. (Izhevsk, 1998), 205-208; V.I. Zav’ialov, “Kuznechnoe remeslo severnykh udmurtov v kontse I nachale II tysiacheletiia n.e.,” Novye issledovaniia po drevnei istorii Udmurtii (Izhevsk, 1988), 119-142.

230

ironworking which produced high-quality tools and implements.56 These high-quality

iron products, no doubt, were in great demand among the Finno-Ugrians who would have

been ready to exchange their pelts for them. As with jewelry, iron tools, implements, and

other items crafted of non-ferrous metals were produced at the workshops located inside

the yards of Novgorodian boyars.

Lastly, in addition to all of the above goods, imported silks have been discovered in

graves of the southeastern Ladoga region.57 There is little question that these silks were

imported to this region from Novgorod. As noted earlier, Marvaz! and Olaus Magnus

both mention that the Finno-Ugrians exchanged cloth for pelts. Consequently, it is quite

likely that the Novgorodians re-exported silks from the East in exchange for pelts.

COLONIAL SETTLEMENTS IN THE RUSSIAN NORTH

While there is very little information in the written sources about the activities of

Novgorodian fur merchants in Zavoloch’e, archaeology provides some details about the

mechanisms of their trade in the area. Beginning with the eleventh century, Novgorodian

colonists began to migrate to the Russian North and establish settlements and way-

stations along its many portages, most of which had been already in use from the Stone

Age through the early Middle Ages by the native inhabitants of the region.58 Some of

these sites soon developed into Novgorodian administrative-fiscal posts or pogosty, used

56 B.A. Kolchin, “Zhelezoobrabatyvaiushchee remeslo Novgoroda Velikogo (produktsiia, tekhnologiia),” TNAE 2 [MIA SSSR 65] (Moscow, 1959), 7-120. 57 M.V. Fekhner, “Izdeliia zolotogo shit’ia iz kurganov basseina r. Oiati” in Kochkurina, Livenskii, Kurgany letopisnoi Vesi, 204-207; O.I. Davidan, “Tkani iz kurganov iugo-vostochnogo Priladozh’ia” in Kochkurina, Pamiatniki Iugo-Vostochnogo Priladozh’ia i Prionezh’ia, 334. 58 Makarov, Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain, 103.

231

FIGURE 5 Pre-Mongol Era Portages and Novgorodian

Administrative Posts (Pogosty) in Zavoloch’e59

Portages: !1 – Slavensk; !2 – Ukhtomsk; !3 – Badozhsk; !4 – Kensk; !5 – Emets; !6 – Moshinsk Pogosty: !7 – Pinega; !8 – Kegrel; !9 – Emtsa; !10 – Vaga; !11 – Puite; !15 – Vel’; !16 –

Vekshenza; !17 – Borka; !19 – Toima; !25 – Volotsk-Mosha; !27 – “On the Sea”

59 Map, in large part, based on Makarov, Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain, 96, Fig. 32.

232

by the state to collect pelts from the local inhabitants [Fig. 5].60 While the process of

revenue collections is beyond the scope of the present study, it is important to consider

how these new posts functioned as centers for the trade of pelts.

Thanks to the many archaeological excavations carried out by Soviet and Russian

scholars, among whom N.A. Makarov particularly stands out as a leader, there is

considerable amount of evidence on Novgorod’s trade relations with the Russian North.

Some of the most interesting materials come from Rus’ colonial settlements in

Zavoloch’e. While all of these settlements cannot be presently examined in detail, three

of the best-excavated, well-studied, and published sites provide considerable information

of the topic of the Novgorodian fur trade in northern Russia.

MININO WAY-STATION

One of the most interesting of sites is the way-station settlement of Minino, located

near the shores of Lake Kubenskoe which was a part of a larger complex of portages

connecting northwest Lake Beloe-Southeast Lake Onego water system, on the one hand,

and the Sukhona river which provided access to the Northern Dvina and Vychegda, on

the other. At the site archaeologists unearthed more than 297 beads, 18 west and central

European deniers dating to 976-1086, cowry shells (of Persian Gulf/Indian Ocean

origins), a weight from a small scale used for weighing silver, fragments of Byzantine

glassware, an amber crucifix pendant, a number of slate spindle-whorls and a fragment of

a glazed ceramic Easter-egg (both imported from the southern Rus’ lands), shards of

Volga Bulgh!r ceramics, iron padlocks, and about 880 artifacts and their fragments made

60 For the discussion of this process, see Makarov, Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain.

233

of non-ferrous metals, a large part of which were parts of bronze/copper cauldrons and

about 270 jewelry pieces.61 The settlement was so rich with artifacts that it has been

estimated that for each square meter excavated, on an average, there were finds of four

glass beads, three items made of non-ferrous metals, and five of iron.62 While this

statistic may not sound impressive when considering the much higher concentrations of

finds in settlements of the core Rus’ regions, in relative terms, when compared to other

sites of the Russian North, Minino clearly stands out in its wealth. Based on these and

other finds, archaeologists date Minino from the late tenth to the early thirteenth

century.63

In addition to the above imported finds, archaeologists also discovered seven blunt-tip

arrowheads at the site, indicating that that the inhabitants were directly involved in the

procurement of pelts.64 Bone finds at Minino are also suggestive of hunting. Out of all the

bones discovered at Minino I, 75% belonged to wild animals, 40% of which were beaver

bones, 12% squirrel, and 5% marten.65 It is interesting to note that in the twelfth-early

thirteenth centuries, bones of beaver significantly decreased in number while those of

squirrel predominated. The changes in the osteological materials suggests that the

inhabitants of Minino had depleted their valuable beaver fur resources by the twelfth

61 N.A. Makarov, “Tri veka srednevekovoi derevni,” Kubenskoe ozero: Vzgliad skvoz’ tysiacheletiia (Shest’ let issledovaniia Mininskogo arkheologicheskogo kompleksa) (Vologda, 2001), 37; I.E. Zaitseva, “Tsvetnoi metal. Ukrasheniia. Iuvelirnye masterskie,” Kubenskoe ozero, 25; Makarov, Zakharov, Suvorov, “Raboty Onezhsko-Sukhonskoi ekspeditsii,” 50-51; Makarov, et al, “Raboty Onezhsko-Sukhonskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1997 (Moscow, 1999), 36-38; Makarov, et al, “Raboty Onezhsko-Sukhonskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1998 (Moscow, 2000), 45. 62 Makarov, “Tri veka srednevekovoi derevni,” 37. 63 Makarov, “Tri veka srednevekovoi derevni,” 37; Makarov, et al, “Raboty Onezhsko-Sukhonskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1997, 36-37, 38; Makarov, et al, “Raboty Onezhsko-Sukhonskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1998, 44. 64 Makarov, “Tri veka srednevekovoi derevni,” 37; Makarov, et al, “Raboty Onezhsko-Sukhonskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1997, 36; Makarov, et al, “Raboty Onezhsko-Sukhonskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1998, 45. 65 Makarov, “Tri veka srednevekovoi derevni,” 37.

234

century and turned to the less expensive, but more available, squirrels.66 The use of blunt-

tip arrowheads at this site perhaps should not be too surprising, since the inhabitants of

Minino not only consisted of Slavic colonists who apparently came from the

northwestern regions of Rus’, but also of local Finno-Ugrians.67 As discussed in Chapter

III, Finno-Ugrians had used such arrowheads for hunting fur-bearing animals for

millennia. In this way, it becomes quite clear that the inhabitants of Minino were closely

involved in the procurement of pelts from the immediate hinterland of their settlement

and exchanged them for various luxury items which came from a wide range of areas:

Volga Bulgh!ria, Persian Gulf-Indian Ocean, Byzantium, Kiev, and western and central

Europe. There is no question that most of these items came to the site via Novgorodian

merchants.

In addition to acquiring pelts from the nearby forests and trading them for various

imported luxury items, the residents of Minino were engaged in producing their own

high-value items. This is attested to by the discovery of a number of jewelry-making

workshops (one dated to the eleventh and three to the twelfth-early thirteenth centuries)

where local Minino craftsmen made not only all sorts of traditional Finno-Ugrian jewelry

and dress ornaments, but also typical artifacts manufactured in the heartland of Rus’,

including pendant-crucifixes. Metallurgical study of the crucibles in which metals were

melted and the metal objects (finish jewelry pieces and raw metals) have shown that

Minino craftsmen used imported silver (up to the twelfth century), copper, brass, lead,

tin, and zinc. Some of these metals were brought to the site in the form of copper, tin, and

66 Makarov, “Tri veka srednevekovoi derevni,” 38. 67 Makarov, “Tri veka srednevekovoi derevni,” 39; Makarov, et al, “Raboty Onezhsko-Sukhonskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1997, 36-37, 38; Makarov, et al, “Raboty Onezhsko-Sukhonskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1998, 44; M.L. Mokrushin, “Srednevekovaia keramika,” Kubenskoe ozero, 32.

235

zinc ingots as well as brass wire and silver coins, while others as imported vessels such as

cauldrons which were usually 99% pure copper. Once the copper vessels had served their

purpose and became unusable, Minino craftsmen recycled their scraps into jewelry.68

Although there is no way to determine conclusively whether the ingots and wire

discovered in Minino were brought from Novgorod, in view of the availability of these

items in the city and the close contacts it maintained with the Russian North, it is highly

likely that they were imported to the site by Novgorodian merchants who traded them for

the local pelts. Since relatively few rural jewelry workshops of the Russian North had,

thus far, been discovered and closely studied, it is difficult to gauge the extent and

regularity with which ingots and wire were imported to the lands of Zavoloch’e. At the

same time, the finds of some of these artifacts at Minino suggest that the tradition of

importing non-ferrous metals in their raw form into the Russian North continued into the

later Middle Ages by the Novgorodians.

Overall, Minino served many purposes. First, it was a way-station for merchants

traveling through Zavoloch’e. It was also a jewelry-producing site which provided its

residents with ornaments for their trade with the hunters-trappers inhabiting the

hinterlands. The inhabitants of Minino were also engaged directly in the procurement of

pelts from their immediate surroundings. With these pelts and the ones they obtained

from the hinterland through the trade of their jewelry and imported items such as beads

they supplemented their income by selling them to the fur merchants who traveled via

their way-station. Only such trade can explain the significant numbers of imported goods,

including beads, coins, glass vessels, pottery, and other items at this rural settlement on

the outskirts of northern Russia. The same traders who brought these goods to Minino 68 Zaitseva, “Tsvetnoi metal,” 26-28.

236

also provided its jewelry-making workshops with the metals out of which the local

craftsmen made their jewelry. In this way, on a micro-level, Minino functioned much like

Novgorod which exchanged the pelts it acquired from its lands for imported Baltic metals

that were fashioned into jewelry desired by the Finno-Ugrians of the Russian North. With

this jewelry, Novgorod, as Minino, purchased more pelts from the hunters-trappers and

with the profit continued to buy more raw metals.

KEMA TOLL-STATION

Another highly interesting site which sheds much light on the mechanism of fur-

acquisition and trade in Zavoloch’e is the Nikol’skoe III cemetery which was part of a

larger complex of sites which served as a toll-station from the 1030s-1040s to the 1070s.

It was strategically located on the Kema river which was a part of the key Badozhsk

portage connecting Lake Onego with Lake Beloe. As with the Minino way-station, this

site was populated by a mix of local Finno-Ugrians and Rus’ colonists whose role, in

large part, was the regulating of the passing traffic and the collection of tolls.69 The latter

is attested to by the high concentration of West European deniers (80 coins) discovered in

77 graves of the cemetery. Connection to merchants and the goods they carried to

Zavoloch’e by the inhabitants of this site is demonstrated by the finds of imported glazed

ceramic cups of Eastern (Iranian?) origin, glazed ceramic Easter-eggs (pisanki) of Kievan

manufacture, glass finger rings (perhaps of Kievan origin), temple-rings with granulated

or filigreed beads, almonds, pistachios, and cowry shells (the latter three items of Eastern

origin).70 Imported items discovered at the settlements associated with the cemetery

69 N.A. Makarov, Naselenie russkogo Severa v XI-XIII vv. (Moscow, 1990), 127-129. 70 Makarov, Naselenie russkogo Severa, 120.

237

include many fragments of bronze cauldrons, slate spindle-whorls, jewelry (bronze

pendants, temple-rings, and bracelets, a silver amulet, a lead-tin crucifix pendant, a

bronze belt plaque, a bronze finger ring, and 39 beads), and a dirham dated to 941/42.71

In this way, it is rather clear that as the residents of the Minino way-station, the

individuals stationed at the Kema toll-station had access to a great many imported items

which came from a very wide range of areas of Eurasia. While many of these items may

have landed here as a result of tariffs excised at the toll-station, others came to the site as

a result of the fur trade.

The latter is demonstrated by two very revealing graves which attest to the hunting

activities of fur-bearing animals among some residents of this toll-station. The first is

grave !1 of mound !6 which contained a burial of an 11-12 year-old boy who was

interred with an iron blunt-tip arrowhead along with a part of the wooden arrow as well

as an axe and a Thor’s hammer amulet.72 The find of a blunt-tip arrowhead in a grave

belonging to a pre/early-teen male should not be too surprising. As discussed in Chapter

III, children in the Russian North were already involved in trapping small birds by 6-7

years of age. By the age 8-9, boys were taken by older hunters to the hunting lodges for

formal training and, by 14-15 years of age, they were fully trained hunters-trappers. Thus,

it is quite possible that the pre/early-teenage boy buried in this grave was hunting for fur-

bearing animals in the general vicinity of this way-station.

The second is grave !2 of mound !8 which was located next to the former mound.

It contained a burial of a girl 6 (±24 months) years of age rich with various imported

71 N.A. Makarov, S.D. Zakharov, “Katalog arkheologicheskikh pamiatnikov basseina Belogo ozera i Verkhnei Sheksny,” Srednevekovoe rasselenie na Belom ozere (Moscow, 2001), !!180-191, 193-194, pp. 348-352. 72 Makarov, Naselenie russkogo Severa, p. 149; Fig. XV: 7, 9, p. 200.

238

goods: an Eastern grazed ceramic cup, a glazed ceramic Easter-egg, almond and pistachio

shells, glass finger rings, 52 glass, paste, and rock crystal beads, a cowry shell, and two

and a half West European deniers), everyday artifacts (a knife, comb, and a spindle-

whorl), and other jewelry and ornaments (bronze and silver finger rings, a bronze

bracelet, temple-rings, various bronze pendants, fibula, miniature bells, and crucifix),

many of which were also imports. Of particular interest is the inclusion into the burial of

pendants in the form of sixteen teeth of a wolf (4), marten (3), and fox (9); a bundle of

animal claws; and, fifteen vertebrae from the spinal cords of beavers (5) and hare (10).73

In addition, the grave contained a small bone cylinder with circular ornamentation of five

rings around the perimeter of the object.74 While its miniature size may indicate that it

may have been a toy, based on its shape, it appears to be a typical blunt-tip arrowhead.75

The find of a blunt-tip arrowhead (whether a toy or not) inside a girl’s grave – an item

found only in male hunters’ graves – is unusual. Perhaps, it can be explained by the

possibility that her father or some other close relative (if a toy, perhaps by a young male

relative) interred it as a token of memory. Even if this interpretation may not stand fully

on solid ground, it is clear that someone was hunting for fur-bearing animals in the

general region of this toll-station. The presence of fur-bearing animals, not just their

pelts, in the area is made very clear by the finds of marten and fox teeth as well as the

vertebrae of beavers and hare. Perhaps not surprisingly, these remains of animals were

discovered in the same grave as the blunt-tip arrowhead. No doubt that a portion of the

73 Makarov, Naselenie russkogo Severa, 89, 149-150. 74 Makarov, Naselenie russkogo Severa, Table XVI: 16, p. 201. 75 This cylinder, left unidentified by N.A. Makarov in his study of the cemetery, can be identified as a blunt-tip arrowhead, typical in shape and ornamentation of such objects. However, due to its miniature size (under 2 cm in length) Makarov has recently suggested that it can be interpreted as a toy blunt-tip arrowhead. From personal correspondents with N.A. Makarov of March 18, 2002.

239

ca. 600 glass, stone, and other types of beads76 found inside the 77 graves of the

Nikol’skoe III cemetery came to the region as a result of the hunting-trapping of fur-

bearing animals and the trade of their pelts by the local inhabitants.

Overall, while control of the route was the primary occupation of the people located at

the Kema toll-station, some individuals were clearly engaged in the procurement of pelts

which, no doubt, they sold to the passing fur merchants when they crossed the toll area.

This would explain the rather significant numbers of beads and other items commonly

used in the fur trade discovered in the area. The participation of members of the security

forces stationed along important trade routes or posts in the fur trade continued into the

later history of the Russia.77

SLAVENSK PORTAGE WAY-STATION

To the above two sites can be added the well-excavated way-station complex of

archaeological sites at the Slavensk portage which connected Lake Beloe with the

Sukhona river via the Sheksna river and numerous smaller water-bodies.78 Most of the

materials from this complex come from the relatively well-preserved cemetery of

Nefe’evo which dates from the first half of the eleventh to the early thirteenth centuries.79

76 Makarov, Naselenie russkogo Severa, 69-70. 77 In the mid-seventeenth century, at the Muscovite post of the Mangazeia in the Arctic region of Siberia, some of the musketeers (strel’tsy) stationed by the state at the site not only hunted for fur-bearing animals, but also actively participated in the export of pelts from the post. These individuals supplemented to their regular military income from these activities. Other examples of servicemen being involved in the fur trade are known from other regions of Siberia. See M.I. Belov, O.V. Ovsiannikov, V.F. Starkov, Mangazeia. Material’naia kul’tura russkikh poliarnykh morekhodov i zemleprokhodtsev XVI-XVII vv. 2 (Moscow, 1981), 6-7; R.H. Fisher, The Russian Fur Trade, 1550-1700 (Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1943), 147. 78 In addition to the English-language summary of the discussion of this portage in Makarov, Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain, 210, 211-212, also see N.A. Makarov, “The Earliest Burials in Volok Slavensky and the Initial Stages of the Water Route From the Beloe Lake to the Dvina Basin,” ISKOS 9 (Helsinki, 1990), 161-170; idem., “Portages of the Russian North: Historical Geography and Archaeology,” FA 11 (1994), 13-27. 79 Makarov, Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain, 131-133, 137.

240

Based on the materials of this burial-ground and those that come from other sites in the

complex, it has been determined that the inhabitants of this area were a mixture of

indigenous Finno-Ugrians and Slavic colonists. As at these other two sites, the

inhabitants of the Slavensk portage way-station had great wealth (in relative terms) and

access to imported goods. First, these include 3,248 glass beads deriving from 113 graves

of the Nefed’evo cemetery.80 Some graves contained enormous quantities of beads: seven

graves contained more than 100 beads each and three had 506, 739, and 740

respectively.81 By way of contrast, a total of 1,500 glass beads have been discovered

inside the 1,100 burials in the Vym’ region, located to the northeast of the Slavensk

portage.82 Other valuables discovered at the portage include twelve silver coins (five

dirhams, two imitation dirhams, and five deniers) which were worn as pendants and

various types of jewelry corresponding in volume to the numbers found at other sites in

northern Russia.83 Therefore, it appears that the most common imported luxury items

discovered along the Slavensk portage constituted beads and to a much lesser extent

coins. This should not at all be surprising since beads were among the most common

types of items carried by fur merchants to Zavoloch’e, particularly after the early twelfth

century when coins became scarce in the Rus’ lands.

That the beads came to Slavensk portage as part of the fur trade is illustrated by the

finds of fifteen bone and iron blunt-tip arrowheads inside eleven male burials, one of the

largest collections of such artifacts discovered in a single complex anywhere. Since

graves with blunt-tip arrowheads date from the earliest graves to the latest found at the

80 Makarov, Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain, 116, 120-121. 81 Makarov, Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain, 145. 82 Savel’eva, Vymskie mogil’nik, p. 5, 145; Makarov, Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain, 145. 83 Makarov, Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain, 146.

241

cemetery, it becomes clear that the inhabitants of this area were involved in hunting for

fur-bearing animals throughout the course of this cemetery’s existence or from the first

half of the eleventh to the early thirteenth centuries.84

Taken all together, based on the three examples provided above, it is clear that

significant wealth gravitated to some key portages and way-stations in Zavoloch’e. The

high-value luxury objects found at Minino, Kema, and Slavensk portage way-stations

include mostly imported items coming from a wide area of western and central Eurasia:

Byzantium, the Near East, Central Asia, Volga Bulgh!ria, western and central Europe,

Scandinavia, and the core Rus’ lands. On the other hand, at some of the other settlements

not described above, such as those located at the Ukhtomsk, Kensk, Emets, and Moshinsk

portages, very few, if any, imported, high-value objects were discovered.85 The disparity

in the types and quantities of items unearthed at the latter sites as opposed to the former

can be explained by the fact that the Ukhtomsk, Kensk, Emets, and Moshinsk portages

were all located in the more remote regions of the Russian North, particularly the last

three [Fig. 5]. Because of this, fewer goods entered their regions and the ones that did

were ascribed a much higher value by their owners. If the residents of Minino, for

instance, did not think twice about losing a bead or a coin inside their dwellings, the

inhabitants of the more distant portages and way-stations probably did, thereby

explaining why few, if any, such items were lost and deposited in the cultural layers of

their settlements. What prized possessions they had, they closely guarded and had them

deposited along with them when they deceased. This suggestion is supported by the

significant quantities of beads, coins, and other luxury items found at the cemeteries of

84 Makarov, Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain, pp. 121, 159-160, Table XIV. 85 Makarov, Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain, 54-57, 74-95.

242

the Moshinsk and Kensk portages (particularly at the latter) and the discovery of few, if

any, such items at the settlements associated with the cemeteries.86 If cemeteries, not just

settlements, had been discovered along the Ukhtomsk and Emets portages, it is quite

likely that greater numbers of luxury objects would have been excavated at these portages

as well. Thus, while luxury items were available at the more distant portages, because of

their more remote locations, these objects were rarer and, thus, of higher value to the

local residents than to those inhabiting sites closer to the core Rus’ lands. In light of this,

it would stand to reason that the Novgorodian merchants who did venture into the deeper

areas of Zavoloch’e could profit more from the goods they carried. Apparently,

merchants made relatively few such trips since the far-North of Zavoloch’e was never

flooded with imports, thereby keeping the prices of pelts down in relations to the items

imported. But, the ones who did made colossal profits as their reward. This is well

reflected in one of the Rus’ chronicles which states the following about trade with the

distant Finno-Ugrian tribes of Zavoloch’e under the year 1091: “[they]… ask for iron,

and, if given iron, a knife or an axe, they give sables, martens, squirrels worth a thousand

times the price in return.”87

The three sites discussed above also provide a microcosmic picture of the vehicle by

way of which Novgorodians engaged in their fur trade in Zavoloch’e and show how their

goods were disseminated throughout this huge area of northern Russia. The inhabitants of

Minino, Kema, and Slavensk portage settlements and way-stations, aside from providing

services for the transit traffic at the Slavensk portage, were also engaged in the

86 Makarov, Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain, 82, 95. For the settlements in the region of Lake Vodlo and the upper Vodla river (a part of the Kensk portage water-system), see Kochkurina, Spiridonov, Poseleniia drevnei Karelii, 121-135. 87 PSRL, 41: 64.

243

procurement of fur-bearing animals. They did this either directly by hunting and trapping

themselves, or by trading with the natives inhabiting the general region of their

settlements. As Novgorodian merchants passed through their way-stations, the locals

exchanged the pelts they obtained from the hinterland for various luxury goods such as

beads, a part of which they used to obtain more pelts from the Finno-Ugrians. The

suggestion that dwellers of portages and way-stations traded pelts with the natives living

at some distances from the main waterway settlements is supported not only by the finds

of beads, coins, and other imported artifacts at some distance from the these key sites, but

also by later written sources. Thus, early modern records on the Siberian fur trade reveal

that hunters-trappers who were also small-scale part-time merchants – disengaged from

agricultural activities during the winter months – purchased pelts at the small local

seasonal marts and transported them for sale to larger towns in Siberia.88 As with the pre-

Mongol-era inhabitants of portages and way-stations deep in the Russian North, the

hunters-trappers/small-scale fur merchants of early Siberian posts were also Russian

migrants as well as natives.89

Some trade on a local level also took place when the native peoples brought their pelts

as tribute to the administrative centers located at the key portage areas. Based on early

modern sources, it is known that native peoples of Siberia who delivered annual tribute

also brought with them additional pelts which they sold to local town merchants.90 Often,

such trade was carried out at makeshift seasonal markets such as those described in the

88 Fisher, The Russian Fur Trade, 147. 89 Fisher, The Russian Fur Trade, 147-148. 90 Fisher, The Russian Fur Trade, 64.

244

mid-sixteenth-century accounts of Olaus Magnus and Sigmund von Herberstein.91 As

discussed in the previous chapter, medieval written sources also inform that certain

Finno-Ugrian tribes acted as intermediaries in the fur trade between the more distant

tribes of the far north of Russia. In this way, the Finno-Ugrians located closer to the

portages and other way-station settlements brought pelts from the more remote

indigenous tribes for sale to such sites. These pelts they exchanged for the various hard-

to-get items they obtained in the towns. By way of this mechanism, beads, coins, and

other rare imported goods could be dispersed over great distances.

BELOOZERO

While a great deal of the goods imported to Zavoloch’e by fur merchants had their

origins in Novgorod and other towns in northwestern Rus’ such as Staraia Ladoga, there

is little question that the Novgorodian traders also obtained their trade items from other

towns located in the northern regions of the core Rus’ lands. The most important site that

comes to mind in this connection is Beloozero [Fig. 6]. Located on the Sheksna river,

near its confluence with Lake Beloe, Beloozero was the most-northerly Rus’ town,

situated at the border with Zavoloch’e. Founded in the tenth century, the town functioned

as a central point in connecting various regions because the Sheksna river was the only

waterway that flowed out of Lake Beloe and entered the Volga river – twenty-six

tributaries flowed into Lake Beloe. These rivers and tributaries and the portages that

91 Sigmund von Herberstein, Description of Moscow and Muscovy, 1557, tr. J.B.C. Grundy, ed. B. Picard (New York, 1969), 83-84; Sigizmund Gerbershtein, Zapiski o Moskovii, tr. A.I. Maleina and A.V. Nazarenko, ed. V.L. Ianin (Moscow, 1988), 126, 153.

245

connected them to other waterways provided key corridors leading to the fur-rich areas of

Northern Russia.92

FIGURE 6 Lake Beloe-Slavensk Portage-Lake Kubenskoe-Sukhona Water-System

In light of its strategic location, it is not surprising that beads and many other

imported goods (shards of Byzantine amphorae, Kievan and Byzantine glass bracelets

and vessels, Byzantine walnuts, Frisian combs from northern Europe, shards of Volga

Bulgh!r pottery, padlocks, Kievan glazed ceramic Easter-eggs and slate spindle-whorls,

among other items) were found in great abundance in Beloozero.93 During the 1949-1965

excavations of this town, 899 beads dating from the tenth to the mid-thirteenth century

were discovered, all of which were imports.94 Since 1990, during the salvage work along

the banks of the Sheksna river which has been eroding the site of medieval Beloozero,

more than 3,187 additional beads have been discovered. Other finds from the area include

nineteen deniers, two dirhams and their fragments (most of the deniers apparently come 92 R.K. Kovalev, H.M. Sherman, “Beloozero,” SMERSH 4 (in the press). 93 L.A. Golubeva, Ves' i slaviane na Belom ozere: X-XIII vv. (Moscow, 1973), 177-188. 94 Golubeva, Ves' i slaviane na Belom ozere, 180-183.

246

from a washed-out hoard), and the individual finds of parts belonging to at least five

small scales, a carrying case for scales, and five weights – all items associated with

weighing silver. Some of the most interesting and unique finds for all of medieval Rus’

were discovered in Beloozero, including objects made of gold. Thus, since 1990,

archaeologist have discovered three gold temple-rings, a pendant made of a Byzantine

gold coin (solidus) dating to 976-1025, and a gold ring.95 Clearly, significant wealth

gravitated to Beloozero. No doubt many, if not most, of the beads and coins were brought

to Beloozero as items used in the fur trade with the Russian North.

From its foundation until the second half of the eleventh century, Beloozero was

under the control of Novgorod. Thereafter, the town fell under the sovereignty of the

Rostov-Suzdal’ principality, leading scholars to believe that Novgorod lost its access to

the Russian North by way of this town and the Sheksna-Sukhona waterway which led to

Zavoloch’e via the Northern Dvina.96 Recent research, however, suggests that the

political loss of Beloozero for Novgorod did not limit the city’s access to Beloozero nor

impeded its access to the Sheksna-Sukhona corridor to Zavoloch’e. In addition to the

recent archaeological research which shows that waves of Novgorodian migrants were

moving east from the upper Msta – upper Mologa rivers area and colonizing the

southwestern Lake Beloe region in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, Makarov notes the

relatively numerous written sources which speak about the use of the Sheksna-Sukhona

95 S.D. Zakharov, “Levoberezhnoe Beloozero po rezul’tatam obsledovaniia 1990-1992 gg.,” NNZ 7 (Novgorod, 1993), 55; N.A. Makarov, S.D. Zakharov, “Raboty Onezhsko-Sukhonskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1993 (Moscow, 1994), 26; idem., “Raboty Onezhsko-Sukhonskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1994 (Moscow, 1995), 50; idem., “Raboty Onezhsko-Sukhonskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1995 (Moscow, 1996), 63; N.A. Makarov, S.D. Zakharov, A.V. Suvorov, “Raboty Onezhsko-Sukhonskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1996 (Moscow, 1997), 50; Makarov, et al, “Raboty Onezhsko-Sukhonskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1997, 38-39; Makarov, et al, “Raboty Onezhsko-Sukhonskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1998, 43. 96 A.N. Nosonov, “Russkaia zemlia” i obrazovanie territorii Drevnerusskogo gosudarstva (Moscow, 1961), 178-179.

247

route by the Novgorodians in the thirteenth-fourteenth centuries. He correctly observes

that if the Novgorodians could freely use the route in later periods – when the political

control over the area was better maintained – there is little question that the route would

have been used by Novgorod in the eleventh and twelfth centuries when the Rostov-

Suzdal’ principality was only beginning to consolidate its political control over the area.97

Makarov also points to the finds of lead seals in Beloozero. By 1998, 120 seals have

been discovered in the town, most of which date from the twelfth through the thirteenth

centuries.98 All but two of these seals came from the washed-out area of the old town

which has been eroded by the Sheksna river. The seals come in two different types. One

type, called bullae, is usually quite round, well stamped, and carries epigraphic legends.

These seals were used for authenticating and sealing official documents by Rus’ princes,

bishops, mayors, and various other ecclesiastical and civil hierarchs and officials.

Twenty-four such seals have been discovered in Beloozero. The other are the so-called

“commercial” seals or plomby, smaller than the bullae, not as well formed and stamped,

generally lacking epigraphic legends, but containing signs, images of saints, and other

insignia. It is commonly accepted that these seals were used to stamp merchandise at

customs offices by state inspectors who collected tolls from the transit traffic.99 Ninety-

97 Makarov, Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain, 167-168. 98 For the seals from Beloozero, see V.L. Ianin, P.G. Gaidukov, Aktovye pechati Drevnei Rusi. X-XV vv. 3 (Moscow, 1998), Cat. !!50-2, 74-4, 121a, 121b-1, 121b-2, !!133-11, 135-2, 137-18, 150-10, 192-12. For their finds in Beloozero, see Golubeva, Ves' i slaviane na Belom ozere, 178; N.A. Makarov, A.V. Chernetsov, “Sfragisticheskie materialy iz Beloozera,” Drevnosti slavian i Rus' (Moscow, 1988), 230-241; Zakharov, “Levoberezhnoe Beloozero,” 55; Makarov, Zakharov, “Raboty Onezhsko-Sukhonskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1993, 26; idem., “Raboty Onezhsko-Sukhonskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1994, 50; idem., “Raboty Onezhsko-Sukhonskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1995, 64; Makarov, Zakharov, Suvorov, “Raboty Onezhsko-Sukhonskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1996, 50; Makarov, et al, “Raboty Onezhsko-Sukhonskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1997, 38-39; Makarov, et al, “Raboty Onezhsko-Sukhonskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1998, 43. 99 For the Rus’ seals, in general, see the above work as well as V.L. Ianin, Aktovye pechati Drevnei Rusi X-XV vv. 1 & 2 (Moscow, 1970) and Ianin, Gaidukov, Aktovye pechati Drevnei Rusi 3. For the main

248

six plomby, many of which came from five clusters or concentrated deposits, were

discovered in the town. Unfortunately, because plomby do not carry epigraphic legends,

the origins of most of them remain a mystery and the overwhelming majority of them

have yet to be studied and published. However, some have been attributed to specific

officials. Thus, six of the plomby discovered in Beloozero carry insignia closely

resembling the emblem of the Monomakhovichi branch of the Riurikovichi dynasty who

came from Smolensk, many of whom ruled in Novgorod during the twelfth century. The

same insignia also occurs on a stamp used for making wax seals that was discovered in

Beloozero. Finally, three bullae found in Beloozero belonged to the Novgorodian prince

Vsevolod Mstislavich (1117-1136)100 and two plomby to Novgorodian mayors, one of

whom was most likely Sudila (1141-1144, 1147-1156). By way of contrast, only two

plomby found in Beloozero had insignias belonging to the Suzdalian branch of the

Riurikovich dynasty.101 Thus, the finds of bullae and the plomby suggest that

Novgorodian officials maintained close contacts with Beloozero in the twelfth and the

thirteenth centuries.

In light of the fact that during the course of the twelfth century Novgorod was not

only ruled by princes of Smolensk, but also those from Suzdalia and Novgorodian

mayors who were their supporters (such as Sudila),102 it should not be surprising that

Novgorod’s use of Beloozero and the Sheksna-Sukhona route to reach Zavoloch’e would

have remained open during much of this century. Furthermore, it must be pointed out that discussions on the uses of the commercial seals, see B.D. Ershevskii, “Drogichinskie plomby. Klassifikatsiia, tipologiia, khronologiia,” VID 17 (Leningrad, 1985), 36-57. 100 Makarov, Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain, 167-168; Ianin, Gaidukov, Aktovye pechati Drevnei Rusi 3, 42. 101 B.D. Ershevskii, “O dvukh malykh pechatiakh novgorodskikh posadnikov serediny XII v. iz nakhodok u g. Beloozera,” NNZ 3 (Novgorod, 1990), 81-84; idem., “Malye vislye pechati posadnikov XII v.,” Severnaia Rus’ i ee sosedi v epokhu rannego srednevekov’ia (Leningrad, 1982), 173-177. 102 V.L. Ianin, NGB: 1984-1989, 8-12.

249

the first specific reference found in the chronicles to a Suzdalian blockade imposed on

Novgorod’s use of the Sukhona river occurs only in 1219.103 And even this incident

seems to have been the exception rather than the rule, since the chronicles are notorious

for recording unusual events, not the normal, everyday occurrences.

Overall, there is good evidence for the continuation of intense contacts between the

lands of Novgorod and Beloozero even after the second half of the eleventh century, a

time when the town was incorporated into the Rostov-Suzdal’ principality. During this

and later periods, Novgorodian colonists were settling within the lands of Lake Beloe

while merchants passed through the town on their voyages to Zavoloch’e. While

Beloozero was politically tied to the Rostov-Suzdal’ principality, economically it appears

to have been a kind of a commercial-free zone for merchants. After all, it would seem

senseless for Suzdalia to stop the passage of Novgorodian commercial traffic, a lucrative

venture from which both Beloozero and Suzdalia could reap significant income from

tariffs.

Based on the finds of beaver, hare, fox, and wolf bones as well as blunt-tip

arrowheads discovered in the town, the inhabitants of Beloozero hunted and trapped fur-

bearing animals from the nearby forests.104 No doubt, local merchants traded for pelts

with the Finno-Ugrians inhabiting the immediate hinterlands and the more distant

regions. All of these pelts were sold by the locals to the Novgorodian merchants passing

through the town on their way from Zavoloch’e. This would account for some of the

wealth found in Beloozero. In addition, Beloozero was also a craft-producing center. At

the sites, archaeologists have unearthed evidence of jewelry-making (working with non-

103 NPL, 59. 104 Golubeva, Ves' i slaviane na Belom ozere, 191; Fig. 15: 8, p. 72; Fig. 38: 26, p. 107.

250

ferrous metals, amber, and glass), bone-carving, spinning, weaving, iron-working,

tanning, leather-working, woodcarving, carpentry, and pottery-making.105 The products

of these workshops could have been purchased by Novgorodian merchants on their way

to Zavoloch’e.

The inhabitants of Beloozero, no doubt, also provided the passing fur merchants with

inns, provisions, equipment, transportation devices, and other logistical support while on

their travels to and from the Russian North. The finds of horse-drawn sled runners, hand-

pulled sledges, bones of horses, horse-riding equipment (whip handles, horseshoes,

stirrup-bits, and spurs), parts of horse collars, ice-spikes for human and horses’ shoes,

oars, and parts of boats all attest to the existence of various types of transport devices in

Beloozero. All of these could have been rented out or sold to the travelers by the town’s

inhabitants.106 Visiting fur merchants could also have made use of Beloozero’s docks for

landing their boats. The existence of such port facilities in Beloozero is attested to by the

fact that the wooden pavements or walkways found in the town led directly to the

riverbanks where piers could have been found, but have not yet been discovered.107

Lastly, the finds of the many plomby discovered in Beloozero deserve closer attention

in view of their potential use in the fur trade. Based on the commercial nature of these

artifacts and their numerous finds at this border town with Zavoloch’e, it has been

suggested that their finds at this site can be connected with the fur trade.108 Indeed, while

plomby have been discovered in dozens of towns throughout the Rus’ lands, there are

only eleven sites where there were significant concentrations of these artifacts. Thus,

105 Kovalev, Sherman “Beloozero.” 106 Golubeva, Ves' i slaviane na Belom ozere, 131-132, 174-175, 191. 107 Golubeva, Ves' i slaviane na Belom ozere, 88. 108 Makarov, Chernetsov, “Sfragisticheskie materialy iz Beloozera,” 231, 239-240.

251

plomby in quantities greater or similar to those found in Beloozero occur only in

Drogichin, Gorodets on the Volga, Novgorod, Riurikovo gorodishche (ca. 1,000

examples), Staraia Ladoga, Ratmino/Dubna, Old Riazan’/Borki, Liubovo, Pskov, and

Smolensk. All of these sites were either major towns located on important commercial

arteries or small settlements/posts that lay at the borders or along key portage areas

between the Rus’ principalities or on borderlands with Poland, Volga Bulgh!ria, and

Lithuania.109 Furthermore, the geographic distribution of the plomby shows that they tend

to gravitate to the northern Rus’ regions or the areas were furs were to be found in great

abundance.110 These findings have led some scholars to argue that plomby were used to

fasten bundles of pelts which were used as money in pre-Mongol Rus’.111 While there are

good reasons to agree with this suggestion, it is also very possible that some, if not many,

of the plomby discovered in Beloozero and other sites were true customs seals. It would

be natural to use such seals to authenticate the goods – mostly fur in the case of

Beloozero – by customs officials when they were carried across the border and tariffs

were charged accordingly. In fact, since the plomby found in Beloozero were discovered

in large clusters, it is even possible to suggest that all or many of them may have come

from a washed-out customhouse or a site where tolls were levied from the transit

commercial traffic.112

109 V.B. Perkhavko, “Rasprostronennie plomb drogichinskogo tipa,” DGVE: 1994 (Moscow, 1996), 211-247, Table 1, pp. 219, 220-225. 110 Perkhavko, “Rasprostronennie plomb drogichinskogo tipa,” 239. 111 B.D. Ershevskii, “Pis’mennye istochniki i materially Novgorodskoi sfragistiki o bezmonetnom periode,” NNZ 2 (Novgorod, 1989), 69-72; S.V. Beletskii, V.P. Petrenko, “Pechati i plomby iz Staroi Ladogi (Svod),” Novye istochniki po arkheologii severo-zapada (St. Petersburg, 1994), n. 26, p. 233; Perkhavko, “Rasprostronennie plomb drogichinskogo tipa,” 239-241; Makarov, Chernetsov, “Sfragisticheskie materialy iz Beloozera,” 240. 112 Makarov, Chernetsov, “Sfragisticheskie materialy iz Beloozera,” 231, 239-240.

252

The above suggestions find support in what is known about the later Russian fur

trade. For instance, the Beloozero Charter of 1488 relates that the Muscovites imposed

tariffs on the transit traffic that passed through Beloozero.113 Other early modern sources

reveal that it was a common Muscovite practice to place seals on the pelts that were

carried from Siberia to Moscow. These seals were affixed to bundles, packages, or boxes

of pelts at the administrative centers deep in Siberia or at peripheral way-stations that lay

near the borders. When crossing the borders, merchants had to present the seals to the

customs officials to be checked for authenticity.114 In view of what is presently known

about the pre-Mongol era plomby, it would not be too unreasonable to suggest that a

similar system was used much earlier in Russia and that the Muscovites simply continued

this tradition into later times.

Taken as a whole, there is significant evidence suggesting that Novgorod continued to

use Beloozero throughout most of the pre-Mongol era as one of its most important

gateways to the fur-rich areas of northern Russia. Beloozero, strategically situated along

the main water highways at the borderland of Rus’ with Zavoloch’e, acted as a major

way-station for fur merchants traveling from the core Rus’ lands to Zavoloch’e. Quite

113 “Belozerskaia ustavnaia gramota, 1488 g. mart,” Pamiatniki russkogo prava 3, ed. A.A. Zimin (Moscow, 1955), art 7, p. 171; “Beloozero Statutory Charter, March, 1488,” in Laws of Rus’, art. 7, p. 123. 114 A very illustrative example of this practice is found in the order to the customs officials in Verkhotur’e dating to 1635 demanding the following from the local civil officials:

…And when the trading men and promyshlenniki (freelance hunters-trappers, R.K.K.) leaving Siberia arrive at the frontier tollhouse, he [the customs head] is ordered to take the travel papers by which they are allowed to leave the Siberian towns where they had traded, and check the furs they carry against those listed in the travel papers, and verify that the furs bear our Siberian stamps. A copy of the description of the stamps of our Siberian towns, with which trading men are required to stamp their merchandise, has by our order been sent to the customs head Danilo.

