Animals and Archaeology in Northern Medieval Russia: Zooarchaeological Studies in Novgorod and its Region

By Mark Brisbane

This is the third book on material studies in this series on medieval Novgorod and its territory, and deals with a substantial body of animal bones that has been recovered over the last decade. The zooarchaeological evidence is discussed by the editor and a number of other British and Russian specialists looking at the remains of mammals, birds and fish. Topics discussed include diet, butchery practices, the exploitation of fur and skins, mortality patterns of mammals, and metrical analyses of a wide range of species. Detailed data sets are provided to enable the reader to make comparisons with their own research, but the book is also suitable for those with a more general interest in medieval Russian archaeology.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Oxbow Books
• Release date: Apr 30, 2020
• ISBN: 9781789254181

Book preview

-1-

THE INTAS PROJECTS AND THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND TO THE ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES

Mark Brisbane

THE INTAS PROJECTS

This chapter begins with an account of the internationally-supported collaborations into aspects of Novgorod archaeology that involved numerous individuals and institutions over a 20-year period (1989–2009).

Following the author’s initial visits to Novgorod in 1989 and 1990, it was apparent how much important archaeological and historical research was being undertaken by Russian archaeologists, who devoted their summers (and more) to the systematic investigation of Novgorod and nearby sites. Almost none of this important work was reaching western archaeologists except in a very limited and often outof-date manner. Also at that time, some of this work was not even reaching fellow Russian archaeologists due to problems with the production of publications. Thanks to the generosity of the UK’s Society of Medieval Archaeology, a monograph on the archaeology of Novgorod was produced (Brisbane 1992) and subsequently an internationally supported programme of archaeological collaboration began in 1993. This collaboration, supported by INTAS (The International Association for the Promotion of Cooperation with Scientists from the New Independent States of the Former Soviet Union), was initially for a three-year programme of investigation into the palaeo-environment of medieval Novgorod and its hinterland, focusing on the animal and plant remains from four key sites, two in the hinterland (Georgii and Ryurik Gorodishche) and two from within the town itself (Troitsky on the west side of the River Volkhov and Fedorovsky on the east side). It is with this project that this volume has its origins.

The first INTAS project (93-463)

The project set out to establish a recovery and sampling strategy for the collection of environmental data from excavations in Novgorod and its hinterland. It brought together specialists from Western Europe with Russian archaeologists to determine what type of questions could be addressed through the collection of this material. Its objectives included the provision of training where necessary to enable the study of faunal remains by Russian archaeologists to continue after the completion of the project, and the establishment of a reference collection of animal bones in Novgorod for comparative purposes.

Its primary aim was the investigation of the archaeological evidence for the palaeo-environment of the medieval town of Novgorod and its hinterland from the late 8th to 15th centuries AD. The sites were selected in order to set up an integrated study of the environmental evidence, predominantly the evidence from animal bones (Mark Maltby and his team) and macroscopic plant remains (Mick Monk from University College Cork (UCC) for the town and, as part of a wider early Slavic agriculture study, Almuth Alsleben from the Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte of the Christian-Albrechts University in Kiel for the hinterland sites). The collaborating participants were the former Department of Conservation Sciences (later School of Applied Sciences, now Department of Archaeology and Anthropology) at Bournemouth University, the Department of Archaeology at UCC, the Institute for the History of Material Culture in St Petersburg, the Department of Archaeology of Moscow State (Lomonosov) University, Novgorod State Museum and the Centre for the Organisation of Archaeology in Novgorod.

The work initially concentrated on identifying and implementing sampling strategies and methodologies for both faunal remains and plant material and then moved on to begin to analyse and interpret the evidence provided by the material itself. This work produced clear variations between sites, some of which were due to marked differences in collection methods (e.g. sieving versus hand recovery). In some places these recovery methods were changed in an appropriate manner in response to these findings. A programme of sieving archaeological deposits specifically for environmental data was instigated on sites in Novgorod and its hinterland, with notable improvements in recovery at the excavations at Ryurik Gorodishche (henceforth referred to as Gorodishche) and Troitsky site XI.

The project’s general results may be summarised as follows:

•It established the presence/absence of animal species (both wild and domesticated) at a number of sites, adding to the work undertaken by Russian zoologists in the 1950s and 1960s ( e.g. Tsalkin 1956; Sychevskaya 1965).

