Treasure of the Land of Darkness: The Fur Trade and its Significance for Medieval Russia

TREASURE OF THE LAND OF DARKNESS The fur trade and its significance for medieval Russia

Treasure of the Land of Darkness traces the flow of fur from the lands of the North, or "lands of darkness/' as they were described in contemporary Islamic texts, through the major trade centers of medieval Russia to the consumer markets of the world, stretching from western Europe to China. Professor Martin reconstructs the fur trade network of each center (including Kiev, Novgorod and Moscow) and examines the changes they experienced over time. She demonstrates how shifting control of certain key elements within the trading network played an important role in the political evolution of the region. Aggressive principalities enhanced their political authority through manipulation of such factors as fur resources and trade routes: thus the mid-sixteenth-century supremacy of Muscovy was based upon both political advantage and monopolization of the networks of the fur trade. Quantitative analysis of the available data substantiates this conclusion: control over the trade of fur drawn from the "land of darkness" was of fundamental importance to the political development of medieval Russia.

TREASURE OF THE LAND OF DARKNESS The fur trade and its significance for medieval Russia JANET MARTIN University of Miami

The right of the University of Cambridge to print and sell all manner of books was granted by Henry VIII in 1534. The University has printed and published continuously since 1584.

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge London New York New Rochelle Melbourne Sydney

PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK 40 West 20th Street, New York NY 10011-4211, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia Ruiz de Alarcon 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa http ://www. Cambridge, org © Cambridge University Press 1986 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 1986 First paperback edition 2004 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress cataloguing-in-publication

data

Martin, Janet, 1945Treasure of the land of darkness. Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Fur trade - Soviet Union - History. 2. Fur trade Political aspects - Soviet Union - History. 3. Soviet Union - Politics and government - To 1533. I. Title. HD9944.S755M37 1986 380.14567530947 86-6094 ISBN 0 521 32019 4 hardback ISBN 0 521 54811 X paperback

CONTENTS

page vn ix x INTRODUCTION 1

2

BULGAR

4

5

6

5

The ninth and tenth centuries The eleventh and twelfth centuries The Mongol period

5 14 27

THE RUS'

35 35 43

The tenth century The eleventh and twelfth centuries 3

I

NOVGOROD! THE SQUIRREL FUR TRADE

6l

The Novgorod-Hansa trade The squirrel supply system The decline of Novgorod's fur trade network

61 68 81

MOSCOW AND KAZAN'; THE LUXURY FUR TRADE

86

Moscow's entry into the fur trade Moscow's fur trade network: the fourteenth century The fur trade networks of Kazan' and Moscow: the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries

86 90 92

THE POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FUR TRADE

IIO

Kievan Rus' Suzdalia Moscow

111 118 130

THE ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FUR TRADE

I 5I

Novgorod Moscow

152 16 3

CONCLUSION

J67

Contents Notes Bibliography Index

17O 43 2 ^7

2

VI

MAPS

Novgorod's northern pogosts and routes. (Based on A. N. Nasonov, "Russkaia zemlia" i obrazovanie territorii drevnerusskogo gosudarstva, between pp. 96 and 97.). 56 Ustiug's routes to northwestern Siberia. (Based on a loose map, Russkoe gosudarstvo i ego sosedi v kontse XV-pervoi polovine XVI veka (do 1551 g.). 98 Russian eastward expansion (second half twelfth century). (Source as in map 2 above, and also V. A. Kuchkin, Formirovanie gosudarstvennoi territorii severovostochnoi Rusi v X-XIV vv., pp. 99, 102, and " 0 marshrutakh pokhodov drevnerusskikh kniazei na gosudarstvo volzhskikh Bulgar v XH-pervoi treti XIII v," in Istoricheskaia geografiia Rossii XII-nachalo XX v, (Moscow: Nauka, 1975, p. 33).) 125 Muscovite trade routes to the south and west. (Source as in map 2 above.) 148

vii

To my parents

Vlll

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This book is the result of many years of effort, throughout which I have been fortunate to have received support and kindness from a number of individuals and institutions. I would like to express my appreciation first of all to the International Research and Exchanges Board, the United States Department of Education (Fulbright-Hays), and the American Association of University Women, whose grants enabled me to conduct research in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and then to write my Ph.D. dissertation, the previous incarnation of this volume. I would similarly like to thank the Central State Archive for Ancient Documents (TsGADA) in Moscow and the Leningrad Division of the Institute of History (LOII) for allowing me access to their archival collections, and also to the Library of the Academy of Sciences (BAN) and the Saltykov-Shchedrin Library in Leningrad, the Lenin Library in Moscow, Regenstein Library at the University of Chicago, the Slavic Library at the University of Illinois (Champaign-Urbana), and Richter Library at the University of Miami. On a more personal level I am indebted to Daniel Waugh for reading my manuscript and offering his critical comments and suggestions, to Gerald W. Day for sharing his expertise on Byzantine and eastern Mediterranean trade issues, to Edward L. Keenan for his unexpected and timely help, and to Bettina Stockl for her assistance during one of the several stages of revision of the manuscript. To my professors at the University of Chicago, Alexandre Bennigsen, Richard Hellie, and the late Arcadius Kahan, who challenged, encouraged, guided, prodded, and taught me, I owe much more than any statement of gratitude can convey. I would like nevertheless to take this opportunity to express to them my deep and affectionate thanks. Finally, a very special thank you must go to my husband Daniel and our furry little friends. Despite the best efforts of these and other friends and colleagues, imperfections remain in this volume. For them I alone claim responsibility with the hope that they do not overshadow those positive features of the book, achieved through the influence of those who have so generously helped me. IX

NOTE ON TRANSLITERATION

Because the following text draws upon sources originally composed in and sometimes translated into a variety of languages, it has been difficult to standardize the spelling of proper names, book titles, and other specialized terms. I have, however, employed some principles of transliteration that, hopefully, will clarify, although not eliminate, what may otherwise be confusing inconsistencies. Firstly, when transliterating from the Cyrillic alphabet (Russian language) into the Roman, I have followed the Library of Congress system. Secondly, when referring in the text to Arabic or Persian names and terms drawn from translated editions I have adopted the spelling that appears in the Encyclopedia of Islam. In citations and in the bibliography, however, spellings appear as they occur literally in each edition or, in the case of Russian-language editions, according to the transliteration system noted above.