See “Instructions to a Customs Inspector at Verkhotur’e, March 1635,” A Source Book for Russian History From Early Times to 1917, 1 [Early Times to the Late Seventeenth Century], ed. G. Vernadsky (Mew Haven-London, 1972), 266. Also see Fisher, The Russian Fur Trade, 62-65, 114; P.M. de-Lamartin’er”, Puteshestvie v” severnyia strany (1653 g.), tr. V.N. Semenkovich, in Zapiski Moskovskogo Arkheologicheskogo Instituta 15 (Moscow, 1913), 52, 55, 59.

253

possibly, the town also functioned as a customhouse where toll were levied on the transit

traffic. Residents of Beloozero were probably involved in providing various goods and

services to these merchants as they passed through the town on their way to and from

Zavoloch’e. These same residents were also directly involved in the fur trade by hunting

fur-bearing animals and trading for pelts with their hinterlands. These pelts they sold to

the passing merchants for extra income, evidence of which is found in the great number

of high-value, imported goods deposited in the town.

* * *

In conclusion, the absence of artifacts of Rus’ origins or imported items brought via

Rus’ in the Russian North dating to the ninth and much of the tenth century suggests that

the core lands of Novgorod provided sufficient numbers of pelts for the Novgorodian fur

trade with the Islamic East and Byzantium. However, beginning with the close of the

tenth-early eleventh centuries, items such as coins and beads begin to appear in the

Russian North, most having their origins in Novgorod. The export of these artifacts north

of the core Novgorodian territories suggests that the latter began to explore the regions of

the Russian North in search of new sources of furs. Chronologically, this development

closely corresponds to the opening of the Novgorodian fur trade market with the Baltic in

the last decades of the tenth century, thereby suggesting that the Novgorodian emergent

trade with the northern lands at the same time was not coincidental. In return for the pelts,

the Novgorodians received West European silver coins which they subsequently re-

exported to the Russian North to purchase more pelts from the Finno-Ugrians. In view of

the escalation in Novgorod’s fur trade, the peoples inhabiting the southeastern Ladoga

254

region began to develop commercial contacts with regions north/northeast of them from

which they obtained pelts soon after Novgorod’s demand for pelts increased.

Concurrently, these new trade contacts initiated the inhabitants of such areas as the Lake

Onego region to establish new settlements specifically designed for the procurement of

pelts for this trade. In this way, Novgorod’s trade with the Baltic and the Russian North

rapidly escalated in the following centuries and came to incorporate new regions and

people in this trade.

The combined topography of coin and bead finds suggests that the Novgorodians used

one main route to reach deep into the Russian North for their trade of pelts with the

Finno-Ugrians. It had its origins in the southeastern Lake Ladoga region which was

populated by local peoples who were actively engaged in hunting-tapping fur-bearing

animals, trading their pelts, and probably exploring new fur-rich territories further north

and northeast. Using the Svir’ river, it was possible to travel from southeastern Lake

Ladoga to Lake Onego. Here, two main gateways were open to the Russian North. The

first was a north-northeast route to the Onega river by way of which it was possible to

access the Northern Dvina water system. The second passed south of Lake Onego and, by

way of a portage, it was also possible to enter Lake Beloe which gave access deep into

the Russian North via the Sukhona-Vychegda-Northern Dvina river system. Either one of

these gateways could be used to reach the northeastern-most region of European Russia

by way of the sub-Arctic and Arctic rivers such as the Pinega, Mezen’, and Pechera.

Novgorodian trade with the Finno-Ugrians seems to have followed typical

commercial pattern practiced by other fur traders with the Finno-Ugrians of the Russian

North. As other fur merchants, the Novgorodians traded items made of non-ferrous

255

metals in the form of imported coined silver, ingots, wire, dishes, and jewelry; ferrous

metals in the shape of tools such as axes, knives, and other implements, most of which

were produced in Novgorod; beads of various types, some of which were imports to

Novgorod while others produced locally; and, other commodities such as imported silks.

Relatively inexpensive, locally produced items such as beads and various objects made of

ferrous metals supplemented the Novgorodian sources of goods that could be traded for

expensive pelts with the lands of the Russian North, thereby greatly increasing the profit

margins for the Novgorodians from their trade of furs with the Baltic and other trading

partners.

In addition, Novgorodian jewelers utilized the artistic and religious know-how of the

city’s Finno-Ugrian population to fashion jewelry in accordance with the aesthetic tastes

of other Finno-Ugrians who lived far beyond the lands of Novgorod. This jewelry was

made of imported non-ferrous metals which the Novgorodians imported from the Baltic

in exchange for pelts. In turn, this jewelry was exported to the lands of the far Russian

North and exchanged for more Finno-Ugrian pelts. Through this circular trading

arrangement, the Novgorodians profited by importing raw metals which they proceeded

to manufacture into finished goods that could be exchanged for greater numbers of pelts

which, in turn, could be resold to the Baltic for greater volumes of metals. In this way,

Novgorod played not only the role of a middlemen between the Baltic and the lands of

the Finno-Ugrians of northern Russia, but also that of craft-producing center which

utilized a value-added process of manufacturing, thereby significantly enhancing

Novgorod’s profit margins in their sale of pelts to the Baltic.

256

While very little is known about the Novgorodian merchants who were engaged in

trade with Zavoloch’e, some idea of the way the system through which they operated can

be gathered from the settlements left by Rus’ colonists in the region. The finds of high-

value luxury objects imported from Byzantium, the Near East, Central Asia, Volga

Bulgh!ria, western and central Europe, Scandinavia, and the core Rus’ lands at such sites

as Minino, Kema, and Slavensk portage way-stations shows that notable wealth

gravitated to some of the key portages and way-stations in the southern regions of

Zavoloch’e. Sources of this wealth were several-fold.

First, the colonists provided various services to the transit traffic along the routes

leading to Zavoloch’e for which they were paid for with some of the imported items.

Second, the inhabitants of these centers were intimately involved in the fur trade, which

would account for most of the wealth discovered at their settlements. This trade involved

the sale of pelts the local inhabitants obtained through hunting and trapping animals in

the immediate vicinity of their settlements. In addition, they exchanged the various

imported objects available to them for more pelts with the indigenous Finno-Ugrians

inhabiting the settlement’s hinterlands. These Finno-Ugrians, aside from providing their

own furs which they gained through hunting and trapping, also carried pelts to the

colonists from the more distant tribes with whom they maintained trade relations. Since

Novgorodian merchants appear to have seldom traveled deep into the far-Russian North –

areas beyond the main way-stations and portages – the luxury items correspondingly

increased in value with greater distance. Thus, the Finno-Ugrian intermediaries could

profit much from their position as middlemen between the Rus’ colonial sites and the

remote tribes of the North.

257

Third, some of the items carried by Novgorodian merchants to the colonial

settlements to trade for pelts were high-value, but not finished products, such as raw non-

ferrous metals in the form of ingots and wire. The discovery of workshops at Minino

which produced locally-made jewelry from these imported metals. As with other luxury

items available to the colonists, this jewelry could be used to exchange for pelts with the

indigenous Finno-Ugrian peoples. However, by converting raw materials into finished

goods themselves, these colonists were also engaged in the value-added process which

brought them greater profits.

All of the pelts obtained by the colonists, either through hunting and trapping or

through trade, were sold to the Novgorodian merchants as they voyaged past their way-

stations for additional luxury goods. Many of these imports were used by the colonists to

obtain more pelts from the Finno-Ugrians. By way of this exchange mechanism, beads,

coins, and other imported luxury goods were brought from the core Rus’ lands and

disseminated over vast territories of the Russian North via the Rus’ colonial settlements,

their inhabitants, and the Finno-Ugrian intermediaries.

Lastly, it should be noted that not all goods carried to Zavoloch’e by Novgorodian

merchants necessarily came from Novgorod. Some of the items had their origins in other

towns of northwestern Rus’ such as Staraia Ladoga which produced beads. The other

important center visited by Novgorodian merchants on their way to and from the Russian

North was Beloozero – located to the northeast of Novgorod at the border with

Zavoloch’e. While Novgorod lost control over this town to the Rostov-Suzdal’

principality sometime in the second half of the eleventh century, Novgorodians continued

to use it for accessing Zavoloch’e via its many water outlets and portages to the Russian

258

North. It is likely that Beloozero functioned as a customhouse where toll were collected

from the transit traffic as well as an important terminal where merchants could rest,

obtain provisions, and other services. Engaged in various types of craft production which

produced jewelry, tools and other implements made of ferrous metal, and other goods as

well as maintaining vast trade connections to the core Rus’ lands and Volga Bulgh!ria,

the inhabitants of this town offered the passing merchants with a wide array of goods

which could be taken to Zavoloch’e to trade for pelts. Since the inhabitants of Beloozero

were also directly engaged in the fur trade by hunting and trapping and, no doubt,

obtained pelts through trade with the inhabitants of its hinterlands, the town was also an

important center where pelts could be purchased. However, the highest profits could be

had only by traveling deeper and deeper into Zavoloch’e were the high-value goods only

increased in price and could the exchanged for greater numbers of pelts. Since there was

never a glut of imported goods in the more remote areas of Zavoloch’e, relatively few

merchants ventured that route.

CHAPTER VI

TRANSPORT DEVICES OF THE LANDS OF NOVGOROD

Once merchants purchased their pelts in Zavoloch’e, they had to be transported

somehow over great distances to the Novgorodian market. A cold climate, thick forests,

numerous marshes, swamps, rivers, lakes, and the many rapids and portages of the

remote Russian North must have caused significant difficulties in transporting pelts to

Novgorod. Wheel transport was mostly impractical due to the climate and topography of

northern Russia. During much of the warm months, the ground was too soggy and muddy

for wheel transport while other methods of transport such as skis and sleds were most

efficient during periods of snow cover. In fact, wheel transport was virtually unused by

people inhabiting the regions of the far north of Russia as late as the early twentieth

century.1 In the core lands of Novgorod, wagons or carts also seem to have played an

insignificant role in transport. This is made clear by the fact that during the

archaeological excavations of Novgorod only three wheels (two dating to the eleventh

century and one to the fifteenth) have been discovered as opposed to the hundreds of

parts of sleds, sixty of which are runners.2 In fact, even in the less wet central regions of

Rus’, there were significant problems in using wheel transport. A story from Corneille de

Brun, traveling through Mordovia in October of 1707, beautifully illustrates the many

problems of travel in wagons through central Russia. He states:

Again and here we found a bad road, dotted with potholes and passing through the woods, so that axles broke in several of our

1 V.N. Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi [TIE, 45] (Moscow, 1958), 135-136, 140-142; R.F. Taroeva, Material’naia kul’tura Karel (Moscow-Leningrad, 1965), 61-62. 2 B.A. Kolchin, Wooden Artifacts from Medieval Novgorod 1, ed. A.V. Chernetsov [BAR International Series 495 (i-ii)] (Oxford, 1988), 82-90; B.A. Kolchin, V.L. Ianin “Arkheologii Novgoroda 50 let,” Novgorodskii sbornik: 50 let raskopok Novgoroda (Moscow, 1982), 78-79.

260

wagons seven to eight times, and we had to stop and a third of the time [was spent] on fixing the wagons with the help of young trees.3

One can only imagine how much worse the roads, if they existed at all, were one

thousand years earlier, especially in the north of Russia. Fortunately, there was an

alternative. During the warm months, the many rivers of the Russian North made it

possible to develop a highly efficient system of boat transportation. In winter, frozen

rivers also proved ideal for ski, sled, and mounted travel and transport.4 In fact, when

frozen, rivers became excellent highways connecting nearby and distant places. Anthony

Jenkinson, an English traveler to northern Russia in the mid-sixteenth century, noted:

In the wintertime the people travel with sleds in town and country, the way being hard and smooth with snow; the waters and rivers are all frozen, and one horse with a sled will draw a man upon it four hundred miles in three days; but in the summertime the way is deep with mire and traveling is very ill.5

Thus, post-medieval written sources indicate that while transport was very difficult in the

Russian North, people still found ways of communicating and transporting goods across

significant distances during the summer as well as winter months. In view of the great

expanses of northern Russia traveled by the Novgorodians in the pre-Mongol era, it

would stand to reason that they had a very well developed system of transport in this

early period. Without such a system, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to

engage in the trade of pelts in the fur-rich areas of Zavoloch’e. As fundamental as these

questions are to the study of the trade of pelts for Novgorod, no study, to date, devoted to

3 Puteshestvie cherez Moskoviiu Korniliia de Bruina, tr. P.P. Barsov (Moscow, 1873), 237-240. The English translation is mine. 4 Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi, 125-135; Taroeva, Material’naia kul’tura Karel, 62. 5 A. Jenkinson, “The Voyage of Anthony Jenkinson,” Rude & Barbarous Kingdom: Russia in the Accounts of Sixteenth-Century English Voyagers, ed. L.E. Berry and R. Crummey (Madison, Milwaukee, London, 1968), 56.

261

the Russian fur trade has adequately addressed the issue of transport. For this reason, the

present chapter will provide a detailed overview of the Novgorodian transport

technologies and trace some of their origins.

OVERLAND TRANSPORT

Before all else, it must be realized that sleds and skis – the two most common forms

of transport devices used for travel over snow – were not necessarily used only in the

winter months. First, snow cover lasts from 200 to 280 days in the tundra regions of the

far-north of Russia, as opposed to 120-160 days in the middle belt of European Russia.

Snow recedes for short intervals in the southern part of the tundra beginning in the

middle or late May and in the northern zone in late June or early July.6 In this way, the

Novgorodian merchants who traveled deep into the far-north of Zavoloch’e, areas

inhabited by the prized polar foxes, could use sleds and skis to cross snow well into the

summer season. Second, as will be seen below, sleds were also commonly used as

transport vehicles to travel across dry land as far south as the core lands of Novgorod.

Therefore, when considering the use of sleds and skis in northern Russia, seasons did not

always determine the choice in the use of these transport devices.

Although no pre-Mongol written records describe how the Novgorodians reached the

far-distant northern markets where the Finno-Ugrians would sell their pelts, Islamic

sources shed some light on the way this was done during the eleventh-twelfth centuries

by the Volga Bulgh!rs. Marvaz", al-B"r#n", and al-!arn!$" all report that Volga Bulgh!r

merchants traveled on skis and used dogsleds to trade with the Y!ra who inhabited the

6 Yu.I. Chernov, The Living Tundra, tr. D. Löle [Studies in Polar Research] (Cambridge, 1985), 10-11, 52.

262

polar areas of the Russian North.7 No doubt, the Volga Bulgh!rs loaded their pelts onto

sleds and the skiers pulled them as they made their trading and tribute-collection rounds.

There is little question that the Novgorodian fur traders also used these two forms of

transport in Zavoloch’e.

SKIS

The use of skis and sleds in northern Europe, particularly among the Finno-Ugrians,

dates back to the Stone Age. Skis and petroglyphs representing people riding skis dating

from the Mesolithic period (sixth-seventh millennium BC) to the early Middle Ages have

been discovered from the Perm’ (Vychegda) region in the east to Åland Island in the

west.8 Written sources also speak of the use of skis in northern Europe by the Finno-

Ugrians beginning with the early Middle Ages. Thus, as early as the sixth century

Procopius (ca. 500-562) and Jordanes (ca. 551) referred to the Finno-Ugrians as

7 Ab" #!mid al-!arn!$% in Puteshestvie Abu Hamida al-Garnati, tr. O.G. Bol’shakov, comm. A.L. Mongait (Moscow, 1971), 33; Marvaz%, Sharaf al-Zam!n !!hir Marvaz" on China, the Turks and India, tr. V. Minorsky (London, 1942), 34; B%r"n% in Abu Reikhan Biruni (973-1048), Izbrannye proizvedeniia, 3, tr. P.G. Bulgakov (Tashkent, 1966), 156. 8 G.M. Burov, Vychegodskii krai: Ocherki drevnei istorii (Moscow, 1965), 134; ibid., “Arkheologicheskie nakhodki v statichnykh torfianikakh basseina Vychegdy,” SA 1 (1966), 157-164, 167-171; idem, V gostiakh u dalekikh predkov (Syktyvkar, 1968), 38, 66-68; idem., “Fragmenty sanei s poselenii Vis I (mezolit) i Vis II (pervaia tysiachiletiia n.e.),” SA 2 (1981), 117-131; idem., “Drevnie sani Severnoi Evropy,” Skandinavskii sbornik 26 (1981), 152, 155, 164; idem., “Eshche odni rekonstruirovannye sani rannego srednevekov’ia s poseleniia Vis II v respublike Komi,” Problemy etnogeneziza Finno-ugorskikh narodov Priural’ia (Izhevsk, 1992), 95-105; D.A. Krainov, “Issledovaniia Verkhnevolzhskoi ekspeditsii,” AO 1970: (Moscow, 1971), 35; idem., “Issledovaniia Verkhnevolzhskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1972 (Moscow, 1973), 69; idem., “Raboty Verkhnevolzhskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1974 (Moscow, 1975), 64; E. Kivikoski, Finland, tr. A. Binns (New York-Washington, 1967), 67; A.M. Linevskii, Petroglify Karelii (Petrozavodsk, 1939), pt. 2, tabl. 10-11; V.I. Ravdonikas, Naskal’nye izobrazheniia Belogo moria (Moscow-Leningrad, 1938), tabl. 8, 18-19; Iu.A. Savvateev, “Novye petroglify Onezhskogo ozera,” AO: 1972 (Moscow, 1973), 38-39; I. Zachrisson, “The South Saami Culture: In Archaeological Finds and West Nordic Written Sources from AD 800-1300,” Social Approaches to Viking Studies, ed. R. Samson (Glasgow, 1991), 197; J. Vilkuna, “Ancient Skis of Central Finland,” FA 1 (1984), 31-41; M. Gimbutas, The Prehistory of Eastern Europe (Cambridge, Mass., 1956), pl. 3,a; A.M. Mikliaev, “Raboty na iuge Pskovskoi oblasti,” AO: 1982 (Moscow, 1984), 20. Also see N. Valonen, “Varhaisia lappalais-suomalaisia kosketuksia,” Ethnologia Fennica 10 (1980) (English abstract: “Early Contacts Between the Lapps and the Finns”), 99-100, 103-107.

263

skrithiphinoi/skrerefenni, a derivative Germanic/Gothic term also found in the later Old

Norse word skrí!ifinn, all meaning “Ski-Finns.”9 The fame with which the Finno-Ugrians

used skis for transport did not escape the attention of later medieval authors such as

Adam of Bremen, Snorre Sturlason, and Saxo Grammaticus.10 In this way, archaeological

and literary sources provide abundant evidence for the Finno-Ugrian use of skis in the

Russian North from the Stone Age until the High Middle Ages.

While the Finno-Ugrians may have used and, in fact, apparently invented skis, already

in the Stone Age, the Eastern Slavs who migrated to northern Russia from southeastern

Europe and settled in the lands of Novgorod only in the eighth-ninth centuries had little

knowledge of this transport device. As with the use of blunt-tip arrowheads and doubtless

a great many other Finno-Ugrian survival strategies necessary for life in the unfamiliar

terrain, ecology, and climate of northern Russia, the Slavs adopted skis from the Finno-

Ugrians. To date, two whole skis were discovered in Staraia Ladoga: one dating to the

750s-830s and the other to 840s-850s.11 Archaeologists identify these skis as “Karelian”

in origin.12 Founded in the mid-eighth century, Staraia Ladoga, with its multi-ethnic

population composed of Slavs, Scandinavians, Balts, and Finno-Ugrians would have been

an ideal place for sharing the technology of ski transport.

The use of skis was known among the population of Novgorod. Thus, since the 1950s,

at least nine skis have been discovered in the city dating from the eleventh to the

9 T. DuBois, “Skis, Skiing,” Medieval Folklore: An Encyclopedia of Myths, Legends, Tales, Beliefs, and Customs, 2, ed. C. Lindahl, J. McNamara, and J. Lindow (Santa Barbara, 2000). 10 Adam of Bremen, History of the Archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen, tr. F.J. Tschan (New York, 1959), 205-206; Snorre Sturlason, Heimskringla, tr. A.H. Smith (New York, 1932), 66; Saxo Grammaticus, The History of the Danes 1, tr. P. Fisher, ed. H.E. Davidson (London, 1979), 9, 153. 11 O.V. Ovsiannikov, “Lyzhi severnoi Rusi,” Novoe v arkheologii SSSR i Finliandii (Leningrad, 1984), 194-195; idem., “O srednevekovykh russkikh lyzhakh,” KSIA 125 (1971), 35-36; idem., “On Old Russian Skis,” FA 6 (1989), 29-50. 12 Ovsiannikov, “Lyzhi severnoi Rusi,” 194-195.

264

fourteenth centuries.13 The skis discovered in Novgorod and Staraia Ladoga were of two

types: the so-called “slow” ski and “fast” ski, both serving different purposes. The

underside of the “slow” ski was padded with animal fur (elk, deer, and sometimes bear or

calf). Writing in the middle of the sixteenth century, Olaus Magnus leaves a good

explanation of the “slow” skis [Fig. 1]:

Various explanations are given as to why the planks are covered with such soft hides: that it enables these folks to make their way over deep snow with a swifter glide; that, by a crosswise movement, they can more readily avoid the chasms and precipices among the rocks; or that, when they are traveling uphill, they should not slip back; this is because the hairs, like bristles or the spines of a hedgehog, rise on end, and by the wonderful power of Nature prevent them from sliding backwards.14

FIGURE 1 Engraving From Olaus Magnus “Scricfinnia” on Skis, 155515

13 Kolchin, Wooden Artifacts from Medieval Novgorod 1, 93-94. It should be noted that the Kolchin volume is now more that three decades old and does not include all of the numerous materials discovered since then in Novgorod, particularly that which was unearthed at the Troits Dig. There is little question that many more skis were found in Novgorod over the last several decades, but, thus far, they have not been published. 14 Olaus Magnus, Description of the Northern Peoples, Rome 1555, 1, tr. P. Fisher and H. Higgens, ed. P. Foote [Works Issued by the Hakluyt Society, 2nd Ser. vol. 182] (London, 1998), 22. 15 Olaus Magnus, A Description of the Northern Peoples 1, 23.

265

The “fast” skis lacked the fur padding, but were equipped with a brake (made in the

form of a protruding wedge) at the bottom-end of the ski which prevented the skier from

slipping backwards.16 Such a brake-like feature was found on a ski unearthed at the

Mesolithic site in the Vychegda region.17

According to ethnographic reports, many peoples of northern Eurasia used skis as late

as the early twentieth century for everyday transportation.18 Some still used both the

“slow” and the “fast” skis.19 Records reveal that the “fast” skis were utilized when

pursuing large-hoofed animals, such as elk or deer, while the “slow” skis were used by

hunters for moving from one trap to another during their routine surveillance of their

hunting patches.20 The “fast” skis were also employed for traveling over dry snow

whereas the “slow” skis were best for fast movement over wet snow and for traversing

elevated grounds.21 Thus, the design of the skis took into account both the climate and the

types of prey that was hunted. It is quite possible that when noting that the Finns were

capable of traveling “both in thaws and on hard snow,” Snorre Sturlason was referring to

the use of these two types of skis.

16 Ovsiannikov, “Lyzhi severnoi Rusi,” 194-195. Also see Valonen, “Varhaisia lappalais-suomalaisia kosketuksia,” 103-107. 17 Burov, V gostiakh u dalekikh predkov, 38, Fig. 8, !1. 18 I. Talve, Finnish Folk Culture: Studia Fennica Ethnologica 4, tr. S. Sinisalo (Helsinki, 1997), 107-108; Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi, 144-146; D. Konakov, Komi (Okhotniki i rybalovy vo vtoroi polovine XIX-nachala XX v.) (Moscow, 1983), 64-65; Taroeva, Material’naia kul’tura Karel, 63-64; G.A. Sepeev, Vostochnye mariitsy (Ioshkar-Ola, 1975), 90; T.A. Kriukova, Material’naia kul’tura mariitsev XIX veka (Ioshkar-Ola, 1956), 37; P. Hajdu, Finno-Ugrian Languages and Peoples, tr. G.F. Cushing (London, 1975), 140; U.T. Sirelius, Suomen kansanomaista kulttuuria 1 (Helsinki, 1919), 366-378; A.I. Mazin, Byt i khoziaistvo Evenkov-Orochonov (konets XIX - nachalo XX v.) (Novosibirsk, 1992), 62; S.G. Zhambalova, Traditsionnaia okhota Buriat (Novosibirsk, 1991), 71; L.V. Khomich, Nentsy: istoriko-etnograficheskie ocherki (Moscow-Leningrad, 1960), 100. 19 E.g., Komi and Karelians; see Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi, 144-146; Konakov, Komi, 64-65; Taroeva, Material’naia kul’tura Karel, 63-64. 20 Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi, 85-86, 87. 21 Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi, 87.

266

In sum, skis were well known to the residents of Staraia Ladoga and Novgorod during

the Middle Ages. Novgorodian merchants may have used “fast” skis while on their

travels through Zavoloch’e in quest of pelts. In addition, the inhabitants of Staraia

Ladoga and Novgorod may have used the “slow” skis for hunting fur-bearing animals in

the immediate hinterlands of both towns. Lastly, both the “fast” and the “slow” skis were

widely used in the Russian North during the Middle Ages by their inventors – the Finno-

Ugrian hunters-trappers. The “slow” skis permitted them to hunt and trap fur-bearing

animals during the peak winter season when the animals’ fur coats were at their thickest.

Once the pelts had been procured, the “fast” skis allowed the natives to deliver them for

sale to portage settlements and way-station visited by Novgorodian merchants.

SLEDS

Like skis, sleds were widely used for transport by the Finno-Ugrians of the Russian

North from the Stone Age. Remains of sleds have also been unearthed throughout the

Russian North and Fennoscandia dating from the Mesolithic period to the seventh-ninth

centuries A.D.22 Saxo Grammaticus noted that “Finns” in the northern regions of Sweden

employed sleds for carrying pelts as tribute to the Swedish king.23 As with skis, the

Finno-Ugrians pioneered the use of sleds in the Russian North. On arriving in northern

Russia, in addition to borrowing the Finno-Ugrian skis, the Slavs appear to have adopted

the use of sleds – another fundamental and indispensable transport device needed for

survival in this region of the world. Thus, about one hundred fragments from various

22 Burov, “Fragmenty sanei,” 117-131; idem., “Drevnie sani Severnoi Evropy,” 152, 155, 164; idem., “Eshche odni rekonstruirovannye sani,” 95-105; Vychegodskii krai, 134; ibid., “Arkheologicheskie nakhodki,” 157-164, 167-171; idem, V gostiakh u dalekikh predkov, 38, 66-68; P.D. Goldina, Lomovatovskaia kul’tura v Verkhnem Prikamie (Irkutsk, 1985), 34; Kivikoski, Finland, 67. 23 Saxo Grammaticus, The History of the Danes 1, 153.

267

types of sleds were discovered by archaeologists in Staraia Ladoga with some of the

earliest dating to the mid-eighth century, or the time the town was founded.24 Hundreds

of parts of sleds of various types – small hand-pulled and large horse-drawn models were

discovered in Novgorod dating to the time the town was established in the 920s-930s.25

Like skis, these sleds are similar to those used by the inhabitants of northern Russia and

Fennoscandia in the Stone Age.26 The fragments of early medieval hand-pulled sleds

from the Perm’ region are of the so-called “Novgorodian” type, similar to those used in

Novgorod in the later medieval period.27

According to ethnographic reports, various types of hand-pulled sleds were still

widely used for various purposes in northern Russia in the early twentieth century. Since

many of these sleds moved on runners and were light, they could be used for transport

during winter as well as summer months (i.e., gliding over grass and soil).28 During the

winter, people on skis dragged these sleds using leather straps. These sleds were

primarily used by hunters for transporting their equipment and prey. The carrying

capacity of the sleds varied according to their size. Late nineteenth-century sleds used by

the inhabitants of the Perm’ region, for example, carried from 130 to 197 kg, depending

on the sled’s length.29 Interestingly, these modern sleds were quite similar in their

construction to those found in the Perm’ area dating to the sixth century.30

24 S.A. Orlov, Dereviannye izdeliia Staroi Ladogi VII-X vv. [Dissertation Abstract] (Moscow, 1954), 9. 25 Kolchin, Wooden Artifacts from Medieval Novgorod 1, 82-90. 26 Burov, “Fragmenty sanei,” 129-130; idem., “Drevnie sani Severnoi Evropy,” 152, 155, 164; idem., “Eshche odni rekonstruirovannye sani,” 95-105. 27 Burov, “Eshche odni rekonstruirovannye sani,” 95; M.I. Vasil’ev, A.N. Sorokin, “Iz istorii transportnykh sredstv drevnego Novgoroda,” NNZ 14 (Novgorod, 2000), 178-183. 28 Talve, Finnish Folk Culture, 108; Konakov, Komi, 68-72; Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi, 87, 138, 142-144; Taroeva, Material’naia kul’tura Karel, 71-73. 29 Konakov, Komi, 70. 30 Burov, “Eshche odni rekonstruirovannye sani,” 105.

268

For heavier loads, dogs were harnessed to the hand-pulled sleds [Fig. 2]. Dogsleds

were used by the peoples of the Russian North well into the early twentieth century: one

to two dogs were harnessed for traveling short distances and up to three to five for

extended travel.31 One of the earliest accounts of the use of dogs for pulling sleds comes

from Marvaz! who mentioned that merchants traveled from Volga Bulgh"ria to the

territories inhabited by the Finno-Ugrians in dogsleds.32 The use of dogsleds in northern

Russia was noted by other medieval authors like Ibn Ba##$#a and Marco Polo.33 Literary

sources dating to later centuries continue to speak of the use of dog-sleds among the

peoples of the far Russian North. Hence, while visiting Russia in 1518-1519, Francesco

Da Colla observed that dogs were used for pulling sleds by hunters in the Perm’ and

Iugra regions.34

FIGURE 2 Seventeenth-Century Siberian Dogsleds35

31 Konakov, Komi, 71-76; Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi, 87, 142. 32 Marvaz!, Sharaf al-Zam!n T!hir, 34. 33 The Travels of Ibn Ba""#"a, A.D. 1325-1354 2, ed. H.A.R. Gibb (Cambridge, 1962), 491; Marco Polo, The Travels, tr. R.E. Latham (London, 1958), 330. 34 Francesco Da Colla, Relatione di Moscouia in Franchesko da Kollo – Donoshenie o Moskovii, tr. O. Simchich (Moscow, 1996), 60, 63. 35 Kratkaia Sibirskaia (Kungurskaia) letopis (St. Petersburg, 1880), 22.

269

Remains of dog bones at many Finno-Ugrian sites suggest that dogs may have been

used for hunting as well as for pulling sleds.36 In fact, based on the construction of the

sleds found in the Perm’ region, it has been observed that they may have been designed

to be pulled by dogs.37 Thus, it would stand to reason that dogs were used in this northern

part of the Finno-Ugrian world in the early Middle Ages, if not much earlier.

FIGURE 3 Seventeenth-Century Siberian Transport Devices38

36 Burov, “Eshche odni rekonstruirovannye sani,” 105. 37 Burov, “Eshche odni rekonstruirovannye sani,” 105. 38 Kratkaia Sibirskaia (Kungurskaia) letopis, 3. It is interesting to note that this illustration was providing a south-north view of Siberia: at the top of the picture one finds the southern transport (Bactrian camels) while at the bottom the northern (reindeer).

270

Larger sleds were pulled in the southern region of the Russian North by horses and in

the north by reindeer, as they were in seventeenth-century Siberia [Fig. 3]. Birch-bark

texts !601 and !609 (both dating from the mid-1190s to the 1210s) as well as !718

dating to 1229, discovered in Novgorod, are lists of expenses of Novgorodian tribute

collectors, which included sleds, horsecloths, stallions, oats (food for the horses), and

other needed items for long-distance tribute collection.39 As noted above, parts of large

horse-drawn sleds have been discovered in Novgorod. In general, the connection between

sleds and transporting pelts is made very clear in several sources. The Russian Primary

Chronicle reports that in 947 Princess Ol’ga set up pogosty and collected tribute (dan’) in

the lands of Novgorod and that “her sleighs stand in Pskov to this day.”40 Mention of the

use of reindeer as well as dogs for transport among the Samoyeds is found in the

fifteenth-century Novgorodian “Tale of the Unknown Peoples in the Eastern Land.”41 In

the middle of the seventeenth century, P.-M. de la Martinière, a French merchant-traveler

to the coastal region of the Barents and Kara Seas, voyaged on reindeer sleds to trade for

pelts with the Lapps and Samoyeds.42

In connection to traveling over snow and ice, a word should be said about one unique

transport device used for walking on icy surfaces – iron ice-spikes. These artifacts are of

two types. One was fastened to horse’s hoofs to prevent slippage while traveling on icy

roads or frozen rivers. With the use of these spikes, horses could be used either as

mounted transport or for pulling sleds in winter. The other was very similar to the former

39 Zalizniak, DD, 352-353; NGB: 1977-1983, 63-65, 71-72; NGB: 1990-1996, 16-18; V.F. Andreev, “Novgorodskie berestianye gramoty !601 i 609,” Proshloe Novgoroda i Novgorodskoi zemli (Novgorod, 1995), 32-35. 40 RPC, 82; PVL, 29. 41 Tekst-Kentavr o Sibirskikh Samoedakh, ed. A. Pliguzov (Moscow, 1993), 96, 100, 104. 42 P.M. de-Lamartin’er”, Puteshestvie v” severnyia strany (1653 g.), tr. V.N. Semenkovich in Zapiski Moskovskogo Arkheologicheskogo Instituta 15 (Moscow, 1913), 21-37.

271

type of spike, but was attached to the bottom of a shoe to prevent slippage on icy

surfaces. In this way, horse and people could walk on icy ground, including slippery

frozen rivers. Hundreds of examples of both types of spikes have been unearthed in

Novgorod as well as Staraia Ladoga, Riurikovo gorodishche, Beloozero, and many other

Rus’ towns as well as burials beginning with the ninth century.43

WATER TRANSPORT

With the receding ice in spring, boats could be used to penetrate deep into the

territories of the Russian North by way of its many river systems. The use of these

waterways and boats has a long tradition among the Finno-Ugrians of northern Russia

and Fennoscandia dating back to the Stone Age. Thus, remains of dugout boats or canoes,

oars, and petroglyphs with representations of boats dating from the Mesolithic period

through the early Iron Age have been discovered widely throughout the Finno-Ugrian

world of northern Europe.44 However, aside from the finds of oars in the Perm’ region,

archaeologists, thus far, have not uncovered any remains of boats from any medieval

Finno-Ugrian sites in the north of Russia.45 Written sources also provide very little

43 B.A. Kolchin, “Zhelezoobrabatyvaiushchee remeslo Novgoroda Velikogo (produktsiia, tekhnologiia),” TNAE 2 [MIA SSSR 65] (Moscow, 1959), 115-116; V.A. Nazarenko, “Mogil’nik v urochishche Plakun,” Srednevekovaia Ladoga: Novye arkheologicheskie otkrytiia i issledovaniia, ed. V.V. Sedov (Leningrad, 1985), 162; E.N. Nosov, Novgorodskoe (Riurikovo) gorodishche (Leningrad, 1990), 76; L.A. Golubeva, Ves' i slaviane na Belom ozere: X-XIII vv. (Moscow, 1973), 131. 44 Linevskii, Petroglify Karelii, pt. 2, tabl. 10-11; Ravdonikas, Naskal’nye izobrazheniia Belogo moria, tabl. 8, 18-19; Iu.A. Savvateev, “Novye petroglify Onezhskogo ozera,” AO: 1972 (Moscow, 1973), 38-39; M.-J. Springmann, “Thoughts on the Typology of Stone Age Boat Petroglyphs from the White Sea and Lake Onego, Russia,” Izuchenie pamiatnikov morskoi arkheologii 4 (St. Petersburg, 2000), 161-175; A.A. Inostrantsev, Doistoricheskii chelovek poberezh’ia Ladozhskogo ozera (St. Petersburg, 1882), 172; D.A. Krainov, Issledovaniia Verkhnevolzhskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1970 (Moscow, 1971) 35; idem., “Issledovaniia Verkhnevolzhskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1972, 69; idem., “Issledovaniia Verkhnevolzhskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1974 (Moscow, 1975) 64; J. Vilkuna, “Prehistoric Finno-Ugrian paddles,” Materialy VI mezhdunarodnogo kongressa finno-ugrovedov 1 (Moscow, 1989), 153-158. 45 Burov, Vychegodskii krai, 134.

272

specific information on the types of boats used in northern Russia until the early modern

era. However, there are numerous archaeological finds of boat parts from a number of

medieval sites within the core regions of the Novgorod lands. Pictorial and ethnographic

sources shed much additional light on the types of boats used in northwestern and

northern Russia during the Middle Ages. Based on these sources, three main types of

craft were widely known in the lands of Novgorod and its northern provinces for water

travel and transportation, both inland and maritime, in the pre-Mongol era: river and lake

boats, river barges, and seagoing ships.

INLAND WATER CRAFT

Dugout Canoes (Simple and Complex)

As noted above, dugout boats or canoes were used in the Russian North already in the

Stone Age. The tradition of constructing and using such vessels survived in the area well

into the modern period. Not surprisingly five large parts of such boats have been

discovered in the cultural layers of Novgorod dating from the eleventh to the fourteenth

centuries.46 Some of these boats were outfitted with bowed ribs set inside the hall to make

the dugouts more sturdy, stable, and durable. Such boats could be as long as 6-8 m in

length, have sides as high as 0.60-0.80 m, and be 1.2 m wide.47 Based on ethnographic

evidence, such simple dugouts were widely used for fishing, hunting, and general

46 G.E. Dubrovin, “Fragment lodki odnoderevki XI veka s Troitskogo XI raskopa,” NNZ 12 (Novgorod, 1998), 132-137; idem., “Blochnoe sudno s Iaroslavskogo dvorishcha,” NNZ 9 (Novgorod, 1995), 207-213; idem, “Novgorodskie lodki odnoderevki,” RA 3 (1994), 178-180; idem., “Lodki-odnoderevki s Troitskogo X raskopa,” NNZ 7 (Novgorod, 1993), 128-132; M.Kh. Aleshkovskii, “Lad’ia XI v. iz Novgoroda,” SA 2 (1969), 264-269. 47 G.E. Dubrovin, “Sudostoenie srednevekovpgo Novgoroda po arkheologicheskim dannym,” Slavianskii srednevekovyi gorod [Trudy VI Mezhdunarodnogo Kongressa slavianskoi arkheologii, 2] (Moscow, 1997), 79; idem., “Fragment lodki odnoderevki XI veka,” 137; idem., “Lodki-odnoderevki s Troitskogo X raskopa,” 128-132.

273

transport and traveling over short distances.48 Much like a kayak, the dugouts were

propelled by a two-ended oar or a long pushing pole.49 The width of these boats could

range from 0.50 to 0.60 m at its center and about 0.40 to 0.50 m in height. The dugouts

that were 2.5-3 m in length had a carrying capacity of about 200 kg; thus, they could

accommodate two people or one person with cargo.50 One of the dugouts discovered in

Novgorod dating to the 1060s-1080s was within the parameters of such a boat (3.5 m !

0.70 m ! 0.35-0.48 m).51 Larger ones recorded in the ethnographic sources, if up to 5 m in

length, could correspondingly carry nearly twice that weight.

Dugouts were customarily made by each individual hunter, usually seasonally or for a

specific purpose, such as transporting cargo downriver in spring. Being light in weight,

dugouts could be easily carried over portages and penetrate far upstream even by a single

individual [Fig. 3]. It is very likely that such boats were also used by the medieval Finno-

Ugrians and Rus’ colonists in the Russian North on their hunting expeditions, for local

communications, and delivering pelts for sale to the portage settlements and way-stations

in Zavoloch’e. At the same time, their small size and low sides prohibited their use along

large rivers and lakes.52 In other words, these boats were most practical for individual use

along small rivers in a restricted area.

Because of the limited navigational capacities of the simple dugouts and their limited

carrying capacity, it is unlikely that such boats would have normally been used by

48 Konakov, Komi, 76-78; Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi, 130-131; Talve, Finnish Folk Culture, 111; Kriukova, Material’naia kul’tura mariitsev, 89; Taroeva, Material’naia kul’tura Karel, 66; N.A. Makarov, Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain Drevnei Rusi v XI-XIII vekakh (Moscow, 1997), 101-102; P.E. Sorokin, Vodnye puti i sudostroenie na severp-zapode Rusi v srednevekov’e (St. Petersburg, 1997), 86-89. 49 Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi, 132; Konakov, Komi, 78. 50 Belitser, Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi, 132; Konakov, Komi, 78. 51 Dubrovin, “Fragment lodki odnoderevki XI veka s Troitskogo XI raskopa,” 137. 52 Konakov, Komi, 78.

274

Novgorodian merchants to travel from Novgorod to Zavoloch’e. However, if need be,

dugouts could be made longer, wider, and with deeper drought by using a thicker and

longer tree trunk in constructing the boat. To make them more suitable for navigating

across larger water bodies, their sides could be built-up by fixing (sewing) onto the trunk

extra boards with tree branches, roots, rope, or sinew and caulked with pine tar. Based on

the discovery of such vessels and their parts in Novgorod, such complex dugouts were

well known to medieval Novgorodians.

One of the more complete examples of such vessels discovered in the city dates to the

first half of the twelfth century. Together with its preserved sideboard, this boat’s sides

were at least 0.58 m in height. It is estimated that the boat was constructed from a tree

about one meter in diameter. Like some of the simple dugouts, this vessel had bowed ribs

set about every 0.84-0.86 m apart to make it more stable and durable. Unfortunately,

because the boat was missing a large part of its bottom, the exact height of its sides, its

width, and length remain unknown.53 However, based on the dimensions of simple

dugouts found in Novgorod (6-8 m ! 0.60-0.80 m ! 1.2 m), it would stand to reason that

these boats could be quite sizable and may have been rigged with single sails.54

Ethnographic records reveal that dugouts with sewn sides were widely used for travel

and transport in the Russian North and were sometimes rigged with a single sail [Fig 4].