•It enabled a preliminary comparison of meat procurement and consumption between the town and earlier/contemporary rural settlements in its hinterland.

•It provided an initial outline of the history of animal and plant exploitation in Novgorod through several centuries of the town’s history.

•Sieving experiments demonstrated that fish caught in the area were a common component of the diet: these included primarily Cyprinidae, pike and zander.

•It showed that there was great potential in studying variability in the composition of the animal bone assemblages within a site, for example between properties or between indoor and outdoor areas. Such studies would provide insights into the organisation of the activities within and between properties, variations in diet, and whether there were specialists involved with carcass processing. It was recognised, however, that problems with site recording methods and logistical issues were challenging (see Chapter 2).

•The link between artefact production using bone, antler and ivory and the procurement of the raw material for this artisan activity was also studied. This examined whether, for instance, antlers were collected separately from deer carcasses or were a by-product of the butchery process (Smirnova 2005, 10–14).

The second INTAS project (96-099)

In 1997 a second project was approved by INTAS that was designed to study the chronological framework for early medieval towns in north-west Russia based on the evidence from ceramics and dendrochronology. The test bed for this project was Novgorod, its hinterland sites, and other historic towns in the region, notably Pskov and Stara Russa. It brought together the original partners from the first project with colleagues from the Institute of Archaeology at University College London (UCL), the Department of Medieval and Modern Europe from the British Museum, the Laboratory for Ceramic Research of the University of Lund, and the dendrochronology laboratory at the Natural Research Unit of the National Museum of Denmark.

The main objectives of the project were the following:

•To assist in standardising the chronological framework for early medieval towns in north-west Russia based on the evidence from ceramics and dendrochronology.

•To integrate the results in an innovative manner building upon successful examples, such as Lubeck and London.

•To develop and implement strategies and methodologies for the examination and study of the artefactual evidence for ceramics and wood, placing these two material types into their wider economic and social context.

•To develop and support the dendrochronology laboratory in Novgorod, providing appropriate training where required.

•To enhance existing research capabilities in the study of medieval ceramics in north-west Russia, providing appropriate training where required.

Specific work carried out on this project included the following:

Ceramics

This part of the project concentrated on the sorting and analysis of ceramic assemblages from a number of urban sites. Material from the Troitsky XI excavations in Novgorod was selected to provide a type and fabric series for the project. These included handmade and wheel-thrown vessels from 10th- to 15th-century contexts. A variety of sherds were selected for petrological analysis to test the emerging fabric series and to answer a number of technological issues. Work also identified European imports within the Museums’ reserve collection together with material held by the Centre for the Organisation of Archaeology in Novgorod. As well as articles in Russian journals, the main results of these studies were published as Volume One in this series (Orton 2006).

Wood

Identification of the wood species was carried out for various artefacts from Troitsky and other excavations in Novgorod and the surrounding area, including Gorodishche, and from Novgorod State Museum’s reserve collection, These identifications, combined with studies of the technology of woodworking and turning through the examination of finished objects, waste material and surviving woodworking tools, provided insights into the relationship between artisans and the exploitation of the natural resources of the forest. The results of this and other work on the use of wood in medieval Novgorod were subsequently published as Volume Two in this series (Brisbane and Hather 2007) and it is also the subject of on-going work on forest exploitation (Brisbane et al. in prep.).

The Project was also successful in bringing this work to a wider audience of western archaeologists and specialists through seminars, staff exchanges and conferences. Of particular note was a symposium devoted to the latest developments in Novgorod archaeology, which was held as part of the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA) conference at Bournemouth in September 1999, the papers of which were subsequently published (Brisbane and Gaimster 2001). There were 27 contributors to the symposium, 13 of whom were Russian.

The third INTAS project (00-154)

In June 2001 a third project was approved by INTAS. This was entitled ‘Craft Production, Environment and Landscape: an archaeological study of centre/periphery relationships based on the evidence of the exploitation and processing of natural resources in medieval Novgorod and its region’. Its main objective was an examination of the relationship between the expanding mercantile centre of Novgorod and its region. To help achieve this objective, the project set out to examine and analyse an expanded range of source materials (as well as wood, plants, clay and animal products, it now also included metals) that were obtained from a variety of landscapes in the local and regional territories of medieval Novgorod from the 10th to 15th centuries. It attempted to place each of these materials into a landscape and environmental context, linking particular areas within the territory of Novgorod, known as Novgorod Land, with the specialised procurement of natural materials and resources. In addition to the personnel and organisations already mentioned in the earlier projects, Eileen Reilly from University College Dublin (UCD) investigated the insect remains from town sites. The metal analyses were led by Thilo Rehren of UCL and the pollen analyses were conducted by E.A. Spiridonova and her team from the Moscow Institute of Archaeology (MIA).