INTRODUCTION

In the medieval world intercontinental commerce consisted largely of exchanges of luxury goods. Fur was one of the most important commodities exchanged. Members of the upper classes in both Oriental and European societies placed great value on it. One Islamic observer, writing in the tenth century, described "the kings of the Arabs and the Barbarians" wearing "dresses of...[fox] furs." He explained that fur garments "form part of their vanity...[and] the kings wear tiaras, khaftans, and robes of these furs "* By the eleventh century the fashion in Europe was similar. A bishop of northwestern Europe bemoaned the fact that the "odor [of fur has] inoculated our world with the deadly poison of pride" and that "for right or wrong we hanker after a martenskin robe as much as for supreme happiness " 2 Similar reports testify to continued consumer demand for fur in Europe and in the Orient through the sixteenth century, the end of the period of this study, and even later. Sources on fur consumption indicate that thefinestquality fur originated in northeastern Europe, in other words, in the region that is now northern European Russia, and the northwestern corner of Siberia. It was here that fur-bearing animals grew the thickest, softest pelts in the purest winter hues. It was from this region that the world demand for fur was satisfied. And it was this region, the distant Far North, that became known in Islamic literature as the mysterious "land of darkness." Over the centuries an elaborate trade network operated to transport fur from the "land of darkness " to the consumers of the Muslim and European worlds. It is this network and the impact its operation had on the political development of its distribution centers that form the subjects of the present study. Within this framework the study has three objectives. The first is to examine in detail the patterns of the fur trade and their evolution from the ninth and tenth centuries, when documentary sources first reveal information about it, through the mid-sixteenth century, when Moscow completed the monopolization of the network's main components and the political absorption of its commercial and political rivals. To achieve this objective it is necessary to establish the primary trade

Introduction centers for fur and then identify the various and changing elements of the trade network for each of those centers. During the entire period five towns, specifically Bulgar-on-the-Volga, Kiev, Novgorod. Kazan', and Moscow, stand out as the main entrepots where fur from the north was collected, exchanged, and distributed for consumption around the world. The first four chapters of this study are, correspondingly, devoted to examining for each trade center such factors as the types of fur sold at the markets, their origins, the supply routes and techniques used to bring the fur to the market centers, the mechanics of trade, foreign consumers, export routes, and finally the political guardians or controllers of each of the other factors. As the fur trade patterns and their evolution unfold through the first four chapters, it becomes evident that the final iactor, the controllers of the other elements in the trade network, is one thai undergoes considerable change. Over the centuries control over the fur-supplying populations, strategic points along the supply routes, market centers, and access to export routes all passed from one polity to another. The polity that dominated the trade at any given time was also the one acquiring greater political power at the same time. The second objective of the study arises from these observations: to substantiate the existence of a relationship among the changes in the trade patterns, political control over critical elements of the fur trade network, and the more general political development of the region of the Rus' and mid-Volga lands during this period. Chapter 5 is devoted to the second portion of the study. It is divided into three sections. Each focuses on one aggressive political center of Rus Kiev, Rostov-Suzdalr, and Moscow - and demonstrates ? hat many of the political and military episodes that were responsible for the transfers of control over vital segments of the trade network also contributed significantly to the victor's political ascendancy. Chapter 5 illustrates the fact that rivals for political dominance in the Rus' and mid-Volga lands were also competitors for control over the fur trade or key elements within it. The implications of this observation are that such control may have provided its possessor with a political advantage and that the fur trade itself may then have had a significant impact on the political development of the region, One test of the validity of these propositions is an assessment of the value of the fur trade. That task constitutes the third and final objective of the study and is the topic of its last chapter. Before embarking on the study itself, it is perhaps of some value to discuss the sources on which it is based. No single set of sources deals directly and thoroughly with the fur trade network of any one of the main market centers, much less the entire network for the full period under consideration. Indeed, there are few materials that contain information specifically about the fur trade. They may be classified into the following

Introduction groups: Islamic literature; western European travel and diplomatic accounts; Baltic Sea trade documents; and Russian diplomatic documents. Although these sources provide sufficient information to sketch outlines of the trade patterns, at least for distinct periods, their fragmentary evidence fails to provide the thoroughness and detail required to compose a complete picture of the fur trade. Their inadequacy created several problems in methodology. One stemmed from the fact that the accuracy of some sources, certain Islamic texts, for example, is suspect. Another was related to the fact that although each group of sources dealt with one center's trade during a distinct period, even in combination they failed to provide comparable evidence for all the centers throughout the period. The combined sources, furthermore, left wide gaps, in time as well as in a variety of topics relating to the trade, for which virtually no direct information is available. These problems were addressed by drawing upon a variety of sources that contain no information specifically about trade in fur, but do elaborate, directly or indirectly, on topics identified as elements of the fur trade network. For example, ethnographic studies helped determine or confirmed the identity of fur-supplying populations; archeological studies similarly provided clues for determining supply routes; Novgorodian cadastres (official land registers), Muscovite tax-payment books, and miscellaneous documents on land ownership in northern Russia supplied data on the nature, sources, volume, and the value of fur supplies; Russian chronicles, including several of northern origin, offered supplementary information. The very nature of this wide array of sources provided a basis for solving the other problems. The use of diverse sources, each of different and independent origin, in combination with one another presented an opportunity for verifying or at least for judging the plausibility of the contents of each. When distinct sources provided confirming or complementary evidence or when sources of diverse origin supplied supplementary pieces of information, which fit together to form coherent, consistent patterns, those sources also served to reinforce the veracity and reliability of other, sometimes otherwise doubtful, contributing sources. The use of this combination of sources also helped "fill the gaps" left by the "direct sources/' The "direct sources," as noted, were sufficient to establish the outlines of the trade patterns. Assuming that the patterns would remain static unless and until exceptional circumstances caused a change, it became possible to draw upon the supplementary sources for evidence of events that would so radically affect some vital element of the trade network that the basic patterns would indeed change. When such evidence corresponded to changes implied by the "direct sources," the latters' reliability was once again confirmed. It thus became possible to

Introduction

bridge temporal gaps left by the direct evidence as well as account for the evolution of the trade patterns during the lengthy periods for which little or no direct information survives. Use of supplementary sources, furthermore, provided a means of adding greater detail to the schema, drawn from the sources that do relate directly to the fur trade. It was, indeed, use of the supplementary sources that made the analysis of the political and economic aspects of the fur trade, the subjects of Chapters 5 and 6, possible. Thus, while no single set of sources adequately illuminates the fur trade that emanated from the "land of darkness," an array of widely divergent and independent sources, used in conjunction with one another as supplements and checks, provided the basis for accomplishing the three tasks which form the core of the following text.