Table 1 illustrates the dimensions and payloads of such craft from the White Sea water-

systems. Overall, with the exception of the longer variant of the shniaka, i.e., up to 18.3

m in length and 2 m in width, all the vessels of this type were less than 10 m long and

under 1.5 m in width. Thus, their size – particularly the lodka (6.4-8.5 m long ! 1-1.5 m 53 Dubrovin, “Novgorodskie lodki odnoderevki,” 183; idem., “Lodki-odnoderevki s Troitskogo X raskopa,” 128-132. 54 Dubrovin, “Sudostoenie srednevekovpgo Novgoroda,” 79.

275

wide ! 0.6-0.9 m deep) – generally conforms to the dimensions of the medieval

Novgorodian simple dugouts, which, most likely, were also representative of the sizes of

the dugouts with sewn sides, i.e., 6-8 m long ! 1.2 m wide ! 0.60-0.80 m high (deep).

Thus, it can be surmised that the medieval Novgorodian dugouts with sewn sides could

carry 480 to 800 kg at 0.6 m drought. Based on late sixteenth-century sources, it has been

determined that the maximum length of boats used at portage crossings in the Russian

North were vessels ranging from 8.5 to 10 m in length.55 Only craft with raised sides

could have been used to navigate through the high waves of lakes and large rivers and, at

the same time, be short, narrow, and have a shallow-enough drought to negotiate

successfully (albeit with difficulties) through the upper reaches of rivers to the nearest

land portage across which they could be carried, hauled or rolled on logs to the next

water system with relative ease.56

Type of Vessel Length / m Width / m Depth / m Tonnage / t Draught / m Osinovka 4.9 0.9 0.9 0.32 0.3 Troinik 4.9 0.9 0.53 0.32 0.3 Belozerskaia lodka 6.4 0.9 0.53 0.48 0.3 Budarka 4.7-7.6 0.7-0.9 0.3-0.46 0.16-0.48 0.3 Kirzhim 4.6-8.5 0.7-1.4 0.46-0.9 0.32-1.28 0.3-0.6 Lodka 6.4-8.5 1-1.5 0.6-0.9 0.48-0.8 0.6 Shniaka 8.5-18.3 1.8-2 1.2-1.4 2.4-4 0.61-0.76

TABLE 1

Dimensions and Tonnage of Mid-Nineteenth-Century Dugouts with Sewn Sideboards From the White Sea Water-System57

55 Makarov, Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain Drevnei Rusi, 101-102. 56 Makarov, Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain Drevnei Rusi, 101-102. 57 Table based on Sorokin, Vodnye puti i sudostroenie, 87.

276

FIGURE 4 Mid-Nineteenth-Century Dugouts with Sewn Sides From the Russian North58

The tonnage of these vessels, while not very impressive (from 0.16-0.48 to 2.4-4.0

tons) would have sufficed for transporting such lightweight items as beads, coins,

jewelry, or even cloth to Zavoloch’e and furs back to Novgorod. If one takes into account

that 8,000 furs (mainly squirrel pelts) could be transported in a single barrel – perhaps

120 liters in volume, measuring 0.45 m in diameter and 0.65 m in height (see Chapter II)

– it can be assumed that at least three times that many pelts (24,000) could be carried in a

single large sewn dugout together with a crew of one or two men. The idea that a great

many pelts could be transported in such boats is supported by one unique passage found

in the 1371 treaty between Novgorod and one of its princes. One of its stipulations to the

58 Sorokin, Vodnye puti i sudostroenie, Fig. 33, p. 192.

277

princes states: “And beyond the Volok you are to send your men from Novgorod in two

boats, according to custom, and back again to Novgorod…”59 This passage in the treaty is

unique in that it substitutes as well as elaborates on the clauses found in many earlier

Novgorodian-princely treaties which simply state: “Whatever lands are Novgorodian,

those lands, prince, you are not to hold with your men, [but rather] hold them with

Novgorodian men; and take your gift, prince, from those lands.”60 Among these lands

was the huge region of Zavoloch’e.61 Thus, unlike the other, earlier treaties, the one for

1371 states that the “gift” the prince was to receive annually from Zavoloch’e could be

carried to Novgorod in two manned boats (nasady). While the exact size of the “gift” the

princes received from Zavoloch’e is unknown, it did involve many thousands of pelts.62

Likewise, size and the type of vessel the nasad was is not clear. However, the

overwhelming majority of times the nasad is mentioned in Rus’ sources, it is used to

describe vessels employed in large inland water-bodies.63 In light of the above, it would

stand to reason that Novgorodian fur merchants used the relatively large dugout vessels

with sewn sides to travel through the water-systems of Zavoloch’e during the Middle

Ages. It did not require a flotilla of boats to bring many thousands of pelts from the

Russian North.

59 “Treaty of Novgorod with the Tver’ Grand Prince Mikhail Aleksandrovich [1333-99] 1371,” Laws of Rus’, 76; GVNP, !15, p. 29. 60 “Treaty of Novgorod with Tver’ Grand Prince Aleksandr Mikhailovich [1301-39] 1326-1327,” Laws of Rus’, 72; GVNP, !14, p. 27. The same clause is also found in the earlier treaties. 61 “Treaty of Novgorod with Tver’ Grand Prince Aleksandr Mikhailovich [1301-39] 1326-1327,” 72; GVNP, !14, p. 27. The same is also found in the earlier treaties. 62 This topic will be explored in great detail in my forthcoming study dedicated to the structure of the Novgorodian state collection of pelts, a sequel to the present study. 63 Sorokin, Vodnye puti i sudostroenie, 52.

278

River Barges

One of the most common types of craft used in medieval Novgorod was the flat-

bottom barge (parom), many fragments of which have been discovered in the city as well

as in Staraia Ladoga. These vessels were clinker-built (made of overlapping boards)

using wooden pegs for joining the planks. They lacked a keel, had a wedge-like bow, a

slanted stern, and sides at nearly right angles to the bottom section [Fig. 5]. These types

of barges were used in Staraia Ladoga as early as the late eighth century and in Novgorod

FIGURE 5 Reconstruction of a Novgorodian Barge of the Thirteen-Fourteenth Centuries64

from the city’s foundation in the 920s-930s. These craft were used in the lands of

Novgorod with little change well into the modern period. The approximate dimensions of

these vessels can be gathered from a number of large fragments discovered in both towns.

For example, a barge found in Staraia Ladoga dating to the 870s-930s was about 3.2 m

64 G.E. Dubrovin, P.Iu. Chernosviatov, “Novgorodskoe sudno XIII-XIV vv.,” NNZ 14 (Novgorod, 2000), Fig. 4, 227.

279

wide and had sides measuring ca. 0.8 m in height. Since only a part of the barge has

survived, its length cannot be established. On the other hand, based on the find of a part

of another barge (dating to the first quarter of the tenth century) discovered in the same

town, it has been estimated that barges could be as long as 12-20 m. Parts of barges

dating to the twelfth century and the first quarter of the fourteenth found in Novgorod

show that these vessels could have sides as high as 1.2 m.65

When comparing the basic design of the barges used in northwestern Rus’ with

similar craft recorded in the later ethnographic evidence from the same region, it is clear

that many features in their construction remained practically unchanged. The modern

examples, therefore, reflect the construction of their medieval forerunners. Ethnographic

sources reveal that such vessels could be propelled by oars as well as sails, but all of them

were used only in rivers. Usually, these barges were used for making a single trip

downstream and were disassembled once used. Thereafter, the wood was sold as lumber

or used in house construction. The same practice was observed in the Middle Ages, since

most of the barge-parts discovered in Novgorod and Staraia Ladoga were used as timbers

in houses and sidewalks/pavements. Nineteenth-century barges came in a great variety of

sizes: from 12.2-18.3 m (length), 2.4-3.96 m (width), 1.52-1.8 m (depth), 0.91-1.22 m

(draught), and 19.2-25.6 tons (cargo capacity) to 30.5-61 m (length), 10.7-18.9 m (width),

2.74-3.05 m (depth), and 2,320 tons (cargo capacity).66 Since it is known that the barges

discovered in Staraia Ladoga and Novgorod could be up to 20 m long, 3.2 m in width,

with sides as high as 1-1.2 m, these craft would closely correspond to the smaller barges

used in modern times. Thus, it can be estimated that medieval barges used in Novgorod

65 Sorokin, Vodnye puti i sudostroenie, 82-83, 86; Dubrovin, “Sudostoenie srednevekovpgo Novgoroda,” 76; Dubrovin, Chernosviatov, “Novgorodskoe sudno XIII-XIV vv.,” 219-231. 66 Sorokin, Vodnye puti i sudostroenie, 86.

280

and Staraia Ladoga could carry somewhere between 20-25 tons. As will be discussed in

the following chapter, during much of the pre-Mongol era, barges were the primary

vessels used for shipping goods between Staraia Ladoga and Novgorod. Most of the furs

that were carried to Novgorod from Zavoloch’e via Staraia Ladoga and then out of

Novgorod to the Baltic via the same town were transported in these barges.

SEAGOING SHIPS

Another type of vessel found in the pre-Mongol Novgorodian lands were seagoing

ships made using clinker-built technique with iron rivets for fastening the planks. These

vessels had their origins in the Scandinavian tradition of boat-building. In general,

relatively little is known about this type of vessel in the lands of Novgorod since their

parts were unsuitable for secondary uses (like making sidewalks or building houses) once

the craft fell into disuse and was disassembled. For this reason, their remains are very

fragmentary. In addition, most of the Scandinavian ships that traveled into the Rus’ lands

and stayed there were burned and interred into burial mounds as part of Viking funeral

rituals, as witnessed by Ibn Fa!l!n, the Islamic traveler to the middle Volga in 921/22.67

For this reason, at best, what remains of these vessels are only their iron rivets found on

occasion in burials. In the core lands of Novgorod, iron rivets have been discovered in

Plakun, a cemetery near Staraia Ladoga, dating to the ninth century and clearly associated

with the Vikings.68 North of the town, graves with rivets dating to the tenth-eleventh

centuries have been discovered at cemeteries along the Ust’-Rybezhno (promontory

67 Ibn Fa!l!n, The Ris!la of Ibn Fa!l!n: An Annotated Translation with Introduction, J.E. Mckeithen (Ann Arbor, dissertation microfiche, 1979), 136-150. Also see the account translated in G. Jones, A History of the Vikings, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1990), 425-430. 68 Nazarenko, “Mogil’nik v urochishche Plakun,” Fig. 5, p. 164.

281

between the Pasha river and its tributary Rybezhka), Siaznega (on the Siaznega river, a

tributary to the Pasha), and at Il’inskii pogost on the Sias’ river69 – all located in the

southeastern Lake Ladoga region, which, as discussed in the previous chapter, was

Novgorod’s main gateway into Zavoloch’e.

In addition to the burials, iron boat rivets have also been discovered at various

settlements in northern Rus’: Staraia Ladoga, Krutik, Riurikovo gorodishche, Pskov,

Novgorod, and Beloozero.70 Thus, the geographic distribution of iron rivets found in

graves, as well as settlements, clearly point to the use of Scandinavian vessels in the

region of Novgorod, Staraia Ladoga, the southeast Lake Ladoga region, and Lake Beloe.

In fact, the topography of rivets suggests that Viking boats traveled between Novgorod

and Staraia Ladoga and, via Lake Ladoga and its southeastern tributaries, entered Lake

Beloe. Perhaps, the finds of iron rivets in the upper Volga region at such sites as

Timerëvo71 can be explained by the penetration of Viking ships into the region from Lake

Beloe via Krutik, the Sheksna and its portages to the upper Volga. However, to date, no

iron rivets have been discovered north of the southeastern Ladoga-Lake Beloe region. If

Viking ships were used in Zavoloch’e, one would expect to find their rivets at the

relatively numerous archaeological sites in the region, particularly the portage areas

where boats would have been routinely present and repaired while en route. Iron rivets,

however, have not been discovered at such sites. In view of all of the above, it would

stand to reason that keel clinker-built Viking ships using iron rivets were only used

69 A. Stalsberg, “Scandinavian Viking-Age Boat Graves in Old Rus’,” RH/HR [Festschrift for Th.S. Noonan, Vol. I, ed. by R.K. Kovalev & H.M. Sherman], 28: 1-4 (2001), 359-401. 70 R.K. Kovalev, “Boats, Ships, and Water Transport in Kievan Rus’,” SMERSH (in the press); Sorokin, Vodnye puti i sudostroenie, 33; Golubeva, Ves’ i slaviane na Belom ozere, 124. 71 I.V. Dubov, Severo-Vostochnaia Rus’ v epokhu rannego srednevekov’ia (Leningrad, 1982), Figs. 6: 7, p. 203; 36: 10, p. 234

282

within the core territories of Novgorod. More will be said about the chronology, sizes,

and use of these vessels in the lands of Novgorod in the following chapter.

Aside from the Scandinavian-type ships used in pre-Mongol northwestern Rus’, the

Novgorodians must have had locally-made seagoing vessels. After all, as discussed in

Chapter I, beginning with the first half of the twelfth century, there is considerable

evidence for the existence of a Novgorodian merchant fleet which traveled as far west as

Denmark. From the Novgorodian commercial treaties of 1191-1192, 1269, 1370/71,

1436-1438, and 1441 with the German-Gotland confederation and later the Hanseatic

League, it can be gathered that the Novgorodians had their own ships which they used to

travel and trade throughout the Baltic. In fact, the treaties of 1191-1192 and 1269 note

that both sides used each other’s ships on occasion for returning home.72 However, to

date, archaeologists have been unable to find or identify any remains of locally-built keel

vessels in Novgorod or Staraia Ladoga that could have been used on the high-seas of the

Baltic. As will be seen in the following chapter, the absence of such finds in Novgorod

can be explained by the fact that Novgorod – being a shallow river port – could not

accommodate large seagoing vessels. At the same time, one would expect to find such

ships in the deeper waters of Staraia Ladoga which, based on the written and

archaeological evidence, did harbor seagoing vessels in the pre-Mongol era. Therefore,

the absence of concrete evidence of parts belonging to seagoing vessels in the town may

seem perplexing. On the other hand, it must be kept in mind that wooden artifacts of all

types, as any other items made of organic matter, were very badly preserved in the town

after the tenth century. The lack of finds of iron rivets from ships should also not be

72 GVNP, !28, p. 56, !31, p. 59; !44, p. 79; !69, p. 114; !71, p. 117. For the re-dating of some of these treaties, see V.L. Ianin, Novgorodskie akty XII-XV vv. (Moscow, 1991), 81-82, 92-93, 112.

283

surprising since the medieval Slavic seagoing ships, at least those used by the Western

Slavs, were built with wooden pegs or using the sewn technique of fastening planks

instead of iron rivets.73 Consequently, if Novgorodian merchant ships were stationed in

Staraia Ladoga, few if any of their remains would have been preserved.

Type of Vessel Length / m Width / m Height of Sides / m

Tonnage / t Draught / m

Karbas 6.4-8.5 1.6-2.1 0.6-0.76 0.64-0.96 0.3-0.6 Shniaka 8.5-11 1.8-2 1.2-1.4 2.4 0.61-0.76 Koch’mara 9.1-15.2 3.05-4.3 2.1-2.4 11.2 0.9-1.4 Pomorskii karbas 12.2 2.1 1.5 8 0.76 Lod’ia 11-18.3 3.05-5.5 2.1-3.3 24 —

TABLE 2

Dimensions and Tonnage of Mid-Nineteenth-Century Keel Vessels From the White Sea Water-System74

While there is no way to know for sure at present what kinds of seagoing ships

Novgorod had in its commercial fleet in the pre-Mongol period, it has been argued that

their constructions and sizes were very close to some of the types of vessels used by the

Russians from the early modern period until the nineteenth century in the region of the

White Sea and its connected water-systems. Some of the more archaic variants of these

craft had keels and were clinker-built using wooden pegs or sewn methods of joining the

boards.75 Table 2 presents some of the basic characteristics of these ships based on what

is known of them from modern records. If it is accepted that similar craft were used by

the Novgorodians, overall, when compared to the pre-1250 Scandinavian vessels, the

Novgorodian ships would have been on a par with some of the early vessels, but

considerably smaller with the later. Thus, the Gatlabänk coastal ship (1040-1220) could 73 Sorokin, Vodnye puti i sudostroenie, 90. 74 Table based on Sorokin, Vodnye puti i sudostroenie, 86. 75 Sorokin, Vodnye puti i sudostroenie, 84-89.

284

carry 13 tons at 1.11 m draught;76 the Ellingå coastal ship (1163) could hold ca. 15 tons;77

Lynæs ship (ca. 1150) could carry ca. 60 tons at 1.50 m draught;78 and, the “Big-Ship”

(ca. 1248) from Bryggen in Bergen is estimated to have carried ca. 150 tons at 2.4 m

draught.79

The Novgorodian ships would have been no match in their tonnage when compared to

the German cogs of the later period. Thus, the Kollerup cog (ca. 1200) could transport ca.

35 tons.80 It has been suggested that by 1241 cogs could carry as much as ca. 240 tons.81

However, since these calculations are based only on the written sources which provide

inconsistent standards of measurement, not on the actual finds of ships with such cargo

capacities, it is doubtful that this estimate is accurate.82 Even the well-preserved and

studied Bremen cog (dated to ca. 1380) – one of the last of such ships built – could carry

76 P. Humbla, Gatlabäckbåten och tidigt båtbyggeri i Norden (Göteborg, 1937); H. Åkerlund, “Gatlabäckbåtens ålder och härstamning,” Göteborgs och Bohusläns fornminnesförenings tidskrift (Göteborg, 1942), 25-49; idem., “Gatlabäckbåtens ålder och härstamning II,” Sjöhistorisk årbok (Stockholm, 1948). 77 O. Crumlin-Pedersen, “Skibe på havbunden. Vragfund i danske farvande fra perioden 600-1400,” Handels- og Søfartsmuseet, Årbog 1981 (Helsingør, 1981), 25-65; idem., “Ellingåskibet – fundet og genfundet,” Bangsbo Museum, Årbog 1991 (Frederikshavn, 1991), 31-47. 78 O. Crumlin-Pedersen, “Lynæsskibet og Roskilde søvej,” 13 bidrag til Roskilde by og omegn’s historie, (Roskilde, 1979), 65-77. 79 A.E. Christensen, “Boat Finds from Bryggen,” The Bryggen Papers: Main Series 1 (Bergen-Oslo-Stavanger-Tromsø, 1985), 178-196, 207-209. 80 P.K. Andersen, Kollerupkoggen (Thisted, 1983); D. Ellmers, “Frisian and Hanseatic merchants sailed the cog,” The North Sea: A Highway of Economic and Cultural Exchange Character – History, ed. A. Bang-Anderson, B. Greenhill, and E. Grude (Stavanger-Oslo-Bergen-Tromsø, 1985), 79-81; O. Crumlin-Pedersen, “Danish Cog-Finds,” The Archeology of Medieval Ships and Harbors in Northern Europe: Papers Based on Those Presented to An International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology at Bremerhaven in 1979, ed. Sean McGrail. National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, Archaeological Series 5 [BAR Supplementary Series 66] (Oxford, 1979), 29-30. 81 Ellmers, “Frisian and Hanseatic merchants,” 87. 82 Calculations for the tonnage of ships were based on lasts, the medieval system of ship capacities. Since lasts varied from place to place and across time, these estimates are very suspect. Therefore, lasts cannot be seen as a definitive unit of measure without other, supporting evidence.

285

only ca. 80 tons.83 Aside from this ship and the Kollerup cog, no other pre-1250s cogs

have been discovered in Northern Europe.84

The pre-Mongol era West Slavic (Pomeranian) ships – because of their traditionally

shallow draughts – were much less capacious than the Novgorodian seagoing vessels. For

example, the Ralswiek 1 and 4 ships (late eighth/early ninth century) hauled 5 tons;85 the

Orunia I wreck (tenth-eleventh centuries) carried 1.5 tons at 0.30 m draught; the Orunia II

wreck (tenth-eleventh centuries) carried 3.5 tons at 0.58 m draught; the Orunia III wreck

(tenth-eleventh centuries) hauled 1.5 tons at 0.35 m draught; and, the Mechlinken wreck

(eleventh-twelfth centuries) held 2.35 tons at 0.55 m draught.86 For this reason, while

unable to carry as much tonnage as the Scandinavian ships and the German cogs, the

Novgorodian vessels used on the high-seas would have been competitive with the West

Slavic.

Overall, the available evidence shows that Scandinavian-type ships visited Novgorod

and its core lands during the pre-Mongol era. Some of these ships apparently penetrated

deeper into central Russia and traveled to the Volga river via Novgorod. These ships

were also used to reach the southeastern Lake Ladoga region or the areas which came to

83 Ellmers, “Frisian and Hanseatic merchants,” 79. 84 For the post-1250 cogs, see O. Crumlin-Pedersen, “Danish Cog-Finds,” pp. 17-34 and D. Ellmers, “The Cog of Bremen and Related Boats,” pp. 1-15 in The Archeology of Medieval Ships and Harbors. 85 J. Herrmann, “Ralswiek – Maritime Trading Station and Harbor Development from the 8th to the 10th Century Along the Southern Baltic Sea,” Conference on Waterfront Archaeology in Northern European Towns !2, Bergen, 1983. Proceedings (Bergen, 1985), 57-58. 86 P. Smolarek, “Ships and Ports in Pomorze,” Waterfront Archaeology in Britain and northern Europe, ed. G. Milne & B. Hobley [The Council for British Archaeology: Research Report 41] (London, 1981), p. 52, Table III. It should be noted that there is another ship that should be placed into this list. It is the Schuby-Strand Wreck (ninth-tenth centuries), found off the Schwansen Peninsula, on the eastern side of Denmark, and believed to have been a Slavic cargo ship. Based on the relations of the garboard to the keel, it appears that the ship carried a sail. The length of the vessel is between 10.5-12 m. Because the vessel was badly preserved, it is difficult to determine its width and height. See O. Crumlin-Pedersen, Viking-Age Ships and Shipbuilding in Hedeby/Haithabu and Schleswig: Ships and boats of the North 2 (Roskilde, 1997), 296-300. Because it is of the same general length as Skuldelev 3 ship (but shorter by ca. 2 m), it may well be a coastal trader, capable of carrying somewhere between 3-4 tons.

286

play a key role in the Novgorodian fur trade beginning with the late tenth century. As can

be recalled from the previous chapter, the southeastern Lake Ladoga region not only

acted as the main gateway for the Novgorodians entrance into Zavoloch’e, but the local

inhabitants of this area were also actively engaged in the procurement of pelts by way of

trade and hunting-trapping. The finds of iron rivets from Scandinavian-type ships in this

region, therefore, suggests that at last some of the residents of this area were Norse

colonists. Such a suggestion is made even more likely by the fact that Staraia Ladoga,

beginning with the first decade of the eleventh century, was first ruled by Røgnvaldr

Úlfsson (r. 1016-1030) and later his sons Uleb/Úlf and Eilífr. Røgnvaldr was appointed to

administer Staraia Ladoga by his close relative, the Norwegian Princes Ingiger!r

Óláfsdóttir and wife of Iaroslav the Wise (r. 1019-1054), the Grand Prince of Rus’, who

gave her the town as his wedding gift.87 In 1032, Uleb/Úlf led the Novgorodians to as far

as the Northern Dvina river to subjugate the various Finno-Ugrian tribes inhabiting

Zavoloch’e and make them tributaries to Novgorod.88 No doubt, the routes used for these

incursions into the Russian North passed directly through southeastern Lake Ladoga and

the Svir’ river on to Lake Onega and further northeast via the various networks of river-

ways and portages.

At the same time, Scandinavian-type ships were apparently not used to penetrate into

the lands of Zavoloch’e beyond the southeastern Ladoga region. For this reason, it

appears that traders and tribute collectors accessed the Russian North using other types of

craft – the complex or sewn dugout boats described above. The Scandinavian-type ships,

87 A.A. Molchanov, “Iarl Rëgnval’d Ul’vsson i ego potomki na Rusi (o proiskhozhdenii ladozhsko-novgorodskogo pasadnich’ego roda Rogovichei-Giuriatichei),” Pamiatniki stariny: kontseptsii. Otkrytiia. versii 2 (St. Petersburg-Pskov, 1997), 80-84. 88 PSRL 9: 79; PSRL 33: 34.

287

thus, were mainly used in the fur trade once the pelts had been transported to the

borderlands with Zavoloch’e or towns in the core regions of the Novgorodian lands

which were located near large water bodies such as Lake Ladoga. Perhaps the reason why

the Scandinavian-type vessels were not used in areas further north-northeast of the

southeastern Lake Ladoga region can be explained by the simple fact that they were keel

vessels with deep droughts and, thus, could not navigate beyond the lower parts of the

rivers emptying into Lake Ladoga. After all, only dugouts with shallow and flat droughts

were capable of passing the many rivers of Zavoloch’e to their upper reaches where they

could be easily portaged to the next water body. Keeled Scandinavian-type ships would

have been unable to negotiate such portages. Albeit, these ships could be used to import

pelts to Novgorod from the deeper waters of the lower river-ways flowing into Lake

Ladoga and also export them from the city into the Baltic.

* * *

In conclusion, the climate and terrain of northern Russian made transport over great

distances very difficult. However, since the Stone Age, the peoples inhabiting this region

of the world invented the necessary transportation devices which proved very effective

for developing long-distance travel and communications. While wheeled transport was

mostly impractical during much of the year even in the core regions of Novgorod, the

extensive networks of river-ways of the Russian North provided excellent avenues for

travel during much of the year. During the winter months, the frozen rivers acted as open

avenues to the Novgorodian fur merchants to travel on their skis or sleds to the far

Russian North. With the use of specialized skis, such as the “slow” skis, merchants as

well as hunters-trappers were able to transport themselves over difficult terrains. To

288

traverse greater distances at higher speeds, the so-called “fast” skis could be used. By

means of these skis, it was possible to cover great distances during the winter months and

haul various products of the northern Russian forests, mainly pelts, in hand-pulled sleds

which could also be harnessed to dogs, if necessary. Larger sleds could carry not only

goods but also people. These sleds were pulled by reindeer in the northern-most regions

of the Russian North and horses in the more southern. The smaller, hand-pulled or dog-

drawn sleds could be used not only to travel across snow, but also dry land. Hence, such

sleds may have been used for transport throughout the year and, quite likely, were

utilized for transporting goods across portages. Beginning with the ninth century, ice-

spikes were worn on the bottom of horse hoofs and human footwear to enable animals

and people to traverse icy ground or cross frozen water bodies. All of these transport

devices would have permitted the Novgorodians to operate deep in the Russian North

while on their quest to obtain pelts from the Finno-Ugrians during the cold seasons when

the ground and rivers were frozen.

Various types of craft were used to travel along rivers and other water bodies when

the rivers were ice-free. Based on archaeology and the written records, the Novgorodian

used three types of vessels: the dugouts, flat-bottom barges, and large seagoing ships. The

dugouts in their simplest form were mainly used by hunters-trappers during their

expeditions in quest of pelts. While these boats were incapable of traveling over great

distances, they were effective transport devices since they were easy to make, light and

small enough to be carried across portages by single hunters-trappers. With the use of

such boats, it was possible to penetrate deep into the Russian North to obtain pelts.

289

When needed, the dugouts could be made larger by using bigger tree trunks and

planks to raise the sides of the boat. Because of their more substantial size and higher

sides, these boats could be used to travel across greater distances and large water-bodies.

At the same time, because they lacked keels, they could navigate far up rivers and cross

from one portage to another. These types of boats, while never great in their carrying

capacities, could haul large quantities of light-weight luxury trade items such beads,

coins, jewelry, cloth and other objects to Zavoloch’e and bring pelts back to Novgorod.

These craft were probably the vessels of choice for the Novgorodians fur merchants.

The vessels of choice along the Volkhov – the river that connected Novgorod with its

deepwater port of Staraia Ladoga – were the flat-bottom barges. These craft could carry

much larger volumes of goods up and down the river and appear to have been the primary

vessel to load and unload the large cargo ships that traded between Novgorod and the

Baltic. More will be said about these barges in the following chapter.

While there is no way to determine with certainty the types of seagoing vessels the

Novgorodians used to trade in the Baltic in the pre-Mongol era, the written sources

indicate that such ships existed. Based on the later sources, there are reasons to believe

that the Novgorodian ships were relatively large and had considerable cargo capacities

when compared to the other ships used in the Baltic at the time. They were not as large as

the Scandinavian and Hansa ships, but larger than the Pomeranian. Thus, it can be

suggested that the Novgorodians were competitive shippers of furs and this may explain

why they were noted on several occasions to have sailed to Denmark to trade and were

invited to come for the same purposes to Lübeck by Henry the Lion in 1158.

290

Lastly, various foreign vessels entered the lands of Novgorod to transport Baltic

goods and pelts. During the early periods, these vessels were Scandinavian-type clinker-

built ships which not only traveled to Novgorod, but also to other regions of the

Novgorodian lands such as the southeastern Lake Ladoga area. Because of their keels and

higher droughts, these vessels were ineffective in most regions of Zavoloch’e. Their use

in the core lands of Novgorod was also limited and came to be restricted to Staraia

Ladoga in the later Middle Ages. As with these ships, the large and high-draught German

and later Hanseatic cogs were also limited to the Staraia Ladoga region and its deeper

waters. More will be said on this issue in the following chapter.

CHAPTER VII

MAJOR PORTS, KEY ROUTES, AND THE NOVGORODIAN FUR MARKET

In addition to requiring special transport devices to travel and bring pelts back to the

city from Zavoloch’e, the Novgorodians needed ports, adequate port facilities, a

developed market infrastructure, and convenient trade routes for an efficient export of

furs from the city to other lands. However, as with the issue of transport devices used by

Novgorodian fur traders, these issues have been almost entirely overlooked in

scholarship. The key Novgorodian trade routes have received more attention, but few

studies provide a comprehensive survey of the topic. This chapter will attempt to shed

light not only on the two key ports – Staraia Ladoga and Novgorod – but also consider

the Novgorodian fur market and describe the key routes of the core Novgorodian lands

which were used by traders for transporting pelts from Novgorod.

THE PORT OF STARAIA LADOGA AND THE ROUTE TO THE BALTIC During the pre-Mongol era, Staraia Ladoga had a duel role as the key Novgorodian

gateway for accessing Zavoloch’e and as its main port for the export of pelts into the

Baltic. The town was conveniently located along the Volkhov route to Lake Ladoga,

from where it was possible to voyage northeast by traveling to Lake Onego via the Svir’

river. From Staraia Ladoga it was also possible to travel west and, via the Lake Ladoga-

Neva river-Gulf of Finland route, enter the eastern Baltic. However, it was not geography

alone that made this town a crucial port for Novgorod. While providing a key route of

access to the northwest and northeast, the Volkhov could also hinder easy access to

Novgorod and its lands from the north. The series of dangerous rapids along the lower

292

sections of the river, the elaborate defense system of fortified and unfortified settlements

along its banks, and the river’s shallow waters prevented unwanted visitors from the

Baltic, such as Vikings raiders and later the Swedes, from reaching Novgorod. In this

way, while conveniently stationed along key commercial arteries of western Eurasia,

Novgorod was also well protected from outside attacks.

Located on the lower Volkhov, Staraia Ladoga was also a deepwater port, as opposed

to Novgorod which was located upriver and could not accommodate large seagoing ships.

Using the relatively numerous finds of iron ship rivets from a number of sites in

northwestern Russia, P.E. Sorokin recently estimated that large Scandinavian-type

clinker-built keel vessels the size of the Gokstad warship1 (24.2 m ! 5.1 m ! 2.1 m) dating

to ca. 895 or the relatively large merchant Skuldelev 1 (16.5 m ! 4.5 m ! 2.1 m) vessel

dating to 1000-1050 visited Staraia Ladoga and Riurikovo gorodishche on the upper

Volkhov during the ninth-tenth centuries.2 Iron rivets (ca. 9 cm in length) from such large

medieval vessels have been discovered only in the immediate vicinity of the Volkhov

basin. At the same time, since only small-sized iron rivets (1.5-6 cm) from smaller craft

were unearthed at sites of the ninth and tenth centuries in the interior of Russia (e.g.,

Gnëzdovo and Shestovitsy on the upper Dnepr and Desna and Timerëvo on the upper

Volga), Sorokin argues that large Scandinavian-type vessels did not travel deep into the

interior of Russia, remaining in ports such as Staraia Ladoga and Riurikovo gorodishche,

1 N. Nicolaysen, Langskibet fra Gokstad ved Sandefjord – The Viking-Ship Discovered at Gokstad in Norway (Kristiania, 1882); N. Bonde, “De norske vikingskibsgraves alder. Et vellykket norsk-dansk forskningsprjekt,” Nationalmuseets Arbejsmark 1994 (Copenhagen, 1994), 128-148. 2 P.E. Sorokin, Vodnye puti i sudostroenie na severp-zapode Rusi v srednevekov’e (St. Petersburg, 1997), 33, 82.

293

since the rivers were too shallow to accommodate their deep droughts.3 The vessels that

did travel beyond the Volkhov basin during the ninth and tenth centuries were small,

river clinker-built keel boats, such as those discovered onboard the Gokstad warship

(Boat 1: 9.75 m ! 1.85 m ! 0.77 m; with rivets of 3-4 cm).4 However, with the fall in the

water levels in northwestern Russian water bodies by 1.5-2 m due to climatic changes

that lasting from the tenth to the thirteenth centuries,5 large ships could no longer sail

along the Volkhov even past Staraia Ladoga. This is evidenced by the fact that, as at sites

deeper in the Russian hinterland, iron rivets from large clinker-built ships have not been

discovered in Novgorod.6 In this way, Novgorod, established sometime in the first

decades of the tenth century, could not be reached by large seagoing vessels. Large

Scandinavian seagoing craft traveling to the lands of Novgorod would have to harbor at

Staraia Ladoga.

Staraia Ladoga also served as a port for the early German/proto-Hanseatic cogs.7 As

discussed in Chapter I, German merchants began visiting Novgorod already in the middle

of the eleventh century. Presumably, they came to northwestern Russia in their early

cogs. Being large ships with deep droughts, as the large Scandinavian merchant vessels,

the cogs were incapable of passing directly to Novgorod from the Baltic. Like the

Gotlandic and other Norse vessels, the cogs could sail only as far as Staraia Ladoga. Even

when the water levels of the Volkhov rose in the thirteenth century, seagoing ships still

3 Sorokin, Vodnye puti i sudostroenie, 81-82; idem., “O nekotorykh osobennostiakh sudovogo dela v Drevnei Rusi,” Pamiatniki stariny: kontseptsii. otkrytiia. versii 2 (St. Petersburg-Pskov, 1997), 288-289. 4 F. Johannessen, “Båtene fra Gokstadskibet,” Viking 4 (Oslo, 1940), 125-130. 5 Sorokin, Vodnye puti i sudostroenie, 11, 82. For changes in the climatic factors in northwestern Russia during the Middle Ages, see O.M. Oleinikov, “Klimat v raione verkhnei Volgi v Srednie Veka,” NNZ 6 (Novgorod, 1992), 69-82. 6 Sorokin, Vodnye puti i sudostroenie, 33, 82. 7 Sorokin, Vodnye puti i sudostroenie, 13.

294

could not reach Novgorod, since by then they had become much larger than their Viking-

age predecessors. Hence, Staraia Ladoga continued to function as the main Novgorodian

deepwater port not only for the seagoing ships of visiting foreign merchants, but also for

the local commercial fleet until the establishment of Oreshek at the mouth of the Neva in

1323.8

To date, finds of cog nails or other parts of cogs have not been reported from Staraia

Ladoga, most likely because wood was very badly preserved in the town after the tenth

century and their nails have not yet been identified and studied by specialists.9 However,

based on the written sources, particularly the German-Novgorod trade treaty of 1269, it is

clear that cogs (coggen) were used by the proto-Hansa to trade with northwestern Russia

only as far as Staraia Ladoga.10 The finds of many parts of flat-bottom barges in Staraia

Ladoga and Novgorod suggest that these craft were used for transporting cargoes

between the two towns via the Volkhov.11 On landing in Staraia Ladoga, the goods were

reloaded from the seagoing ships onto barges and taken upstream to Novgorod. The same

was done on the departing journey.12

The treaty of 1269 reveals a very well structured system for the transport of German-

Gotlandic goods to and from Novgorod. This treaty confirmed “the peace of old” and

provided German and Gotlandic merchants safe passage via the Neva river on their

8 Sorokin, Vodnye puti i sudostroenie, 13. 9 It should be noted that due to the well-preserved Viking-age layers in the town, the study of the later materials from the site has been largely overshadowed by the earlier medieval finds. Thus, it is not at all impossible that iron nails from cogs have been found in Ladoga. In addition, a large part of the collection gathered from the excavations of the earliest layers of Staraia Ladoga (ca. 750 to ca. 900) in 1909-1910 and 1938-1940 was lost during the Nazi occupation of northwestern Russia in World War II. It can be hoped that in the future, specialists will examine the new metal artifacts found at the site from the later Middle Ages to determine if there is any archaeological evidence of the use of the cog in the town. 10 GVNP, !31, 59. 11 Sorokin, Vodnye puti i sudostroenie, 82-83. 12 Sorokin, Vodnye puti i sudostroenie, 11-17, 82; G.E. Dubrovin, “Blochnoe sudno s Iaroslavskogo dvorishcha,” NNZ 9 (Novgorod, 1995), 207-213.

295

voyages between Gotland and Novgorod. For a fee, the Novgorodians provided a pilot

(lodienman) to guide the German merchants up and down the Neva. On traveling via the

Neva in their cogs, the visiting merchants were permitted to cut down trees along the

riverbanks to repair their vessels.13 The voyage between the mouth of the Neva and

Novgorod was divided by a relay stop in Staraia Ladoga, where, if any crime was

committed among the merchants on the journey, court would be held in that town, not in

Novgorod. On the other hand, if a crime was committed on the voyage between Staraia

Ladoga and Novgorod, court would be held in the latter’s jurisdiction.14 It was at this

break in the journey – in Staraia Ladoga – when the cogs were landed and their goods

transferred onto flat-bottomed barges to be taken upstream to Novgorod. The fact that the

proto-Hansa merchants did not use their own ships on a portion of the journey once

entering the Novgorodian domains is made clear by a reference to a hired vessel (called

lodien or schepe) which, if shipwrecked, was to be paid for by the visiting merchants.15

There is little doubt that these vessels were the Volkhov barges, many parts of which

were discovered in the cultural layers of Staraia Ladoga as well as Novgorod.16 The texts

of birch-barks !854 (mid-twelfth century) and !349 (1260s-1270s) confirm that fees

were charged for barge transport in Novgorod.17

For the voyage from Staraia Ladoga to Novgorod and back, the German merchants

hired another pilot, also for a fee.18 The need for a Novgorodian escorts to guide and

supervise the convoy of visiting merchants to Novgorod is also mentioned in the

13 GVNP, !31, 58-59. 14 GVNP, !31, 59. 15 GVNP, !31, 59. 16 See Chapter VI. 17 V.L. Ianin, A.A. Zalizniak, “Berestianye gramoty iz novgorodskikh raskopok 1999 g.,” VIa 2 (2000), 16; Zalizniak, DD, 398-399. 18 GVNP, !31, 59.

296

Novgorodian chronicle under 1189 when it describes a conflict between the two

commercial partners.19 In general, employing escorts and gaining special permission to

travel to Novgorod from Staraia Ladoga has a long tradition that dates to the first half of

the eleventh century at the latest.20

While en route upstream past Staraia Ladoga, the barges encountered the Volkhov

rapids where, according to the 1269 treaty, the foreign merchants had the right to demand

swift assistance from the local guides, who were taken onboard to help in navigating for a

fee [Fig. 1: D]. About a kilometer upriver from the rapids, a stop was made in

Gostinopol’e where the merchants paid a tariff [Fig. 1: B3].21 The Latin version of the

treaty also speaks of two additional stops made between Gostinopol’e and Novgorod that

were not recorded in the Low German redaction of the accord. One, called

Vitlagen/Ritsagen, was a small marketplace and the other, Drellenborch, a fortified

settlement/wharf located just outside of Novgorod.22 While Vitlagen/Ritsagen can be

associated with any number of settlements that lay along the middle course of the

Volkhov, Drellenborch has been definitively identified with Kholopii Gorodok which is

located at the confluence of the Volkhov and the Volkhovets [Fig. 1: A3].23 The latter

was a branch of the Volkhov which could also be used to reach Novgorod. If traveling

via the Volkhovets, at its opposite end where it branches off from the Volkhov,

merchants would have passed Riurikovo gorodishche – another important fortified

19 NPL, 39. Also see Chapter I. 20 T.N. Dzhakson, “Islandskie sagi o roli Ladogi i Ladozhskoi volosti v osushchestvlenii russko-skandinavskikh torgovykh i politicheskikh sviazei,” Rannesrednevekovye drevnosti severnoi Rusi i ee sosedei (St. Petersburg, 1999), 20-25. 21 GVNP, !31, p. 59; E.N. Nosov, “Volkhovskii vodnyi put’ i poseleniia kontsa I tys. n.e.,” KSIA 164 (1981), 20. For a close examination of the archaeological sites along the rapids, see S.L. Kuz’min, “Volkhovskie porogi v epukhu srednevekov’ia,” NNZ 12 (Novgorod, 1998), 259-264. 22 Pamiatniki istorii Velikogo Novgoroda, ed. S.V. Bakhrushin (Moscow, 1909), p. 66, art. VIII 23 Nosov, “Volkhovskii vodnyi put’,” 20; Sorokin, Vodnye puti i sudostroenie, 15.