Figure 1.1: Novgorod and Novgorod Land around AD 1400 showing the Byeloozero region within which the Minino sites are located. Drawn by Mark Dover

In order to examine the remoter edges of Novgorod Land, the Project also included material from sites around the rural settlement complex of Minino on Lake Kubenskoye, which was being investigated by Nikolai Makarov and his team from MIA (see below, this chapter). These sites are located approximately 500 km to the north-east of Novgorod (Figure 1.1) and provide a useful comparator to the sites located in the heartland of Novgorod territory (Makarov 2007, 365).

The main objectives of the project were as follows:

•To determine how certain materials and resources were selected, exploited and transported to Novgorod, then turned into finished products.

•To investigate the location and quantify the scale of production, measuring the extent of craft specialisation in a variety of domestic and workshop settings.

•To develop a new model for measuring and evaluating the extent of standardisation within particular products, especially those produced for a mass market such as pottery, in order to isolate and better understand both conservatism and innovation.

•To examine the level of production and its relationship to the social and economic structure of Novgorod, more specifically to determine the impact that boyars and merchants had on the organisation and control of craft production.

•Using previously identified workshops from excavations within the town ( e.g. the metalsmith at Property A, Troitsky), to analyse the material in order to determine the nature of craft activity and the level of skill of the artisan.

•To integrate the results of this work into a European context, comparing Novgorod Land with other areas within Europe, where towns acted as centres for the exploitation of a region ( e.g. London, York and Lubeck).

The results of this project were published in Volume Four of this series (Brisbane et al. 2012) to which 28 people contributed, 16 of whom were Russian, across 24 chapters.

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

Medieval archaeology offers the opportunity to bring together scientists from differing backgrounds to study technological aspects of past society and relate them to both social structure and the environment. However, rarely does an archaeological site produce enough organic remains to allow a study of perishable materials such as leather and wood to be studied in detail and integrated with the study of inorganic finds such as those of pottery, metal, slag, glass, etc. The superb preservation of medieval Novgorod combined with the evidence now being produced from sites within its region offers an excellent opportunity to undertake such studies and to put them into the context of how an urban centre affects the exploitation of natural resources in its region and the impact of that exploitation on the natural environment itself.

Of crucial importance to the understanding of the medieval period is the study of the extent that people dominated their environment by exploiting numerous natural resources, turning them into products. These products were sometimes for domestic or extended household consumption only. At other times they were highly valued products that were traded or exchanged between social elites, sometimes over large distances. Alternatively, they may have been mass-produced and intended for the marketplace to support individual artisans and their families. While medieval historians have commented extensively on the generalities of production and the social relationships that it implies, archaeology has been consistently building up a detailed picture of the physical reality of artisans, their products and their workshops.

There can be few sites in medieval Europe that offer so much potential to carry through a detailed investigation into the process of exploitation and production as Novgorod, its hinterland and its wider region. It is becoming possible to integrate these discoveries in ways that examine centre/periphery relations and the role of exploitation/ production (Brisbane et al. 2012). The fact that Novgorod occupied the position of a Kontor within the Hanseatic League means that results here have historical, social and economic implications around the Baltic and across northern Europe in the high to late medieval periods. Equally important are the pre-Novgorod and early Novgorod contacts with the Scandinavian world, which brought with it trading, cultural and political implications from the Viking world to the Black Sea and the Caspian.