BULGAR

THE NINTH AND TENTH CENTURIES

The first documentated trade center that channeled fur from the northern part of eastern Europe to diverse parts of the world was Bulgar-on-the-Volga. Located on the mid-Volga river, Bulgar in the ninth and tenth centuries was an evolving society, which made up part of a larger political and commercial complex. The Bulgars had arrived in the mid-Volga area in the seventh century, after they had been forced to vacate their lands in the steppe north of the Sea of Azov by the Khazars. The latter were then consolidating their own position north of the Caucasus mountains. Part of the Bulgar population, which had been the nucleus of a nomadic tribal federation, moved westward; that group ultimately settled west of the Black Sea in the section of the Danubian basin that came to be called Bulgaria. The remainder migrated northward to the Volga-Kama basin. There they mingled with Finns and Slavs to form the state of Bulgar-on-the-Volga.1 In the tenth century the towns of Bulgar, Suvar, and Biliar, each a tribal center, were in the process of uniting to form a single state. They were also vying with each other for supremacy within it.2 By the end of the first quarter of that century, Almas, the ruler of the town of Bulgar and the tribes associated with it, had achieved a degree of superiority over the other tribal leaders, but his power was neither exclusive nor unchallenged.3 The emerging Bulgar state was subject to the Khazar kaganate.4 The Bulgars owed allegiance to the Khazars and paid them tribute. To ensure Bulgar's subordination, the Khazar kagan kept the Bulgar ruler's son as hostage at his court. The Bulgars did, however, enjoy effective autonomy. They not only adopted a religion (Islam) independently of the Khazar suzerains (who espoused Judaism), but also conducted independent diplomatic relations with foreign powers.5 Just as the political structure was in a state of flux, the economy of Bulgar was also mixed or in a state of transition. Divergent descriptions of Bulgar society suggest that at least part of the Bulgar population, including its rulers, their kin and immediate followers, retained their nomadic or

Bulgar

semi-nomadic character well into the tenth century. This element abandoned wooden town houses during the summer months to live in portable felt yurts while following their grazing herds. Another segment of the population, however, was sedentary and engaged primarily in agricultural production.6 In addition an important sector of the Bulgar economy was devoted to commerce. Bulgar was the northernmost market outpost of a vast intercontinental commercial network. As early as the fifth to the seventh centuries, the confluence of the Volga and Kama rivers had become the point of intersection and endpoint of two trade routes: a north-south route following the Volga river and an east-west caravan route leading to Central Asia. From this location indigenous populations exported skins, cattle, and fur. some of which reached as far as the Sassanian Empire. Sassanian coins, dating from the fifth to the seventh centuries and excavated in the Kama region, reflect this trade. 7 In the eighth century precious pelts from the same areas were noted by Caliph Mahdi to have reached the town of Rey.8 When the Bulgars organized their state in the Volga-Kama region, they not only began to participate in an already active fur trade, but developed a market that became one of the major fur centers of the world. Bulgar's marketplace was located " outside [the town of] Bulgar [where] there... [was] a small city, occupying a small area and known only as the main trading point of the state." 9 At that marketplace merchants from all over the Muslim world assembled. They came from Khwarezm in Central Asia, from Khazaria, and through Khazaria from Derbent, Bardaa, Rey, and Bagdad. These merchants brought diverse goods with them: silks and brocades, spices and wine, weapons and armor, and perfume and jewelry.10 But the chief item they brought, and the one that attracted the most interest, was silver coin. With their silks and silver they traded at Bulgar for slaves, wax, honey, and fur. The fur they purchased consisted of many varieties and came from several sources. One source was the Bulgar population, which hunted to acquire fur pelts. The tradition of fur-hunting in Bulgar culture is reflected in legends. One, recorded in the tenth century, associates fur-hunting with the very origins of Bulgar; speaking of a mythical figure, Kemar (or Kimar), it tells how during a hunt [he] came to the frontier of Bulgar and there saw lands with a splendid climate and blooming fields. He settled there, and had two sons: the first - Bulgar, the second - Burtas. Each of them selected a place for himself and built all kinds of buildings in his own name. They hunted fox, sable, and squirrel, and made clothing for themselves from them.11 Residents of Bulgar, in fact, hunted fur animals. Archeologists, excavating Bulgar sites, have unearthed numerous arrowheads of both iron and

The ninth and tenth centuries bone, specially designed with blunted points for shooting animals without damaging their valuable pelts. 12 Members of the Bulgar population, hunting for fur as either a primary or secondary occupation, caught beaver, which was native to the rivers of Bulgar, and marten, also common in the region. 13 The population may also have had access to sable. According to the eye-witness Ibn Fadlan, the Bulgars paid their prince ''one sable pelt from each household annually." 14 The Bulgar population thus provided fur for the Bulgar market through its tax payments to the prince, who in turn no doubt sold some of his sable, and through hunters who also supplied the market with other varieties of fur. Bulgar's neighbors also supplied its market with fur. The ancestors of the modern Udmurt population, for example, dwelling on the Kama river in the tenth century, farmed, raised livestock, and also hunted for fur animals. They sold leather, honey, and fur to Bulgar in exchange for fabrics and tools, and probably also paid the tribute they owed Bulgar in the same products. 15 Similarly the Burtas (ancestors of the Mordva), although not tributaries of Bulgar at this time, provided fur, particularly fox pelts, to that market. The Burtas, mentioned in the legend of Kemar as closely associated with the Bulgars, occupied a territory situated the distance of a fifteen-day journey from the Khazars and a three-day journey from Bulgar. The tenth-century geographer Ibn Rusta described them as basically an agricultural people, but emphasized that their main wealth consisted of honey, marten fur and fur in general. 16 Al-Mas'udi, whose information is more reliable for the tenth century, identified the Burtas as suppliers of valuable "furs of black and red foxes, which are called the Bortassian furs. A black fur of this kind costs one hundred dinars, and more; but the red are cheaper." 17 He identified this fox fur as the material from which the "Arabic and Barbarian kings" had their royal garments made. On another occasion al-Mas'udi also wrote: .. .ships [along the Volga] bring black fox fur from the land of the Burtas, the best and most valuable fur product. There are also red and white fox furs, which are not worse than marten and polar fox. The worst sort (of fox fur) is the so-called Arabic. They find black fox fur there (among the Burtas) and in neighboring countries.18 The Burtas directed their black fox to Khazaria, to which they were politically subordinated, but also sold it to Bulgar merchants, who, situated much closer to them, maintained regular commercial relations with them. 19 Another chief supplier was a population known to the Bulgars and Islamic writers as Visu and to the Russians as Ves'. A Finnic people, dwelling in the lands surrounded by three lakes - Lagoda, Onega, and Beloe, they