297

settlement and the residence of the Novgorodian princely court for much of the pre-

Mongol era – before reaching Novgorod [Fig. 1: A2].24

According to the archaeological and numismatic evidence, the route taken by the

proto-Hansa merchants once entering the lands of Novgorod was a very well-traveled

waterway [Fig. 1]. Indeed, this was the main route used to transport the millions of

dirhams from northwestern Russia to the Baltic starting in ca. 800.25 The finds of dirham

hoards from this region clearly outline the Volkhov-Ladoga-Neva-Gulf of Finland route

[Fig. 1: C1-23]. Beginning with the Viking age, the infrastructure of the route from the

upper Volkhov to the Gulf of Finland evolved into an efficient transport artery with a

system of control and defense points serviced by a multi-layered network of fortified and

unfortified settlements located along its course. Settlements such as Novye Duboviki and

Kholopii Gorodok [Figs. 1: A3 & A6; 3: 17] could also function as way-stations where

merchants could rest and repair their vessels while en route between Staraia Ladoga and

Novgorod.26 Some settlements that were located at the rapids, such as Gostinopol’e and

Gorodishche [Fig. 1: A4 & B3], rendered the passing traffic with pilots who could assist

in navigating these difficult parts of the waterway.27 This transit commercial

infrastructure remained in place along the route from Novgorod to Staraia Ladoga well

into the post-Mongol era of Novgorodian history as is evident from the Novgorodian

commercial treaties with the German and Gotlandic merchants.

24 Nosov, “Volkhovskii vodnyi put’,” 21-22. idem., Novgorodskoe (Riurikovo) gorodishche (Leningrad, 1990), 76. Also see the lengthy English-language discussion in “Ryurik Gorodishche and the Settlements to the North of Lake Ilmen,” The Archaeology of Novgorod, Russia: Recent Results from the Town and its Hinterland [The Society for Medieval Archaeology: Monograph Series 13] ed. M.A. Brisbane; tr. K. Judelson; gen. ed. R. Huggins (Lincoln, 1992), 5-66. 25 See Chapter I. 26 Nosov, “Volkhovskii vodnyi put’,” 18-24. 27 Nosov, “Volkhovskii vodnyi put’,” 20; idem., “Ryurik Gorodishche,” 5-66.

298

FIGURE 1 The Volkhov – Lake Ladoga-Neva-Gulf of Finland Route28

A – fortified settlements (1 – Novgorod, 2 – Riurikovo gorodishche, 3 – Kholopii Gorodok, 4 – Gorodishche, 5 – Oreshek, 6 – Novye Duboviki, 7 – Staraia Ladoga); B – other important sites along the water route (1 – Gruzino, 2 – Pcheva, 3 – Gostinopol’e, 4 – Issad); C – coin and treasure hoards (1-2 –

Petrodvorets, Martyshkino, 3 – Vasil’evskii Island, 4 – Putilovo, 5 – Gorki, 6 – Shore of Lake Ladoga, 7-12 – Staraia Ladoga, 13-15 – Kholopii Gorodok, Khutyn’ Monastery, Sobach’i gorby, 16-18 – Cyril

Monastery, Vylegi, 19-21 – Riurikovo gorodishche, 22-23 – Novgorod); D – areas of rapids on the waterways; E – the Novgorod-Gulf of Finland Route

Recently, based on two experiments using replicas of Viking ships, Danish,

Norwegian, and Russian scholars determined the length of time it took for ships to travel

28 Map based on Sorokin, Vodnye puti i sudostroenie, 141.

299

from the Viking-age town of Birka, located on the Island of Björkö in Lake Mälaren in

south-central Sweden, to Novgorod. The experiments show that with favorable weather

and wind conditions, the route from Birka to the mouth of the Neva took 5-7 twenty-four

hour days to sail. If one sailed only during daylight hours, making overnight stops, the

voyage could take as long as 14 days. An extra week can be added to the trip if the

weather was unfavorable.29 Thus, the average length of the voyage took one to two weeks

to complete.30 Travel from the mouth of the Neva to Staraia Ladoga took an additional 5-

6 days. If traveling directly from the mouth of the Neva to Novgorod, the voyage lasted

for 9-12 days. In both cases, the journey was conducted during daylight hours and against

the currents. In this way, the entire voyage from Birka to Novgorod would take two to

three weeks.31

The way from Novgorod to Sweden took less time, since ships were moving

downstream with the currents of the Volkhov and Neva rivers. Thus, in favorable weather

conditions, it took about 10-13 days from Novgorod and 7-10 days from Staraia Ladoga

to reach Birka. On average, the journey could have been completed within 11-18 days.32

However, as Sorokin points out, the experiment did not account for the time delays due to

such obstacles as the rapids and stops along the way, such as toll stations.33 For this

reason, the actual voyage from south-central Sweden to Novgorod during the Middle

Ages would have taken a bit longer than what is suggested by the experiment.

29 Sorokin, Vodnye puti i sudostroenie, 16. Also see idem., “Eksperimental’noe sudostraenie i problemy izucheniia srednevekovogo sudokhodstva na severo-zapodnoi Rusi,” NNZ 10 (Novgorod, 1996), 200-207. 30 Sorokin, Vodnye puti i sudostroenie, 16; idem., “Eksperimental’noe sudostraenie,” 200-207. 31 Sorokin, Vodnye puti i sudostroenie, 16. 32 Sorokin, Vodnye puti i sudostroenie, 16. 33 Sorokin, Vodnye puti i sudostroenie, 16.

300

Furthermore, because of the construction of the Volkhovets hydroelectric damn which

flooded the rapids, a full reconstruction of voyage is impossible.

Lastly, it should be added that there was also a winter overland road connecting

Novgorod to Staraia Ladoga. Like the water route, this road was used already in the early

Middle Ages. Icelandic sagas inform that this route was used by various Viking travelers

to reach Novgorod and, via it, voyage further south into the interior of Russia. Based on

these accounts, which speak of events dating to the first half of the eleventh century,

Baltic travelers sailed to Staraia Ladoga where they harbored their ships and, thereafter,

rented horses for the journey up the Volkhov to Novgorod. On the return trip, travelers

rented or used their own ships that were stationed in Staraia Ladoga and sailed west as

soon as the ice had receded in spring.34 Based on early modern sources, this road passed

along the western bank of the Volkhov and extended for 150 verst or 159 km.35

Presumably, the travelers of this route rented not only horses for their journey, but also

sleds with which to transport their cargos. As discussed in the previous chapter, a great

many parts of medieval sleds have been discovered by archaeologists in both towns.

NOVGOROD’S OTHER SYSTEMS OF ROUTES

Located near Lake Il’men’, Novgorod lay in close proximity to many other key river

and dry land routes. While the upper Volkhov connected Lake Il’men’ to Novgorod,

there was an alternative route via the Veriazha river which seems to have been the course

of choice. Flowing almost parallel to the northwestern shores of Lake Il’men’, this river

34 A.M. Mikliaev, “Put’ ‘iz Variag v Greki’ (zimniaia versiia),” NNZ (Novgorod, 1992), 136-137. 35 I.A. Golubtsov, “Puti soobshcheniia v byvshikh zemliakh Novgoroda Velikogo v XVI-XVII vekakh i otrazhenie ikh na russkoi karte serediny XVII veka,” Voprosy geografii 20 (1950), 297.

301

(80-100 m wide during the mid-summer season) had weak current and offered an

alternative route to the often stormy and shallow lake.36 By way of this river – which

FIGURE 2 Southern Regions of Novgorod and the Surrounding Lands37

acted as a natural canal – and its tributaries, it was possible to bypass the northern-most

section of the lake and enter the upper Volkhov where the old pagan sanctuary of Peryn’

used to stand [Fig. 3: 20]. Sometime before 1230s-1240s, the monastery of the Holy

Mother of God in Peryn’ was established at this site [Fig. 4]. The very fine soils found

along the Veriazha river were ideal for agriculture which led the Slavs to establish

settlements (fortified and unfortified) along its course from the earliest stages of

36 Nosov, “Ryurik Gorodishche,” 8, 9-10. 37 Map, in large part, based on A.N. Nasonov, ‘Russkaia zemlia’ i obrazovanie territorii drevnerusskogo gosudarstva (Moscow, 1951), Map of Novgorodian lands, insert between pages 120-121.

302

Novgorodian history [Fig. 3].38 All of these sites and the monastery acted as way-stations

and protective control points for the traffic passing between Novgorod and Lake Il’men’.

FIGURE 3 The Southern Volkhov – Veriazha – North Lake I’men’ Routes39 A – fortified settlements; B – unfortified settlements; C – sopki (burial mounds);

D – hypothetical locations of sopki (burial mounds); E – pagan sanctuaries 1 – Riurikovo gorodishche, 2 – Nereditsa, 3-4 – Sitka, 5 – Slutka, 6-7 – Volotovo, 8 – Usherska, 9-10 –

Rodionovo, 11 – Speranski estate, 12-13 – Derevianitskii, 14-16 – Khutyn’, 17 – Kholopii Gorodok, 18 – Slutka II, 19 – Vodskoe, 20 – Peryn’, 21 – Prost, 22 – Rakoma, 23-24 – Beregovye Moriny, 25-27 –

Georgii, 28-30 – Vasil’evskoe, 31-32 – Liuboezha, 33-34 – Goroshkovo, 35 – Zabolot’e, 36-37 – Iarunovo, 38-39 – Sergovo, 40-42 – Zaval, 43 – Akatovo, 44 – Bazlovka,

45 – Moiseevichi, 46-47 – Shilovka, 48-50 - Mshashka

38 Nosov, “Ryurik Gorodishche,” 8. 39 Map based on Nosov, “Ryurik Gorodishche,” Fig. II.2, p. 8.

303

Once in Lake Il’men’, it was possible to travel east-southeast by way of the Msta river

to the town of Vyshnii Volochok and then portage to the Tvertsa river which led to the

town of Torzhok and then enter the upper Volga river. From the upper Volga, one could

enter the “Khazar/Volga Way” route to travel to the lands of Suzdalia, Volga Bulgh!ria

of the middle Volga with its access to Central Asia (via a caravan road), and enter the

Caspian Sea.40 Vyshnii Volochok and Torzhok were important Novgorodian towns and,

based on the 1264 treaty between Novgorod and its prince, a Novgorodian overseer (most

likely a tariff collector) was stationed at the latter site.41 From the upper Msta, just before

reaching Vyshnii Volochok, at the Seglino or Mlevo pogosty, it was possible to portage

east to the Volchina river which could be used to enter the upper Mologa and Bezhichi

Heights and then proceed to Zavoloch’e by way of the Suda and Shaksna rivers to Lake

Beloe and its portages [Fig. 2].42

Early modern maps also indicate that an overland road passed to the Bezhichi Heights

via the Seglino or Mlevo pogosty. This road was a branch of a longer overland route that

connected Vyshnii Volochok to Novgorod that traversed the Iazhelbitsy and the

Imovolozhskii (later Kolomenskii) pogosty.43 Based on the 1264 Novgorodian treaty with

40 For a brief discussion of the infrastructure of the caravan road from Volga Bulgh!ria to Central Asia, see R.K. Kovalev, “The Infrastructure of the Northern Part of the !Fur Road" Between the Middle Volga and the East During the Middle Ages,” AEMAe 11 (2000-2001), 60-63. 41 See the 1264-1265, 1266, 1270, 1304-1305, 1307-1308, 1326-1327, and 1371 treaties between Novgorod and Tver’ Grand Princes in Laws of Rus’, 67, 69, 72, 76; GVNP, !!1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 14-15, 19; pp. 9, 11-15, 17, 19, 20-22, 27, 29-30, 35. 42 For the portages from Lake Beloe to Zavoloch’e, see N.A. Makarov, Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain Drevnei Rusi v XI-XIII vekakh (Moscow, 1997), 54-57, 63-70, 72-74; 210, 211-212; idem., “The Earliest Burials in Volok Slavensky and the Initial Stages of the Water Route From the Beloe Lake to the Dvina Basin,” ISKOS 9 (Helsinki, 1990), 161-170; idem., “Organizatsiia rasseleniia na mikrorigional’nom urovne,” Srednevekovoe rasselenie na Belom ozere (Moscow, 2001), 128-144. 43 Golubtsov, “Puti soobshcheniia,” Map 1; Nasonov, ‘Russkaia zemlia’, 123.

304

their princes, the princes had a right to collect tolls from the latter pogost [Fig. 2].44

Presumably, these fees were gathered from the commercial traffic which passed along

this road.

The Pola river, another important waterway that empties into Lake Il’men’, permitted

entry into the south of the Novgorodian domains and connected the city to the key

“Khazar/Volga Way” route that led to Volga Bulgh!ria and the Islamic world of the

Caspian Sea basin. The route passed up the Pola to the Iavon’ river and on into Lake

Vel’e (via Shcheberikha, Tutra, and Malaia Tudra tributaries) from where it was possible

to pass to the northern Lake Seliger water-system which gave entry to the upper Volga.45

The Polist’ river, which flowed into Lake Il’men’ just west of the mouth of the Pola, was

another key waterway which could be used to travel from Novgorod to its provincial

town of Staraia Russa [Fig. 2].

Based on early modern maps, two overland routes extended from Staraia Russa south:

one passed to the southeast in the direction of the Moreva pogost and the other southwest

in the direction of Kholm and the Western Dvina. The former route traversed on a

straight line across the Lovat’ (another river that flowed into Lake Il’men’) at the

Liakhovichi pogost located on its banks to the Dubrovna pogost and on to the Moreva

pogost on the Pola. From Moreva, two routes could be taken to the east-southeast: one

led to the southern Lake Seliger region and the upper Volga while the other was a road

44 See the treaty of 1270 in GVNP, !3, p. 13 and its re-dating to 1268 in V.L. Ianin, Novgorodskie akty XII-XV vv. (Moscow, 1991), 147-150. 45 E.A. Rybina, Torgovlia srednevekovogo Novgoroda: Istoriko-arkheologicheskie ocherki (Velikii Novgorod, 2001), 83; N.P. Zagoskin, Russkie vodnye puti i sudovoe delo v dopetrovskoi Rusi (Kazan’, 1910), 127.

305

that passed from Kholm to Torzhok via the Velila, Moreva, Molviatitsy, Berezovets, and

Zhabna pogosty.

In addition to these two routes, it was also possible to travel from Moreva on the

Kholm-Torzhok road west to Velila and then turn south and pass to the Kunsko,

Lopastitsy, and Buitsy pogosty and on into the Smolensk lands and its towns of Toropets

on the Toropa river which flows into the Western Dvina. On the upper Western Dvina, it

was possible to enter the route “The Way from the Varangians to the Greeks” which led

to Smolensk, Kiev, and territories of the Byzantine Empire.46 There are reasons to believe

that at Buitsy, the last Novgorodian junction along this route, the Novgorodian princes

collected tolls from the transit traffic.47 Somewhere just south of the border at the

Smolensk town of Luchin – the location of which is presently disputed – tolls were also

collected from the passing traffic and inns, a market, and services for the transfer of

goods across river were provided by the locals.48

The route that passed southwest from Staraia Russa to Kholm is much less

documented in the pre-Mongol records. Based on early modern maps, the route passed

from Staraia Russa to Kholm and then branched off into two directions: one to the

southwest, terminating at the town of Velikii Luki on the upper Lovat’, while the other

46 Golubtsov, “Puti soobshcheniia,” Map 1 & pp. 297-290. For the identification of these pogosty and their archaeological excavations, see A.V. Uspenskaia, “Gorodishcha X-XIII vv. na iuge Novgorodskoi zemli,” Ekspeditsii Gosudarstvennogo istoricheskogo Muzeia (Moscow, 1969), 201-213; idem., “Berezovetskii kurgannyi mogil’nik X-XII vv.,” Srednevekovye drevnosti Vostochnoi Evropy (Moscow, 1993), 79-135; E.N. Nosov, “O gramote Vsevoloda Mstislavicha na Terpuzhskii pogost Liakhovichi na r. Lovati (k voprosu o slozhenii feodal’noi votchiny,” NIS 4 (14) (St. Petersburg-Novgorod, 1993), 27-39; idem., “Novgorodskaia volost’ Buitsy (istoriko-arkheologicheskii kommentarii),” VID 25 (1993), 41-56. 47 Nosov, “Novgorodskaia volost’ Buitsy,” 52-56. 48 “Statutory Privileges Charter of the Smolensk Prince Rostislav Mstislavich [1126-60],” Laws of Rus’, 53. For more information about this town and portages along the route, see L.V. Alekseev, Smolenskaia zemlia v IX-XIII vv. (Moscow, 1980), 64-71, 164-167 and Nosov, “Novgorodskaia volost’ Buitsy,” 55-56.

306

treaded southeast to Toropets – both towns of the Smolensk principality.49 As noted

above, at Kholm it was also possible to access into the road that stretched from Torzhok

via the Velila, Moreva, Molviatitsy, Berezovets, and Zhabna pogosty.

Overall, it should be noted that it does not appear that any of the three main rivers –

Pola, Lovat’, and Polist’ – emptying into southern Lake Il’men’ were used in their

entirety for navigation during the pre-Mongol era. All of the trade routes that traversed

the Novgorodian territories in the south to the lands of Smolensk and the upper Western

Dvina were connected only to small sections of the rivers, if any at all. The reason for

this seems to be connected to the generally low water levels in the northwestern Russian

rivers during the Middle Ages. Even in the early modern and modern periods, when the

water levels were higher, these waterways were not navigable, not only because they

were too shallow but also due to the numerous cataracts that dotted their courses,

particularly along the upper Lovat’ where they stretched for some 200 km.50

Lake Il’men’ also gave access to lands west and southwest of Novgorod. The Shelon’

river which empties into western Lake Il’men’ provided a water route half way to the

Pskov lands. Because the Shelon’s course veers south between Novgorod and Pskov, the

route continued overland. Based on fifteenth-century and later sources, the break in the

water route occurred at the Mshaga (Pshaga iam) postal stop about 60 km southwest of

Novgorod.51 This overland road did not actually begin in Mshaga iam and was only a

segment of a longer overland route that connected the two cities dating to the pre-Mongol

era.52 The existence of this road is attested to in Novgorodian chronicle concerning the

49 Golubtsov, “Puti soobshcheniia,” Map 1 & pp. 296 50 Mikliaev, “Put’ ‘iz Variag v Greki’,” 136. 51 Sorokin, Vodnye puti i sudostroenie, 19; Golubtsov, “Puti soobshcheniia,” 295, 297. 52 Golubtsov, “Puti soobshcheniia” Map. 1 & pp. 295, 297.

307

1201 commercial conflict between Novgorod and German merchants.53 In fact, it is quite

probable that this road was the same one that connected Novgorod to Pskov and Pskov to

Riga by way of the Izborsk and Odenpäh/Otepää (“Bear’s Head”) fortified settlements.

With the foundation of Riga in 1201 by the Teutonic Order, this road, no doubt, was the

primary overland route used by merchants trading between Novgorod and the German

Baltic towns.54 Based on the IV Schra of the Hansa Kontor in Novgorod (dating to the

mid-fourteenth century) and other later sources, both the German and Novgorodian

merchants used sleds to trade between Novgorod and the Baltic towns in the winter,55 no

doubt via this overland road. It is interesting to note that pelts were transported on these

sleds inside barrels, the same packaging used for transporting furs in ships.56

In addition to the overland road that led on to Riga, it was also possible to travel from

Pskov into the Baltic by water via the lower Velikaia river – Lake Pskov – Narava river –

Lake Chud’ – Gulf of Finland route. With the establishment of German-run cities in the

eastern Baltic, such as Riga and Reval/Tallinn, in the first two decades of the thirteenth

century and the subsequent expansion of German trade via this region, Pskov came to

play a key role as a port city for Novgorod, particularly in the fourteenth-fifteenth

centuries.57

53 NPL, 45; Rybina, Torgovlia srednevekovogo Novgoroda, 107. 54 M.N. Tikhomirov, Towns of Ancient Rus’ (Moscow, 1959), 411-412. 55 Die Nowgoroder Schra in sieben Fassungen vom XIII. bis XVII. Jahrhundert, W. Schlüter (Dorpat, 1911; 1914, Lübeck, 1916), 135; Sorokin, Vodnye puti i sudostroenie, 18-19. 56 “Spisok ubytkov novgorodtsev, (1412 g.)/Dat is de utschrift van den Nowgardeschen schaden” in Zalizniak, DD, arts. 1 & 2, pp. 574-576. For the transport of furs in ships and barrels, see Chapter II. 57 Sorokin, Vodnye puti i sudostroenie, 17-21.

308

THE PORT OF NOVGOROD

FIGURE 4 Pre-Mongol Era Abbeys of Novgorod and its Immediate Hinterland58

Whichever route one chose to travel to reach Novgorod, after passing the many way-

station settlements that defended and controlled the communication system of the city’s

hinterlands, it would be necessary to pass the last line of defenses before entering city – 58 Map based in large part on L.I. Petrova, et al, “Topografiia prigorodnykh monastyrei Novgoroda Velikogo,” NIS 8 (18) (St. Petersburg, 2000), Fig. 10.

309

the abbeys and their fortifications which guarded the city’s waterways and overland

roads. These monasteries and nunneries surrounded the city from all sides and provided

Novgorod with its last external defenses. The earliest three abbeys – Lazarus (est. turn of

the twelfth century), George (est. in 1117), and Anthony (est. before 1119) – were all

founded along the banks of the Volkhov within 3.5 km of the city, thereby controlling the

approach to Novgorod by water from the north and the south [Fig. 4].59

In the later years of the twelfth century, fifteen additional monasteries and nunneries

were established in or near the city. Of these, ten were located along key routes: two

(Zverin/Holy Mother of God – est. before 1148 and Euthemia – est. in 1197) stood along

the Volkhov in and near the city; two (Cyril – est. before 1196 and Holy Transfiguration

in Nereditsa – est. before 1198) along the Volkhovets; one (Khutyn’ – est. in 1192) on the

Volkhov-Volkhovets junction at some distance to the north of the city; and, five

(Panteleimon – est. in 1134, Arkazh – est. in 1153, Annunciation on Miachino – est. in

1170, Peter and Paul on Selishche – est. before 1185, and Resurrection on Miachino –

est. before 1136) along the main land roads that led to the city from the south. Sometime

before 1230s-1240s, the monastery of the Holy Mother of God in Peryn’ was erected

along the Volkhov where it controlled the route from Lake Il’men’ to Novgorod via the

Veriazha river and its tributaries [Fig. 4].60

After sailing past the abbeys, vessels could finally enter the heart of the city. To date,

no archaeological evidence of docks, quays, or any other port facilities have been

discovered in Novgorod. However, late sixteenth-century Novgorodian documents

59 N. Dejevsky, “The Churches of Novgorod: The Overall Pattern,” Medieval Russian Culture (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1984), 215. 60 Petrova, et al, “Topografiia prigorodnykh,” 155-156.

310

inform of the existence of docks at the ends of streets that stretched to the banks of the

Volkhov.61 Indeed, on examining the medieval street map of Novgorod, it becomes quite

FIGURE 5 Street Map of Medieval Novgorod62

61 V.A. Burov, “Novgorodskaia ulichnaia obshchina i ee mesto v feodal’noi Rusi,” Ocherki istorii i arkheologii srednevekovogo Novgoroda (Moscow, 1994), 39; A.L. Khoroshkevich, “Osobinnosti Novgoroda kak torgovogo tsentra Novgoroda i Novgorodskoi zamli XV v.,” Tezisy dokladov i soobshchenii nauchnogo simpoziuma (Novgorod, 1986), 6; A.P. Pronshtein, Velikii Novgorod v XVI veke (Khar’kov, 1957), 112. 62 Map based on B.A. Kolchin and V.L. Ianin in Drevniaia Rus’. Gorod, zamok, selo [Arkheologiia SSSR] (Moscow, 1985), 125. For arguments that suggest a different location of the German Kontor, see V.A. Iadryshnikov, “K voprosu o lokalizatsii Nemetskogo dvora v Novgorode,” NNZ 10 (Novgorod, 1996), 158-165.

311

evident that practically every street running east-west in the city terminated at the

riverfront and, thus, provided an outlet to the bank of the river [Fig. 5]. The residents of

each of these streets communally owned and controlled these docks, in much the same

way as they regulated all other aspects of life along their streets – from maintaining the

wooden walkways that paved the streets (cleaning and repairing) to policing them from

brigands and upholding internal order.63

In addition to the map of Novgorod that suggests the existence of landing facilities

along the Volkhov, the “Statute of Iaroslav on Pavements/Bridges” (dating to the 1260s

at the latest) mentions five docks/landing places (sg. vymol’) associated with the main

market of Novgorod.64 These docks were located on the Market Side of the city, just

across from the Great Bridge [Fig. 8]: “German” (i.e., Hansa merchants’), “Alferd”

(Gotland merchants’), “Ioan” (Novgorodian wax guild merchants’), “Budiatin”

(princes’), and “Matfeev” (residents of Makhail St.).65 According to the Statute, the

maintenance of the streets that ran up to the landing places was to be carried out by the

individuals who used them, i.e., the foreign merchants, Novgorodian wax merchants, the

prince, and the residents of Mikhail St. Hence, all of these people, including the

inhabitants of Mikhail St. [!25 of the Market Side of Fig. 5] and foreign merchants [Fig.

5: H & G] whose street did not run directly up to the riverfront, had private docks on the

shore of the Volkhov which were conveniently located near the central city market.

63 For a detailed discussion of the streets in Novgorod, their construction, maintenance, and other issues, see A.N. Sorokin, Blagoustroistvo Drevnego Novgoroda (Moscow, 1995), 4-18; R.K. Kovalev, “Bridges, Roads, and Pavements in Kievan Rus’,” SMERSH (in the press). 64 For the location and topography of the main market in Novgorod, see A.N. Sorokin, “K topografii drevneishegi Novgorodskogo torga” and V.N. Gusakov, “K topografii severnoi chasti drevnego Novgorodskogo torga” in NNZ 2 (Novgorod, 1989), 45-53. 65 Drevnerusskie kniazheskie ustavy XI-XV vv., ed. Ia.N. Shchapov (Moscow, 1976), 151; V.A. Burov, “K kharakteristike riada i Torga,” Ocherki istorii i arkheologii, 99.

312

There is also some information suggesting that the operations at the docks were

regulated by special civil officials. This evidence comes from twelfth-fourteenth-

centuries Novgorodian document known as the “Rukopisanie of Prince Vsevolod

Mstislavich” who reigned in the early twelfth century. In this text is found a special post

of a “waterfront elder” (poberezhnik), several of whom were mentioned in connection to

the main market. It has been argued that these individuals were responsible for servicing

the docks: charging fees for landing and unloading vessels, protecting the unloaded

goods, and repairing the docks.66

While there is some specific evidence about the five docks located immediately in

front of the main market, as suggested above, there were many other docks that were

found along the banks of the Volkhov. Barges owned or leased by individual residents of

each of the streets running east-west through the city would have landed at their

communal docks, unloaded their merchandise including pelts, and transported them to

their yards. While the written sources do not inform of this, it is very likely that each of

the many other docks found throughout the city also had their own “waterfront” elders

who would have functioned within the structure of the street commune and provided

docking services. What is clear is that by paving their streets with wooden surfaces and

policing them, the street communes provided efficient and safe avenues for the

transportation of goods such as pelts from barges to the town’s yards.

The Hansa IV Schra dating to the mid-fourteenth century sheds some light on the

process of servicing commercial vessels that arrived or departed Novgorod. Article 24

declares that whoever first landed their vessels would have them unloaded first.67 Article

66 Drevnerusskie kniazheskie ustavy, 163; Burov, “K kharakteristike riada i Torga,” 99-100. 67 Die Nowgoroder Schra, 134.

313

25 forbids the German traders from dispatching laborers to unload the vessels before they

had touched shore.68 In this way, apparently, there was a custom of unloading cargos

from craft while they were still offshore. Such practices were common in Northern

Europe where goods from large vessels were loaded and unloaded using small rowboats

or lighters while the main craft was moored in deep water.69 Article 26 establishes a limit

on the amount the Hansa merchants were to pay for loading and unloading of the vessels

in Novgorod at 15 kunas.70

The Novgorodian and proto-Hansa treaty of 1269 relates that local haulers transported

goods from shore to the German and the Gotlandic Kontors. For the goods transported

from each vessel, these workers were to receive a set payment of 10 kunas for moving the

goods to the Gotlandic Kontor and 15 kunas to the German. The different fees charged

can be explained by the proximity on the Gotlandic Kontor to the shore and the greater

distance the German Kontor was located from the Volkhov [Fig. 5: H & G]. Haulers were

also to receive a fixed rate of half a mark for each vessel loaded with the goods they

transported on the departing voyage.71 The higher fee paid to the movers on the return

journey can probably be connected to the greater weight of the goods transported back.72

After all, as discussed in Chapter I, the goods shipped to Novgorod by the Hansa

included mainly light-weight, but high-value items such as non-ferrous metals (including

silver) and textiles while the goods exported from the city were primarily large barrels

with furs and heavy wax. 68 Die Nowgoroder Schra, 135. 69 O. Crumlin-Pedersen, Viking-Age Ships and Shipbuilding in Hedeby/Haithabu and Schleswig: Ships and boats of the North 2 (Roskilde, 1997), 192; S. McGrail, Medieval Boat and Ship Timbers From Dublin [Medieval Dublin Excavations 1962-1981, Ser. B, vol. 3] (Dublin, 1993), 81. 70 Die Nowgoroder Schra, 135. 71 GVNP, !31, p. 60. For the archaeological excavations of the Gotlandic Kontor in Novgorod, see E.A. Rybina, “Gotskii raskop,” Arkheologicheskoe izuchenie Novgoroda (Moscow, 1978), 197-226. 72 GVNP, !31, p. 60.

314

WAREHOUSING FURS

The safe storage of costly merchandise such as furs would have been of paramount

importance to their owners. This fundamental question has been totally neglected in

scholarship of the Novgorodian fur trade. Although the avenues and lanes in Novgorod

which were policed by the street communes, and the high, quite imposing picket fences

would have made it difficult for thieves to enter the urban properties, storing pelts at

yards built entirely of wood was very dangerous due to the endemic Novgorodian fires.

Between 1045 and 1470, sixty-eight fires were recorded in the Novgorodian chronicles.

But, most of these were only the major, city-wide conflagrations – many others were

minor or local and were not mentioned in the chronicles.73 In addition, the wet

Novgorodian climate would have been very damaging to pelts if they were not properly

stored. Therefore, anyone connected to the Novgorodian fur trade required safe storage

facilities – ideally fireproof warehouses secure from theft and moisture.

Mention of the storage of goods by private individuals is made in article 49 of the

main Rus’ law code – the “Expanded Redaction” of the Rus’kaia Pravda (fully formed

into one body in ca. 1160-1168) – which required the taking of an oath by the individual

who stored goods in the event there was a dispute over the quantity of the items

deposited.74 Regrettably, the law does not describe who these individuals were and the

types of storage facilities that were available to the clients. Presumably, these individuals

were merchants or the owners of yards in Novgorod who had space available to lease out

to others. If this were so, then they could provide only theft-free warehouses since their

73 B.A. Kolchin, V.L. Ianin, “Arkheologii Novgoroda 50 let,” Novgorodskii sbornik: 50 let raskopok Novgoroda (Moscow, 1982), 70. 74 “The Russkaia Pravda: The Expanded Redaction (Trinity Copy) – The Law from the Time of Iaroslav Volodimerich [1019-54]),” Laws of Rus’, 26.

315

yards were all made entirely of wood. The Church was the only establishment in pre-

Mongol Novgorod that had direct and immediate access to fireproof buildings.

Churches were relatively safe not only from intruders, but also from fires because

they were uninhabited by residents who could accidentally ignite fires by their normal,

everyday activities. Even more importantly, many of these churches were built of stone

which was fire and moisture resistant.75 Therefore, churches would have served as ideal

warehouses for storing pelts. This suggestion is not mere speculation. It is supported by

post-Mongol literary sources as well as the topography of Novgorodian churches. For

instance, in the 1409 commercial treaty between Novgorod and the Hanseatic cities of the

Baltic, there is a reference to the use of the Church of St. Ioan in Novgorod for the

storage of confiscated German goods.76 The Novgorodian chronicle records that in

75 Several words should be said to those skeptics who might legitimately raise the question concerning the availability of space in churches to be used as warehouses. It would be too quick to conclude that just because one is on the topic of the Middle Ages – the “Age of Faith” – one would expect that churches would be filled to their brim with parishioners. Unfortunately for one Rus’ priest who wrote in the twelfth century this did not seem to be the case. Complaining about his parishioners who preferred to go to outdoor musical, dance, and theatrical spectacles, or other “idolatrous gatherings,” the priest wrote: “[but when we are summoned to a church], we yawn and scratch ourselves, slumber and say ‘It’s raining’ or ‘It’s cold,’ or some other lazy thing… But as for the church where there is a roof and a wonderful stillness, people do not want to come into it for instruction; they are lazy…” See this translation in J. Fennell, A History of the Russian Church to 1448 (London-New York, 1995), 87. See the original text in H.M. Gal’kovskii, Bor’ba khristianstva s ostatkami iazychestva v drevnei Rusi 2 (Moscow, 1913), 82. On the other hand, the priests would have been very thankful for the attendance during times of war when the churches were overflowing not only with people but also with just about everything that they could carry, move, or walk into the churches. Rus’ Church statutes beginning with Vladimir the Saint (r. 970-1014) note that a parishioner who “leads cattle, or dogs, or fowl [into church] without good reason” was responsible for their actions before church authorities, i.e., had to pay a fine. See “Statute of Saint Prince Volodimir [Vladimir, ca. 980-1015, Who Converted the Rus’ Lands, On Church Courts,” Laws of Rus’, 43. Apparently, there was enough space to lead cattle into churches and there were “legitimate” times when one could do so. No doubt, the “legitimate” times would have been during sieges of cities when people took with them as many of their valuable possessions into churches as possible to escape death and destruction to themselves and their property. One would expect churches to have been filled to their capacities with humans, but there was still room for cattle – something that would have been “legitimate.” Furs, however, are not cattle and would have taken up relatively little space. As noted in Chapter II, the standard barrel used for the storage and transport of pelts contained between 5,000-7,000 pelts. Presumably, one could find enough free space in a parish church to store several or even a dozen such barrels. 76 GVNP, !49, p. 87.

316

1390/91 a fire destroyed the Church of St. Dmitrii in Danislav St. along with all of the

church-related items (icons, books, and “all church stores”) and “merchandise” (tovar).77

Reference to the storage of flammable and expensive goods such as furs is also found

in birch-bark !413 (1400-1410) which states:

Greetings from Semen to priest Ivan. Would you look over my goods (apparently furs and/or woolen cloth) so that moths would not ruin them – to you, my lord, I request that you take care of my crate. And the key I sent with Stepan. And the marker is the ermine.78

With this birch-bark, Semen requested Priest Ivan to look after his merchandise which,

most probably, were furs. The items were stored in a locked crate which required a key

for opening and marked with a sign or insignia in the shape of an ermine. Since the birch-

bark was sent to a priest, it is very likely that the crate was stored at his church. Such a

suggestion is supported by the text of birch-bark !414 (1340s-1340s) which states:

Greetings from Filiks to Semen and Iurii. Hope is on God and on us. If there will be any profit/increase in the weight (?), then deposit it in the church. And if my wife is in need of anything then you, brother Semen, give it to my wife. And I bow low to you (i.e., I thank you).79

While it is not clear where the profit or “increase” was to come from, the author of the

text clearly requests from his brother that he deposit the gained capital into the church. In

this way, it is evident that local Novgorodians used churches for the storage of their

valued goods, including pelts. In addition, quite possibly, it was believed that the goods

stored in churches were also “spiritually” protected and, no doubt, were under the

supervision of watchmen, as is noted in birch-bark !275/266 dating to 1370s-early

77 NPL, 384. 78 Zalizniak, DD, 555-556. The English translation is mine. 79 Zalizniak, DD, 450-452. The English translation is mine.

317

1380s which states: “Order from Sidor to Grigorii. The deer skins that are [stored] in the

shed, give those over to the church watchman…”80

The German merchants who resided in Novgorod were no less concerned with

protecting their furs. They also used the church located in their quarter to store pelts as

well as other commodities. According to the IV Schra, German merchants deposited all

of their goods at the Church of St. Peter which was locked with keys, guarded by dogs

and men from the outside, and careful precautions were taken to avoid fires on the

premises and people jumping over the fence to enter the yard.81 According to Hanseatic

house rules, barrels were to be moved to the perimeters of the walls of the church and

labeled with ownership marks along with crates by Saturdays.82 Apparently, barrels and

crates were moved into the church during the week and placed throughout it haphazardly.

However, by Sunday services the containers had to be properly labeled by owner and

moved to a place in the church that could not abstract the parishioners.

The topography of churches in medieval Novgorod shows that each street had at least

one church [Fig. 6], thereby providing at a minimum one private warehouse for each

street commune. While not all of these churches were made of stone, some 37 date to the

Kievan era.83 In some parts of Novgorod, there were clusters of churches, such as those at

the main market or in areas occupied by boyars. The location of princely, private,

corporate, and ecclesiastically-owned churches at the market shed much light not only on

the role their owners played in the city’s trade, but also suggests that these houses of

worship were used as warehouses [Fig. 6: M].

80 Zalizniak, DD, 506. The English translation is mine. 81 Die Nowgoroder Schra, arts. 1, 2, 39, 40, 53, pp. 126, 129-130, 138, 141. 82 Die Nowgoroder Schra, arts. 11 and 12, p. 132. 83 For a discussion and catalog of the churches, see P.A. Rappoport, Drevnerusskaia arkhitektura (St. Petersburg, 1993), 265-266, 271-272.

318

FIGURE 6 Street and Church Map of Medieval Novgorod84

84 Map based on Kolchin and Ianin in Drevniaia Rus’, 125.

319

SOPHIA SIDE 1 – St. Sophia Cathedral 2 – SS. Boris and Gleb 3 – Entry into Jerusalem 4 – Forty Martyrs from Sebastia 5 – Savior of Transfiguration 6 – Archangel Gabriel 7 – Constantine and Helen on Rostkina St. 8 – Constantine and Helen on Ianeva St. 9 – St. John the Baptist 10 – St. Simeon Stylite 11 – Twelve Apostils 12 – Cosmas and Damian on Kozmodem’iansk St. 13 – St. Sabbas 14 – St. Theodor Stratilates 15 – Cosmas and Damian on Kholop’ia St. 16 – St. Panteleimon 17 – St. Mina 18 – St. Demetrius 19 – Presentation of the Blessed Virgin 20 – Archangel Michael 21 – St. Jacob 22 – Nativity of the Holy Virgin in Desiatinnyi Monastery 23 – Holy Face 24 – St. Basil of Paria 25 – All Saints 26 – St. Blasius 27 – St. Barbara 28 – St. George 29 – Ascension 30 – St. Nicholas 31 – Trinity 32 – Raising of the Holy Cross 33 – Apostle Luke

MARKET SIDE 1 – St. Nicholas on Iaroslavskoe dvorishche 2 – St. Paraskeva-Piatnitsa (Friday) 3 – St. John on Opokhi 4 – SS. Boris and Gleb on the Market 5 – St. George on the Market 6 – Assumption on the Market 7 – SS. Holy Women at the Sepulchre 8 – St. Procopius 9 – St. Demetrius 10 – Archangel Michael 11 – St. Clement 12 – Demetrius of Thessaloniki 13 – St. Theodor Stratilates 14 – Assemble of the Holy Virgin 15 – The Holy Virgin’s Nativity on Mikhail St. 16 – St. Nicetas 17 – St. Andrew Stratilates 18 – Euthemius Monastery 19 – SS. Boris and Gleb in Plotniki 20 – St. Eupatius on Rogatitsa 21 – Apostle Luke on Lubianitsa 22 – Savior in Il’ina St. 23 – Symbolic Icon of the Holy Virgin 24 – Apostle Phillip 25 – Prophet Elijah 26 – SS. Fathers 27 – Apostles Peter and Paul in Slavno 28 – St. Paul’s Confessor’s Monastery and the Church of Resurrection

TABLE 1

Churches of Novgorod

The concentrations of churches outside the Central Market or the family churches

located in certain areas inhabited by boyars also suggests that the Novgorodian

aristocratic clans used them for storing their pelts. One such example is the stone Church

of St. Basil of Paria, located at the southwestern intersection of Iarysheva and Proboinaia

Sts. [Fig. 6: Sophia Side – !24]. The church was erected in 1151 by the powerful and

influential Miroshchinichi-Nesdychi boyar clan who, in the last decade of the twelfth

century and the early years of the thirteenth, produced two Novgorodian mayors:

320

Miroshka Nezdych (1189-1203) and his son Dmitrii Miroshkinich (1205-1207).85 Since

mayors were traditionally responsible for the collection of revenues (in the form of pelts)

from the Novgorodian domains for the municipal treasury and their dispersal to the

various organs of the government, it would make sense for them to store these highly-

valued goods in their private masonry churches.86

THE NOVGORODIAN FUR MARKET

The birch-bark texts and other written sources dating to the Kievan era show that the

Novgorodian market offered for sale pelts of squirrels, polar foxes, beavers, otters, foxes,

sables, martens, and bears.87 The finds of beaver, fox, marten, badger, hare, lynx,

squirrel, otter, and marten bones in Novgorod and its nearby towns shows that these

animals were hunted regionally and their pelts made available on the local market.88 Of

course, a significant part of the furs imported to Novgorod went to the local consumer

market. Inhabiting the northern climes of the globe, the Novgorodians needed furs to

keep warm. From various sources, it is known that in the pre-Mongol era the Rus’ wore

hats and clothing made of beaver, ermine, marten, sable, squirrel, bear, and wolf as well

85 R.K. Kovalev, “What Do the Birch-Bark Texts Tell Us About Everyday Church Life and Christianity in Pre-Mongol Novgorod?” Modern Greek Studies Yearbook (in the press). 86 R.K. Kovalev, “Birki-sorochki: upakovka mekhovykh shkurok v Srednevekovom Novgorode,” Novgorodskii istoricheskii sbornik 9 (St. Petersburg, in the press). This topic will be explored in great detail in my forthcoming study dedicated to the structure of the Novgorodian state collection of pelts, a sequel to the present study. 87 See birch-barks !!7, 223, 225, 230, 600, !647/683/721, 722, and 910 in Zalizniak, DD, 268-269, 315-316, 354-355, 364-366, 370, 385-386; NGB: 1951, 34-35; NGB: 1956-1957, 45-46; NGB: 1977-1983, 60-62; NGB: 1984-1989, 44, 67, 144; NGB: 1990-1996, 19-21, 93, 117-119; Th.S. Noonan, R.K. Kovalev, “Chto govoriat berestianye gramoty ob ekonomike Kievskoi Rusi,” RH/HR [Festschrift for A.A. Zimin, ed. by P.B. Brown], 25: 1-2 (1998), 49; V.L. Ianin, A.A. Zalizniak, “Berestianye gramoty iz novgorodskikh raskopok 1999 g.,” VIa 2 (2000), 9-10; PSRL 2: 277; PSRL, 41: 64; PVL, 126-127, 265; NPL, 41, 234. 88 V.I. Tsalkin, Materialy dlia istorii zhivotnovodstva i okhoty v drevnei Rusi [MIA SSSR 51] (Moscow, 1956), Appendixes 14-15, pp. 175-176; M. Molbi, Sh. Gamil’ton-Daer, “Kosti zhivotnykh iz raskopok v Novgorode i ego okruge,” NNZ 9, 143-144; A.K. Kasparov, “Ostatki zhivotnykh iz gorodishcha Staraia Ladoga (predvaritel’nye itogi),” Drevnosti Povolkhov’ia (St. Petersburg, 1997), 27, 29.