The Origins of Novgorod

The beginnings of Novgorod are closely linked to its natural setting. Some 5 km to the south lies the north shore of a large lake, Lake Ilmen, approximately 40 km (max) by 32 km (max), whose size varies depending on the extent of spring floodwaters. Many streams and rivers flow into the lake including four major rivers (the Msta, Pola, Lovat and Shelon) but only one, the Volkhov, flows out (Figure 1.2). Ilmen is a relatively shallow lake and it floods in the springtime, covering the surrounding area with sandy silt. The shallow lake also has the effect of creating a microclimate slightly warmer than the surrounding regions to the east, west and north (Sokolov 1926). As the floodwaters recede in May/June, this leaves land highly suitable for the growing of crops and hay in a short growing season that lasts only until September or early October. Due to local climatic conditions, the forest in this area is a mixture of boreal (largely pine, spruce and birch) and broad-leaf deciduous woodland including oak, elm and ash: a contrast to the mainly coniferous trees that dominate the forests on the thin sandy soils away from the Novgorod area (Atlas of the Novgorod Region 1982, 17).

It was into this environment that Eastern Slavs and local Finnish tribes established settlements in the 8th, 9th and early 10th centuries, particularly in a 4 to 5 km wide band along the lakeside. In one area, known as Poozerie (literally, ‘the land beyond the lake’), lying along the north-west lakeshore, at least 20 settlements have been found that date to this period (Yeremeyev 2012, 145). Most are located on low hills that would have been virtual islands during the spring floods. In addition to these natural defences some, such as Georgii, had a substantial bank and ditch to protect them further (Nosov 1992, 16–19).

Taking the Poozerie and the upper reaches of the Volkhov together, the foremost of the settlements in this area is known today as Gorodishche (Figure 1.2). The defended site is located on the highest hill overlooking the very point where the River Volkhov flows out of the lake and starts its journey 220 km northwards towards Lake Ladoga, passing the trading site of Staraya Ladoga on the west bank of the Volkhov a few kilometres before it enters the lake. Any traveller along this route needed only to join the River Neva that flows out of Lake Ladoga to reach the Gulf of Finland and the Baltic, a total journey of approximately 400 km by water from Gorodishche.

In such a commanding location dominating this rich agricultural area, Gorodishche became a fortified trading centre that soon attracted Viking traders as early as the 9th century (Nosov 1992, 46–55). Its accessibility via the river routes meant that it could be reached from the Baltic, but it also sat at the junction of two further river routes: one southwards via the Dnieper to Kiev, the Black Sea and thence to Byzantium and the other route to the south-east via the Volga to the Caspian Sea and the Arab world. Situated at such an important node in this long distance trading system, Gorodishche was the direct predecessor to Novgorod and its success was part of the reason for the expansion of this area politically, economically and demographically in the 9th and 10th centuries (Nosov 2001, 8–9).

Figure 1.2: Novgorod and its hinterland showing sites mentioned in the volume. Drawn by Mark Dover

Novgorod

Novgorod (literally, ‘the new town’, most likely as successor to Gorodishche although other explanations have been offered) was founded, according to one version of the

Figure 1.3: Plan of Novgorod showing the five Ends (Districts), the ramparts (cross-hatched), the street layout (known medieval streets in black and modern grid pattern dotted) and the location of excavations. Based on plans supplied by the Novgorod State Museum

Primary Russian Chronicle, in AD 859, on a site only 2 km downstream (north) of Gorodishche, on low hills overlooking the River Volkhov on both sides of its riverbanks (Figure 1.3). In contrast to the date in the Chronicle, archaeological evidence has yet to reveal any settlement deposits prior to the early 10th century (920s/930s based on dendrochronology) despite many years of archaeological investigation. What they do show is a town that developed extremely quickly from the mid-10th century to become a thriving and densely populated place, on both sides of the River Volkhov, with established street and property layouts (Khoroshev et al. 2001, 23–25). Within a year or so of the coming of Christianity to Russia in AD 988, the town built one of the very first churches in Kievian Rus (second only to Kiev itself) and established a defended area (first referred to in an entry in The Chronicle of Novgorod in AD 1044 as the town’s Detinets, or Kremlin) around the cathedral and archbishop’s residence (Nosov 1992, 61; Troianovsky 1998). Add to this, a marketplace, a thriving aristocracy (the boyars), intense artisan activity, town defences and a prince’s residence (originally at Gorodishche but later within Novgorod’s east side), and the town was well positioned to dominate not just its immediate area, but most of north-west Russia throughout the medieval period. This dominance, which included being a major kontor of the Hanseatic League, lasted until challenged by the rise of Moscow in the 14th and 15th centuries and was ultimately eclipsed by Moscow when Ivan III (the Great) took direct control of Novgorod in 1478. Subsequently, Ivan IV (the Terrible) sacked Novgorod and completely destroyed its aristocratic and mercantile power base in the 16th century.