Bulgar

were located, according to the Bulgar prince Almas, "at a distance of a three-month journey" from his country. Emphasizing their northern location, he told Ibn Facjlan that in their land the "night is less than an hour long." Ibn Facjlan further reported that the Bulgars "have many merchants who go... to the country called Visu, importing sable and black fox."20 These Bulgar merchants left traces of their travels in the form of some of the goods they carried, Oriental coins and ceramic vessels, for example, along their route - the upper Volga and Sheksna rivers.21 The same types of goods - Oriental silver coins used mainly as ornaments, crockery, ceramics, and beads - have been discovered in Ves' excavation sites near Beloozero.22 The manner in which the Ves' obtained their fur is not documented. Primarily an agricultural people, they also hunted as a secondary occupation. The excavations of Ves' settlements have revealed tools made from deer and elk antlers as well as fragments of skin and claws from bears, and squirrel, polecat, and rabbit fur. In addition, archeologists have discovered bone arrowheads, a spearhead, and iron arrowheads with transversal blades designed specifically for hunting fur animals.23 It is evident from these discoveries that the Ves' had the equipment and the skill to hunt animals, such as the bear, elk, squirrel, and rabbit, whose meat and skins supplemented agricultural products in their domestic consumption. Using their special arrows they may have also hunted the sable and black fox, which they sold to Bulgar merchants. But they may have obtained these pelts through trade with other northern peoples, whose primary occupations were hunting. Samanid coins, discovered in tenth-century graves far to the northeast of Beloozero in the area of the Vychegda and Vym' rivers, point to Ves' trade with the Vychegda Perm' as the people of this region came to be known. The fact that European dinars replaced the dirhams in eleventh-century graves suggests that the latter, like the former coins, were brought to the Perm' region by the Ves', who followed a route extending from Beloozero to the Sukhona-Vychegda river system.24 It is probable that the Ves' trade network involved other Finnic tribes of the North. Those dwelling on the Pechora and Mezen' rivers, for instance, traded their pelts to the Vychegda Perm', who in turn sold them to the Ves'; the Ves' then dealt with the Bulgar merchants. The market at Bulgar, where fur contributed by the Bulgar populace, their neighbors, and the Ves', was sold, attracted one final group of suppliers, the Rus'. Almost as soon as they arrived in eastern Europe, they became the most prominent fur suppliers in Bulgar's fur trade network. Hailing from Scandinavia and closely related to the Vikings who invaded the western shores of Europe, the Rus' had arrived in eastern Europe by the early ninth century. Although much detail and many circumstances 8

The ninth and tenth centuries of their arrival remain obscure, it is known that they established a settlement, known as Aldeigjuborg or Staraia Ladoga, near Lake Ladoga, 25 and that they almost immediately "conducted] attacks against the Slavs; they approach[ed] them on boats, land[ed] on the shore and imprisoned the population." 26 The Rus' took their captives and other booty they seized from the native Slav and Finn tribes, conducted them to Bulgar, and sold them. Among the booty was precious northern fur. In this manner the Rus' entered the fur trade. In the course of the ninth century these Vikings, as did their counterparts in Ireland and Iceland, 27 began to settle in the territories they had been raiding. They subordinated the native tribes of the region that became known as northwestern Russia and converted their booty into more regular tribute payments. This phase of Viking activity is reflected in the legendary accounts of the Primary Chronicle. 28 Gradually the princes of the new dynasty extended their domain. From their capital, Kiev, they subordinated more neighboring tribes and exacted tribute from them. By the tenth century the collection of tribute, as well as wars to subordinate more tribes, had replaced random raids as the means of securing goods for the Rus' trade. The regularity of the Rus' tribute collection was known even to the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, who described how when the month of November begins, their [the Rus'] chiefs together with all the Russians at once leave Kiev and go off on the "poliudie" which means "rounds," that is to the Slavonic regions of the Veverians and Drugovichians and Krivichians and Severians and the rest of the Slavs who are tributaries of the Russians.29 At least some of these tribes paid their tribute in fur. In 883, Oleg, as prince of Kiev, "imposed...a tribute of one black marten skin per man" on the Drevliane (a Slavic tribe dwelling northwest of Kiev). After the Drevliane rebelled, Prince Igor reasserted Kievan authority over them, and in 914 " imposed a tribute larger than Oleg's upon them." In the same year he also extended his control over the Uglichi, from whom he also demanded one black marten skin per household. 30 These were not the only tribes subjected to the Rus'. Oleg had subordinated the Slovene, Krivichi (a Slavic tribe living between the headwaters of the West Dvina, the Dnepr, and the Volga rivers), and Merya (a Finnic tribe of the Rostov area), as well as the Severiane (a Slavic tribe located northeast of Kiev) and Radimichi; in addition the Chud', Muroma, Cheremis', Mordva, Perm', and Pechera as well as some Lithuanian tribes are named in the Primary Chronicle as tributaries of the Rus'. 31 Fur may have been a component in the tribute paid by all of these tribes. The Rus' may have had one additional source of fur. According to Arab commentators of the Classical School of Muslim Geography, the Rus' were 9

Bulgar

composed of three groups. The first dwelled around Kiev. The second was located at Slaviia, which has been identified as a town in the region of the Slovene near lake Il'men, and was an antecedent of Novgorod. The third group, called the Arsaniia or Arsa, apparently lived somewhere in the North, but the exact location of their lands and even their ethnic origins have remained a subject of controversy. 32 Nevertheless, Ibn Hawkal, whose account, with some variation, is representative of those containing this tale, wrote: As concerns Arsa, I have not heard anyone mention that it has been reached by foreigners because they (its inhabitants) kill all foreigners who approach them. They themselves come down by water to trade but provide no information about their affairs and their goods and do not allow anyone to follow them and enter their country. From Arsa they export black sable, black fox and tin and some number of slaves.33 Neither Ibn Hawkal nor any of the other authors who repeated this tale offered any explanation as to how the Arsa obtained their fur. Whether they were native hunters themselves or foreign adventurers who received it from local tribes by theft, trade or tribute remains an unanswered question. The Rus', having received fur from these several sources, became in turn one of the suppliers of sable, black fox, ermine, beaver, and squirrel serving the Bulgar market. The Islamic writers, who were so intrigued with the Rus', leave little doubt on this point. Ibn Rusta testified: ... the Rus' bring their goods to them (to the Bulgars). All of them (the Rus) who live on both sides of the aforementioned river [the Volga] bring their goods, such as furs of sable, ermine, squirrel and other [animals] to them (the Buigarsh34 He went on to say of the Rus' that ".. .their only business is the trade of sable, squirrel and other furs, which they sell to those who desire them..." 3 5 Ibn Hawkal, imitating the texts of al-Balkhi and al-Istakhri, added: The honey, wax and furs that one gets from their [the Khazars'] country have been brought there from the lands of the Rus' and Bulgars. This is also true of beaver pelts, sent to all ends of the earth, because they are found only on the northern rivers of the region of the Rus', the Bulgars, and Kiev..,. The majority of the pelts and the best ones in the country of the Rus' come there from the country of Gog and Magog; they sell them now and then to the Bulgars.36 The sable and black fox, supplied by the Arsa (if we consider them Rusi), were also no doubt among the Rus' fur exports to Bulgar. Finally, Ibn Fadlan, who claimed to have "seen the Rus' as they came on their merchant journeys and encamped by the Atil [the Volga]," described their trading activities in detail. In his description of Rus' prayers for successful trading transactions, he identified their most valuable goods. So he recounted that 10