321

as used sable blankets. As can be expected, clothing made of expensive furs was worn by

the elite and some was passed down in wills from father to son. Beaver pelts were also

used for making goods other than clothing, such as quivers.89

All of these pelts and items made of fur could be purchased at the Central Market in

Novgorod [Fig. 6: M]. In chapter II, it was shown that traditionally pelts were counted

out into units of 40s or sorochoks/timbers and, thereafter, packed into sacks and then

placed in barrels for transport oversees. At the market, however, the pelts were probably

displayed and sold to the buyers in packs of 40s. Some idea of how the medieval

Novgorodian market may have been organized and operated can be gathered from the

late sixteenth-century Novgorodian market registrar book. It relates that about forty rows,

mostly specialized according to the types of goods sold, were located at the market. At

least 1,800 booths (lavki), stands (prilavki), stalls (ambary), and other facilities were

located at the market, most of which made up the rows and the rest located on their sides.

Of these 1,800 retail facilities, more than 1,500 were booths, 150 stands, 100 stalls, and a

few stools, benches, and barrels.90 Archaeologists have discovered one of these retail

outlets dating to the fifteenth century which consisted of a table 2.2 meters in length and

0.8 meters in width.91 Unfortunately, it cannot be determined whether this was a “booth,”

“stand,” “bench,” or some other type of structure.

Based on the Novgorodian market registrar, most fur merchants operating out of their

own private booths which were situated in special rows. Others worked only on

89 N. Aristov, Promyshlennost’ Drevnei Rusi (St. Petersburg, 1866), 145-149. 90 Pronshtein, Velikii Novgorod v XVI veke, 95. 91 A.V. Artsikhovskii, “Raskopki vostochnoi chasti Dvorishcha v Novgorode,” Materialy i issledovaniia po arkheologii drevnerusskikh gorodov 1 [MIA SSSR 11] (Moscow-Leningrad, 1949), 160.

322

commission directly out of their workshops.92 As discussed in Chapter III, it is likely that

most pelts brought to Novgorod had already been cured. However, this did not mean that

they were fully ready to be sewn into clothing, since they needed to be further worked to

make them more pliable and durable.93 Thus, at the market one could find retailers of

cured pelts as well as artisans who specialized in fully preparing pelts and making them

into clothing, i.e., furriers. These distinctions in professions are reflected in the names of

the rows found at the market. Among the many rows, there were two that specialized in

the sale of pelts – Pushnoi or Bobrovnyi riad (Furs’ or Beavers’ Row) and Skorniachnyi

(Pelts’ Row) riad – and one – Shubnyi riad (Fur Coats’ Row) – in the sale of finished

goods made of furs (coats and hats). In addition, a few individual furriers and traders of

finished goods made of fur had booths in rows of non-fur related dealers.94 Overall,

according to the sources, only 195 individuals or 3.17% of the total townsmen of

Novgorod were furriers. Some of the furriers processed all sorts of pelts (including lamb

hides), but the majority specialized in working with squirrel, beaver, fox, and bear skins.

A number of other artisans not included into this total (but representing a very small

percentage) were fur-hat makers, sewed clothing made of furs, and dyers who colored

pelts and fur clothing.95

92 Pronshtein, Velikii Novgorod v XVI veke, pp. 59-60 and Table 1, p. 51; Lavochnye knigi Novgoroda Velikogo 1583 g., ed. S.V. Bakhrushin (Moscow, 1930), 22-26. 93 On the question of curing pelts and their further processing into clothing, see E.M. Veal, The English Fur Trade in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 1966), 25-28; see R. Thomson, “Leather Working Process,” Leather and Fur: Aspects of Early Medieval Trade and Technology, ed. E. Cameron (London, 1998), 8-9. 94 Pronshtein, Velikii Novgorod v XVI veke, 97-101. 95 Pronshtein, Velikii Novgorod v XVI veke, pp. 59-60 and Table 1, p. 51; Lavochnye knigi Novgoroda Velikogo, 22-26.

323

FIGURE 7 Scene at the Novgorodian Central Market

(Mid-Sixteenth-Century Nikon Chronicle)96 Left – grain merchants (with their barrels of rye);

Far Right – bread merchants (holding loaves of bread); Front – honey merchants (weighing honey and buyers holding a pack of kunas [marten pelts])

Overall, the overwhelming majority of these traders operated out of booths which

were quite small in size: 1.5-2 sazhen or 3.2-4.27 meters in length and 2 sazhen or 4.27

meters in width [Fig. 7].97 According to the market rules, traders were to remove their

goods from their booths at closing time and hand them over to the watchmen for storage

overnight at barns located at the market. If merchants chose to keep their goods at their

booths overnight, they were responsible for guarding them. Since traders were required to

remove all of their goods from their small booths daily, it appears that they were small- 96 A.V. Artsikhovskii, Drevnerusskie miniatiury kak istoricheskii istochnik (Moscow, 1944), pp. 94-95 & Fig. 29. 97 Pronshtein, Velikii Novgorod v XVI, 128; Lavochnye knigi Novgoroda Velikogo, 22-26.

324

scale traders or peddles who sold products of their own manufacture.98 Most likely, these

peddlers serviced the local needs of the Novgorodians and did not engage in large-scale

transactions. For this reason, the majority of the pelts that were exported outside of

Novgorod probably never entered the main city market. The wholesale traders of large

parts of furs operated through other market mechanism – princely, municipal, church, and

probably private dealers.

The Novgorodian princes were probably the largest-single fur wholesale dealers in the

city. As discussed in the Introduction, princes who came to rule in Novgorod had

traditionally received the so-called dar or “gift” from the municipal government in the

form of pelts as payment for their services to the city. From 1136 to the 1150s, they also

were in the personal position of all revenues including bloodwites and fines that came

from Zavoloch’e, which brought them huge quantities of pelts. While the size of the

“gift” and tribute from Zavoloch’e remains unknown, it is known that from the fines and

bloodwites alone they received over 435 sorochoks/timbers or more than 17,400 pelts

annually from the region.99

The princely involvement in the fur trade is well illustrated by the topography of

princely churches established in the first half of the twelfth century in Novgorod.

Specifically, Vsevolod Mstislavich (1117-1136) erected three churches (one of stone and

two of wood, one of which he rebuilt later in stone) at the Central Market, adding them to

the already existing stone church built at the site by Mstislav Vladimirovich (1113-1117)

98 Pronshtein, Velikii Novgorod v XVI veke, 128. 99 “The Statutory Charter of the Novgorodian Prince Sviatoslav Ol’govich [ca. 1136-38] to the Church of St. Sophia in Novgorod (1136-37),” Laws of Rus’, 57-58; Th.S. Noonan, R.K. Kovalev, “The Furry Forties: Packaging Pelts in Medieval Northern Europe” [Jaroslav Pelenski Festschrift] (in the press).

325

in 1113.100 No doubt, these churches also served as the main princely warehouses for

their pelts. The private princely docks – Budiatin – located along the Volkhov, just next

to the market and it churches, were, no doubt, used by the princes to export their pelts

overseas and to other Rus’ lands.

Based on the commercial treaties between Novgorod and the German towns, it is

clear that the Novgorodian princes were directly involved in the Baltic trade. Prince

Iaroslav Vladimirovich (1181-1184, 1187-1196, and 1197-1199) stood as head signatory

of the first extant treaty of 1191-1192 between Novgorod and the Gotland-Lübeck

commercial confederation.101 The princes of Novgorod continued to be directly involved

in the ratification of commercial treaties between Novgorod and the German cities, as is

attested to by the appearance of their names on treaties of the 1260s-1270s.102 Accords

concluded between Novgorod and its princes during the same period provided freedoms

for the local Novgorodian merchants to trade along with the prince in the German Kontor

as well as prohibited the prince from shutting it down.103

Some princes, like Konstantin Vsevolodovich (1205-1208), gave special privileges to

the German merchants. According to the Novgorod-German treaty of 1269, this prince

provided a guarantee that the road that led from the German Kontor to the Central Market

via the princely court of Iaroslavskoe dvorishche was free from building obstructions.104

The Novgorod-Hansa treaty of 1371 sheds light on what these obstructions were and how

they came about when it stipulated: 100 Dejevsky, “The Churches of Novgorod,” 212, 215. 101 GVNP, !28, p. 55. For the re-dating of this treaty to 1191-1192, see V.L. Ianin, Novgorodskie akty XII-XV vv. (Moscow, 1991), 81-82. 102 GVNP, !!29-32, pp. 56, 57, 58, 62 103 GVNP, !!3, 6, 7, 9, pp. 13, 16, 17, 20; “Treaty of Novgorod with Tver’ Grand Prince Mikhail Iaroslavich [1271-1318] 1304-05,” Laws of Rus’, art. 24, p. 70. 104 Pamiatniki istorii Velikogo Novgoroda, p. 68, art. XXV; Rybina, Torgovlia srednevekovogo Novgoroda, 108.

326

And your merchants (Novgorodians) are not to stand on our (German) street from both sides of the court (Kontor), and are not to hammer in stakes into our fence, and are not to erect any constructions on our property… And your brothers are not to trade at our court with their sacks of pelts as well as along our street for which we pay for with silver.105

This regulation makes it clear that Novgorodian fur merchants were congregating in the

area of the German Kontor and establishing various types of retail outlets for the sale of

their pelts to the foreign merchants. Aside from creating physical impediments along the

street, these vendors were also violating the Kontor rules which dictated that all

commercial transactions that took place between the two parties were to be carried out

within the boundaries of the German court.106 What is more, according to Article 64 of

the IV Schra, all sales of pelts exceeding that of a “quarter” (apparently more than 10

pelts or a quarter of a sorochok/timber) were to be conducted only inside a dwelling at the

Kontor and only after their careful inspection for quality.107 Thus, by standing in and near

the Kontor with sacks of pelts, the Novgorodians were tempting the German merchants

into purchasing non-inspected goods and, thus, breaking the house rules. Since

Konstantin Vsevolodovich had issued the Germans guarantees limiting constructions on

the street where the Kontor stood as early as 1205-1208, it would stand to reason that

Novgorodian fur merchants had encroached on the foreign merchant’s quarters already in

the pre-Mongol era. Taken all together, it is quite clear that the princes of Novgorod were

closely tied to the market, trade, foreign merchants, and, no doubt, were among the chief

wholesale-dealers of furs in the city.

105 GVNP, !42, pp. 75-76. The English translation is mine. 106 Die Nowgoroder Schra, art. 54, 61-63, pp. 141, 142-143. 107 Die Nowgoroder Schra, art, 64, p. 143.

327

In addition to the prince, the local Novgorodian civil government also collected

revenues from the city lands in the form of pelts. While the size of these revenues remain

unknown, it would be reasonable to expect that they were quite substantial. Naturally,

therefore, the municipal government – led by the boyar veche or city council – would also

have been key wholesale dealers of pelts, a part of which would have been sold to the

Gotlandic and German merchants. Indeed, the available evidence shows that the local

Novgorodian boyars had close contacts with foreign merchants.

Some of the best evidence of these contacts comes from finds made at the complex

associated with the Miroshchinichi-Nesdychi boyar clan discovered in the Liudin End of

Novgorod [Fig. 6: near the Church of St. Basil of Paria (!24), Sophia Side]. First, there

are the four birch-barks: !753 dating to the mid-eleventh century was written in German

with Latin characters (yard “K”);108 !851 dating to the mid-twelfth century makes

reference to Varangians (variagi) or Gotlandic merchants (yard “E”);109 !881 dating to

the second quarter of the twelfth century mentions the German name Walter and speaks

of making an oath to return or pay him something (yard “E”);110 and, birch-bark !720

which dates to the first half (preferably first quarter) of the thirteenth century refers to

“nemtsy” or overseas proto-Hanseatic German merchants (yard “K”) [Fig. 8].111

108 NGB: 1990-1996, 50. 109 V.L. Ianin, A.A. Zalizniak, “Berestianye gramoty iz novgorodskikh raskopok 1998 g.,” VIa 4 (1999), 14. 110 Ianin, Zalizniak, “Berestianye gramoty iz novgorodskikh raskopok 1998 g.,” 21-22. 111 Zalizniak, DD, 372.

328

FIGURE 8 Yards and Streets of the Liudin End:

Troits Dig Excavations, 1973-present112 (Darker Lines Represent Areas of the Digs and Lighter Lines Boundaries of Yards)

Second, two hoards of imported coins were unearthed within the same complex. One

consisted of 52 West European deniers and 2 Byzantine miliaresia (silver coins) a very

rare find for Novgorod, was discovered at yard “P” [Fig. 8]. Based on the latest coins (tpq

= terminus post quem) and its stratigraphic context, the hoard was deposited in the late

1020s and no later that the 1030s.113 The other hoard contained 13 dirhams and was

deposited sometime between 945 and 960 (tpq 929/30) at the nearby yard “G” [Fig. 8].114

These two coin hoards dating to the mid-tenth and the first quarter of the eleventh century

112 Map based in large part on V.L. Ianin, U istokov Novgorodskoi gosudarstvennosti (Velikii Novgorod, 2001), 7. 113 V.L. Ianin, P.G. Gaidukov, “Novgorodskii klad Zapadno-Evropeiiskikh i Vizantiiskikh monet kontsa X – pervoi poloviny XI v.,” DGVE: 1994 (Moscow, 1996), 151-170; V.L. Ianin, P.G. Gaidukov, Aktovye pechati Drevnei Rusi. X-XV vv. 3 (Moscow, 1998), 13. 114 P.G. Gaidukov, G.A. Fedorov-Davydov, V.L. Ianin, “Novyi klad kuficheskikh monet X v. iz Novgoroda,” Vos’maia Vserosiiskaia numizmaticheskaia konferentsiia (Moscow, 2000), 55-56.

329

show that the residents in this part of Novgorod were involved in commercial activities

from almost the initial stages of the town’s history. It would not be unreasonable to

speculate that the West European deniers deposited at yard “P” came to the site via the

same contacts with the Baltic which German-speaking peoples to yard “K” in the mid-

eleventh century, as is evident by the find of birch-bark !753.

Contacts with the Baltic and access to non-ferrous metals among the inhabitants of

these yards continued into the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. Of particular interest

in this connection is the existence of several workshops at yard “A,” which from the early

1180s to 1209 belonged to Olisei Petrovich (†1231) – nicknamed Grechin or “Greek” –

an icon-fresco painter, parish priest for the Miroshchinichi-Nesdychi boyar clan, abbot of

the St. George Monastery from 1226-1231, as well as the son of Petrok Mikhalich [Fig.

8].115 At the time Olisei inhabited the site, he painted icons for special orders at his

workshop as well as produced icon frames made of non-ferrous metals. Aside from the

finds of copper sheets at his workshop, he also had access to silver as is evident from the

finds of two silver ingots (grivnas), objects which are very rarely discovered in the

cultural layers of Novgorod, and remains of two sets of miniature scales and a weight

used for weighing precious and semi-precious metals.116 The previous resident of this

yard also had a workshop that specialized in making miniature copper bells/chimes.117

Such bells were also crafted in other parts of Novgorod and were a common feature of

115 B.A. Kolchin, A.S. Khoroshev, V.L. Ianin, Usad’ba novgorodskogo khudozhnika XII v. (Moscow, 1981); Kovalev, “What Do the Birch-Bark Texts Tell Us About Everyday Church Life and Christianity in Pre-Mongol Novgorod?.” 116 Kolchin, Khoroshev, Ianin, Usad’ba novgorodskogo khudozhnika, 95-97, Fig. 48: 1-3. 117 Kolchin, Khoroshev, Ianin, Usad’ba novgorodskogo khudozhnika, 129-135.

330

the local Novgorodian costume.118 However, these bells were also a common item of

export from Novgorod throughout the Russian North inhabited by the Finno-Ugrians.119

It is quite possible that some of the bells produced at this workshop were used to trade for

pelts with the Finno-Ugrians in Zavoloch’e. It is also very likely that the non-ferrous

metals used at these workshops came from the trade contacts the inhabitants of these

yards maintained with the Baltic merchants.

As noted above, the complex of yards where all of the above finds were discovered

belonged to the influential Miroshchinichi-Nesdychi boyar clan that produced a number

of Novgorodian mayors in the last decades of the twelfth and the early years of the

thirteenth century. Interestingly, one of the signers of the 1191-1192 Novgorodian trade

treaty with the Gotland-Lübeck commercial confederation was none other than one of

these mayors – Miroshka Nezdych (1189-1203).120 What is more, one of the urban

properties (yard “E”) inhabited by these boyars served as the main Novgorodian

administrative-fiscal center to which civil revenue collectors delivered pelts from the last

decades of the tenth to the early years of the thirteenth century [Fig. 8].121 These pelts

were checked in and packed into sorochoks/timbers at the same sites by the Novgorodian

mayors.122 Apparently, some of them were, thereafter, sold to the foreign merchants,

118 N.V. Ryndina, “Tekhnologiia proizvodstva novgorodskikh iuvelirov X-XV vv.,” TNAE 3 (Novye metody v arkheologii) [MIA SSSR 117] (Moscow, 1963), 244-247; M.V. Sedova, Iuvelirnye izdeliia drevnego Novgoroda (X-XV vv.) (Moscow, 1981), 156. 119 See, for instance, E.A. Savel’eva, Vymskie mogil’niki XI-XIV vv. (Leningrad, 1987), 85-88; idem., “Nachal’nye etapy drevnerusskoi kolonizatsii Evropeiskogo Severo-Vastoka,” Vzaimodeistvie kul’tur severnogo Priural’ia v drevnosti i srednevekov’e [MAESV 12] (Syktyvkar, 1993), 130; K.S. Korolev, Naselenie Srednei Vychegdy v drevnosti i srednevekov’e (Ekaterinburg, 1997), 167-169. 120 GVNP, !28, 55-56. 121 Ianin, U istokov, 6-30. 122 Kovalev, “Birki-sorochki.” This site and associated topics will be treated at great length in a forthcoming study.

331

since two of the birch-barks discussed above (!851 and !881) come specifically from

this yard and the other two (!720 and !753) from the neighboring yard “K.”

Based on the birch-barks found at the Miroshchinichi-Nesdychi urban properties, the

individuals living and working at these yards also maintained close contacts with other

Rus’ lands. Thus, birch-bark !675 dating from the 1140s to the early 1160s speaks of

merchants who were traveling and trading between Novgorod, Kiev, Velikii Luki, and

Suzdal’.123 Birch-barks !915 (third quarter of the eleventh century) and !524 (second

quarter of the twelfth century) also mention someone traveling from Novgorod to Kiev

and conducting some sort of commercial transactions.124 Birch-bark !745 dating from

the late eleventh to the first quarter of the twelfth century was sent from Rostov and

mentions that a boat belonging to someone from Kiev is to arrive in Novgorod.125 Pskov

in mentioned in two birch-barks: !781 (first quarter of the thirteenth century) speaks of

horses, travel, sending something, and the city of Pskov126 while !776 (1130s-1150s)

was composed (perhaps by a merchant) with a sending address of Pskov.127 Quite clearly,

the Miroshchinichi-Nesdychi urban properties were not only closely associated with

various commercial operations, but maintained contacts with a broad area of the Rus’

lands – stretching from Pskov in the west to Rostov and Suzdal’ in the east to Velikii

Luki and Kiev in the south.

Taken all together, there are good reasons to conclude that the Novgorodian mayors –

the representatives of the Novgorodian boyar-led veche – also acted as one of the chief 123 Zalizniak, DD, 265; NGB: 1984-1989, 62-63. 124 Ianin, Zalizniak, “Berestianye gramoty iz novgorodskikh raskopok 1998 g.,” 8-9; idem., “Berestianye gramoty iz novgorodskikh raskopok 1999 g.,” VIa 2 (2000), 12; Zalizniak, DD, 273; NGB: 1977-1983, 212; NGB: 1984-1989, 176; NGB 1962-1976, 122-124. 125 NGB: 1990-1996, 41. 126 V.L. Ianin, A.A. Zalizniak, “Berestianye gramoty iz novgorodskikh raskopok 1997 g.,” VIa 3(1998), 33. 127 Ianin, Zalizniak, “Berestianye gramoty iz novgorodskikh raskopok 1997 g.,” 26.

332

wholesale dealers of pelts for the city. As mentioned above, these mayors most likely

stored their pelts at their patrimonial churches which stood near their urban properties.

Quite likely, these boyars (or their assistants) carried these pelts to the German and

Gotlandic Kontors for sale or made their deals directly on site with visiting Rus’ traders

from other principalities. A portion of their pelts was probably exported directly by

themselves either overseas or to other Rus’ lands.

The Church also played an important role in the sale of pelts. According to the 1136

Charter of Sviatoslav Ol’govich, the church was granted a tithe from all of the princely

tribute, bloodwites, and fines collected in Zavoloch’e.128 Regrettably, it is not known

what sum came from the tribute, but from the bloodwites and fines the tithe added up to

forty-three and a half sorochoks/timbers or 1,740 pelts annually. This amount, no doubt,

was a meager portion that came from the total tithe the Church received from the princes.

In this way, while not as large-scale as the princes, the Church was also an important

wholesale dealer of pelts. As the princes, the Novgorodian bishops and later archbishops

founded churches near or at Novgorod’s Central Market. Thus, in 1108 Bishop Nikita

(1096-1108) erected the Church of St. John the Baptist just at the edge of the market.129

In 1183, Archbishop Il’ia (1165-1186) with his brother Gavril (archbishop Grigorii –

1186-1193) established a stone church dedicated to St. John the Baptist at the market.130

As the princely churches at the market, these houses of worship could also accommodate

the bishop’s stockpile of pelts.

In addition to the sale of furs at and by princely, municipal, and church

establishments, it is quite likely that large-scale private wholesale fur dealers could also 128 “The Statutory Charter of the Novgorodian Prince Sviatoslav Ol’govich,” Laws of Rus’, 57. 129 Dejevsky, “The Churches of Novgorod,” 212. 130 NPL, 37; CN, 32.

333

be found in the city. However, absolutely nothing is known about them from the

traditional written accounts such as the IV Schra, the Novgorodian commercial treaties

with the Baltic, and the Novgorodian chronicle. It is possible that some, if not all, of the

merchants who attempted to establish outlets for their trade near the German Kontor were

these private dealers. Possibly, these private dealers were also the same ones who visited

the Kontor to negotiate legitimate commercial transactions. At the same time, since the

sources do not identify the associations of the merchants who came to trade at the Kontor,

they may have been representatives for any of the wholesale fur traders, i.e., princely,

municipal, or the Church.

Be that as it may, some idea of how wholesalers of pelts operated can be gathered

from a number of pre-Mongol-era birch-bark texts. Thus, in birch-bark !713 dating

from the first half (most likely first quarter) of the thirteenth century, there is a reference

to large-scale fur merchant. The text states:

From (or: Greetings from) Mikhal to Proksha. [All] that you have of the otters (pelts), that you have of the red cloth, that you have of the fine reddish-brown and light blue cloth ... quarter; and Khoten the Chelp owes a “new” grivna; and Spirok is owed to by the merchants (or: Spirok, among the merchants, owes) ... (some debt).131

All of the individuals noted in this text were somehow interconnected and were most

likely merchants trading furs and cloth. While furs were the most typical items of

Novgorodian export to the Baltic, aside from non-ferrous metals, cloth was one of the

most common items of Baltic import into Novgorod.132 Quite possibly, these merchants

were involved in the import of cloth from the Baltic and the export of pelts in exchange –

131 Zalizniak, DD, 355-356. The English translation is mine. 132 See Chapter I.

334

either directly or indirectly through the Gotlandic-German intermediaries who resided in

the city.

It is of great interest to note that one of the individuals – Spirok – mentioned in birch-

bark !713 also figures in birch-bark !439 dating to the 1190s-1210s. This text states

the following:

(From) ... to Spirok. If Matei has not taken from you the kapi133(lit. “head”) [of wax], [then] send it to me with the Prussian. And I sold all of the tin, lead, and all of the forged [metal] goods (klepanie). Now, I do not have a [need] to go to Suzdal’. Three kapi (lit. “heads”) of wax have been purchased. And you [need to] come here. Take [with you] about 4 bezmen of lead [and] about 2 red towels (apparently, sheets of red copper134). And give money (i.e., pay) [for these goods] immediately.135

In this birch-bark, the author informs Spirok that if Matvei has not taken he kapi of wax

from him, then he should send it to him with the Prussian. Next, the author tells Spirok

that he sold all of the lead, tin, and the forged metal. The next line is problematic, since it

is not clear if the author is saying “because I sold all the metals, I do not have to travel to

Suzdal’ (to sell it)” or “because I obtained wax, I do not have to travel to Suzdal’ (to

obtain it).” In other words, the reference to not having to go to Suzdal’ could apply to

either the sale of the metals or to obtaining the wax. However, since wax usually came

from the southwestern and northeastern (including Suzdal’) Rus’ territories, this puzzle

can, perhaps, be solved.136 Because Suzdal’ is mentioned by the author (and the

133 Kapi: a measure of weight (1 kapi = 3 puds or 48.9 kg), often applied to wax which came in a round form called golova (lit. “head”). See Zalizniak, DD, 357; NGB: 1962-1976, 42-45. 134 Apparently, the merchandise came in the form of plates or sheets (ca. 2 bezmen or ca. 2 kg each) or was wrapped in towels (ca. 2 bezmen per towel). Note that plates or sheets of non-ferrous metals have been found at the Novgorodian excavations. See Ryndina, “Tekhnologiia proizvodstva novgorodskikh iuvelirov,” 207-213. 135 Zalizniak, DD, 357-358; NGB: 1962-1976, 42-45; NGB: 1977-1983, 176, 208. The English translation is mine. 136 A.I. Nikitskii, Istoriia ekonomicheskogo byta Novgoroda (Moscow, 1893; reprint, The Hague, 1967), 165-166.

335

southwestern territories are not), it is reasonable to suggest that the wax was, in fact,

obtained in Suzdal’ by the author of the birch-bark. Lastly, the author tells Spirok to

come “here” and bring with him about 4 bezmen or ca. one kilograms of red copper.

From the above, it appears that the author of this birch-bark was a merchant who

worked within a corporation of other merchants in providing metalworking materials to

Novgorod: some merchants came from the west (Prussia, i.e., northern Poland) and others

traveled to the east (Suzdal’). At the same time, three other birch-barks discovered at the

same yard – all written by the same hand as !439 – indicate that these merchants were

involved in the trade of all sorts of other merchandise: !438 (1190s-1210) is a list of

items associated with cobbler’s trade and also mentions a fur coat;137 !440 (1170s-

1190s) notes a monetary unit (veksha);138 and, !436 (1200-1210s) states: “... and of the

other [money], 9 grivnas remain. I ask you, obtain silver and send it to me. And I have

concluded a deal and am [already] on the way.”139 In addition to these, at the same yard

several other birch-barks related to trade were discovered dating to the same period as the

other texts: !437 (1190s-1210s) deals with the sale of horse;140 !441 (1210s-1220s)

states “... I send to you a grivna;”141 and, !442 (second quarter of the thirteenth century)

speaks of prices of rye.142 The discovery of all of these texts at Spirok’s yard strongly

suggests that he was involved in the sale of all sorts of goods and may well have been a

broker. In view of the close chronology of these texts and birch-bark !713, their

commercial nature, contents, and the mention of Spirok – an unusual name for Novgorod

137 Zalizniak, DD, 356-357; NGB: 1984-1989, 167; NGB: 1962-1976, 45, NGB: 1977-1983, 208. 138 Zalizniak, DD, 371; NGB: 1962-1976, 45. 139 Zalizniak, DD, 358; NGB: 1984-1989, 166; NGB: 1962-1976, 39-40. 140 Zalizniak, DD, 359; NGB: 1984-1989, 166-167; NGB: 1962-1976, 40. 141 Zalizniak, DD, 426; NGB: 1962-1976, 45. 142 Zalizniak, DD, 426; NGB: 1962-1976, 46.

336

– it would be reasonable to conclude that the merchant Spirok of text !439 was the same

as the Spirok of birch-bark !713.

Contextually, it would also make sense for this merchant-broker to be connected to

the trade of pelts and wax – the two standard Novgorodian items of export to the Baltic –

on the one hand, and cloth and non-ferrous metals – the two most common items of

Baltic import into the city – on the other. All of the items mentioned in birch-bark !439

were directly connected to the jewelry industry: red copper was used as a coloring agent

in metalworking, wax was employed in designing casts for jewelry molds, while lead and

tin were used for casting jewelry.143 Since lead from Poland has been found at the

excavations in Novgorod,144 reference to Prussian and lead in birch-bark !439 is not

coincidental. As discussed in Chapters I and V, the Novgorodians imported non-ferrous

metals from the Baltic, some of which they exported directly in raw form to the Russian

North in exchange for pelts while others they cast into jewelry within the city to be

exchanged later for pelts with the same region.

The mention of Spirok in connection to merchants dealing in pelts in birch-bark

!713 seems to close the circle of import-export items to and from Novgorod as well as

the intermediary value-added process. This process involved the making of jewelry in the

Novgorodian workshops from the imported Baltic metals, which was subsequently traded

for more pelts with the Russian North. This circle tightens even more when one considers

the find spots of birch-barks !439 and !713. The former comes from a yard located just

to the north of the Central Market on the Market Side of the city. On the other hand,

birch-bark !713 was discovered at the opposite end of the city – the Liudin End of the

143 Ryndina, “Tekhnologiia proizvodstva novgorodskikh iuvelirov,” 213-218. 144 V.L. Ianin, “Nakhodka pol’skogo svintsa v Novgorode,” SA 2 (1966), 324-328.

337

Sophia Side, at the yards belonging to the Miroshchinichi-Nesdychi clan. It has already

been mentioned that the latter text was a request by Mikhal to Proksha (who apparently

lived within these yards) to send him all of his remaining otter pelts. Seeing that pelts

were readily available at the Miroshchinichi-Nesdychi yards, it would make sense to

consider Mikhal a large-scale fur merchant involved in the disposal of municipal supplies

of pelts. One of his commercial partners was Spirok who was probably dispensing the

payments (in non-ferrous metals) Makhal received in exchange for his pelts from the

Baltic merchants.

Lastly, it would be remiss not to note another curious and very revealing set of finds

connected to birch-bark !439. At the site where it was found – Spirok’s yard –

archaeologists also discovered about 1000 pieces of raw amber, an amber cross, four

finished and seven unfinished amber beads, a jewelry casting mold, fragments of

crucibles, pieces of wire and clippings made of non-ferrous metals, and a complete set of

copper scales (a balancing beam with two cups). These materials indicate that a jewelry

workshop functioned at this site, which produced ornaments made of non-ferrous metals

and amber items, some of which were beads. All of these finds come from the same

layers dating to the 1190s-1240s in which birch-bark !439 was discovered.145 In this

way, the birch-barks mention of non-ferrous metals and wax makes sense and confirms

the existence of a workshop at the site. In view of Spirok’s apparent connection to the fur

trade – on the one hand – and non-ferrous metals (and perhaps cloth) – on the other – it

can be suggested that he operated a workshop at his yard to produce beads and jewelry,

145 A.S. Khoroshev, “Raskopy iuzhnoi chasti Plotnitskogo kontsa,” Arkheologicheskoe izuchenie Novgoroda, 184; E.A. Rybina, Arkheologicheskie ocherki istorii Novgorodskoi torgovle (Moscow, 1978), 117; V.L. Ianin, Ia poslal tebe berestu... (Moscow, 1975), 202.

338

which he could use to obtain fur from the Russian North which, in turn, he could convert

on the market into more raw resources.

Birch-bark !420 (1230s-1260s) from Novgorod may also have been a piece of

correspondence between wholesale merchants of pelts. The text states the following:

From Panko to Zakharii and to Ogafon. I sold 40 beavers (pelts) to Miliata for 10 grivnas of silver. When [you, Ogafon] receive the silver, then hand over the beavers and give the silver to Zakharii.146

Panko is writing to Ogafon to inform him that he should obtain silver from Miliata and

give it to Zakharii for the 40 beaver skins which Panko sold to Miliata. Because the

birch-bark was addressed to Ogafon and Zakharii, but the order was made only to

Ogafon, it becomes clear that Panko intended Zakharii to see the birch-bark, i.e., view the

“paperwork” of the deal. From the context of this text, it is clear that it served as a

dispatch to notify Ogafon and Zakharii that a commercial deal was struck by Panko to

sell Zakharii’s beaver pelts to Miliata. In this way, this birch-bark is a record of a

commercial deal set up by two middlemen (Panko and Ogafon).147 These two characters

were working together in some form of a corporate arrangement and were also acting as

fur-trade brokers. This particular commercial operation dealt with the sale of 40 beaver

pelts for 10 grivnas of silver or ca. 2 kilograms of silver148 (each pelt cost ca. 50 grams of

silver), which is a significant sum.

One more birch-bark can be added to the above texts – !6 dating to the mid-

thirteenth century. Unlike the previous birch-barks, this text was found in Pskov which,

146 Zalizniak, DD, 391-392; NGB: 1962-1976, 28-29. The English translation is mine. 147 A.V. Cherepnin, Novgorodskie berestianye gramoty kak istoricheskii istochnik (Moscow, 1968), 283. 148 NGB: 1962-1976, 28.

339

as discussed above, was an important Novgorodian town during the late pre-Mongol era

and a key fur-trade center for the Baltic in the following centuries. It states the following:

From Kiurik and from Gerasim to Onfim. About squirrel pelts: if you (pl.149) still have not sold (them), then send (them here) immediately, since (here) we have demand for squirrel pelts. And about you: if you will be free, then come to us ! Ksinofont ruined (things) for us. And about this person: we do not know him; and God’s will and yours are needed (to decide this matter).150

Apparently, Kiurik and Gerasim were asking Onfim whether he had any pelts left that

they could sell because they had found a customer. Next, they tell him that if he is

available, then he should come to help them resolve some conflict with Ksinofont who, in

the words of the author, “ruined things” for all of them. According to him, Ksinofont was

unknown to them and it cannot be determined what he did to “ruin things” for them.

However, from the context of the message, it can be suggested that Ksinofont was

another merchant who somehow damaged their commercial dealings. Apparently,

whatever he did, he did not succeed in compromise their sale/transaction.

It is important to note that Kiurik and Gerasim inquired from Onfim whether he and

someone else have sold the pelts. In light of this, it would stand to reason that at least four

partners were involved in these commercial operations. Thus, this text, like birch-barks

!420, !713, and !439, appears to have been a part of a correspondence between a

corporation/group of several merchants negotiating various commercial deals which

involved pelts. In her evaluation of this birch-bark text, E.A. Rybina suggests that it may

have been sent from one of the traditional depots on the trans-Baltic trade routes, such as

149 Zalizniak, Kolosova, and Labutina have convincingly demonstrated that the question was addressed in the plural; see A.A. Zalizniak, I.O. Kolosova, I.K. Labutina, “Pskovskie berestianye gramoty 6 i 7,” RA 1 (1993), 202. 150 Zalizniak, DD, 422-424. The English translation is mine.

340

Novgorod.151 Indeed, while it may seem economically irrational for pelts to be sent from

Pskov to Novgorod since Novgorod was the most-likely source of these pelts initially,

one has to take into account the highly developed state of communications and transport

between these two towns. First, the birch-bark text !6 from Pskov, itself, illustrates that

the request for the transfer of furs was not out of the ordinary. Apparently, just as birch-

barks could travel from one city to another, merchandise could also be dispatched via the

same routes. Using the same communication routes as those which transmitted birch-

barks, the merchants of northwestern Rus’ could dispatch not only information, but also

goods from one market to another, depending on where the best prices could be found.

Judging from the text of the present birch-bark, such a system existed. In addition to

these mechanisms, Kievan Rus’ differed from Latin Europe in that it adopted the

Byzantine lenience towards moneylending.152 In Kievan Rus’ moneylending was never

persecuted by either the Church or society, thereby providing merchants with easy access

to credit, a key tool and sources of capital for conducting their commercial operations.153

151 Zalizniak, Kolosova, Labutina, “Pskovskie berestianye gramoty 6 i 7,” 204. 152 For early Byzantine moneylending, see E. Bianchi, “In tema d’usura. Canoni conciliari e legislazione imperiale del IV secolo I,” Athenaeum 61 (1983), 321-342; idem, “In tema d’usura. Canoni conciliari e legislazione imperiale del IV secolo I,” Athenaeum 62 (1984), 136-153; A.P. Kazhdan, Derevnia i gorod v Vizantii: IX-X vv. (Moscow, 1960), 294-299. For the major works regarding usury and moneylending in western Europe, see J.T. Jr. Noonan, The Scholastic Analysis of Usury (Cambridge, Mass., 1957); B.N. Nelson, The Idea of Usury: From Tribal Brotherhood to Universal Otherhood, 2nd. ed. (Chicago, 1969); L.K. Little, Religious Poverty and the Profit Economy in Medieval Europe (Ithaca, N.Y., 1978); O. Langholm, The Aristotelian Analysis of Usury (Bergen, 1984); J. Shatzmiller, Shylock Reconsidered: Jews, Moneylenders, and Medieval Society (Berkeley, 1990). 153 For the discussion of communications, the transfer of goods, and credit in Kievan Rus’, see Noonan, Kovalev, “Chto govoriat berestianye gramoty,” 27-49.

341

* * *

In conclusion, this chapter considered a variety of oft neglected topics, all of which

were connected to the internal mechanics of Novgorod’s fur trade: the key Novgorodian

trade routes located in its core domains, the operations of its two main ports (Staraia

Ladoga and Novgorod), and the infrastructure of its fur market. The above discussion

illustrated that the city’s trade routes were many and involved not just the waterways, but

also overland roads which could be used for transport and communication during the

winter with the use of sleds. The Novgorodian routes had a very wide reach, including

the eastern Baltic in the west, Smolensk, Kiev, and Byzantium in the south, and Suzdalia,

Volga Bulgh!ria and the Islamic world of the Caspian Sea basin in the east. At the

junctions of these routes within the hinterlands of the Novgorodian domains or at the city,

itself, the main systems of communications were dotted by numerous fortified and

unfortified way-stations, some of which acted as administrative-fiscal centers where tolls

could be levied, others as defense points, while others simply as rest stops for merchants.

Within the core of this vast line of defense-control points stood the Novgorodian abbeys

and their fortifications which surrounded the city from all sides. Having passed

monasteries and nunneries, one could enter the heart of the city and its port.

Novgorod, being a shallow-water port, could not accommodate the deepwater vessels

of the Baltic. From the tenth century on – or the time Novgorod was established – these

seagoing ships had to be anchored at the deep waters of Staraia Ladoga which was

located downriver along the Volkhov. Gotlandic-Norse vessels, German cogs, and the

Novgorodian seagoing craft harbored in Staraia Ladoga where their goods were loaded

and unloaded from and onto large flat-bottom barges. Using these barges, the visiting and

342

the local Novgorodian merchants transported their goods back and forth between Staraia

Ladoga and Novgorod. These barges were hired out by the visiting merchants and,

probably, the Novgorodians themselves for a fee. Along the way between the two towns,

various facilities and guides were made available to the merchants to make their journey

as safely and easily as possible.

On reaching Novgorod, merchants had all of the necessary port facilities made

available to them. Visiting German and Gotlandic traders had their own docks near the

Central Market, located next to the docks of the Novgorodian princes and a number of

local corporate merchants. These docks were maintained and controlled by city officials

at the expense of those who used them. In addition to these docks, piers or some other

type of landing facilities appear to have existed at each of the streets running east-west in

the city where they terminated at the banks of the Volkhov. There is reason to believe

that these landing places were under the jurisdiction of the street communes who policed

and maintained them, in much the same way as they regulated the activities of their

streets and kept them in a state of repair. At these docks or landing places, goods were

unloaded by special haulers and transported to warehouses along the well-maintained

wooden streets of Novgorod. All of this could be had for a fee. All of these port facilities

were available to merchants for a fee on leaving Novgorod.

While there is little doubt that all sorts of warehouses existed in Novgorod, the highly

valued but very perishable merchandise such as pelts needed special storage facilities that

were fire, moisture, and theft-resistant. The available evidence suggests that the

Novgorodian churches served this purpose. The highest concentration of churches in

Novgorod could be found at and near the Central Market. There, foreign merchants, the

343

princes of Novgorod, the Novgorodian archbishops, and also private local merchants

stored a large part of the furs that were traded on the Novgorodian fur market. Other

pockets of high church-concentrations could be found near the urban properties of the

Novgorodian boyars who served as mayors of the city. Being responsible for the

collection of pelts as state revenues from the Novgorodian domains and their proper

distribution, it would be natural for the mayors to store their stashes of pelts inside their

private houses of worship.

All of the pelts brought to Novgorod and deposited inside the churches-warehouses

eventually found their way on the city’s huge fur market. However, at least based on later

records, it does not appear that most of Novgorod’s fur trade was conducted directly at

the city’s Central Market. The merchants trading from the booths at the main marketplace

seem to have been small-scale traders or retailers who mainly accommodated the needs

of the local consumers. Most of the Novgorodian furs were sold by large-scale merchants

or wholesale dealers who did not have their own booths at the market. These merchants

were responsible for the sale of princely pelts – probably the largest-single seller of furs

in the city – as well as the Novgorodian mayors who disposed of the pelts they collected

as municipal revenues, and the archbishop who received pelts as tithes from the princes.

It is probable that private wholesalers also existed in the city, but the sources simply do

not speak of them.