Over the last hundred years or more, the question of who the first settlers of Novgorod were has been much debated. Put crudely, were they Slavs or were they Vikings? This became known as the Normanist debate, and during Soviet times arguments that advocated Viking settlers into Mother Russia were seen as dangerously colonialist. For reasons of self-censorship as much as political convictions, academics found it difficult to consider impartially the archaeological evidence that was coming out of Novgorod from the first modern excavations of 1932 onwards. This, of course, has changed over recent years, but for reasons of continued ‘national conservatism’ it is still the case that evidence for the establishment of Novgorod by Viking settlers in the 10th and 11th centuries remains contentious. However, recent work re-examining the collections has clearly shown that there is a significant distribution of Scandinavian finds throughout sites dating to the 10th and 11th centuries indicating widespread Viking influence (Musin 2018).

Town layout and development

Under Catherine the Great (Empress of Russia 1762–1796), many towns in Russia were re-planned including Novgorod, which under the Great Plan of 1778 was given a more regularised street pattern replacing the former medieval one (Khoroshev and Sorokin 1992, 107). Archaeological excavations and observations over many years have confirmed that much of the previous road system had its origins in the early years of the settlement in the 10th and 11th centuries. For instance, at the Troitsky excavation, the wooden paving of streets made with split logs appeared at almost the same time as the laying out of properties with the earliest wooden surfaces dating to the 950s or 960s (Khoroshev and Sorokin 1992, 133). Eventually the growing town’s street pattern took the form of an organic, topographically related layout providing access to the riverside (Figure 1.3). An early sequence of deposits at the Troitsky site (Trenches X and XI directed by Peter Gaidukov) revealed a remarkable sequence (Aleksandrovskaya et al. 2001). Beneath 6 m of deposits dating from the 10th to 20th centuries was clear evidence of plough marks (or perhaps more accurately, ard marks). A combination of archaeological evidence, soil analyses, palaeo-botanical and geochemical investigations suggested that a meadow and a field existed on the site immediately prior to the initial laying out of the town in the 930s when the first phase of wooden structures appear on the site. These have been dated by dendrochronology with a sequence of some 50 dates ranging from AD 926 to 939 (Aleksandrovskaya et al. 2001, 18–20), some of the earliest dates to be confirmed in the archaeological record of Novgorod.

Properties, boyars and craft production

It would appear that once property boundaries (wooden fence lines, usually substantial) were established within the town, these stayed more or less fixed over the following centuries and certainly for the period from the 10th to 12th centuries (Khoroshev and Sorokin 1992, 122–125), if not to the 15th century (Yanin 1992, 76). Generally speaking these properties fell within two types, smaller ones whose area did not exceed approximately 465 m² and larger ones that ranged from 750 to 1400 m². The smaller properties usually contained a main dwelling and two or three outbuildings, whereas the larger ones had a main dwelling together with other heated houses, plus outbuildings, mostly unheated. Traditional interpretations (i.e. from Soviet times) identified the larger structures as belonging to the landed boyars, whereas merchant houses were few and far between. For instance, extensive investigations in the 1950s at the Nerevsky site (c. 9,000 m²) revealed some 18 properties, nine of which survived almost complete. Most of these were interpreted as dwellings of Novgorod boyars. Surprisingly perhaps, only one building was recognised as the house of a trader (dating from the 1130s). This was based solely on the finds found within it (Zasurtsev 1967, 116). This interpretation led to theories that the merchants’ properties were separate from the places where the boyars lived, and were located, initially at least, outside the town’s ‘Ends’ or main settlement areas, but this interpretation remains untested. Yanin (1992, 27) has argued that the boyar system, established from at least the 12th century, was based on hereditary holdings of both urban properties and far-flung hinterland estates, where the raw materials from the countryside were collected and brought into their extended family urban compounds where craft workers turned these into finished goods. Herein lies an important difference with medieval towns to the west, where craft production of a particular kind was often spatially concentrated in one part or street of the town (e.g. smiths, butchers, leather or textile workers) where craft guilds developed. In medieval Novgorod it seems likely that no such developments took place (Yanin 1992, 76–77), leaving the boyars to dominate both the economic and physical landscape of the town and