The ninth and tenth centuries The Rus' prostrates himself before a big carving and says, " 0 my Lord, I have come from a far land and have with me such and such a number of girls and such and such a number of sables," and he proceeds to enumerate all his other wares. Then he says, "I have brought you these gifts," and he lays down what he has brought with him and

prays for a successful, profitable exchange of goods.37 In addition to the upper Volga route, the Rus' from the mid-ninth century brought fur to Bulgar along a route that followed the course of the Oka river to the Volga. The Rus\ attracted to Bulgar (and perhaps more generally to eastern Europe) by the presence of silver dirhams, took their profits in that coin.38 In return for sable, squirrel, and other fur, Ibn Rusta noted, the Rus' received money, which they bound "firmly into their belts." Since Ibn Rusta also pointed out that the Bulgars did not mint their own coins, that money must have been the "white, round dirhams [which the Bulgars received] from Muslim countries in exchange for their goods."39 In his description of the Rus' prayers for successful trading ventures, Ibn Fadlan also noted their entreaties to the gods to send "a merchant with many dinars and dirhams... who will buy whatever I wish and will not dispute what I say."40 His account of the physical appearance of the Rus' also emphasized their appreciation of silver coin, which remained in the possession of the ladies: Concerning each of the women [he wrote] - on her breast is hung a chain made of iron or silver or copper or gold, corresponding to the means of her husband and to the quantity [of his money]. On each chain is a small box, containing a knife, also fastened on her breast. Around their necks the women wear several rows of necklaces of gold and silver, since if a man owns a 10,000 dirhams, he presents one necklace to his wife (in one row) and if he possesses 20,000, he presents her with two necklaces, and so for every 10,000 he has, he adds a necklace for his wife, so each woman has many necklaces around her neck.41

Hoards of Oriental coins, buried between the end of the eighth century and the first quarter of the eleventh century, not only affirm the validity of the Oriental testimony, but demarcate the main trade route connecting the Rus' and Bulgar-the upper Volga river. Oriental coin deposits, containing coins dating from 833 to 970 have also been discovered clustered along the Bulgar-Kiev route, the Oka-Seim-Desna rivers. Deposits in the Kiev region as well as in the lands northeast of Kiev appeared less frequently, however, after 966, signaling a marked decline in the use of this route.42 At Bulgar the Rus' were required to complete their trade transactions and pay one-tenth of their goods to the prince as a customs fee; they were not allowed to travel further than Bulgar and descend the Volga to Itil'.43 The tantalizing array of fur, consisting of sable, black fox, ermine, 11

Bulgar

beaver, and squirrel, as well as other goods, attracted the variety of m e r c h a n t s noted earlier to the Bulgar market. Some of t h e m reached Bulgar in Khazar and Muslim m e r c h a n t ships d r a w n up the lower Volga; others came in caravans from Khwarezm. 4 4 They t h e n took the fur a n d the other n o r t h e r n goods they purchased back eastward to Khwarezm a n d beyond to the lands of the Samanid Empire, and southward to Khazaria and past t h a t empire to the towns of Derbent and Bardaa, Rey a n d Bagdad; from those points the n o r t h e r n fur supplied by the Rus' and others was transported even further to North Africa and Spain. 4 5 The export of fur to the east was conducted in part also by Bulgar m e r c h a n t s w h o organized caravans and accompanied t h e m as far as Khwarezm. 4 6 Local m e r c h a n t s t h e n became responsible for sending these goods further to other Muslim towns. Al-Mukadassi reported: from... [Khwarezm are exported] sables, miniver, ermines, and the fur of the steppe foxes, martens, foxes, beavers, spotted hares, and goats; also wax, arrows, birch bark, high fur caps, fish glue, fish teeth, castoreum [perfume fixative derived from beaver glands], prepared horse hides, honey, hazel nuts, falcons, swords, armour, 47 khalan) wood, Slavonic slaves, sheep and cattle. All these come from Bulgar It was probably also by this route that the sable, fox, and squirrel, reported to have come from the Volga lands, arrived at Saganian, a t o w n east of Bukhara. 4 8 The caravan route used by the Bulgar merchants extended from Bulgar southward across the lands of the Bashkir, the Oghuz, and the Ust' Urt plateau to Gurgandj (or Old Urgench) in-Khwarezm, at the Sea of Aral. Ibn Facjlan, traveling via Rey, Nishapur, and Bukhara, w e n t d o w n the A m u Darya river and joined this route to Bulgar at Gurgandj. 4 9 The route w a s not a safe one. 5 0 Muslim m e r c h a n t s encountered difficulties going t h r o u g h the lands of the Oghuz, and the safety of Ibn Fadlan's o w n embassy w a s threatened by the suspicious Oghuz and preserved only by luck and the presentation of "gifts" to their leaders. 5 1 While Bulgar's fur reached Central Asia by caravan, often conducted by the Bulgar merchants from their t o w n to Khwarezm, fur was also shipped from Bulgar along the Volga to Khazaria. It was carried south by ship or by caravans, which followed a route along the river. The journey by land took about one m o n t h , whereas the river trip n o r t h w a r d or upstream required two m o n t h s a n d d o w n s t r e a m twenty days. 5 2 Itil', the capital of the Khazar kaganate, w a s located on the lower Volga, near one of the river's entrances into the Caspian Sea. At Itil' the Volga route, which connected Bulgar in the n o r t h with the Caspian Sea and Iran to the south, intersected a c a r a v a n route that stretched westward from the Far East t h r o u g h Central Asia to the Byzantine ports on the Crimean peninsula in the Black Sea. 5 3 By providing stability on both the steppe and the sea, the Khazar kaganate w a s able to promote use of both these routes. 12