A number of birch-bark texts, however, provide some idea of the everyday operations

of large-scale fur merchants in Novgorod and its town of Pskov. Based on these texts,

these merchants operated within some form of a corporate relationship. They used these

commercial arrangements to broker various deals and transfer capital (including pelts)

344

from one market to another. The birch-barks also speak of merchants trading the

traditional goods exported from Novgorod – furs and wax – and the most common items

of Baltic imports – non-ferrous metals and cloth. Some of the merchants involved in the

trade of these goods were also engaged in their private jewelry industry for which they

used the imported non-ferrous metals and wax. In this way, they supplemented to their

incomes not only by the value-added process when converting raw materials into finished

products, but may well have used the finished goods for trade with the Russian North

which brought them more pelts to sell.

In sum, the infrastructure of the Novgorodian routes, the well-developed port

facilities, safe warehouses, the organization of the Novgorodian market and the corporate

relations of the large-scale fur merchants provided Novgorod with the needed apparatus

for the disposal of thousands of pelts annually onto the markets on western and central

Eurasia. In return for the pelts, the Novgorodians received all sorts of goods which were

discussed in Chapter II. Many of these goods, such as wine, olive oil, textiles, walnuts,

glass items, and various other luxury items were locally consumed, but some were also

exported to the Russian North in exchange for pelts, as is evident by their finds at sites

such as Beloozero, the Minino way-station, the Kema toll post, or the Slavensk portage

settlements. Other goods such as raw non-ferrous metals imported from the Baltic,

however, were reworked by the Novgorodians into jewelry which was used not only by

the Novgorodians for their own apparel, but also in trade with the Finno-Ugrians from

whom more pelts could be exchanged for more non-ferrous metals. In this way, the

Novgorodian fur market was only partially consumer-oriented. A large part of the

345

imported goods were also used in craft-production and in trade, thereby increasing the

relative wealth of the city.

CONCLUSION

Founded in the 920s-930s, Novgorod quickly developed into one of the most

important fur-trade centers in medieval western Eurasia. Its location in northwestern Rus’

gave Novgorod easy access to both the eastern Baltic and Northern Europe and the many

cross-continental river networks of the interior of Russia. The latter routes connected

Novgorod to the Black Sea and the Byzantine Empire via the Dnepr, the Caspian Sea and

the Islamic Near East via the upper Volga-Don-Severskii Donets-lower Volga or by

following the entire course of the Volga, and Muslim Central Asia via the middle Volga

and its caravan routes. Along these same rivers lay many towns of other Rus’

principalities. These many connections provided Novgorod with numerous potential

commercial partners and markets for its pelts.

Most of the pelts sold by the Novgorodians originated in its vast colonial domains

known as Zavoloch’e, a region stretching across most of northern European Russia from

Novgorod north and northeast to the Arctic Circle and the western foothills of the Urals.

As with its international trade ties, Novgorod’s advantageous location gave it relatively

easy access to the Russian North. Through a vast network of rivers, lakes, and portages in

Zavoloch’e, the Novgorodians were able to access a massive supply of pelts in the far-

distant taiga and tundra regions of northern Russia. One of the key elements needed for

Novgorod to develop into a leading, if not the most important, fur-trade center in the

Middle Ages was the establishment of demand for pelts in the western and central

Eurasian markets. Such a demand arose in the early Middle Ages.

The origin of the Novgorodian fur trade seems to stem from the changing fashions in

the southern regions of early medieval western Eurasia. While there is very little, if any,

347

indication that furs were worn by the peoples of the ancient Mediterranean-Near Eastern

world, there is considerable evidence for the wearing of furs in the late Roman/early

medieval eras. This shift in fashion appears to be directly connected with the

“barbarization” of the old Roman Empire by Germanic peoples of the European North.

By the sixth century, furs had become fashionable and a luxury item among the

“progressive” population of the New Rome – Constantinople.

The new fashion for wearing furs in the old Roman territories seems to have spread to

the neighboring and newly-established Islamic Empire in the Near East. This appears to

be a new phenomenon in the region since furs were not popular in the late Persian or

Sasanian Empire and their immediate successors in the Near East – the Islamic Umayyad

Caliphate – sources are replete with references to the wearing of furs by Muslims

beginning with the early !Abb"sid period, i.e., ca. 750. Written evidence shows that by

the second half of the eighth century, the wearing of fur became well established in the

Islamic world and furs were in great demand for centuries to come from Central Asia to

the eastern Mediterranean lands of Islam.

While furs were probably always worn in northern and northwestern Europe, by the

tenth-eleventh centuries, high-quality furs had clearly become a fashion among the ruling

elite, remaining such in these parts of Europe for centuries. Taken as a whole, by the time

Novgorod was established in the first decades of the tenth century, there already existed a

great demand for pelts throughout much of western and central Eurasia.

The Rus’ responded quickly to the growing demand for pelts. Written and numismatic

sources show that the Rus’ fur trade initiated as early as the first decade of the ninth

century when Rus’ merchants began traveling to as far as Baghd"d to exchange their pelts

348

for dirhams or Islamic silver coins. This ninth-century trade has been dubbed as the

“Caspian Phase” of Rus’ commercial relations with the Muslim East since the main trade

routes passed from northwestern Russia to the Near East via the lands of the Khazars and

the Caucasus/Caspian Sea region. The main route by which dirhams entered northwestern

Russia along the “Khazar Way” or from the lower Don-Severskii Donets basins to the

Oka and its river-systems onto the upper Volga from where it was possible to enter the

Volkhov river to reach Novgorod.

Numismatics suggests that by the last two decades of the ninth century, the intensity

of Rus’ trade with the Near East significantly declined in volume. However, the Rus’

continued to sell their pelts for Near Eastern dirhams into the tenth century and, in the

eleventh through the time of the Mongol conquest, dirhams were substituted for various

luxury/high-value items such as glass objects, precious wood, semi-precious stones,

ceramics, and silks. After the ninth century, much of the commercial traffic of the old

“Khazar Way” route shifted east and came to use the entire course of the Volga via the

lands of the Volga Bulgh!rs located in the middle of its course. After the fall of Khazaria

in ca. 965, much of the Rus’ trade with the Near East continued to be carried out down

the Volga through the Volga Bulgh!r intermediaries.

While commercial relations with the Near East continued after the ninth century, this

trade was dwarfed by the volume of commerce that accompanied the initiation of the next

phase of Rus’ commercial relations with the Islamic East – the “S!m!nid Phase.” This

new phase involved Rus’ trade with the S!m!nid em"rate of Central Asia. Like trade with

the Near East, these commercial contacts were handled via the lands of Volga Bulgh!ria.

349

For nearly a century, during this stage of Rus’ commercial contacts with the Islamic East,

Rus’ merchants exported millions of pelts in exchange for millions of dirhams. In fact,

based on the finds of thousands of dirham hoards in northern Europe, it has been

determined that during the course of the tenth century, more than 125,000,000 whole

S!m!nid dirhams were imported into European Russia mainly in payment for Rus’ furs.

Most of these dirhams gravitated to northwestern Russia or the lands of Novgorod, a

large part of which were subsequently re-exported into the Baltic.

The intense trade of Rus’ pelts for S!m!nid silver declined in the last decades of the

tenth century and came to an end by the turn of the eleventh century. The drop and

termination of dirham imports into the Rus’ lands can be ascribed to the general political

and economic decay of the S!m!nid em"rate that began in the middle of the tenth century.

As a result, the S!m!nids were unable to strike the same high volumes of dirhams (and of

the same high quality in regard to their silver content) as they had in the first part of the

tenth century. At the same time, the end of dirham imports into the Rus’ lands after the

tenth century does not indicate that Rus’ trade with Central Asia ceased to exist. As with

the Near East, the Rus’ continued to maintain commercial relations with Central Asia via

the Volga Bulgh!r middlemen after the tenth century, but now came to substitute silver

for various luxury goods such as silks, semi-precious stones, ceramics, glass, and other

goods. With the second half of the twelfth century, by annexing segments of the upper

Volga route, the northeastern Rus’ principality of Suzdalia came to act as an additional

middleman for Novgorod’s trade with Central Asia as well as the Near East.

350

As the Rus’ merchants began their commercial contacts with the S!m!nids in the

early tenth century, they also developed trade relations with Byzantium. There are

reasons to believe that Novgorod came to act as one of the chief regions which supplied

furs to the Byzantine market. Already in the mid-tenth century, Princess Ol’ga of Rus’

established a new administrative-tribute collection system in the lands of Novgorod

which, no doubt, was designed to provide Kiev – the capital of the Rus’ lands – with

sufficient quantities of pelts that could be traded with Byzantium. However, Byzantine-

Rus’ trade relations did not involve silver. From the mid-sixth century, the Byzantines

affectively enforced restrictions on the commercial exportation of precious metals beyond

the Imperial territories. Therefore, the Rus’ had to settle for other luxuries such as wine,

olive oil, silks, glass items, and other commodities. The trade of pelts with the Empire in

exchange for these goods continued more or less uninterrupted throughout the Kievan

era.

As in the Muslim and Byzantine worlds, furs were in great demand among the

medieval elite in Latin Europe. Although Novgorod was not the only fur market in

Northern Europe, it did act as the chief supplier of pelts for central and western Europe

during the Middle Ages. Written and numismatic evidence shows that Novgorod began to

act as a major exporter of pelts into the Baltic beginning with the early years of the

eleventh century. The establishment of Novgorodian trade relations with the west can be

explained by the decline and termination of the Rus’ trade of pelts for Islamic silver and

the inaccessibility of silver in the Byzantine markets. Since the Rus’ were mostly

interested in exchanging their furs for silver, they had to look for new commercial

partners who could provide it. The Rus’ – the Novgorodians in particular – found their

351

new source of silver in the early eleventh-century Baltic. By voyaging into the Baltic

themselves, or through the Gotlandic, German, and Western Slavic (Pomeranian)

merchants who came to Novgorod, the Novgorodians exchanged their pelts for central

and west European silver coins or deniers.

Novgorod’s exchange of pelts for deniers ceased with the turn of the twelfth century.

Over the course of the eleventh century, deniers lost their relatively standard form in size,

weight, and silver content, thereby greatly complicating large-scale commercial

operations. For this reason, Baltic merchants began to use various commodities such as

non-ferrous metals and textiles, in addition to silver ingots which were much easier to test

for purity and use in accounting to purchase Novgorodian pelts.

Although German merchants had been visiting Novgorod since the mid-eleventh

century, at that time they were not the leading Baltic traders who purchased Novgorodian

furs and exported them westwards. Gotlanders appear to have had the upper hand in

Novgorod’s fur trade during the eleventh century. However, with the turn of the twelfth

century, the German or the proto-Hansa merchants, asserted their economic dominance in

the Baltic by establishing German-based commercial confederations with Gotland and

other Baltic nations. Like the Gotlandic merchants, the Germans founded a permanent

base or Kontor in Novgorod for maintaining more direct and intimate commercial

contacts with the city. For the rest of the Kievan period and into the Mongol era,

commercial relations with the Germans became the basis for Novgorod’s fur trade with

the Baltic.

In addition to the use of primary written sources, archaeology, and numismatics to

study the Novgorodian fur trade with the outside, its origins and development can also be

352

traced by following the diffusion of the sorochok/timber – the most common unit of

account and packaging used in the fur trade from the early Middle Ages until the modern

period. While it is still not clear how the sorochok/timber came into being and what were

its origins, sources point to its earliest use in the Novgorodian fur trade. The discovery of

the so-called sorochok/timber tally in Novgorod dating to the 977-980 – the earliest such

example – shows that this unit of account was known and used in the city at this early

date. Slightly later, written sources such as the birch-bark texts, substantiate the earliest

use of this unit in the lands of Novgorod.

Sources also reveal that the Novgorodians counted out pelts into sorochoks/timber

units with the assistance of wooden tallies. Once sorted into sorochoks/timbers, furs were

packed into bundles of 40s (consisting of four smaller bundles of 10s), placed into sacks,

and then transported overseas in wooden barrels. This practice continued from the tenth

century well into the later Middle Ages. Through Novgorod’s fur trade with other lands

of western Eurasia, this unit was diffused far beyond the borders of northwestern Russia

over the course of the Middle Ages. The use of tallies for counting out sorochoks/timbers

also spread from Novgorod. The finds of similar types of tallies dating from ca. 1200 to

the fifteenth centuries in Scandinavia, for example, shows that once the pelts were

exported from Novgorod, Baltic merchants continued to package and repackage pelts

using this unit.

The early use of the 40-unit in the Novgorodian fur trade can also help explain several

medieval linguistic puzzles. First, the unique Rus’ word sorockok/sorok or “forty” seems

to have derived from the Middle Greek word “!"#$%&'("” meaning “forty.” Apparently,

this term entered the Rus’ lexicon when the Rus’ brought their 40s of pelts to the

353

Byzantine markets where the Greek merchants called them “!"#$%&'(".” With time, the

Rus’ merchants themselves began to call their 40s of pelts sorochoks and, thus,

transmitted the Slavicized version of the Greek term to the Rus’ lands where it became

the common word for 40. In a somewhat similar manner, the Rus’ 40-unit of pelts came

to be called timber in Germanic languages. When the German merchants visited

Novgorod to purchase pelts, the Rus’ counted out their 40s on wooden tallies used

specifically to count out the sorochok unit. Since the Rus’ called this tally “doska” or

“wooden board,” the German merchants began to call the 40-units of pelts timber or

“wood.”

While much of the above concerns issues connected to external Novgorodian fur trade

relations, it is imperative to understand how the internal mechanism of this trade

functioned. Among the key issues is the role played by the native peoples – the Finno-

Ugrians – who inhabited Zavoloch’e and provided most of the pelts for the Novgorodian

fur market. The hunting-gathering economy of the Finno-Ugrians permitted them to

provide seemingly limitless pelts. From early childhood, they were trained not only to

survive in the severe climate and environment of the Russian North, but also become

master hunters and trappers of fur-bearing animals. However, located in the far-distant

regions of Zavoloch’e and unwilling to part with their pelts without incentives, there

arose a demand for various commodities that they were either easily unable to obtain or

produce themselves.

Due to the absence of natural deposits of non-ferrous metals in European Russa, these

commodities were in high demand among the inhabitants of this area. For this reason,

among the most important Novgorodian items of trade with the Finno-Ugrians included

354

objects made of non-ferrous metals in the form of coins, jewelry, dishware, ingots as well

as other objects made of these metals. The Finno-Ugrians mainly used coins as a part of

their costumes; some of the non-ferrous metals they melted down and worked into their

own jewelry; a part of the silver and bronze dishware they used in their religious

practices by depositing them in sacrificial pits or burying them in their sanctuaries; and,

the rest functioned as prestige items for the elite. In addition to objects made of non-

ferrous metals, beads of various types also were in great demand as well as high-quality

iron implements among the Finno-Ugrians. Finally, in exchange for furs, other items such

as silks, clothing, and salt were also imported, albeit, apparently, in smaller quantities to

trade with the Finno-Ugrians.

The Finno-Ugrians could use all of these goods themselves, but some they could also

give to their neighbors as gifts/diplomatic tokens of friendship for solidifying political

alliances. In this way, not all the goods the peoples of the Russian North received in

exchange for their pelts were used for consumer purposes. Political/diplomatic and social

status concerns also drove the indigenous peoples to hunt-trap fur-bearing animals and

sell their pelts to merchants who could satisfy their specific demands.

While the Novgorodians were able to easily satisfy some of the Finno-Ugrian

demands with various objects made locally such as iron implements, many items for this

trade such as silks, various types of beads (glass, stone, and metal), coins, and other

objects made of non-ferrous metals had to be imported. During the Kievan era, the

Novgorodians learned how to produce some of these goods themselves and substitute

them for imports. Such was the case with the local Novgorodian production of glass and

amber beads which began in the eleventh century and perhaps even earlier. Beads,

355

however, were inexpensive to produce and did not necessarily require imported raw

materials for their manufacture. The more difficult dilemma for the Novgorodians was to

acquire non-ferrous (precious and semi-precious) metals for the production of jewelry.

Like the peoples of Zavoloch’e, the Novgorodians also lacked direct access to natural

reserves of non-ferrous metals. As the Finno-Ugrians, the Novgorodians needed these

metals for making jewelry and ornaments for their own apparel. In view of the high

demand for these metals in European Russia, the Novgorodians devised a system by

which they could import non-ferrous metals from the outside in exchange for pelts which

they obtained from the Finno-Ugrians. The system did not just involve the import and

export of the two items via the city. Novgorod was not simply a clearinghouse for pelts

and non-ferrous metals, profits from which were retained by the city to purchase

disposable luxuries. Instead of exchanging the metals in their raw form, the

Novgorodians learned to increase their profit margins by converting non-ferrous metals

into jewelry and ornaments that could be traded with the inhabitants of Zavoloch’e. By

way of this value-added process, the Novgorodians obtained silver coins, raw copper,

lead, brass, zinc, and other non-ferrous metals from the Islamic world and the Baltic,

converted a portion of them into jewelry and ornaments, and then proceeded to trade the

finished product with the Finno-Ugrians. The profits they made from this trade the

Novgorodians then used to obtain additional raw metals which they fashioned into more

finished goods that soon translated into more pelts. By way of this circular trade and the

value-added process at its middle course, the Novgorodian fur trade could only expand,

bring great wealth into the city, and develop its craft production.

356

The existence of a notable Finno-Ugrian component in the city’s ethno-cultural

makeup, which consisted primarily of Slavic peoples and some Scandinavians, gave

Novgorod a key advantage for the development of its trade with the peoples of the

Russian North. While the Finno-Ugrians were quickly absorbed into the overwhelmingly

Slavic society of Novgorod, many traces of Finno-Ugrian culture persisted well into the

Middle Ages, as is evident by the continuous taste for Finno-Ugrian jewelry in the city

and the appearance of Finnic names and the various Finno-Ugrian linguistic elements in

the birch-bark texts. In part, the permanent presence of Finno-Ugrian culture in the city

may have come with the constant migration of these peoples into Novgorod and, in part,

through the close contacts Novgorod had with northern Russia through trade, tribute

collection, and colonial presence. Through these contacts, the Novgorodian craftsmen

came to be familiar with the aesthetic and stylistic tastes of the Finno-Ugrians of

Zavoloch’e and provide them with the desired jewelry and other items that could be

traded for their pelts.

Close interaction with the Finno-Ugrian world also significantly contributed to the

development of the Novgorodian transport devices used in their fur trade with the peoples

of Zavoloch’e. Being migrants from southeastern Europe, the Slavs, who came to settle

the future lands of Novgorod during the eighth-tenth centuries, had little knowledge of

how to survive in the northern climbs of the globe, including the types of transport

devices necessary for the exploitation of the region. Centuries prior to the advent of

Novgorod and its fur trade, the indigenous Finno-Ugrians had invented skis, sleds, used

dogs and caribou for pulling the latter, and dugout canoes, all of which served as practical

and convenient methods of transporting people and goods across great distances over the

357

very difficult terrains and water-systems of northern Russia. On arriving in northwestern

Russia, the Slavic migrants learned to use skis and sleds not only for communications and

trade within the core Novgorodian regions, but also to reach Zavoloch’e and the Finno-

Ugrians who had vast reserves of pelts. Without these technological borrowings, fur trade

for the Novgorodians with the Russian North would have been difficult, if not

impossible.

The Finno-Ugrians also greatly contributed to the hunting-trapping practices of the

Novgorodian Slavs. While it is difficult to ascertain most of the borrowings made by the

Slavs from the indigenous peoples in the sphere of hunting and trapping, the wide

employment of blunt-tip arrowheads – a device used by the peoples of the Russian North

since the Stone Age for hunting fur-bearing animals – by the citizens of Novgorod and

Novgorodian colonists in the far-distant Russian North clearly illustrates one such

adaptation. Although this cannot be proven, it is very likely that the Slavs also learned to

use the many ingenious trapping devices and other hunting methods known to the Finno-

Ugrians.

Taken all together, the Finno-Ugrians played an indispensable role in the

Novgorodian fur trade. They not only provided Novgorod with vast supplies of pelts

annually for its market, but also offered the Novgorodians colonists in Zavoloch’e with

well-established technologies and know-how that could be use in the fur trade. By

passing on the aesthetic and stylistic tastes of the indigenous peoples of the Russian

North, the use of skis, sleds, dugout canoes, blunt-tip arrowheads, and other hunting-

trapping methods, the Finno-Ugrians supplied Novgorod with many key elements of its

fur trade infrastructure.

358

Merchants who traveled to Zavoloch’e from Novgorod mainly used relatively small

river boats since larger craft would have been impractical for navigating the many narrow

and shallow rivers and crossing the numerous portages. However, these boats would have

been sufficient for transporting significant numbers of relatively small (e.g., beads, coins,

jewelry, and iron implements) items that were traded for light-weight furs. Whether

transporting goods to or from Zavoloch’e, traders were mostly dealing with high-value

commodities, not bulk products. Therefore, small river boats were all they needed for

their trade.

Most of the trade conducted in the Russian North appears to have been carried out at

the Rus’ colonial portage and way-station settlements located along the key water routes

in Zavoloch’e. Not surprisingly, merchants seem to have been most active in the southern

regions of Zavoloch’e, areas that were closer to the core regions of the Rus’ lands.

However, the deeper one penetrated into Zavoloch’e, the higher the profit-margins one

would have. It is evident that the far-distant regions of Zavoloch’e were never inundated

with imported goods, thereby merchants could bring fewer items to trade for more pelts

with this region. However, the difficulties of travel to the distant regions of Zavoloch’e

apparently dissuaded many Novgorodian merchants to trade with this area directly,

particularly since the Rus’ colonial settlements were connected by way of extensive

networks to many parts of Zavoloch’e.

The colonial settlements were ideal places to negotiate commercial activities for the

Novgorodian merchants. At these sites, they could secure provisions and

accommodations, the servicing of their boats and assistance with crossing the portages,

and negotiate local commercial transactions. Aside from accommodating the passing

359

traffic, Rus’ colonists were actively engaged in hunting and trapping fur-bearing animals

in the hinterlands of their settlements and selling their pelts to the traveling merchants.

Through their contacts with Finno-Ugrians who inhabited the hinterlands of their

settlements, colonists were also able to obtain additional furs in exchange for the goods

brought to them by the Novgorodian merchants. These Finno-Ugrians acted as

intermediaries between the colonists and the merchants who came to buy their pelts, on

the one hand, and the more distant indigenous tribes, on the other. Through these

commercial interrelationships, furs gravitated to the relatively accessible colonial sites

while the various goods brought from Novgorod to Zavoloch’e in exchange for the pelts

were diffused throughout the distant and vast territories of the Russian North. Using skis,

sleds, and dugout canoes, Rus’ colonists and the native inhabitants of Zavoloch’e were

able to communicate and transport pelts from the hinterlands to the colonial settlements.

No doubt, sometimes the visiting Novgorodian merchants also used these transport

devices for penetrating deep into Zavoloch’e from the colonial bases.

Some of the Rus’ colonists were also engaged in the production of jewelry from the

raw materials they received from Novgorod. Using imported non-ferrous metals, colonial

artisans fashioned jewelry not only for their own use, also styles that would have

appealed to the natives of the Zavoloch’e. As in Novgorod, a portion of the inhabitants of

the Rus’ colonial settlements were local Finno-Ugrians. Thus, like the Novgorodian

jewelry-makers, the colonial craftsmen had an idea of what types of ornaments and styles

the native peoples of Zavoloch’e required in their jewelry. No doubt, the colonists also

produced iron implements, pottery, and other items as additional objects for trade with

the hinterlands. Overall, some of the colonial settlements appear to have been a kind of a

360

small-scale Novgorod in that they not only acted as redistribution points/clearinghouses

for pelts from which they reaped profits, but also “industrial” sites where craftsmen

processed imported and locally-available raw resources into finished goods. Through this

value-added process, the colonists – like the Novgorodians – created greater profits and

wealth for themselves and the inhabitants of their settlements.

Once merchants transported the pelts they acquired in Zavoloch’e to Novgorod, they

had to be properly stored, disposed of on the market, and shipped overseas. The highly

valued, but perishable, merchandise such as pelts needed special storage facilities that

were fire, moisture, and theft-resistant. It appears that Novgorodian churches, particularly

those made of stone, served as the main warehouses for the pelts. A portion of the pelts

were carried from the churches directly to the Novgorodian city-market. However, there

are reasons to believe that the Central Market (Torg) serviced mainly the local

Novgorodian consumer needs. The fur traders who operated out of their booths at the

market were retail merchants who were engaged in the small-scale sales of pelts. The

bulk of the Novgorodian furs were handled by large-scale merchants or wholesale dealers

who did not operate booths at the market. The large-scale merchants were responsible for

the sale of princely pelts – probably the largest-single seller of furs in the city – as well as

the Novgorodian mayors who disposed of the pelts they collected as municipal revenues,

and the archbishop who received pelts as tithes from the princes. It is probable that

private wholesalers also existed in the city, but the sources simply do not speak of them.

The Novgorodian wholesale merchants appear to have operated within some form of

a corporate relationship. They used these relations to broker various deals and transfer

capital (including pelts) from one market to another. Some of the merchants were

361

involved not only in the sale of furs, but also wax, non-ferrous metals, and cloth – all

chief items of Novgorodian import and export with the German Baltic cities in the

twelfth-thirteenth centuries. While engaged mainly in trade, there were merchants who

also employed artisans at their urban properties or yards in Novgorod to convert the raw

materials they acquired through their trade, such as non-ferrous metals and wax (used for

making jewelry-molds) into jewelry. In doing so, they supplemented their incomes not

only by the value-added process when converting raw materials into finished products,

but used the finished goods for trade with the Russian North which brought them more

pelts to sell for more metals. In many ways, the multifaceted operations of these

merchants provide a kind of a microcosm of the way Novgorod, as a city, functioned.

Novgorod had access to many key trade routes, both overland roads and waterways.

These routes could function in winter (using sleds) as well as summer months (using

barges and seagoing vessels). By way of its routes that stretched into the eastern Baltic in

the west, Smolensk, Kiev, and Byzantium in the south, and Suzdalia, Volga Bulgh!ria

and the Caspian Sea basin and the Near East in the east, Novgorodian merchants could

dispose of their pelts in exchange for a great variety of goods. Within the lands of

Novgorod, these routes were well regulated by fortified and unfortified settlements as

well as fortified abbeys. These sites not only protected the commercial traffic and

entrances into the Novgorodian domains, but also functioned as service points to the

traveling merchants and acted as toll stations for the city.

Since Novgorod was a shallow-water port, it could not accommodated the deepwater

vessels of the Baltic. From the foundation of Novgorod in the early tenth century,

seagoing ships were anchored in the deep waters of Staraia Ladoga, a Novgorodian town

362

located on the route to the Baltic. German cogs, Gotlandic-Norse vessels, Pomeranian

ships, and Novgorodian seagoing craft harbored in Staraia Ladoga where their goods

were loaded and unloaded from and onto large flat-bottom barges. Using these barges,

the visiting and the local Novgorodian merchants hauled their goods back and forth

between Staraia Ladoga and Novgorod.

While there is no way to determine with certainty the types of seagoing vessels the

Novgorodians used to trade in the Baltic in the pre-Mongol era, the written sources

indicate that such ships existed. Based on the later evidence, there are reasons to believe

that the Novgorodian ships were relatively large and had considerable cargo capacities

when compared to the other ships used in the Baltic at the time. They were not as large as

the Scandinavian and German ships, but larger than the Pomeranian. In this way, it

appears that the Novgorodians were competitive shippers of furs during the pre-Mongol

era.

On reaching Novgorod, merchants had all of the necessary port facilities made

available to them. Visiting German and Gotlandic traders had their own docks near the

Central Market, located next to the docks of the Novgorodian princes and a number of

local corporate merchants. These docks were maintained and controlled by city officials

at the expense of those who used them. In addition to these docks, piers or some other

type of landing facilities appear to have existed at each of the streets running east-west in

the city where they terminated at the banks of the Volkhov. At these docks or landing

places, goods were unloaded by special haulers and transported to warehouses along the

well-maintained and policed wooden streets of Novgorod.

363

Overall, the infrastructure of the Novgorodian routes, the well-developed port

facilities, safe warehouses, the organization of the Novgorodian market and the corporate

relations of the large-scale fur merchants provided Novgorod with the required apparatus

for the disposal of thousands of pelts annually onto the markets of western and central

Eurasia. In return for the pelts, the Novgorodians received all sorts of high-value goods.

Although many of these items, such as wine, olive oil, textiles, walnuts, ceramics, glass

objects, and various other luxuries were consumed locally, some were also exported to

the Russian North in exchange for pelts. Other goods such as raw non-ferrous metals

imported from the Baltic, however, were reworked by the city craftsmen into jewelry

which was used not only by the Novgorodians for their own apparel, but also for trade

with the Finno-Ugrians from whom more pelts could be exchanged for more non-ferrous

metals. In this way, the Novgorodian fur market was only partially consumer-oriented. A

large part of the imported goods were also used in craft-production and in trade, thereby

increasing the relative wealth of the city and, at the same time, expanding its trade and

industry.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABBREVIATIONS AEMAe – Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi AO – Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia AOUP – Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia Urala i Povolzh’ia ASGE – Arkheologicheskii sbornik Gosudarstvennogo Ermitazha AV – Arkheologicheskie vesti CN – The Chronicle of Novgorod DGNT SSSR – Drevneishie gosudarstva na territorii SSSR DGVE – Drevneishie gosudarstva Vostochnoi Evropy FA – Fennoscandia archaeologica GVNP – Gramoty Velikogo Novgoroda i Pskova

RH/HR – Russian Russian History/Histoire Russe KSIA – Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta arkheologii KSIIMK - Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta istorii material’noi kul’tury Laws of Rus’ – The Laws of Rus’ MAESV – Materialy po arkheologii Evropeiskogo Severo-Vostoka MIA – Materialy i issledovaniia po arkheologii SSSR NGB - Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste NIS - Novgorodskii istoricheskii sbornik NNZ – Novgorod i Novgorodskaia zemlia NPL - Novgorodskaia pervaia letolis’ starshego i mladshego izvodov PSRL – Polnoe Sobranoe russkikh letopisei PVL – Povest’ vremennykh let

365

RA – Rossiiskaia arkheologiia RPC – The Russian Primary Chronicle SA – Sovetskaia arkheologiia SMERSH –The Supplement to the Modern Encyclopedia of Russian, Soviet & Eurasian History TIE – Trudy Instituta Etnografii TNAE – Trudy Novgorodskoi arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii TGIM – Trudy Gosudarstvennogo istoricheskogo muzeia VIa – Voprosy iazykoznaniia VID – Vspomogatel’nye istoricheskie distsipliny Zalizniak, DD – Drevnenovgorodskii dialect

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A Source Book for Russian History From Early Times to 1917, 1 [Early Times to the Late Seventeenth Century], ed. G. Vernadsky (Mew Haven-London, 1972). Aalto, M., Heinäjoki-Majander, H. “Archaeobotany and Palaeoenvironment of the Viking Age Town of Staraia Ladoga, Russia,” Birka Studies, IV: Environment and Vikings, ed. U. Miller and H. Clarke, (Stockholm-Rixensart, 1997). Ab! "#mid al-!arn#$%, Puteshestvie Abu Hamida al-Garnati, tr. O.G. Bol’shakov, comm. A.L. Mongait (Moscow, 1971). Ab!-Dulaf Mis’ar Ibn Muhalhil’s Travels in Iran (Circa A.D. 950), tr. and comm. V. Minorsky (Cairo, 1955). Adam of Bremen, History of the Archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen, tr. F.J. Tschan (New York, 1959). Alekseev, A.N., Gogolev, A.I., Zykov, I.E. Arkheologiia Iakutii (Epokha paleometallov i srednevekov’ia) (Iakutsk, 1991). Alekseev, L.V. Smolenskaia zemlia v IX-XIII vv. (Moscow, 1980). Aleshkovskii, M.Kh. “Lad’ia XI v. iz Novgoroda,” SA 2 (1969). Andersen, P.K. Kollerupkoggen (Thisted, 1983). Anderson, A.R. Alexander’s Gate, Gog and Magog, and the Inclosed Nations

366

(Cambridge, Mass., 1932). Andersson, T.M. The Problem of Icelandic Saga Origins: A Historical Survey [Yale Germanic Studies 1] (New Haven, 1964). Andreev, V.F. “Novgorodskie berestianye gramoty ! 601 i 609,” Proshloe Novgoroda i Novgorodskoi zemli (Novgorod, 1995). Andreeva, E.G. “Fauna poseleniia Krutik,” Belozerskaia Ves’ (po materialam poseleniia Krutik IX-X vv.) (Petrozavodsk, 1991). The Annals of Roger de Hoveden 2 (A.D. 1181-to A.D. 1201), tr. H.T. Riley (London, 1853). The Annals of St-Bertin: Ninth Century Histories 1, tr. J.L. Nelson (New York, 1991). Aristov, N. Promyshlennost’ Drevnei Rusi (St. Petersburg, 1866). Arkheologiia Novgoroda. Ukazatel’ literatury 1917-1980 gg. comp. P.G. Gaidukov (Moscow, 1983). Ukazatel’ literatury 1981-1990 gg. (Dopolneniia k ukazateliu za 1917-1990 gg.), comp. P.G. Gaidukov (Moscow, 1992). Ukazatel’ literatury 1991-1995 gg. (Dopolneniia k ukazateliu za 1917-1990 gg.) comp. P.G. Gaidukov (Novgorod, 1996). Arkhipov, G.A. Mariitsy IX-XI vv. (Ioshkar-Ola, 1973). Artsikhovskii, A.V. “Raskopki vostochnoi chasti Dvorishcha v Novgorode,” Materialy i issledovaniia po arkheologii drevnerusskikh gorodov 1 [MIA SSSR, 11] (Moscow- Leningrad, 1949). Drevnerusskie miniatiury kak istoricheskii istochnik (Moscow, 1944). “Assisa Regis David Regis Scottorum,” The Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland I: AD 1124-1423 (Edinburgh, 1844), 667. Atiquités russes d’aprés les monuments historiques des Islandais des anciens Scandinaves, II, ed. C.C. Rafn (Copenhagen, 1852). Ibn al-Ath!r, Tarikh-al-kamil’ Ibn-al-Asira (polnogo svoda istorii) (Baku, 1940). Avdusin, D.A., Mel’nikova, E.A. “Smolenskie gramoty na bereste (iz raskopov 1952- 1968),” DGNT SSSR: 1984 (Moscow, 1985). Åkerlund, H. “Gatlabäckbåtens ålder och härstamning,” Göteborgs och Bohusläns fornminnesförenings tidskrift (Göteborg, 1942). Fartygsfynden i den Forna Hamnen i Kalmar (Uppsala, 1951). Balashov, V.A., Luzgin, A.S., Prokina, T.P. “Odezhda,” Mordva: Istoriko-kul’turnye ocherki (Saransk, 1995), 183-186; V.E. Vladykin, L.S. Khristoliubova, Etnografiia udmurtov (Izhevsk, 1997).

367

Balina, N.N. “K arkheologicheskoi rekonstruktsii Kaninskogo i Un’inskogo peshchernykh sviatilishch na Pechorskom Urale,” Sviatilishcha: arkheologiia rituala i voprosy semantiki (St. Petersburg, 2000). Bannikov, K.L., Kuznetsova, E.A. “O smyslovykh znacheniiakh shamanskikh zerkal:

problemy teoreticheskogo osmysleniia kul’tovykh artefaktov,” Sibir’ v panorama tysiacheletii (Materialy mezhdonarodnovo simpoziuma) 2 (Novosibirsk, 1998).

Barthold, W. Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion (London, 1958). (Bartol’d, V.V.) Sochineniia II:1 (Moscow, 1963). Basilicorum libri, ed. H.J. Scheltema and N. van der Wal (Groningen, 1960). Bel’skii, S.V. “Voprosy proiskhozhdeniia i osnovnye napravleniia razvitiia

pogrebal’nogo obriada v Iugo-Vostochnom Priladozh’e (860-950-e gody),” Ladoga i religioznoe soznanie [Tretie chteniia pamiati Anny Machinskoi – Staraia Ladoga, 20-22 dekobria 1997 g. Materialy k chteniiam] (St. Petersburg, 1997).

Beletskii, S.V., Petrenko, V.P. “Pechati i plomby iz Staroi Ladogi (Svod),” Novye istochniki po arkheologii severo-zapada (St. Petersburg, 1994). Belitser, V.N. Narodnaia odezhda udmurtov [TIE 10] (Moscow, 1951). Ocherki po etnografii narodov Komi [TIE 45] (Moscow, 1958). Narodnaia odezhda mordvy [TIE 101] (Moscow, 1973). Belov, M.I., Ovsiannikov, O.V., Starkov, V.F. Mangazeia. Material’naia kul’tura russkikh poliarnykh morekhodov i zemleprokhodtsev XVI-XVII vv. 2 (Moscow, 1981). Bianchi, E. “In tema d’usura. Canoni conciliari e legislazione imperiale del IV secolo I,” Athenaeum 61 (1983). “In tema d’usura. Canoni conciliari e legislazione imperiale del IV secolo I,” Athenaeum 62 (1984). Birnbaum, H. Lord Novgorod the Great: Essays in the History and Culture of a Medieval City State, Pt. 1: The Historical Background (Columbus, OH, 1981). Abu Reikhan Biruni (973-1048), Izbrannye proizvedeniia, 3, tr. P.G. Bulgakov (Tashkent, 1966). Bogatkina, O.G. “Arkheozoologicheskie issledovaniia materialov gorodishchia Idnakar,” Materialy issledovanii gorodishcha Idnakar IX-XIII vv. (Izhevsk, 1995). Boguslavskii, O.I. “Iuzhnoe Priladozh’e v sisteme transevraziiskikh sviazei IX-XII vv.,” Drevnosti Severo-Zapada (St. Petersburg, 1993). “Iuzhnoe Priladozh’e. Istoriko-kul’turnye regiony i ikh vzaimodeistvie,” Drevnosti Povolkhov’ia (St. Petersburg, 1997). Bol’shakov, O.G. “Utochneniia k perevodu ‘zapiski’ Ibn Fadlana,” DGVE: 1998

368

(Moscow, 2000). Bonde, N. “De norske vikingskibsgraves alder. Et vellykket norsk-dansk forskningsprjekt,” Nationalmuseets Arbejsmark 1994 (Copenhagen, 1994), 128-148. Borodovskii, A.P. Drevnee kostoreznoe delo iuga Zapadnoi Sibiri (Novosibirsk, 1997). Brutzkus, J. “Trade with Eastern Europe, 800-1200,” Economic History Review 13 (1942). Buko, A. Ceramika wczesnopolska. Wprowadzenie do bada!. Prace Habilitacyjne (Wroc!aw-Warszawa-Kraków-Gda"sk-#ód$, 1990). Burov, G.M. Vychegodskii krai: Ocherki drevnei istorii (Moscow, 1965). “Arkheologicheskie nakhodki v statichnykh torfianikakh basseina Vychegdy,” SA 1 (1966). Drevnii Sindor (Moscow, 1967). V gostiakh u dalekikh predkov (Syktyvkar, 1968). “Fragmenty sanei s poselenii Vis I (mezolit) i Vis II (pervaia tysiachiletiia n.e.),” SA 2 (1981). “Drevnie sani Severnoi Evropy,” Skandinavskii sbornik 26 (1981). “Luki i dereviannye strely V-VI vv. n.e. s poseleniia Vis II v Privychegod’e,” KSIA 175 (1983). “Eshche odni rekonstruirovannye sani rannego srednevekov’ia s poseleniia Vis II v respublike Komi,” Problemy etnogeneziza Finno-ugorskikh narodov Priural’ia (Izhevsk, 1992). “Dereviannye orudiia s poseleniia Vis II v basseine Vychegdy (seredina I tysiacheletiia n.e.),” AV 7 (2000). Burov, V.A. “K kharakteristike riada i Torga,” Ocherki istorii i arkheologii srednevekovogo Novgoroda (Moscow, 1994). “Novgorodskaia ulichnaia obshchina i ee mesto v feodal’noi Rusi,” Ocherki istorii i arkheologii srednevekovogo Novgoroda (Moscow, 1994). “Byliny o Sadke,” Novgorodskie byliny (Moscow, 1978). Byrnes, E.H. “Genoese Trade with Syria in the Twelfth Century,” American Historical Review 25 (1919-20). Callmer, J. Trade Beads and Bead Trade in Scandinavia, ca. 800-1000 A.D. [Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Sr. 1N, 4°. %11] (Malmö, 1977). “The Influx of Oriental Beads into Eastern Europe During the 8th Century A.D.,” Glass Beads: Cultural History, Technology, Experiment and Analogy [Studies in Technology and Culture 2, 1995] (Lejre, 1995).

369

Chaev, N.S. Istoriia kul’tury drevnei Rusi 1 (Moscow-Leningrad, 1951). Cherepnin, A.V. Novgorodskie berestianye gramoty kak istoricheskii istochnik (Moscow, 1968). Chernetsov, A.V., Kuza, A.V., Kir’ianova, N.A. “Zemledelie i promysly,” Drevniaia Rus’. Gorod, zamok, selo [Arkheologiia SSSR] (Moscow, 1985). Chernetsov, V.N. Moszy!ska, W. Pre-History of Western Siberia [Arctic Institute of North America 9] ed. H.N. Michael (Montreal-London, 1974). Chernov, Yu.I. The Living Tundra, tr. D. Löle [Studies in Polar Research] (Cambridge, 1985). Chretien de Troyes, Eric and Enide, Cliges, The Knights of the Cart all in The Complete Romances of Chretien de Troyes, tr. D. Staines (Bloomington-Indianapolis, 1990). Christensen, A.E. “Boat Finds from Bryggen,” The Bryggen Papers: Main Series 1 (Bergen-Oslo-Stavanger-Tromsø, 1985). Clark, J.G.D. Prehistoric Europe: The Economic Basis (Stanford, 1952). Codex Justinianus, The Digest of Justinian 2, tr. A. Watson (Philadelphia, 1985). Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio I, tr. R.J.H. Jenkins, 2nd ed. (Washington D.C. 1967). Contemporaries of Marco Polo, ed. M. Komroff, (3rd printing, New York, 1937). The Chronicle of Novgorod, 1016-1471, tr. R. Michell, N. Forbes (Hattiesburg, Mississippi, 1970). Crumlin-Pedersen, O. “Danish Cog-Finds,” The Archeology of Medieval Ships and Harbors in Northern Europe: Papers Based on Those Presented to An International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology at Bremerhaven in 1979, ed. Sean McGrail. National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, Archaeological Series 5 [BAR Supplementary Series 66] (Oxford, 1979). “Lynæsskibet og Roskilde søvej,” 13 bidrag til Roskilde by og omegn’s historie, (Roskilde, 1979). “Skibe på havbunden. Vragfund i danske farvande fra perioden 600-1400,” Handels- og Søfartsmuseet, Årbog 1981 (Helsingør, 1981). “Ellingåskibet – fundet og genfundet,” Bangsbo Museum, Årbog 1991 (Frederikshavn, 1991). Viking-Age Ships and Shipbuilding in Hedeby/Haithabu and Schleswig: Ships and boats of the North 2 (Roskilde, 1997). Czeglédy, K. “Khazar Raids in Transcaucasia in 762-764 A.D.,” Acta Orientalia 11 (1960).

370

Darkevich, V.P. Svetskoe isskustvo Vizantii: Proizvedeniia vizantiiskogo khudozhestvennogo remesla v Vostochnoi Evrope, X-XIII vv. (Moscow, 1975). Davidan, O.I. “Staroladozhskie izdeliia iz kosti i roga,” ASGE 8 (1966). “Bronzoliteinoe delo v Ladogi,” ASGE 21 (1980). “Iantar’ Staroi Ladogi,” ASGE 25 (1984). “Tkani iz kurganov iugo-vostochnogo Priladozh’ia,” Pamiatniki Iugo-Vostochnogo Priladozh’ia i Prionezh’ia v X-XIII vv. (Petrozavodsk, 1989). “Serdolikovye izdeliia iz Staroi Ladogi,” ASGE 33 (1998). Davidovich, E.A. “Iz oblasti denezhnego obrashcheniia v Srednei Azii XI-XII vv.,” Numizmatika i epigrafika 2 (1960). Dejevsky, N. “The Churches of Novgorod: The Overall Pattern,” Medieval Russian Culture (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1984). De-Lamartin’er”, P.M. Puteshestvie v” severnyia strany (1653 g.), tr. V.N. Semenkovich, Zapiski Moskovskogo Arkheologicheskogo Instituta 15 (Moscow, 1913). Dement’ev, G.P. Kalendar’ okhoty (Moscow, 1953). Die Nowgoroder Schra - in sieben Fassungen vom XIII. bis XVII. Jahrhundert, ed. W. Schlüter (Dorpat, 1911; 1914, Lübeck, 1916). Drevnerusskie kniazheskie ustavy XI-XV vv., ed. Ia.N. Shchapov (Moscow, 1976). Drevniaia Rus’ v svete zarubezhnykh istochnikov, ed. E.A. Mel’nikova (Moscow, 2000). Drevniaia Rus’. Gorod, zamok, selo [Arkheologiia SSSR] (Moscow, 1985). DuBois, T. “Skis, Skiing,” Medieval Folklore: An Encyclopedia of Myths, Legends, Tales, Beliefs, and Customs, 2, ed. C Lindahl, J. McNamara, and J. Lindow (Santa Barbara, 2000). Dubov, I.V. Velikii Volzhskii put’ (Leningrad, 1989). Severo-Vostochnaia Rus’ v epokhu rannego srednevekov’ia (Leningrad, 1982). Dubrovin, G.E. “Lodki-odnoderevki s Troitskogo X raskopa,” NNZ 7 (Novgorod, 1993). “Novgorodskie lodki odnoderevki,” RA 3 (1994). “Blochnoe sudno s Iaroslavskogo dvorishcha,” NNZ 9 (Novgorod, 1995). “Fragment lodki odnoderevki XI veka s Troitskogo XI raskopa,” NNZ 12 (Novgorod, 1998). “Sudostoenie srednevekovpgo Novgoroda po arkheologicheskim dannym,” Slavianskii srednevekovyi gorod [Trudy VI Mezhdunarodnogo Kongressa slavianskoi arkheologii, 2] (Moscow, 1997).

371

Dubrovin, G.E., Chernosviatov, P.Iu. “Novgorodskoe sudno XIII-XIV vv.,” NNZ 14 (Novgorod, 2000). Dubynin, A.F. “Daterovka gorodishche i etnicheskii sostav naseleniia,” Drevnee poselenie v Podmoskov’e (Moscow, 1970). “Shcherbitskoe gorodishche,” D’iakovskaia kul’tura (Moscow, 1974). Dunlop, D.M. The History of the Jewish Khazars (Princeton, 1954). Duri, A.A. The Rise of Historical Writing Among the Arabs, ed. and tr. L.I. Conrad (Princeton, 1983). Dzhakson, T.N. Islandskie korolevskie sagi o Vostochnoi Evrope (s drevneishikh vremen do 1000 g.) (Moscow, 1993). “Islandskie sagi o roli Ladogi i Ladozhskoi volosti v osushchestvlenii russko- skandinavskikh torgovykh i politicheskikh sviazei,” Rannesrednevekovye drevnosti severnoi Rusi i ee sosedei (St. Petersburg, 1999). Dzieduszycki, W. “Zum Studium weitreichender Kontakte frühstädtischer Zentren am Beispiel der Diffusion keramischer Importe nach Polen im X-XIII. Jh.,” Archaologia Polona 19 (1980). Efimova, L.V. “Tkani iz finno-ugorskikh mogil’nikov I tys. n.e.,” KSIA 107 (1966). Egil’s Saga, tr. H. Pálsson and P. Edwards (London, 1976). Eliade, M. Shamanism. Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy [Bollingen Series LXXVI], tr. W.R. Trask (Princeton, 1974). Elkina, A.K. “Issledovanie kollektsii drevnego tekstilia iz arkheologicheskikh pamiatnikov Udmurtii,” Novy issledovaniia po drevnei istorii Udmurtii (Izhevsk, 1988). Ellmers, D. “The Cog of Bremen and Related Boats,” The Archeology of Medieval Ships and Harbors in Northern Europe: Papers Based on Those Presented to An International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology at Bremerhaven in 1979, ed. Sean McGrail. National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, Archaeological Series 5 [BAR Supplementary Series 66] (Oxford, 1979). “Frisian and Hansiatic merchants sailed the cog,” The North Sea: A Highway of Economic and Cultural Exchange Character – History, ed. A. Bang-Anderson, B. Greenhill, and E. Grude (Stavanger-Oslo-Bergen-Tromsø, 1985). Enisova, N.V., Mitoian, R.A., Saracheva, T.G. “Latuni srednevekovogo Novgoroda,” NNZ 14 (Novgorod, 2000). Ershevskii, B.D. “Malye vislye pechati posadnikov XII v.,” Severnaia Rus’ i ee sosedi v epokhu rannego srednevekov’ia (Leningrad, 1982). “Drogichinskie plomby. Klassifikatsiia, tipologiia, khronologiia,” VID 17 (Leningrad, 1985).

372

“Pis’mennye istochniki i materially Novgorodskoi sfragistiki o bezmonetnom periode,” NNZ 2 (Novgorod, 1989). “O dvukh malykh pechatiakh novgorodskikh posadnikov serediny XII v. iz nakhodok u g. Beloozera,” NNZ 3 (Novgorod, 1990). Ibn Fa!l!n, The Ris!la of Ibn Fa!l!n: An Annotated Translation with Introduction, J.E. Mckeithen (Ann Arbor, dissertation microfiche, 1979). The Faroese Saga: Freely Translated with Maps and Genealogical Tables, tr. G.V.C. Young & C.R. Clewer (Belfast, 1973). Færeyinga saga [Íslensk úrvalsrit 13] (Reykjavik, 1978). Fedorova, E.G. “Rebenok v traditsionnoi mansiiskoi sem’e,” Traditsionnoe vospitanie detei u narodov Sibiri (Leningrad, 1988). Fekhner, M.V. Torgovlia Russkogo gosudarstva so stranami Vostoka v XVI veke (Moscow, 1956). “Izdeliia shelkotkatskikh masterskikh Vizantii v drevnei Rus’,” SA 3 (1977). “Shelkovye tkani v srednevekovoi Vostochnoi Evrope,” SA 2 (1982). “Izdeliia zolotogo shit’ia iz kurganov basseina r. Oiati,” Kurgany letopisnoi Vesi X- nachala XIII veka (Petrozavodsk, 1985). “Bobrovyi promysel v Volgo-Okskom mezhdurech’e,” SA 3 (1989). Fennell, J. A History of the Russian Church to 1448 (London-New York, 1995). Fisher, R.H. The Russian Fur Trade, 1550-1700 (Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1943). Francesco Balducci Pegolotti, La Pratica della Mercatura, ed. A. Evans (Cambridge, Mass., 1936). Francesco Da Colla, Relatione di Moscouia in Franchesko da Kollo – Donoshenie o Moskovii, tr. O. Simchich (Moscow, 1996). Franklin, S. “Literacy and Documentation in Early Medieval Russia,” Speculum 60:1 (1985). Friesen, O. “Ur Sigtunas äldsta historia,” Upplands foruminnesförenings tidskrift 26 (1910). Frye, R.N. “The S!m!nids,” The Cambridge History of Iran 4, ed. R.N. Frye (Cambridge, 1975). Gaidukov, P.G., Makarov, N.A. “Novye arkheologicheskie materialy o pushnom promysle v drevnei Rusi,” NNZ 7 (Novgorod, 1993). Gaidukov, P.G., Fedorov-Davydov, G.A., Ianin, V.L. “Novyi klad kuficheskikh monet X v. iz Novgoroda,” Vos’maia Vserosiiskaia numizmaticheskaia konferentsiia (Moscow,

373

2000). Gal’kovskii, H.M. Bor’ba khristianstva s ostatkami iazychestva v drevnei Rusi 2 (Moscow, 1913). Gard!z! in Martinez, A.P. “Gard!z!’s Two Chapters on the Turks,” AEMAe 2 (1982). Geographus Bavarus (Fol. 149v), A.V. Nazarenko, Nemetskie latinoiazychnye istochniki IX-XI vekov (Moscow, 1993). “George Trakhaniott’s Description of Russia in 1486,” ed. and tr. R.M. Croskey and E.P. Ronquist, RH/HR 17 (1990). Gil, M. “The R"dh"nite Merchants and the Land of R"dh"n,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 17:3 (1974). Gimbutas, M. The Prehistory of Eastern Europe (Cambridge, Mass., 1956). Goehrke, C. “Einwohnerzahl und Bevölkerungsdichte altrussischer Städte. Methodische Möglichkeiten und vorläufige Ergebnisse,” Forschungen zur osteuropäischen Geschichte 18 (1973). Golden, P.B. Khazar Studies: An historico-philological inquire into the origins of the Khazars I (Budapest, 1980). Goldina, P.D. Lomovatovskaia kul’tura v Verkhnem Prikamie (Irkutsk, 1985). Goldina, R.D., Nikitin, A.B. “New finds of Sasanian, Central Asian and Byzantine coins from the region of Perm’, the Kama-Urals area,” Studies in Silk Road Coins and Culture [Papers in honor of Professor Ikuo Hirayama on his 65th birthday], ed. K. Tanabe, J. Cribb, H. Wang (Kamakura, 1997). Goldina, P.D., Koroleva, O.P. “Busy srednevekovykh mogil’nikov verkhnego Prikam’ia,” Etnicheskie protsessy na Urale i c Sibiri v Pervobytnuiu epokhu (Izhevsk, 1983). Goldobin, A.V., Lepikhin, A.N., Mel’nichuk, A.F. “Issledovaniia sviatileshch Zheleznogo Veka v Permskom Prikam’e,” AOUP (Syktyvkar, 1991). Golubeva, L.A. Ves’ i slaviane na Belom ozere: X-XIII vv. (Moscow, 1973). “Ves’,” Finno-ugry i balty v epukhu srednevekov’ia, ed. V.V. Sedov (Moscow, 1987). Golubeva, L.A., Kochkurina, S.I. Belozerskaia Ves’ (po materialam poseleniia Krutik IX- X vv.) (Petrozavodsk, 1991). Golubtsov, I.A. “Puti soobshcheniia v byvshikh zemliakh Novgoroda Velikogo v XVI- XVII vekakh i otrazhenie ikh na russkoi karte serediny XVII veka,” Voprosy geografii 20 (1950). Gordon, C.D. The Age of Attila: Byzantium and the Barbarians (Ann Arbor, 1966).

374

Goriunova, E.I. “Selishche Polianki,” KSIA 15 (1947). “Raboty srednerusskoi ekspeditsii,” KSIA 79 (1960). Etnicheskaia istoriia Volgo-Okskogo mezhdurech’ia [MIA SSSR 94] (Moscow, 1961). Gramoty Velikogo Novgoroda i Pskova, ed. S.N. Valk (Moscow-Leningrad, 1949).

Grandell, A. “Helgeandsholmens karvstocksfynd,” Fornvännen 79 (1984). “Finds from Bryggen Indicating Business Transactions,” The Bryggen Papers, Supplementary Series 2 (Oslo, 1989). Gu!nason, B. “Kn!tlinga saga,” Dictionary of the Middle Ages 7 (New York, 1986). Gusakov, V.N. “K topografii severnoi chasti drevnego Novgorodskogo torga” in NNZ 2 (Novgorod, 1989). Hajdu, P. Finno-Ugrian Languages and Peoples, tr. G.F. Cushing (London, 1975). Handy, M.F. Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy (London, 1985). Hanserecesse. Zweite Abteilung, Bd. I: 7 (Leipzig, 1876). Hansisches Urkundenbuch, ed. K. Hölbaum, Bd. I, Halle (Leipzig, 1876). Hartmann von Aue, Iwein, tr. J.W. Thomas (Lincoln, 1979). Eric, tr. J.W. Thomas (Lincoln-London, 1982). Poor Heinrich in The Best Novellas of Medieval Germany, tr. J.W. Thomas (Columbia, 1984). Ibn "awqal in V.V. Bartol’d, Sochineniia II: 1 (Moscow, 1963). Heinäjoki, H., Aalto, M. “Zer Geschichte der Vegetation beim Burgwall der Ladogaburg,” Slaviane i finno-ugry: arkheologiia, istoriia, kul’tura (St. Petersburg, 1997). Heinrich von Staden, The Land and Government of Muscovy: A Sixteenth-Century Account, tr. and ed. T. Esper (Stanford, 1967). Hellie, R. The Economy and Material Culture of Russia, 1600-1725 (Chicago, 1999). Helmold of Bosau (Holstein), The Chronicle of the Slavs, tr. and ed. F.J. Tschan (New York, 1966). Herrmann, J. “Ralswiek – Maritime Trading Station and Harbor Development from the 8th to the 10th Century Along the Southern Baltic Sea,” Conference on Waterfront Archaeology in Northern European Towns "2, Bergen, 1983. Proceedings (Bergen,

375

1985). Herteig, A.E. “The ‘Cellar Buildings’ and Privies at Bryggen,” The Bryggen Papers: Supplementary Series 5 (Bergen, 1994). Howard-Johnston, J. “Trading in Fur, From Classical Antiquity to the early Middle Ages,” Leather and Fur: Aspects of Early Medieval Trade and Technology, ed. E. Cameron (London, 1998). !ud"d al-#$lam: “The Regions of the World,” A Persian Geography 372 A.H.-982 A.D., tr. V. Minorsky, 2nd ed. (London, 1970). Humbla, P. Gatlabäckbåten och tidigt båtbyggeri i Norden (Göteborg, 1937). Iadryshnikov, V.A. “K voprosu o lokalizatsii Nemetskogo dvora v Novgorode,” NNZ 10 (Novgorod, 1996), 158-165. Ianin, V.L. Denezhno-vesovye sistemy (Moscow, 1956). Novgorodskie posadniki (Moscow, 1962). “Nakhodka pol’skogo svintsa v Novgorode,” SA 2 (1966). “The Birch-Bark Documents,” Novgorod the Great, comp. M.W Thompson (London, 1967). Aktovye pechati Drevnei Rusi X-XV vv. 1 & 2 (Moscow, 1970). “Vozmozhnosti arkheologii v izuchenii srednevekovogo Novgoroda,” Ocherki kompleksnogo istochnikovedeniia: Srednevekovyi Novgorod (Moscow, 1977). Novgorodskie akty XII-XV vv. (Moscow, 1991).

“Osnovnye istoricheskie itogi arkheologicheskogo izucheniia Novgoroda,” Novgorodskie arkheologicheskie chteniia (Novgorod, 1994).

Novgorod i Litva. Pogranichnye sutuatsii XIII-XV vekov (Moscow, 1998). Ia poslal tebe berestu..., 3rd ed. (Moscow, 1998). U istokov Novgorodskoi gosudarstvennosti (Velikii Novgorod, 2001). Ianin, V.L., Gaidukov, P.G. “Novgorodskii klad Zapadno-Evropeiiskikh i Vizantiiskikh

monet kontsa X – pervoi poloviny XI v.,” DGVE: 1994 (Moscow, 1996). Aktovye pechati Drevnei Rusi. X-XV vv. 3 (Moscow, 1998). Ianin, V.L., Zalizniak, A.A. “Berestianye gramoty iz novgorodskikh raskopok 1997 g.,” VIa 3 (1998). “Berestianye gramoty iz novgorodskikh raskopok 1998 g.,” VIa 4 (1999). “Berestianye gramoty iz novgorodskikh raskopok 1999 g.,” VIa 2 (2000).

376

Ianin, V.L., et al, “Novgorodskaia ekspeditsiia,” AO: 1982 (Moscow, 1984). “Novgorodskaia ekspeditsiia,” AO: 1983 (Moscow, 1985). “Novgorodskaia ekspeditsiia,” AO: 1984 (Moscow, 1986). “Raboty Novgorodskoi ekspeditsii v 1989 g.,” NNZ 3 (Novgorod, 1990). “O rabotakh Novgorodskoi arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii v Liudinom kontse (Troitskii raskop),” NNZ 7 (Novgorod, 1993). “Raboty Novgorodskoi arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii na Troitskom raskope v 2000 g.,” NNZ 15 (Novgorod, 2001). Ibr!him ibn Ya"q#bi, Relacja Ibr!hima ibn Ja’k"ba z podró!y do krajów s"owia#skich w rzekazie al-Bekr#ego, ed. T. Kowalski (Kraków, 1946). Inostrantsev, A.A. Doistoricheskii chelovek poberezh’ia Ladozhskogo ozera (St. Petersburg, 1882). Istomina, T.V. “Srednevekovye ritual’nyi kompleks Lek-Izhman II na reke Izhme,” Severnoe Priural’e v epokhu Kamnia i Metalla [MAESV 15] (Syktyvkar, 1998). Ivanov, A.G. Etnokul’turnye i ekonomicheskie sviazi naseleniia basseina r. Cheptsy v epokhu srednevekov’ia (Izhevsk, 1998). Ivanova, M.G. Pogrebal’nye pamiatniki severnykh Udmurtov XI-XIII vv. (Izhevsk, 1992). Idnakar. Drevneudmurtskoe gorodishche IX-XIII vv. (Izhevsk, 1998). Iziumova, S.A. “K istorii kozhevennogo i sapozhnogo remesel Novgoroda Velikogo,” TNAE 2 [MIA SSSR 65], ed. A.V. Artsikhovskii, B.A. Kolchin (Moscow, 1959). Jansson, I. “Ovale Schalenspangen,” Birka Untersuchungen und Studien II:1 [Systematische Analysen der Graberfunde] (Stockholm, 1984). Jenkinson, A. “The Voyage of Anthony Jenkinson,” Rude & Barbarous Kingdom: Russia

in the Accounts of Sixteenth-Century English Voyagers, ed. L.E. Berry and R. Crummey (Madison, Milwaukee, London, 1968).

Johannessen, F. “Båtene fra Gokstadskibet,” Viking 4 (Oslo, 1940), 125-130. John of Plano Carpini, “History of the Mongols,” The Mongol Mission: Narratives and Letters of the Franciscan Missionaries in Mongolia and China in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries, tr. A Nun of Stanbrook Abbey (New York, 1955), 30. Joinville and Villehardouin: Chronicles of the Crusades, tr. M.R.B. Shaw (London, 1963). Jones, G. A History of the Vikings, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1990). Jordanes, The Gothic History of Jordanes, tr. C.C. Mierow (Princeton, 1915).

377

“The Journey of William of Rubruck,” The Mongol Mission: Narratives and Letters of the Franciscan Missionaries in Mongolia and China in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries, tr. A Nun of Stanbrook Abbey (New York, 1955). Jutikkala, E. A History of Finland, tr. P. Sjöblom (New York, 1962). The Kalevala or Poems of the Kaleva District, comp. by E. Lönnrot, tr. F.P. Magoun, Jr. (Cambridge, Mass.- London, 1963). Karklins, K. Glass Beads (Hull, Quebec, 1985). Kasparov, A.K. “Ostatki zhivotnykh iz gorodishcha Staraia Ladoga (predvaritel’nye itogi),” Drevnosti Povolkhov’ia (St. Petersburg, 1997). Kazakov, E.P. Bulgarskoe selo X-XIII vekov nizovii Kamy (Kazan’, 1991). “O khudozhestvennom metalle ugrov Uralo-Povolzh’ia v srednevekovykh kompleksakh Vostochnoi Evropy,” AEMAe 11 (2000-2001). Kazhdan, A.P. Derevnia i gorod v Vizantii: IX-X vv. (Moscow, 1960). “Furrier,” The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium 2, ed. A.P. Kazhdan (New York- Oxford, 1991). Kelm, R. “Eine byzantininische Amphorenscherbe aus Haithabu,” Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 27 (1997). Kerner, R.J. The Urge to the Sea: The Role of Rivers, Portages, Ostrogs, Monasteries, and Furs (Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1942). Khammel’-Kizov, R. “Novgorod i Liubek. Struktura poselenii dvukh torgovykh forodov v sravnitel’nom analize,” NNZ 8 (Novgorod, 1994). Khelimskii, E.A. “O pribaltiisko-finnskom iazykovom materiale v novgorodskikh berestianykh gramotakh,” NGB: 1977-1983 g., ed. V.L. Ianin, A.A. Zalizniak (Moscow, 1986). Khomich, L.V. Nentsy: istoriko-etnograficheskie ocherki (Moscow-Leningrad, 1960). Khoroshev, A.S. “Raskopy iuzhnoi chasti Plotnitskogo kontsa,” Arkheologicheskoe izuchenie Novgoroda (Moscow, 1978). “Proiskhozhdenie o sotsial’no-politicheskaia kharakteristika boiarstva Liudina kontsa,” Trudy V Mezhdunarodnogo Kongressa Arkheologov-Slavistov: Kiev,18-25 sentiabria 1985 g., ed. P.P. Tolochko, 2 (Kiev, 1988). “Novgorodskie usad’by i sistema gorodskogo zamlevladeniia po arkheologicheskim dannym,” NNZ 11 (Novgorod, 1997). “Detskie igrushki iz Novgoroda,” NNZ 12 (Novgorod, 1998). Khoroshev, A.S., Sorokin, A.N. “Buildings and Properties From the Lyudin End of

378

Novgorod,” The Archaeology of Novgorod, Russia: Recent Results from the Town and its Hinterland [The Society for Medieval Archaeology: Monograph Series 13], ed. M.A. Brisbane; tr. K. Judelson; gen. ed. R. Huggins (Lincoln, 1992). Khoroshkevich, A.L. Torgovlia velikogo Novgoroda s Pribaltikoi i zapadnoi Evropoi v XIV-XV vekakh (Moscow, 1963). “Osobinnosti Novgoroda kak torgovogo tsentra Novgoroda i Novgorodskoi zamli XV v.,” Tezisy dokladov i soobshchenii nauchnogo simpoziuma (Novgorod, 1986). The Kievan Chronicle (Hypatian), tr. and comm. L.L. Heinrich (Ann Arbor, dissertation microfiche, 1978). Kir’ianov, A.V. “Istoriia zemledeliia Novgorodskoi zemli X-XV vv.,” TNAE 2 [MIA SSSR 65], ed. A.V. Artsikhovskii, B.A. Kolchin (Moscow, 1959). Kiselev, S.V. Drevniaia istoriia iuzhnoi Sibiri [MIA SSSR 9] (Moscow, 1949). Kivikoski, E. Finland, tr. A. Binns (New York-Washington, 1967). Kn!tlinga saga in Sogur Danakonunga 46, ed. C. Petersens and E. Olson (Copenhagen, 1919-1925). Kochkurina, S.I. Iugo-Vostochnoe Priladozh’e v X-XIII vv. (Leningrad, 1973). Pamiatniki Iugo-Vostochnogo Priladozh’ia i Prionezh’ia v X-XIII vv. (Petrozavodsk, 1989). Kochkurina, S.I., Livenskii, A.M. Kurgany letopisnoi Vesi X-nachala XIII veka (Petrozavodsk, 1985). Kochkurina, S.I., Spiridonov, A.M. Poseleniia drevnei Karelii (Petrozavodsk, 1988). Kodolányi, J. “North Eurasian Hunting, Fishing and Reindeer-Breading Civilizations,” Ancient Cultures of the Ugrian Peoples (Budapest, 1976). Kolchin, B.A. “Zhelezoobrabatyvaiushchee remeslo Novgoroda Velikogo (produktsiia, tekhnologiia),” TNAE 2 [MIA SSSR 65], ed. A.V. Artsikhovskii, B.A. Kolchin (Moscow, 1959). Wooden Artifacts from Medieval Novgorod 1, ed. A.V. Chernetsov [BAR International Series 495 (i-ii)] (Oxford, 1988). Kolchin, B.A., Ianin, V.L. “Itogi i perespektivy novgorodskoi arkheologii,” Arkheologicheskoe izuchenie Novgoroda, ed. B.A. Kolchin, V.L. Ianin (Moscow, 1978). “Arkheologii Novgoroda 50 let,” Novgorodskii sbornik: 50 let raskopok Novgoroda (Moscow, 1982). Kolchin, B.A., Khoroshev, A.S., Ianin, V.L. Usad’ba novgorodskogo khudozhnika XII v. (Moscow, 1981). Kolosov, A.M., Lavrov, N.P., Naumov, S.P. Biologiia promyslovookhotnich’ikh zverei

379

SSSR (Moscow, 1979). Konakov, N.D. Komi (Okhotniki i rybalovy vo vtoroi polovine XIX-nachala XX v.) (Moscow, 1983). Konakov, N.D., Kotov, O.V. Etnoareal’nye gruppy komi: formirovanie i sovremennoe etnokul’turnoe sostoianie (Moscow, 1991). Konetskii, V.Ia. “Rol’ estestvenno-prirodnykh faktorov v rannei istorii Novgorodskoi zamli,” Materialy nauchnoi konferentsii [125 let Novgorodskomu muzeiu] (Novgorod, 1991). Korolev, K.S. “Issledovaniia v basseine Vychegdy,” AO: 1977 (Moscow, 1978). “Raboty v Shoinatyiskom mikroraione,” AO: 1975 (Moscow, 1976). “Raboty v Ugdinskom arkheologicheskom komplekse” AOUP (Syktyvkar, 1989). “Raboty na Vychegde,” AOUP (Syktyvkar, 1991). Naselenie Srednei Vychegdy v drevnosti i srednevekov’e (Ekaterinburg, 1997). “Poselenie Ugdym IV na srednei Vychegde,” Severnoe Priural’e v epokhu Kamnia i Metalla [MAESV 15] (Syktyvkar, 1998). “Poselenie Vanvizdinskoi kul’tury Shoinaty VI,” Pamiatniki material’noi kul’tury na Evropeiskom Severo-Vostoka [MAESV 10] (Syktyvkar, 1986). Kosinskaia, L.L. “Razvedochnye raboty na severe Tiumenkoi oblasti,” AOUP (Syktyvkar, 1994). Kosintsev, P.A. “Skotovodstvo naseleniia Priural’ia,” Problemy finno-ugorskoi arkheologii Urala i Povolzh’ia (Syktyvkar, 1992). Kotilaine, J.T. “Riga’s Trade with its Muscovite Hinterland in the Seventeenth Century,” Journal of Baltic Studies 30:2 (1999). Kotliar, N.F. “Eshche raz o «bezmonetnom» periode denezhnogo obrashcheniia Drevnei Rusi (XII-XIII vv.),” Vestnik drevnei istorii 5 (1973). “Pro tak zvani Chernihivski hryvny sribla,” Arkheolohiia 2 (1995), 83-93. “Drevnerusskie monetnye grivny (opyt klassifikatsii i khronologii),” Tezy dopovidei ukrainskoi delehatsii na VI Mizhnarodnomu kongresi sloviankoi arkheolohii: Novhorod, Rosiia, 1996 r. (Kiev, 1996). “Severorusskie («chernigovskie») monetnye grivny,” DGVE: 1994 (Moscow, 1996). Kovalev, R.K. “Zvenyhorod in Galicia: An Archaeological Survey (Eleventh – Mid- hirteenth Century,” Journal of Ukrainian Studies, 24: 2 (1999). “Critica: S.A. Pletneva, Sarkel i «shelkovyi» put’,” AEMAe 10 (1999).

380

“Mint Output in Tenth-Century Bukh!r!: A Case Study of Dirham Production and Monetary Circulation in Northern Europe,” RH/HR [Festschrift for Thomas S. Noonan, vol. I, ed. R.K. Kovalev and H.M. Sherman] 28: 1-4 (2001).

“The Infrastructure of the Northern Part of the !Fur Road" Between the Middle Volga and the East During the Middle Ages,” AEMAe 11 (2000-2001).

“Novgorodskie dereviannye birki: obshchie nabliudeniia,” RA 1 (2002). “Accounting, Tag, and Credit Tallies,” Wood and its Use in Medieval Novgorod (London, in the press). “Birch-Bark Texts,” SMERSH (in the press). “Birka (Tally),” SMERSH (in the press). “Birki-sorochki: upakovka mekhovykh shkurok v Srednevekovom Novgorode,” NIS 9 (St. Petersburg, in the press). “Boats, Ships, and Water Transport in Kievan Rus’,” SMERSH (in the press). “Bridges, Roads, and Pavements in Kievan Rus’,” SMERSH (in the press). “Byzantine Wine and Olive Oil and its Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean and Beyond (Tenth to the Fourteenth Centuries),” Byzantium and the North, Acta Byzantina Fennica (in preparation). “Dereviannye dolgovye birki-sorochki XI-XII vv. iz Novgorodskoi kollektsii,” NIS 9 (St. Petersburg, in the press). “Dirham Mint Output of S!m!nid Samarqand and its Connection to the Beginnings of Trade with Northern Europe,” Histoire et Mesure [Monnaie et espace] !3-4 (2002) (in the press). “!Fish Teeth" – The Ivory of the North: Russia’s Medieval Trade of Walrus and Mammoth Tusks” (in preparation). “Ganzeiskaia («diuzhinnaia») schetnaia birka s Gotskogo raskopa srednevekovogo Novgoroda,” [Festschrift for A.L. Khoroshkevich] (Moscow, in the press). “Klad dirhemov 913/14 g. iz der. Pal’tsevo Tver’skoi gub,” Klady, sostav,

khronologiia, interpretatsiia, 2002, St. Petersburg University, (St. Petersburg, in press).

“Pechenegs,” Encyclopedia of Russian History (New York, in the press). “Polovtsy/Cumans/Kipchaks,” Encyclopedia of Russian History (New York, in the press). “Route to Greeks,” Encyclopedia of Russian History (in press). “What Do the Birch-Bark Texts Tell Us About Everyday Church Life and Christianity in Pre-Mongol Novgorod?” Modern Greek Studies Yearbook (in the press).

381

Kovalev, R.K., Sherman, H.M. “Beloozero,” SMERSH 4 (in the press). Kozlova, K.I. Etnografiia narodov Povolzhia (Moscow, 1964). Krachkovskii, I.Iu. Izbrannye sochineniia 4 (Moscow-Leningrad, 1957). Krainov, D.A. “Issledovaniia Verkhnevolzhskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1970 (Moscow, 1971). “Issledovaniia Verkhnevolzhskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1972 (Moscow, 1973). “Issledovaniia Verkhnevolzhskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1974 (Moscow, 1975). Kratkaia Sibirskaia (Kungurskaia) letopis (St. Petersburg, 1880). Kriukova, T.A. Material’naia kul’tura mariitsev XIX veka (Ioshkar-Ola, 1956). Kruse, S.E. “Ingots and weight units in Viking Age silver hoards,” World Archaeology 20:2 (Hoards and Hoarding) (1988). Krylasova, N.B. “Kostium srednevekovogo naseleniia Verkhnego Prikam’ia,” Problemy Finno-ugorskoi arkheologii Urala i Povolzh’ia (Syktyvkar, 1992). Al-K!f", Kniga zavoevanii (Izvlecheniia po istorii Azerbaidzhana VII-IV vv.), tr. Z.M. Buniiatov (Baku, 1981). Kuz’min, S.L. “Volkhovskie porogi v epukhu srednevekov’ia,” NNZ 12 (Novgorod, 1998). Kuza, A.V. Drevnerusskie gorodishche X-XIII vv.: Svod arkheologicheskikh pamiatnikov (Moscow, 1996). L’vova, Z.A. “Stekliannye busy Staroi Ladogi, Chast’ II: Proizkhozhdenie bus,” ASGE 12 (1970). “K voprosu o prichinakh proniknoveniia stekliannykh bus X – nachala XI veka v severnye raiony vostochnoi Evropy,” ASGE 18 (1977). L’vova, Z., Naumov, D. “K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii stekliannykh bus VIII-X vv. Staroi Ladogi,” Slavia antiqua 17 (1970). Langholm, O. The Aristotelian Analysis of Usury (Bergen, 1984). Lantzeff, G.V. Siberia in the Seventeenth Century: A Study of the Colonial Administration [University of California Publications in History, Vol. 30] (Berkeley- Los Angeles, 1972). Lavochnye knigi Novgoroda Velikogo 1583 g., ed. S.V. Bakhrushin (Moscow, 1930). The Laws of Rus’ – Tenth to the Fifteenth Centuries, tr. D.H. Kaiser (Salt Lake City, Utah, 1992). Lebedeva, S.Kh., Khristoliubova, L.S. “Traditsionnaia odezhda i ukrasheniia,” Udmurty: Istoriko-etnograficheskie ocherki (Izhevsk, 1993).

382

Leont’ev, A.E. “Rostov epokhi Iaroslava Mudrogo: po materialam arkheologicheskikh issledovanii,” Istoriia – arkheologiia: Traditsii i perespektivy (Moscow, 1998). Arkheologiia meri. K predystorii Severo-Vostochnoi Rusi (The Archaeology of the Merya) (Moscow, 1996). Leshchenko, V.Iu. “Ispol’zovanie Vostochnogo serebra na Urale” in V.P. Darkevich, Khudozhestvennyi matall Vostoka: VIII-XIII vv. (Moscow, 1976). Serebro Zakamskoe (Perm’, 1974). Levasheva, V.P. “Obrabotka kozhi, mekha i drugikh vidov zhivotnogo syr’ia,” Ocherki po istorii russkoi derevni X-XIII vv. [Trudy Gosudarstvennogo istoricheskogo muzeia 33] (Moscow, 1959). Levin, E. “Novgorod Birchbark Documents: The Evidence for Literacy in Medieval Russia,” Medieval Archaeology: Papers of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies 60, ed. C.L. Redman (Binghamton, N.Y., 1989). Ligers, Z. Die Volkskultur der Letten: Ethnographische forschungen I (Riga, 1942). Linevskii, A.M. Petroglify Karelii (Petrozavodsk, 1939). Little, L.K. Religious Poverty and the Profit Economy in Medieval Europe (Ithaca, N.Y., 1978). Lopez, R.S., Raymond, I.W. Medieval Trade in the Mediterranean World: Illustrative Documents, Translations With Introductions and Notes (New York, reprint, 1990). Magnus, Olaus Description of the Northern Peoples, Rome 1555, 1, tr. P. Fisher & H. Higgens tr. P. Fisher and H. Higgens, ed. P. Foote [Works Issued by the Hakluyt Society, 2nd Ser. vol. 182] (London, 1996). Description of the Northern Peoples, Rome 1555, 2, tr. P. Fisher and H. Higgens, ed. P. Foote [Works Issued by the Hakluyt Society, 2nd Ser. vol. 187] (London, 1998).

Description of the Northern Peoples, Rome 1555, 3, tr. P. Fisher and H. Higgens, ed. P. Foote [Works Issued by the Hakluyt Society, 2nd Ser. vol. 188] (London, 1998).

Makarov, N.A. “Srednevekovyi mogil’nik Popovo na Kargopol’e,” KSIA 171 (1982). “The Earliest Burials in Volok Slavensky and the Initial Stages of the Water Route From the Beloe Lake to the Dvina Basin,” ISKOS 9 (Helsinki, 1990). Naselenie russkogo Severa v XI-XIII vv. (Moscow, 1990). “Russkii sever i Laplandiia: torgovye sviazi XI-XIII vv.,” RA 1 (1993). “Portages of the Russian North: Historical Geography and Archaeology,” FA 11 (1994). Kolonizatsiia severnykh okrain Drevnei Rusi v XI-XIII vekakh (Moscow, 1997).

383

“Organizatsiia rasseleniia na mikrorigional’nom urovne,” Srednevekovoe rasselenie a Belom ozere (Moscow, 2001). “Tri veka srednevekovoi derevni,” Kubenskoe ozero: Vzgliad skvoz’ tysiacheletiia (Shest’ let issledovaniia Mininskogo arkheologicheskogo kompleksa) (Vologda, 2001). Makarov, N.A., Chernetsov, A.V. “Sfragisticheskie materialy iz Beloozera,” Drevnosti slavian i Rus’ (Moscow, 1988). Makarov, N.A., Zakharov, S.D. “Katalog arkheologicheskikh pamiatnikov basseina Belogo ozera i Verkhnei Sheksny,” Srednevekovoe rasselenie na Belom ozere (Moscow, 2001). “Raboty Onezhsko-Sukhonskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1993 (Moscow, 1994). “Raboty Onezhsko-Sukhonskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1994 (Moscow, 1995). “Raboty Onezhsko-Sukhonskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1995 (Moscow, 1996). Makarov, N.A., Zakharov, S.D., Suvorov, A.V. “Raboty Onezhsko-Sukhonskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1996 (Moscow, 1997). Makarov, N.A., et al, “Raboty Onezhsko-Sukhonskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1997 (Moscow, 1999). “Raboty Onezhsko-Sukhonskoi ekspeditsii,” AO: 1998 (Moscow, 2000). Maksimov, V.A. Votiaki: Kratkie istoriko-etnograficheskii ocherk (Izhevsk, 1925). Makt och manniskor i kungens Sigtuna [Sigtunautgravingen 1988-1990], ed. S. Tesch. Mal’m, V.A. “Promysly drevnerusskoi derevni,” Ocherki po istorii russkoi derevni X- XIII vv. [Trudy Gosudarstvennogo istoricheskogo muzeia 32] (Moscow, 1956). Manninen, I. Die finnisch-ugrischen Völker (Leipzig, 1932). Marco Polo, The Travels, tr. R.E. Latham (London, 1958). Martin, J. Treasure of the Land of Darkness: The Fur Trade and Its Significance for Medieval Russia (Cambridge, 1986). Martin, M.E. “The First Venetians in the Black Sea,” Maure Thalassa [12on Symposion

Byzantinon Spoudon, Birmingham, M. Bretannia, 18-20 Martiou 1978], ed. A. Bryer (Athens, 1979).

Marvaz!, Sharaf al-Zam!n !!hir Marvaz" on China, the Turks and India, tr. V. Minorsky (London, 1942). Mas"#d!, A History of Sharv!n and Darband in the 10th-11th Centuries, tr. V. Minorsky (Cambridge, 1958). The Meadows of Gold: The Abbasids, tr. and ed. P. Lunde and C. Stone (London, 1989).

384

Massie, R.K. Peter the Great: His Life and World (New York, 1980). Mazin, A.I. Byt i khoziaistvo Evenkov-Orochonov (konets XIX - nachalo XX v.) (Novosibirsk, 1992). McGrail, S. Medieval Boat and Ship Timbers From Dublin [Medieval Dublin Excavations 1962-1981, Ser. B, vol. 3] (Dublin, 1993). Medvedev, A.F. “Drevnerusskie pisala,” SA 2 (1960). Medyntseva, A.A. “O liteinykh formochkakh s nadpisiami Maksima,” Drevniaia Rus’ i slaviane (Moscow, 1978). Drevnerusskie nadpisi Novgorodskogo Sofiiskogo sobora XI-XIV vv. (Moscow, 1978). “Epigraficheskie nakhodki iz Staroi Riazani,” Drevnosti Slavian i Rusi, ed. B.A. Timoshchuk (Moscow, 1988). “Epigrafika, pisala (stili) i tsery,” Drevniaia Rus’: Byt i kul’tura, ed. B.A. Kolchin and T.I. Makarova (Moscow, 1997). Mel’nikova, E.A. “Drevnerusskie leksicheskie zaimstvovania v shvedskom iazyke,” DGNT SSSR: 1982 (Moscow, 1984). Metcalf, D.M. “The President’s Address: “Viking-Age Numismatics. 1. Late Roman and Byzantine Gold in the Northern Lands,” Numismatic Chronicle 155 (1995). “The President’s Address: “Viking-Age Numismatics. 2. Coinage in the Northern Lands in Merovingian and Carolingian Times,” Numismatic Chronicle 156 (1996). Mikliaev, A.M. “Raboty na iuge Pskovskoi oblasti,” AO: 1982 (Moscow, 1984). “Put’ ‘iz Variag v Greki’ (zimniaia versiia),” NNZ (Novgorod, 1992). Minasian, R.S. “Sposoby izgotovleniia platezhnykh slitkov,” Peterburgskii arkheologicheskii vestnik (St. Petersburg, 1995). Mironova, V.G. “Raskopki v Staroi Russe v 1988-1991 gg.,” NNZ 6 (Novgorod, 1992). Mitchell, S.A. Heroic Sagas and Ballads (Ithaca-London, 1991). Mogil’nikov, V.A. “Ugry i Samodeitsy Urala i Zapadnoi Sibiri,” Finno-ugry i balty v epukhu srednevekov’ia, ed. V.V. Sedov (Moscow, 1987). Mokrushin, M.L. “Srednevekovaia keramika,” Kubenskoe ozero, Kubenskoe ozero: Vzgliad skvoz’ tysiacheletiia (Shest’ let issledovaniia Mininskogo arkheologicheskogo kompleksa) (Vologda, 2001). Molbi, M., Gamil’ton-Daer, Sh. “Kosti zhivotnykh iz raskopok v Novgorode i ego okruge,” NNZ 9 (Novgorod, 1995). Molchanov, A.A. “Iarl Rëgnval’d Ul’vsson i ego potomki na Rusi (o proiskhozhdenii ladozhsko-novgorodskogo pasadnich’ego roda Rogovichei-Giuriatichei),” Pamiatniki stariny: kontseptsii. Otkrytiia. versii 2 (St. Petersburg-Pskov, 1997).