The ninth and tenth centuries Itil' became a cosmopolitan center and major entrepot. 54 Consequently, fur shipped to Itil' along the Bulgar-Itil' segment of the north-south route could be sold at Itil' and exported along any of the routes that converged on that center, in almost any direction, by any of the diverse merchants who traded there. Bulgar's fur export routes to Itil' were controlled by the Khazars. Not only were the peoples who lived on the lower Volga subjects of the Khazar Empire and the land routes thus indirectly controlled by the Khazars, but the Khazars determined whose ships could sail up that river or, descending, reach Itil'. The ships that were allowed to carry goods between Itil' and Bulgar were of Khazar or southern Muslim origin; significantly, they were not Bulgar.55 As various scholars, including B. D. Grekov and A. P. Kovalevskii, have noted, the merchants conducting the goods between Bulgar and Itil' were also predominantly Khazar or southern Muslims; there is no mention in the Oriental sources of Bulgar merchants descending the Volga to Itil'. 56 Evidently, just as the Bulgars prevented the Rus' from passing through their market to reach Itil' and also obliged Khazar and southern Muslim merchants to stop and complete all their northern trade transactions at Bulgar, the Khazars favored vessels and merchants originating at Itil' and kept the lower Volga closed to those originating at Bulgar. From Itil', the fur went further south across or around the Caspian Sea. Commercial navigation, according to Ibn Hawkal, was very active between Khazaria and the Muslim countries bordering the Caspian. Some Muslim merchants, traveling only as far north as Khazaria, purchased imported fur, slaves, honey and wax there. 57 Describing the flow of fur pelts issuing from the Burtas, al-Mas'udi indicated that the Non arabic kings.. .export them to Derbent, Barda'a and other areas of Khorasan. Often they export them also to the country..., and from there to the countries of Ifrendzhei (that is, western Europe) and to Spain. From there they export black and red fox to North Africa, so that others suppose that they initially come from Spain and the neighboring countries Ifrendzhei and Slavian.58 This fur was evidently taken by land through Semender, another Khazar town, to Derbent, and from there to Bardaa. From Derbent there was also a sea route going along the west coast of the Caspian to Baku and Abaskun, a port at the southeastern corner of that sea. Abaskun could also be reached from Itil' by another, more difficult, sea route that followed the east coast of the Caspian. At these points the merchants again joined land routes; from Abaskun they could go upriver to Gurgan, then going westward reach Rey and Bagdad, or, by proceeding in the opposite direction, come to the towns of Central Asia and the Far East. 59 The fur exported from Bulgar to Khazaria was thus re-exported by Muslim merchants and conveyed along these routes to Derbent, Bardaa, Rey, Bagdad, Khwarezm and the Samanid lands, and even to North Africa and 13

Bulgar

Spain, where it was observed by the composers of our Arabic and Persian sources. In the ninth and tenth centuries the Bulgar market was the distribution center for northern luxury fur to the Khazar and Muslim world. There, Khazar and Muslim merchants, paying in silver coin and a variety of Oriental luxury goods, purchased sable, ermine, fox, marten, beaver and squirrel pelts, along with slaves, honey, wax, hides, weapons, and other goods. These goods were provided by a variety of suppliers: the Bulgar population, tributaries, and trading partners, including the Burtas. Ves' and Rus'. Khazar and southern Muslim merchants transported their purchases by land vehicles or by boat southward along the Volga river to IuT. At InT they either sold their fur or carried it further by land and sea to other points in the Muslim world - Derbent, Bardaa, Rey, Bagdad, Khwarezm, the Samanid lands, and even to Spain and North Africa. Bulgar merchants, while rarely using the river route to the south, which was controlled by Khazaria, did conduct land caravans to Khwarezm, where fur was repurchased, again mainly for silver coin, by southern Muslim merchants who transported it further to the towns of the Samanid Empire and other Muslim centers. THE ELEVENTH AND TWELFTH CENTURIES

By the tenth century Bulgar was providing northern luxury fur, obtained from a variety of suppliers, to the entire Muslim East. Its trade system had adjusted to the appearance of the Rus', who became major fur contributors in the Bulgar network. In the subsequent two centuries Bulgar periodically readjusted its fur network in response, on the one hand, to Russian expansion, which affected the Bulgars' fur supplies and supply routes, and, on the other hand, to political changes that occurred within the southern consuming areas that were served by Bulgar. Throughout this period the Bulgars reacted to numerous and diverse pressures with aflexibilitythat enabled them to continue to collect luxury fur from northern sources and to redistribute it throughout the Muslim world. It was only during the first half of the thirteenth century under the application of independent yet simultaneous pressure by the Russians on supplies and by the Mongols on consuming centers, that the Bulgars' traditional fur trade network contracted. The first challenges to the Bulgar fur trade network came from the Kievan Rus'. Tensions between Kiev and Bulgar were associated with the competition between the young and expanding state of Kievan Rus' and the old, established dominant power in the region - Khazaria. Kievan expansion, which involved subordination of neighboring tribes to tributary status, was inherently a challenge to the Khazars, to whom many of those 14

The eleventh and twelfth centuries tribes had previously owed allegiance.60 The mounting conflict between the two states culminated in a Rus' campaign in 965 that destroyed the Khazar Empire. According to Ibn Hawkal, who wrote a few years later, At present... the Bulgars, Burtas and Khazars have been left nothing by the Russians except a few ruins which they had already despoiled. They descended upon everything and attained in all their neighborhood more than they dreamed of. I have been informed that many of [the Khazars] have returned to Atil [IuT] and Khazaran with the support of Muhammad ibn-Ahmad al-Azdi, the Shirwan Shah, who helped them with his army and people. They [the Khazars] expect and hope to enter a pact with them... and be under their authority in a part of the continent which they will appoint for them.61 Rus' expansionary goals were not satisfied with this victory. In 985 Prince Vladimir led a dramatic campaign directly against Bulgar. Despite the Rus' military victory, Vladimir's uncle Dobrynia counseled: '1 have seen the prisoners and they all wear boots; they will not give us tribute; let us look for foes who wear bast shoes.' So Vladimir made peace with the Bulgars and they confirmed it by oath. And the Bulgars said, 'Let there be peace between us until the stone begins to float and the straw begins to sink, and Vladimir returned to Kiev.62 Although their drive northeastward failed to subordinate Bulgar, by 988 the Rus' did gain possession of territory as far east as Rostov and Murom on the Oka.63 The Rus' activities seriously affected both Bulgar's import and export of fur, but they curtailed neither. The extension of .Rus' authority to the northeast posed a threat to Bulgar's control over the Oka (and the upper Volga), which Bulgar had dominated through an outpost near the mouth of the Oka.64 The Rus' action constituted a challenge not only to Bulgar's claim, after Khazaria's collapse, to inherit the latter's tributaries, but also to its access to fur supplies. The tensions created by the alteration in political circumstances were formally resolved if not immediately after the campaign of 985, then with the treaty of 1006. In that year The (Volga) Bulgars sent ambassadors with many gifts so that Vladimir would allow them to trade safely in the towns along the Volga and Oka. Vladimir willingly granted them their request and gave them seals to all the towns so that they could trade everywhere freely. And Russian merchants with seals from the governors went to Bulgar to trade safely also. And the Bulgars were to sell all their goods in towns to merchants and to buy from them what they required, and they were not to go to villages nor were they to sell to bailiffs (tiuny), bloodwite collectors {virniki), princely sevitors {ognevtina) or peasants (smerdy) or buy from them.65 Trade along the Oka continued under the terms of this treaty through the eleventh century. It was particularly important for Bulgar's supply of local fur from both the Burtas (Mordva), who began to pay kharadj or 15

Bulgar

tribute to Bulgar sometime after the fall of Khazaria,66 and from the neighboring Slavs. As late as the mid-twelfth century Abu Hamid, who traveled along the Oka on his way from Bulgar to Hungary, reported that the Oka population trapped a local " animal not unlike a small cat with black fur, [called] water sable. They export its pelts to Bulgar and Saksin...."67 From his testimony it is evident that Bulgar continued to receive local otter and beaver from the Oka residents - in trade from the Slavs and probably as tribute from the Burtas. Through their tributaries the Bulgars also retained control over the most crucial segments of this supply route - the lower Oka and Kliaz'ma rivers - until the mid-twelfth century.68 Although the Oka remained an active source of, and supply route for, local fur for Bulgar through the middle of the twelfth century, its value as a trade route between Kiev and Bulgar declined. Bulgar's exports of Oriental silver coin to Kiev had already halted fifty years before the complete cessation of trade in that commodity.69 Other traces of trade, such as eleventh-century Bulgar ceramic pottery, as well as glass and stone beads that were imported through Bulgar from the Middle East and Central Asia respectively, have been excavated at Murom and other points along the Oka; but their numbers are few in comparison with those along the upper Volga route and they disappear entirely in the twelfth century.70 Kievan Rus' expansion in the late tenth century only slightly altered Bulgar's imports along the Oka river. The main effect was that Kiev itself, as it was tightening its ties with Byzantium, curtailed its trade, including its fur exports, with Bulgar. But Bulgar retained access to the fur supplied by the Slavs and Burtas of the Oka river region. Rus' expansion also had an impact on Bulgar's export patterns. The Rus' destruction of Khazaria clearly disrupted Bulgar's contact with its southern trading partners. The effect of the Rus' campaign was exacerbated, moreover, by the fact that shortly after the fall of the Khazar Empire, the Samanid Empire, invaded from the east by the Qara-Khanids and undermined from within by its vassals, the Ghaznevids, also disintegrated. By IOOI the Qara-Khanids and the Ghaznevids formed two new empires, separated by the Amu Darya river.71 Indeed, at the end of the tenth and beginning of the eleventh centuries Bulgar's export routes and consuming markets were in serious disarray. Bulgar's commerce, however, rapidly recovered from the loss of its two most important trading partners. The lower Volga-Caspian trade route, formerly controlled largely by the Khazars, remained viable, although less secure, under the protection of the Shirwan-shah and Bulgar itself.72 The caravan route leading from the Volga to Urgench not only remained in use but was improved during the late tenth and early eleventh centuries 16

The eleventh and twelfth centuries by the construction of caravanserais made of cut stone and of wells lined with stone.73 Although under the control of different political authorities, Bulgar's export routes to Iran and Central Asia remained open for delivery of northern luxury fur to the new Turkish masters of those regions. Despite the political and economic disruption that had occurred in the southern consuming regions,74 by the early eleventh century Bulgar's fur already enjoyed a valued place in the Ghaznevid and Qara-Khanid courts. It appeared, for example, among the diplomatic gifts proffered by the Qara-Khanid to the Ghaznevid rulers. During one period of peace Nasr, the Qara-Khanid ruler, sent Mahmud of the Ghaznevid dynasty a gift consisting of fur, falcons and other valuable items.75 Again in 1025 during peace negotiations following a Ghaznevid invasion of Central Asia, fur was on the list of diplomatic gifts. The Persian historian Gardizi, who was associated with the Ghaznevid court, has given an account of the meeting between Qadir-Khan of the Qara-Khanid ("Great Khan" or "Chief of all Turkestan") and Mahmud; ...Amir Mahmud ordered a large tent of embroidered satin to be pitched and everything to be prepared for an entertainment; (after this) he invited Qadir-Khan through an envoy to be his guest. When Qadir-Khan arrived Mahmud ordered the table to be spread as magnificently as possible; the Amir Mahmud and the Khan sat at the same table. After the meal wasfinishedthey went to the "hall of gaiety "; it was splendidly adorned with rare flowers, delicate fruits, precious stones, gold embroidered fabrics, crystal, beautiful mirrors and (various) rare objects, so that Qadir-Khan could not regain his composure Amir Mahmud ordered presents worthy of him to be brought, namely, gold and silver goblets, precious stones, rarities from Baghdad, fine fabrics, costly weapons, valuable horses with gold bridles, sticks studded with precious stones, ten female elephants with gold bridles and goads studded with jewel; mulesfromBardha'a with gold trappings, litters for journeys by mule with girths, gold and silver sticks and bells, also litters of embroidered satins; valuable carpets, of Armenian works, as well as u way si (?) and particoloured carpets; embroidered headbands (?); rose-coloured stamped stuffs from Tabaristan; Indian swords, Qamari aloes, Maqasiri sandal wood, grey amber, she asses, skins of Barbary tigers, hunting dogs, falcons and eagles trained to hunt cranes, antelope and other game. He took leave of Qadir-Khan with great ceremony, showed him many favours and made him his excuses (for the insufficiency of his entertainment and presents). On returning to his camp and examining all these precious things, jewels, arms and riches, Qadir-Khan was filled with astonishment and did not know how to requite him for them. Then he ordered the Treasurer to open the doors of the Treasury, took thence much money and sent it to Mahmud, together with the products of Turkestan, namely fine horses with gold trappings, Turkish slaves with gold belts and quivers, falcons and gerfalcons, sables, minever, ermines, black fox and marten furs, vessels (.. .leather bottles) of the skin of two sheep with horns of the khutuww..., Chinese satin and so forth. Both sovereigns parted entirely satisfied, in peace and amity.76 Gardizi's account implies that sable, ermine, black fox, and marten northern fur, traditionally imported from Bulgar - ranked among the most 17

Bulgar

prized possessions in the khan's treasury. When Qadir-Khan, overwhelmed by the enormously valuable gifts he had received from Mahmud, had to choose items of equally impressive value, he selected those luxury furs to include in a reciprocal gift to the amir. Not only was Mahmud satisfied with Qadir-Khan's gift, indicating that he too placed a high value on these northern pelts, but he was impressed enough by Qadir-Khan and his gifts to support, as a result of this meeting, the replacement of the ruler in Central Asia, Ali-Tegin, by Qadir-Khan's son. 77 The Ghaznevids did not rely exclusively on Qara-Khanid gifts for northern fur. They also obtained it from Amol, located at the southern end of the Caspian, and from Khorasan; both these areas imported fur from Bulgar via the Volga. In 1033, for example, the governor of Khorasan, Suri arrived from Nishapur [the provincial capital]. He appeared before... sultan [Masud], bowed to him and presented a thousand Nishapur dinars and a very expensive necklace.... [Later] they presented to the amir the gifts, which the ... [governor] of Khorasan had prepared In this offering Suri had so many fabrics, rare items of silver and gold, ghulams [soldier-slaves], female slaves, musk, camphor, iuiuby and pearls, carpets..., furs, and goods of various sorts, that the amir and those present were in a state of amazement because Suri had obtained the rarest [items] in all the cities of Khorasan, in Bagdad, Rey, Jibal, Goga, and Tabaristan....78 Two years later Masud conducted a military campaign against his tributaries, Tabaristan and Amol, demanding that they pay him "one million dinars of Nishapur gold; 1,000 [suits] of.precious clothing of Rum and other types; 1,000 carpets...; [and] 5,000 fur pelts." It was by these as well as by less dramatic commercial means that northern fur evidently also had become readily available to the two thousand ghulams or court soldiers who wore sable or marten hats as part of their parade uniforms, and to other members of the Ghaznevid court. 79 From the presence of northern fur among southern consumers it is evident that during the first half of the eleventh century Bulgar recovered from the Rus' attacks on its import and export routes, and continued to send northern fur along both the Volga-Caspian and the steppe routes to southern consumers. But in the second half of the eleventh century Bulgar's fur supply routes were once again in jeopardy. This time the threat affected supplies reaching Bulgar through the upper Volga river route. Although the Oka supply route had been reduced to a source of local fur for Bulgar after the tenth century, the upper Volga had remained during the eleventh century a viable supply route for northern fur from both the northwestern Russians and the Ves'. Russian control of this route extended eastward to the lands of Rostov. That region, which had been inhabited by the Finnic Merya tribe before being settled by Slavs, may have become subject to Kiev as early as the reign of Igor. Certainly it was among Kiev's 18