385

Molchanov, N.N. Diplomatiia Petra Pervogo (Moscow, 1984). Mongait, A.L., Riazanskaia zemlia (Moscow, 1961). Motsia, A.P., Khalikov, A.Kh. Bulgar-Kiev. Puti sviazi sud’by (Kiev, 1997). Mukhamediev, A.G. “Bronzovye slitki – pervye matallicheskie den’gi Povolzh’ia i Priural’ia,” SA 3 (1984). Drevnie monety Povolzh’ia (Kazan’, 1990). Denezhnoe obrashchenie Povolzh’ia i Priural’ia VI-XV vv. (Aftoreferat; St. Petersburg, 1992). Murygin, A.M. Pechorskoe Priural’e: epokha srednevekov’ia (Moscow, 1992). Murygin, A.M., Pliusnin, S.M. “Poselenie Iadmas I v basseine Srednei Mezene,” Vzaimodeistvie kul’tur severnogo Priural’ia v drevnosti i srednevekov’e [MAESV 12] (Syktyvkar, 1993). Al-Nad!m, The Fihrist 1, ed. and tr. N. Dodge (New York-London, 1970). “The Narrative of Brother Benedict the Pole,” The Mongol Mission: Narratives and Letters of the Franciscan Missionaries in Mongolia and China in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries, tr. A Nun of Stanbrook Abbey (New York, 1955). Nazarenko, A.V. “Proiskhozhdenie drevnerusskogo denezhno-vesovogo scheta,” DGVE: 1994 (Moscow, 1996). Nazarenko, V.A. “Mogil’nik v urochishche Plakun,” Srednevekovaia Ladoga: Novye arkheologicheskie otkrytiia i issledovaniia, ed. V.V. Sedov (Leningrad, 1985). Nelson, B.N. The Idea of Usury: From Tribal Brotherhood to Universal Otherhood, 2nd. ed. (Chicago, 1969). Nicolaysen, N. Langskibet fra Gokstad ved Sandefjord – The Viking-Ship Discovered at Gokstad in Norway (Kristiania, 1882). Nikitskii, A.I. Istoriia ekonomicheskogo byta Novgoroda (Moscow, 1893; reprint, The Hague, 1967). Noonan, J.T., Jr. The Scholastic Analysis of Usury (Cambridge, Mass., 1957). Noonan, Th.S. The Dnieper Trade Route (microfiche, Ann Arbor, MI., 1967). “Suzdalia’s Eastern Trade,” Cahiers du Monde russe et soviétique 19:4 (1978). “The Circulation of Byzantine Coins in Kievan Rus’,” Byzantine Studies/Etudes Byzantines 7:2 (1980). “Russia, the Near East, and the Steppe in the Early Medieval Period: An examination of Sasanian and Byzantine Finds from the Kama-Ural Region,” AEMAe 3 (1983).

386

“Russia’s Eastern Trade, 1150-1350: The Archaeological Evidence,” AEMAe 3 (1983). “The first major silver crisis in Russia and the Baltic, c. 875-c. 900,” hikuin 11 (1985).

“Khazaria as an Intermediary Between Islam and Eastern Europe in the Second Half of the Ninth Century: The Numismatic Perspective,” AEMAe 5 (1985).

“The Monetary History of Kiev in the pre-Mongol Period,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 11 (1987). “Khwarasmian Coins of the Eighth Century from Eastern Europe: The Post-Sasanian Interlude in the Relations Between Central Asian and European Russia,” AEMAe 6 (1988). “The Impact of the Silver Crisis in Islam Upon Novgorod’s Trade with the Baltic,” Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 69 (1988). “Dirham Exports to the Baltic in the Viking Age: Some Preliminary Observations,” Sigtuna Papers – Proceedings of the Sigtuna Symposium on Viking-Age Coinage 1-4 June, 1989, ed. K. Jonsson & B. Malmer [Commentationes De Nummis Saeculorum IX-XI in Suecia Repertis. Nova series 6] (Stockholm, 1990). “The Onset of the Silver Crisis in Central Asia,” AEMAe 7 (1987-1991). “When Did R!s/Rus’ First Visit Khazaria and Baghdad?” AEMAe 7 (1987-1991). “The Vikings and Russia: Some New Directions and Approaches to an Old Problem,” Social Approaches to Viking Studies, ed. R. Samson (Glasgow, 1991). “Fluctuations in Islamic Trade with Eastern Europe During the Viking Age,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 16 (1992). “The Vikings in the East: Coins and Commerce,” Developments Around the Baltic and the North Sea in the Viking Age, ed. B. Ambrosiani and H. Clarke (Stockholm, 1994). “Scandinavians in European Russia,” The Oxford Illustrated History of the Vikings, ed. P. Sawyer (Oxford-New York, 1997). “Why Dirhams First Reached Russia: The Role of Arab-Khazar Relations in the

Development of the Earliest Islamic Trade with Eastern Europe,” The Islamic World, Russia and the Vikings, 750-900: The Numismatic Evidence [Variorum Collected Studies Series] (Ashgate-UK, 1998).

“The Fur Road and Silk Road: The Relations Between Central Asia and Northern Russia in the Early Middle Ages,” Kontakte zwischen Iran, Byzanz und der Steppe, ed. C. Bálint [Varia Archaeolgica Hungarica, Bd. IX] (2000). “The Impact of the Islamic Trade Upon Urbanization in the Rus’ lands: The Tenth and Early Eleventh Centuries,” Les Centres proto-urbains russes entre Scandinavie, Byzance et Orient [Actes du Colloque International tenu au Collège de France en octobre 1997], ed. M. Kazanski, A. Nercessian, and C. Zuckerman (Réalités Byzantines 7) (Paris, 2000).

387

“Volga Bulgh!ria’s Tenth-Century Trade with S!m!nid Central Asia,” AEMAe 11 (2000-2001). “Khazaria, Kiev and Constantinople in the First-Half of the Tenth Century” (in the press). Dirham Hoards from Medieval Western Eurasia, c. 700-c. 1100 [Commentationes De Nummis Saeculorum IX-XI in Suecia Repertis. Nova series 13] (Stockholm) (in preparation). Noonan, Th.S., Kovalev, R.K. “Prayer, Illumination, and Good Times: The Export of Byzantine Wine and Oil to the North of Russia in Pre-Mongol Times,” Byzantium and the North, Acta Byzantina Fennica 8: 1995-1996 (Helsinki, 1997). “B. Strumi!ski, Linguistic Interrelations in Early Rus’: Northmen, Finns, and East

Slavs (Ninth to Eleventh Centuries),” Journal of Ukrainian Studies 23:1 (1998). “Chto govoriat berestianye gramoty ob ekonomike Kievskoi Rusi,” RH/HR [Festschrift for A.A. Zimin, ed. by P.B. Brown], 25: 1-2 (1998). “Wine and Oil For All the Rus’!: The Import of Byzantine Wine and Oil to Kievan Rus’,” Byzantium and the North, Acta Byzantina Fennica 9: 1997-1998 (Helsinki, 1999). “What Can Archaeology Tell Us About How Debts Were Documented and Collected in Kievan Rus’?” RH/HR 27:2 (2000). “The Dirham Output and Monetary Circulation of a Secondary S!m!nid Mint: A Case Study of Balkh,” Moneta Mediævalis: Studia numizmatyczne i historyczne ofiarowane Profesorowi Stanis!awowi Suchodolskiemu w 65. rocznic" urodzin, ed. R. Kiersnowski, et al (Warsaw, 2002).

“The Furry Forties: Packaging Pelts in Medieval Northern Europe” [Jaroslav Pelenski Festschrift] (in the press).

“Bol’shoi klad dirkhemov rannei epokhi Vikingov naidennyi v 2000 g. v g. Kozel’ske, Kaluzhskoi obl,” AV 9 (2002, in the press). “Coins For the Khagan: The Role of Khazaria in the Great Viking-Age Trade Between the Islamic World and European Russia” AEMAe (in preparation). Noonan, Th.S., Kovalev, R.K., Sherman, H.M. “The Development and Diffusion of Glassmaking in Pre-Mongol Russia,” The Prehistory and History of Glassmaking Technology: Ceramics and Civilization 8, ed. P. McCray and W.D. Kingery (Westerville, OH, 1998). Norges gamle Love III, ed. R. Keyser and P.A. Munch (Christiania, 1849). Nosonov, A.N. “Russkaia zemlia” i obrazovanie territorii Drevnerusskogo gosudarstva (Moscow, 1961). Nosov, E.N. “Volkhovskii vodnyi put’ i poseleniia kontsa I tys. n.e.,” KSIA 164 (1981). “Traces of Finno-Ugrian Culture in Novgorod,” ISKOS 9 (1990).

388

Novgorodskoe (Riurikovo) gorodishche (Leningrad, 1990). “Ryurik Gorodishche and the Settlements to the North of Lake Ilmen,” The Archaeology of Novgorod, Russia: Recent Results from the Town and its Hinterland [The Society for Medieval Archaeology: Monograph Series 13], ed. M.A. Brisbane; tr. K. Judelson; gen. ed. R. Huggins (Lincoln, 1992). “Novgorodskaia volost’ Buitsy (istoriko-arkheologicheskii kommentarii),” VID 25 (1993). “O gramote Vsevoloda Mstislavicha na Terpuzhskii pogost Liakhovichi na r. Lovati (k voprosu o slozhenii feodal’noi votchiny,” NIS 4 (14) (St. Petersburg-Novgorod, 1993). Nosov, E.N., Ovsiannikov, O.V., Potin, V.M. “The Arkhangelsk Hoard,” FA 9 (1992). NBG: 1951 g., ed. A.V. Artsikhovskii, M.N. Tikhomirov (Moscow, 1953). 1952 g., ed. A.V. Artsikhovskii (Moscow, 1954). 1953-1954 g., ed. A.V. Artsikhovskii, V.I. Borkovskii (Moscow, 1958). 1955 g., ed. A.V. Artsikhovskii, V.I. Borkovskii (Moscow, 1958). 1956-1957 g., ed. A.V. Artsikhovskii, V.I. Borkovskii (Moscow, 1957). 1958-1961 g., ed. A.V. Artsikhovskii (Moscow, 1961). 1962-1976 g., ed. A.V. Artsikhovskii, V.L. Ianin (Moscow, 1978). 1977-1983 g., ed. V.L. Ianin, A.A. Zalizniak (Moscow, 1986). 1984-1989 g., ed. V.L. Ianin, A.A. Zalizniak (Moscow, 1993). 1990-1996 g., ed. V.L. Ianin, A.A. Zalizniak (Moscow, 2000). NPL, ed. A.N. Nasonov (Moscow-Leningrad, 1950). Novosel’tsev, A.P. “Termin «vezha» v drevnerusskikh istochnikakh,” DGNT SSSR (Moscow, 1989). Novosel’tev, A.P., Pashuto, V.T. “Vneshniaia torgovlia drevnei Rusi (do serediny XIII v.),” Istoriia SSSR 3 (1967). Obolensky, D. Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Europe, 500-1453 (London, 1974). Oborin, V.A. “Kostianaia rukoiatka iz Aniushkara (Kylasovo),” KSIA 57 (1955). Drevnee iskusstvo Prikam’ia: Permskii zverinyi stil’ (Perm’, 1976). Oiateva, E.I. “‘Darstvennye plastiny’ v khudozhestvennoi metallicheskoi plastike Prikam’ia I – nachala II tysiacheletiia n.e.,” ASGE 33 (1998). Oleinikov, O.M. “Klimat v raione verkhnei Volgi v Srednie Veka,” NNZ 6 (Novgorod,

389

1992). Orchard, W.C. Beads and Beadwork of the American Indians: A Study Based on Specimens in the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation (2nd ed., New York, 1975). Orlov, S.A. Dereviannye izdeliia Staroi Ladogi VII-X vv. [Dissertation Abstract] (Moscow, 1954). Orlov, V.E. “Gosti Novgorodskie. Novgorodskie graffiti v Sofii Kievskoi,” DGVE: 1995 (Moscow, 1997). Ovsiannikov, O.V. “O srednevekovykh russkikh lyzhakh,” KSIA 125 (1971). “Lyzhi severnoi Rusi,” Novoe v arkheologii SSSR i Finliandii (Leningrad, 1984). “On Old Russian Skis,” FA 6 (1989). “The Gorodetz sanctuary of the 12th-13th Centuries on the Pechora River,” ISKOS 9 (Helsinki, 1990). “Plemennoi tsentr letopisnoi «Pechery» na beregu Ledovitogo Okeana (Ortinskoe gorodishche VI-X vv.),” Novye istochniki po arkheologii severo-zapada (St. Petersburg, 1994). “Srednevekovaia Arktika: arkheologicheskie otkrytiia poslednikh let,” AV 3 (1994). Ovchinnikova, B.B. “Pisala srednevekovogo Novgoroda,” Novgorodskie arkheologicheskie chteniia (Novgorod, 1994). Örvar Odds Saga in Severn Viking Romances, tr. H. Pálsson and P. Edwards (London, 1985). Pamiatniki istorii Velikogo Novgoroda, ed. S.V. Bakhrushin (Moscow, 1909). Pamiatniki russkogo prava 2, ed. A.A. Zimin (Moscow, 1953). 3, ed. A.A. Zimin (Moscow, 1955). Pargoire, S.J. “Le Saint-Mamas de Constantinople,” Transactions of the Russian Archaeological Institute in Constantinople 9: 1-2 (1904). Pavlova, E. “The Coinless Period in the History of northeastern Rus’: Historiographical Study,” RH/HR 21:4 (1994). Perkhavko, V.B. “Rasprostronennie plomb drogichinskogo tipa,” DGVE: 1994 (Moscow, 1996). Peterburgskii, I.M. “Raskopki v doline r. Vad,” AO: 1980 (Moscow, 1981). “Traditsionnye zaniatiia i orudiia sel’skokhoziaistvennogo truda v proshlom i nastaiashchem,” Mordva Istoriko-kul’turnye ocherki (Saransk, 1995). Petrenko, A.G. “Rezul’taty issledovanii osteologicheskikh meterialov iz raskopok

390

srednevekovykh pamiatnikov Prikam’ia,” Issledovaniia po srednevekovoi arkheologii lesnoi polosy Vostochnoi Evropy (Izhevsk, 1991). Petrova, L.I., et al, “Topografiia prigorodnykh monastyrei Novgoroda Velikogo,” NIS 8 (18) (St. Petersburg, 2000). Picchio, R. “The Slavonic and Latino-Germanic Background,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies [Eucharisterion: Essays Presented to Omelyan Pritsak] 3/4, 2(1979-1980). Pimenov, V.V. Vepsy. Ocherk etnicheskoi istorii i genezisa kul’tury (Moscow-Leningrad, 1965). Pistsovye knigi Novgorodskoi zemli II: Pistsovye knigi Obonezhskoi piatiny XVI v., ed. K.B. Baranov (St. Petersburg, 1999). Pletneva, S.A. Sarkel i !shelkovyi" put’ (Voronezh, 1996). Podvigina, N.L. Ocherki sotsial’no-ekonomicheskoi i politicheskoi istorii Novgoroda Velikogo v XII-XIII vv. (Moscow, 1976). The Poem of the Cid, tr. L.B. Simpson (Berkeley, 1957). Pokrovskaia, L.V. Ukrasheniia Baltskogo i Finno-ugorskogo proiskhozhdeniia srednevekovogo Novgoroda: sistematizatsiia, khronologiia, topografiia (Aftoreferat: Moscow, 1998). “Usad’ba B Nerevskogo raskopa i usad’ba E Troitskogo raskopa (sravnitel’nyi analiz kompleksnogo iuvelirnykh ukrashenii Nerevskogo i Liudina kontsov srednevekovogo Novgoroda),” NNZ 14 (Novgorod, 2000). “Finno-ugorskie ukrasheniia v gorodskom ubore srednevekovogo Novgoroda,” NNZ 14 (Novgorod, 2000). Polnoe Sobranie russkikh letopisei 1 – Lavrent’evskaia letopis’ (Moscow, 1962). 2 – Ipat’evskaia letopis’ (Moscow, 1998).

4 (2) – Novgorodskaia piataia letopis’, 2nd ed. Part 2 (Petrograd, 1917).

9 – Patriarshaia ili Nikonovskaia letopis’ (Moscow, 1965).

33 – Kholmogorskaia letopis’- Dvinskaia letopis’ (St. Petersburg, 1977).

41 – Letopisets Pereslavlia Suzdal’skogo (Letopis’ russkikh tsareii) (Moscow, 1995). Poluboiarinova, M.D. Rus’ i Volzhskaia Bolgariia v X-XV vv. (Moscow, 1993). Potin, V.M. Drevniaia Rus’ i evropeiskie gosudarstva v X-XIII vv. (Leningrad, 1968).

391

PVL, ed. and tr. D.S. Likhachev (St. Petersburg, 1996). Povetkin, V.I. “Opyt vostanovleniia novgorodskikh berestianykh gramot,” RA 3 (1996). Pritsak, O. “The Name of the Third Kind of R!s and their City,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (April, 1967). “An Arabic Text on the Trade Route of the Corporation of the ar-Rus in the Second Half of the Ninth Century,” Folia Orientalia 12 (1970). The Origin of Rus’ 1 (Cambridge, Mass., 1981). “At the Dawn of Christianity in Rus’, Harvard Ukrainian Studies 12-13 (1988/9). The Origins of the Rus’ Weights and Monetary Systems (Cambridge, Mass. 1998). Procopius, The Secret History, tr. G.A. Williamson (Harmondsworth, 1981). Pronshtein, A.P. Velikii Novgorod v XVI veke (Khar’kov, 1957). Pushkina, T.A., Murasheva, V.V., Nefedov, V.S. “Novye v izuchenii tsentral’nogo selishcha v Gnëzdove,” Arkheologicheskii sbornik: Gnëzdovo – 125 let issledovaniia pamiatniki, ed. V.V. Murasheva (Moscow, 2001). Put’ iz Bulgara v Kiev (Kazan’, 1992). Puteshestvie cherez Moskoviiu Korniliia de Bruina, tr. P.P. Barsov (Moscow, 1873). Puteshestviia russkikh poslov XVI-XVII vv. (Moscow, 1954). Rappoport, P.A. Drevnerusskaia arkhitektura (St. Petersburg, 1993). Stroitel’noe proisvodstvo Drevnei Rusi X-XIII vv. (St. Petersburg, 1994). Ravdina, T.V. Pogrebeniia X-XI vv. S monetami na territorii Drevnei Rusi: Katalog (Moscow, 1988). Ravdonikas, V.I. Naskal’nye izobrazheniia Belogo moria (Moscow-Leningrad, 1938). Ray, A.J. Freeman, D. ‘Give Us Good Measure:’ An Economic Analysis of Relations Between, the Indians and the Hudson’s Bay Company Before 1763 (Toronto, 1978). Riabinin, E.A. Zoomorfnye ukrasheniia drevnei Rusi X-XIV vv. [Arkheologiia SSSR: svod pamiatnikov, E1-60] (Leningrad, 1981). “Busy Staroi Ladogi (po materialam raskopok 1973-1975 gg),” Severnaia Rus’ i ee sosedi v epokhu rannego srednevekov’ia (Leningrad, 1982). “Novye otkrytiia v Staroi Ladoge (itogi raskopok na Zemlianom gorodishche v 1973- 1975 gg.),” Srednevekovaia Ladoga (Leningrad, 1985).

392

“The Ancient Site of Unorozh, End of the First Millennium A.D.,” Cultural Heritage of the Finno-Ugrians and Slavs (Tallinn, 1992). Finno-ugorskie plemena v sostave Drevnei Rusi (St. Petersburg, 1997). Rjabinin, E.A., Galibin, V. “New Data Concerning Early Glass Beadmaking in Ladoga (In the 8th to 10th Centuries),” Glass Beads: Cultural History, Technology, Experiment and Analogy [Studies in Technology and Culture 2, 1995] (Lejre, 1995). Roslund, M. “Brosamen vom Tisch der Reichen. Byzantinische Funde aus Lund und Sigtuna (ca. 980-1250),” Rom und Byzanz im Norden: Mission und Glaubenwechsel im Ostseeraum während des 8.-14. Jahrhunderts 2 (Mainz, 1998). Rossiiskoe zakonodatel’stvo: X-XX vekov 1 (Moscow, 1984). Rozenfel’dt, I.G. Drevnosti zapadnoi chasti Volgo-Okskogo mezhdurech’ia v VI-IX vv. (Moscow, 1982). Rozenfel’dt, R.L. “Razvedki v Moskovskoi oblasti,” KSIA 79 (1960). “Vanvizdinskaia cul’tura,” Finno-ugry i balty v epukhu srednevekov’ia, ed. V.V. Sedov, (Moscow, 1987). “Vymskaia kul’tura,” Finno-ugry i balty v epukhu srednevekov’ia [Arkheologiia SSSR], ed. V.V. Sedov (Moscow, 1987). Rozhdestvenskaia, T.V. “Drevnebolgarskaia epigraficheskaia traditsiia i novgorodskaia epigrafika XI-XV vv.,” Palaeobulgarica/Starob”lgaristika, 14: 2 (1990). Podpisnye shedevry drevnerusskogo remesla (Moscow, 1991). Drevnerusskie nadpisi na stenakh khramov (Novye istochniki XI-XV vv.) (Leningrad, 1992). Rudenko, K.A. Metallicheskaia posuda Povolzh’ia i Prikam’ia v VIII-XIV vv. (Kazan’, 2000). Rudolf von Ems, Der guote Gêrhard (Tübingen, 1971). Russian Embassies to the Georgian Kings (1589-1605) I: Texts [Works Issued by the Hakluyt Society, 2nd Ser. vol. 137], ed. W.E.D. Allen, tr. A. Mango (Cambridge, 1970). The Russian Primary Chronicle, tr. & ed. S.H. Cross & O.P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor (Cambridge, Mass., reprint, 1973). Russko-indiiskie otnosheniia v XVII v. (Moscow, 1958) Ibn R!sta in Khvol’son, D.A. Izvestiia o khazarakh, burtasakh, bolgarakh, mad’iarakh, svlavian i rusi, Abu ali-Akhmeda ben” Omar” ibn-Dasta (St. Petersburg, 1869).

393

Rybakov B.A. Remeslo drevnei Rusi (Moscow, 1948). Russkie datirovannye nadpisi: XI-XIV vv.: Svod arkheologicheskikh istochnikov (Moscow, 1964). “Miniatiury Radzivilovskoi letopisi i russkie litsovye rukopisi X-XII vv.,” Iz istorii kul’tury drevnei Rusi: Issledovaniia i zametki (Moscow, 1984). Rybina, E.A. Inozemnye dvory v Novgorode v XII-XVII vv. (Moscow, 1986). “Applied Art,” The Archaeology of Novgorod, Russia: Recent Results from the Town and its Hinterland [The Society for Medieval Archaeology: Monograph Series 13], ed. M.A. Brisbane; tr. K. Judelson; gen. ed. R. Huggins (Lincoln, 1992). “Tseri iz raskopok v Novgorode,” NNZ 8 (Novgorod, 1994). “Risunki srednevekovykh novgorodsev (po arkheologicheskim materialam),” Istoriia - arkheologiia: Traditsii i perespektivy (Moscow, 1998). Torgovlia srednevekovogo Novgoroda: Istoriko-arkheologicheskie ocherki (Velikii Novgorod, 2001). Ryndina, N.V. “Tekhnologiia proizvodstva novgorodskikh iuvelirov X-XV vv.,” TNAE 3 (Novye metody v arkheologii) [MIA SSSR 117], ed. A.V. Artsikhovskii, B.A. Kolchin (Moscow, 1963). Savel’eva, E.A. Perm’ Vychegodskaia: k voprosu o proiskhozhdenii naroda komi (Moscow, 1971). Vymskie mogil’niki XI-XIV vv. (Leningrad, 1987). “Nachal’nye etapy drevnerusskoi kolonizatsii Evropeiskogo Severo-Vastoka,” Vzaimodeistvie kul’tur severnogo Priural’ia v drevnosti i srednevekov’e [MAESV 12] (Syktyvkar, 1993). Savel’eva, E.A., Klenov, M.V. “Pozhegskoe gorodishche,” Slavianskaia arkheologiia 1990. Rannesrednevekovyi gorod i ego okruga [Materialy po arkheologii Rossii 2] (Moscow, 1995). Savel’eva, E.A., Pavlova, N.A. “Busy Pozhegskogo gorodishcha,” Vzaimodeistvie kul’tur severnogo Priural’ia v drevnosti i srednevekov’e [MAESV 12] (Syktyvkar, 1993). Savvateev, Iu.A. “Novye petroglify Onezhskogo ozera,” AO: 1972 goda (Moscow, 1973). Saxo Grammaticus Books X-XVI, II (Books XIV, XV, and XVI: Text and Translation), tr. E. Christiansen [BAR International Series 118 (i)] (Oxford, 1981). Saxo Grammaticus, The History of the Danes 1, tr. P. Fisher, ed. H.E. Davidson (London, 1979). Schilder, M. Die Kaurischnecken. Das Leben der Tiere und Pflanzen in

394

Einzeldarstellungen 46 (Leipzig, 1952). Schildhauer, J. The Hansa. History and Culture, tr. K. Vanovitch (Leipzig, 1988). Schwartz, S.B. Victors and Vanquished: Spanish and Nahua Views of the Conquest of Mexico (Boston-New York, 2000). Sedova, M.V. “Epigraficheskie nakhodki iz Suzdalia,” KSIA 190 (1987), 7-13. Sedova, M.V. Iuvelirnye izdeliia drevnego Novgoroda (X-XV vv.) (Moscow, 1981). Semenov, V.A. “Razvedki v Ust’-Kulomskom i Sysol’skom raionakh Komi ASSR,” AO: 1977 (Moscow, 1978). “Varninskii mogil’nik,” Novye pamiatniki Polomskoi kul’tury (Izhevsk, 1980). “Tol’enskii mogil’nik IX – nachala X vv.,” Novye issledovaniia po drevnei istorii Udmurtii (Izhevsk, 1988). Sepeev, G.A. Vostochnye mariitsy (Ioshkar-Ola, 1975). Shakhmatov, A.A. Obozrenie russkikh letopisnykh svodov XIV-XVI vv. (Moscow- Leningrad, 1938). Shatzmiller, J. Shylock Reconsidered: Jews, Moneylenders, and Medieval Society (Berkeley, 1990). Shchapova, Iu.L. “Stekliannye busy drevnego Novgoroda,” TNAE 1 (Novgorodskaia ekspeditsiia) [MIA SSSR 55], ed. A.V. Artsikhovskii, B.A. Kolchin (Moscow, 1956). “Ukrasheniia iz stekla,” Drevniaia Rus’: Byt i kul’tura, ed. B.A. Kolchin, T.I. Makarova [Arkheologiia] (Moscow, 1997). Shtykhov, G.V. Drevnii Polotsk: IX-XIII vv. (Minsk, 1975). Goroda Polotskoi zemli (Minsk, 1978). Shutova, N.I. “Zhenskaia odezhda naseleniia basseina Cheptsy v kontse I tys. n.e. (opyt rekonstruktsii),” Kul’tury stepei Evrazii vtoroi poloviny I tysiacheletiia n.e. (iz istorii kostiuma) (Samara, 2000). Sigizmund Gerbershtein, Zapiski o Moskovii, tr. A.I. Maleina and A.V. Nazarenko, ed. V.L. Ianin (Moscow, 1988). Sigmund von Herberstein, Description of Moscow and Muscovy, 1557, tr. J.B.C. Grundy, ed. B. Picard (New York, 1969). Simeone, W.E. Rifles, Blankets, and Beads: Identity, History, and the Northern Athapaskan Potlatch [The Civilization of the American Indian Series, 216] (Norman, Okla. 1995). Ibn S!n" (Avicenna), Kanon vrachebnoi nauki I-V (Tashkent, 1979-1982).

395

Sirelius, U.T. Jagd und Fischeri in Finnland (Berlin-Leipzig, 1934). Suomen kansanomaista kulttuuria 1 (Helsinki, 1919). Suomen kansanomaista kulttuuria 2 (Helsinki, 1921). Skalon, V.N. Rechnye bobry Severnoi Azii (Moscow, 1951). Smirnov, K.A. “Veshchevoi kompleks D’iakovskikh gorodishch,” D’iakovskaia kul’tura (Moscow, 1974). Smirnova, L.I. “Eshche raz o tupykh strelakh (k voprosu ob okhotnich’em promysle v srednevekovom Novgorode),” NNZ 8 (Novgorod, 1994). Smolarek, P. “Ships and Ports in Pomorze,” Waterfront Archaeology in Britain and northern Europe, ed. G. Milne & B. Hobley [The Council for British Archaeology: Research Report 41] (London, 1981). Snorre Sturlason, Heimskringla, tr. A.H. Smith (New York, 1932; reprint 1990). The Song of Roland, tr. D.L. Sayers (London, 1957). Sorokin, A.N. “K topografii drevneishegi Novgorodskogo torga,” NNZ 2 (Novgorod, 1989). Blagoustroistvo Drevnego Novgoroda (Moscow, 1995). Sorokin, P.E. “Eksperimental’noe sudostraenie i problemy izucheniia srednevekovogo sudokhodstva na severo-zapodnoi Rusi,” NNZ 10 (Novgorod, 1996).. “O nekotorykh osobennostiakh sudovogo dela v Drevnei Rusi,” Pamiatniki stariny: kontseptsii. otkrytiia. versii 2 (St. Petersburg-Pskov, 1997). Vodnye puti i sudostroenie na severp-zapode Rusi v srednevekov’e (St. Petersburg, 1997). Soslovno-pravovoe polozhenie i administrativnoe ustroistvo korennykh narodov Severo- Zapadnoi Sibiri (konets XVI-nachalo XX veka), ed. A.Iu. Konev (Tiumen’, 1999). Sotnikova, M.P. Drevneishie russkie monety X-XI vekov (Moscow, 1995). Sotnikova, M.P., Spasski, I.G. Russian Coins of the X-XI Centuries A.D.: Recent research and a corpus in commemoration of the mellenery of the earliest Russian coinage, tr. H.B. Wells (Oxford, 1982). Tysiacheletie drevneishikh monet Rossii (Leningrad, 1983). Spasskii, I.G. Russkaia monetnaia sistema (Leningrad, 1970). Spiridovov, A.M. “Novgorodskie berestianye gramoty,” Pis’mennye izvestiia o karelakh (Petrozavodsk, 1990). Spriggs, J.A. “The British Beaver – Fur, Fact and Fantasy, Leather and Fur: Aspects of

396

Early Medieval Trade and Technology, ed. E. Cameron (London, 1998). Springmann, M.-J. “Thoughts on the Typology of Stone Age Boat Petroglyphs from the White Sea and Lake Onego, Russia,” Izuchenie pamiatnikov morskoi arkheologii 4 (St. Petersburg, 2000). Spufford, P. Money and Its Use in Medieval Europe (Cambridge, 1988). Stalsberg, A. “Scandinavian Viking-Age Boat Graves in Old Rus’,” RH/HR [Festschrift for Th.S. Noonan, Vol. I, ed. by R.K. Kovalev & H.M. Sherman], 28: 1-4 (2001). Stepanov, P.D. Osh-Pando (Saransk, 1967). Stokolos, V.S., Murygin, A.M. “Issledovaniia na Mezenskikh novostroikakh,” AO: 1977 (Moscow, 1978). “Raskopki v raione pos. Usogosk,” AO: 1978 (Moscow, 1979). Stoliarova, L.V. Svod zapisei pistsov, khudozhnikov i perepletchikov drevnerusskikh pergamennykh kodeksov XI-XIV vekov (Moscow, 2000). Strumi!ski, B. Linguistic Interrelations in Early Rus’: Northmen, Finns, and East Slavs (Ninth to Eleventh Centuries) (Edmonton-Toronto, 1996). Sturlaugs Saga in O.J. Zitzelsberger, The Two Versions of Sturlaugs Saga Starfsama: A Decipherment, Edition, and Translation of a Fourteenth Century Icelandic Mythical- Heroic Saga (Düsseldorf, 1969). Sviatitel’ Stefan Permskii, ed. G.M. Prokhorov (St. Petersburg, 1995). Sychevskaia, E.K. “Ryby drevnego Novgoroda,” SA 1 (1965), 236-256. Taavitsainen, J.-P. “Wide-Range Hunting and Swidden Cultivation as Prerequisites of Iron Age Colonization in Finland,” Suomen Antropologi: Special Issue on Swidden Cultivation 4 (1987). Al-!abar!, The History of al-!abar!: An Annotated Translation, tr. H. Kennedy, 29 ["Al- Man#$r and al-Mahd!] (New York, 1990). Talve, I. Finnish Folk Culture [Studia Fennica Ethnologica 4], tr. S. Sinisalo (Helsinki, 1997). Taroeva, R.F. Material’naia kul’tura Karel (Moscow-Leningrad, 1965). Tekst-Kentavr o Sibirskikh Samoedakh, ed. A. Pliguzov (Moscow, 1993). Thomson, R. “Leather Working Process,” Leather and Fur: Aspects of Early Medieval Trade and Technology, ed. E. Cameron (London, 1998). Tikhomirov, M.N. The Towns of Ancient Rus’, tr. Iu. Sdobnikov (Moscow, 1959). The Travels of Ibn Ba""#"a, A.D. 1325-1354, II, ed. H.A.R. Gibb (Cambridge, 1962). Treadgold, W. “Three Byzantine Provinces and the First Byzantine Contacts with the

397

Rus’,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 12-13 (1988/9). Tsalkin, V.I. Materialy dlia istorii zhivotnovodstva i okhoty v drevnei Rusi [MIA SSSR 51] (Moscow, 1956). K istorii zhivotnovodstva i okhoty v Vostochnoi Evrope [MIA 107] (Moscow, 1962). Us!ma ibn Munqidh in Memories of an Arab-Syrian Gentleman or an Arab Knight in the Crusades: Memoirs of Us!ma ibn-Munqidh, tr. P.K. Hitti (Beirut, 1964). Uspenskaia, A.V. “Gorodishcha X-XIII vv. na iuge Novgorodskoi zemli,” Ekspeditsii Gosudarstvennogo istoricheskogo Muzeia (Moscow, 1969). “Berezovetskii kurgannyi mogil’nik X-XII vv.,” Srednevekovye drevnosti Vostochnoi Evropy (Moscow, 1993). Valonen, N. “Varhaisia lappalais-suomalaisia kosketuksia,” Ethnologia Fennica 10 (1980) (English abstract: “Early Contacts Between the Lapps and the Finns”). Varenov, A.B. “Karel’skie drevnosti v Novgorode (Opyt topografirovaniia),” NNZ 11 (Novgorod, 1997). Vaselovskii, S.B. Feodal’noe zemlevladenie v Severo-Vostochnoi Rusi I: 2 (Moscow- Leningrad, 1947). Vasil’ev, M.I., Sorokin, A.N. “Iz istorii transportnykh sredstv drevnego Novgoroda,” NNZ 14 (Novgorod, 2000). Vasilevskij, V.G. Trudy – III (Zhitiia svv. Georgiia Amastridskogo i Stefana Surozhskogo) (reprint: The Hague/Paris, 1968). Vasiliev, A.A. The Russian Attack on Constantinople in 860 (Cambridge, Mass., 1946). Veal, E.M. The English Fur Trade in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 1966). Vernadsky, G. Kievan Russia (New Haven-London, 1948). Vikings in Russia: Yngvar’s Saga and Eymund’s Saga, tr. H. Pálsson and P. Edwards (Edinburgh, 1989). Vil’danov, R.F. “Monety v khronologii Rozhdestvenskogo arkheologicheskogo kompleksa,” Oborinskie chteniia: Materialy arkheologicheskikh konferentsyi 1 (Perm’, 2000). Vilkuna, J. “Ancient Skis of Central Finland,” FA 1 (1984). “Prehistoric Finno-Ugrian paddles,” Materialy VI mezhdunarodnogo kongressa finno- ugrovedov 1 (Moscow, 1989). Vita Meinwerci, episcopi Paderbornensis: Das Leben des Bischofs Meinwerk, ed. H. Tenckhoff (Hannover, 1921). Vita sancti Mariani Scoti, ed. J. Gamansius in Acta Sanctorum quotquot toto orbe coluntur, Februarius 11, vol. II (Paris, 1864), 369.

398

Vysotskii, S.A. Drevnerusskie nadpisi Sofii Kievskoi: XI-XIV vv. 1 (Kiev, 1966). Srednevekovye nadpisi Sofii Kievskoi (Po materialam graffiti XI-XIV vv. 2 (Kiev, 1976). Kievskie graffiti: XI-XVII vv. (Kiev, 1985). White, B.M. “‘Give Us a Little Milk’. The Social and Cultural Meanings of Gift Giving in the Lake Superior Fur Trade,” Minnesota History 48: 2 (1982). White, R. The Middle Ground. Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815 (Cambridge, 1991). “«The White Book» of Peterborough Abbey,” in “Select Tracts and Table Books Relating to English Weights and Measures (1100-1742),” ed. H. Hall, F.J. Nicholas, Camden Third Series, Vol. XLI: Miscellany - XV (London, 1929). Wigh, B. “Animal Bones from the Viking Town of Birka, Sweden,” Leather and Fur: Aspects of Early Medieval Trade and Technology, ed. Ester Cameron, (London, 1998). Witthoft, J. “Archaeology as a Key to the Colonial Fur Trade,” Minnesota History 40: 4 (1966). Wolfram, H. History of the Goths (Berkeley, 1988). Yanin, V.L. “The Archaeological Study of Novgorod: an Historical Perspective,” The Archaeology of Novgorod, Russia: Recent Results from the Town and its Hinterland [The Society for Medieval Archaeology: Monograph Series 13], ed. M.A. Brisbane; tr. K. Judelson; gen. ed. R. Huggins (Lincoln, 1992). Zachrisson, I. “Medeltida ekorrpilar,” Fornvännen 71 (1976). “The South Saami Culture: In Archaeological Finds and West Nordic Written Sources from AD 800-1300,” Social Approaches to Viking Studies, ed. R. Samson (Glasgow, 1991). Zagoskin, N.P. Russkie vodnye puti i sudovoe delo v dopetrovskoi Rusi (Kazan’, 1910). Zaitseva, I.E. “Tsvetnoi metal. Ukrasheniia. Iuvelirnye masterskie,” Kubenskoe ozero: Vzgliad skvoz’ tysiacheletiia (Shest’ let issledovaniia Mininskogo arkheologicheskogo kompleksa) (Vologda, 2001). Zakharov, S.D. “Levoberezhnoe Beloozero po rezul’tatam obsledovaniia 1990-1992 gg.,” NNZ 7 (Novgorod, 1993), Zakharov, V.P. Pushnoi promysel i torgovlia v Iakutii (konets XIX - nachalo XX v.) (Novosibirsk, 1995). Zakhoder, B.N. Kaspiiskii svod svedenii o Vostochnoi Evrope 1-2 (Moscow, 1967). Zalizniak, A.A. “Znachenie novgorodskikh berestianykh gramot dlia istorii russkogo i drugikh slavianskikh iazykov,” Vestnik Akademii nauk SSSR 8 (1988).

399

Drevnenovgorodskii dialekt (Moscow, 1995).

Zalizniak, A.A., Kolosova, I.O., Labutina, I.K. “Pskovskie berestianye gramoty 6 i 7,” RA 1 (1993).

Zasurtsev, P.I. “Usad’by i postroiki drevnego Novgoroda,” TNAE 4 (Zhilishcha drevnego Novgoroda) [MIA SSSR 123], ed. A.V. Artsikhovskii, B.A. Kolchin (Moscow, 1963). Novgorod, otkrytyi arkheologami (Moscow, 1967). Zav’ialov, V.I. “Kuznechnoe remeslo severnykh udmurtov v kontse I nachale II tysiacheletiia n.e.,” Novye issledovaniia po drevnei istorii Udmurtii (Izhevsk, 1988). “Zhelezoobrabotka u finmo-ugrov Priural’ia,” Ocherki po istorii drevnei zhelezoobrabotki v Vostochnoi Evrope (Moscow, 1997). Zav’ialov, V.I., Chesnokova, N.N. “Zheleznye predmety Lozymskogo poseleniia (vanvizdinskaia kul’tura),” SA 2 (1991). “Zhalovannaia gramota velikogo kniazia Ivana III Vasil’evicha zhiteliam Permi Vychegodskoi,” Isoriko-filologicheskii sbornik 4 (Syktyvkar, 1958). Zhambalova, S.G. Traditsionnaia okhota Buriat (Novosibirsk, 1991). Zhiganov, M.F. “Iz istorii khoziaistva Mordvy v XIII-XVI vv.,” Issledovaniia po material’noi kul’ture mordovskogo naroda [TIE 86] (Moscow, 1963). “Zimmer,” J. Grimm, W. Grimm, Deutsches Wörterbuch 15 (Z-Zmasche) (Leipzig, 1956). Zverugo, Ia.G. Drevnii Volkovysk (Minsk, 1975). Verkhnee Poneman’e v IX-XIII vv. (Minsk, 1989). “1130-1156 g. Voprosy Kirika, Savvy i Ilii, s" otvetami Nifonta, episkopa novgorodskogo, i drugikh" ierarkhicheskikh" lits",” Russkaia istoricheskaia biblioteka 6: Pamiatniki drevnerusskogo kanonicheskogo prava, ed. V.N. Beneshevich, Pt. 1, 2nd ed. (St. Petersburg, 1908).