The eleventh and twelfth centuries possessions during the reign of Vladimir, whose sons Iaroslav and Boris each temporarily ruled there. 80 But after that time it appears that the collection of tribute, defense of Rostov, and no doubt the protection of the upper Volga trade were administered by the ruler of Novgorod, himself an appointee of the prince of Kiev.81 Bulgar retained jurisdiction over the remainder of the route, which extended westward at least to the mouth of the Oka and perhaps as far as Iaroslavl'. Under this arrangement trade along the upper Volga, protected by the treaty of 1006 and unafflicted by major political disturbances, continued between Bulgar and both its trading partners - the Russians of Novgorod and the Ves'. Although no more Oriental silver coins were imported after 1 o 15, the upper Volga was lined with other Bulgar exports: ceramic pottery of Bulgar origin, Middle Eastern glass beads, and Central Asian stone beads, similar in type but greater in quantity than those found along the Oka. Glazed pottery, a luxury item from Iran, was transported along that route as far as Novgorod, where shards have been unearthed in archeological excavations. Fragments of another type of pottery, possibly from Central Asia, have been discovered in Ves' burial mounds of the eleventh century, while other ceramics found there and dated from the twelfth century, originated at Bulgar. 82 Evidence of additional more perishable items, such as grains, silks, and spices, is contained in written sources. One example of the grain trade, which may have been local and undertaken only in times of unusual need, occurred in 1024 when "there was great confusion and famine" in the Suzdal' area and "the entire population went along the Volga to the Bulgars, from whom they bought grain and thus survived." 83 Silks and brocades, popular among the Russian princes and wealthy nobility as fabrics for clothing in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, were evidently imported by them from both Bulgar and Byzantium. Finally, spices, most notably pepper, reached Novgorod in the twelfth century from Bulgar through Suzdal', whose merchants were obliged to pay customs duties in Novgorod either in silver or in pepper. 84 In exchange for their goods, Bulgar merchants received fur as well as other items. A chronicle description of an uprising led by a group of magicians in Rostov in 1071 makes reference to those goods: While there was famine on one occasion in the district of Rostov two magicians appeared from Iaroslavl' and said they knew who interfered with the food supply. Then they went along the Volga, and where they came to a trading-post, they designated the handsomest women, saying that one affected the grain, another the honey, another the fish, and another the fur. The inhabitants brought into their presence their sisters, their mothers, and their wives, and the magicians in their delusion stabbed them in the back and drew out from their bodies grain or fish. They thus killed many women and appropriated their property.85 19

Bulgar

Although some elements of this tale appear fantastic, the episode does identify the goods normally available for sale on the upper Volga; fur was clearly one of them and was undoubtedly among the goods Bulgar merchants, whose keen interest in fur is illustrated by their Oka trade, purchased from their upper Volga trading partners - Novgorod and the Ves'. This pattern changed in the twelfth century. Prior to that the region of Rostov-Suzdal', under Novgorod's protection, had been extending its tribute-collecting authority to include the length of the upper Volga river from Iaroslavl' to its headwaters as well as the Sheksna river and the Beloozero region.86 During the eleventh century Rostov Slavs were moving into the Beloozero region just as Novgorodians were advancing into the lands east of Lake Ladoga. As a consequence, a gradual Ves' migration eastward gained impetus, and a portion of that population pushed through Zavoloch'e and reached the lower Dvina river in the vicinity of Kargopol' as well as the lower Vychegda and Sukhona rivers, where they engaged in close interaction with the peoples situated further east.87 Political changes taking place in the late eleventh century also affected the upper Volga and its trade. By that time Kievan authority over its northeastern territories had weakened. Control over Murom and the Oka river became the object of contention between the sons of Vladimir Monomakh and the heirs of Sviatoslav of Chernigov. By agreement of all the Russian princes in 109 7, Iaroslav Sviatoslavich received the principality of Murom-Riazan', which he ruled until 1123. Vladimir Monomakh was also obliged to yield Chernigov, the seat he had gained in 1078, to Oleg Sviatoslavich; but Vladimir acquired Pereiaslavl' and with it Rostov-Suzdal' in compensation. Despite challenges from the Sviatoslavichi. Vladimir's sons reigned in the Rostov-Suzdal' principality.88 Rostov's geographic expansion, its political development, and the Ves' migration combined to form a new configuration of elements that prompted the opening of a new fur supply route by Bulgar by the mid-twelfth century. This route superseded the upper Volga. It came into use as Bulgar merchants became more heavily dependent on the Ves', especially those who had migrated eastward, and opened a new route to reach them. The route, whose path it has been possible to discern through an analysis of a series of military conflicts between Suzdalia and Bulgar during the second half of the twelfth century, followed the upper Volga to the Unzha, then proceeded along that river to the lug, the Sukhona and the Dvina. The first indication that a new route, extending between Bulgar and the Ves' but bypassing Rostov-Suzdal', was in use appeared earlier in an Islamic source. Biruni, describing the most northerly land known in the eleventh century, wrote: 20

The eleventh and twelfth centuries The most distant point, where they [the people of the 7th climate] live together is the country Iura. To [reach] it from the [land of] Isu [requires a journey lasting] a period of twelve days, and to Isu from Bulgar - [a journey] of twenty days. [Travelers proceed] on wooden sleighs, in which they load supplies and which are drawn either by themselves or by dogs; and [they] also [travel] on other [sliding devices], made from bone, which they attach to their feet and with the help of which they cover great distances in short periods. Because of their wildness and timidity, the inhabitants of Iura trade in the following manner; they place their goods down in some place and leave them there.89 The distances cited by Biruni indicate that he was not referring to the upper Volga, but to a different route. Although twenty days for a journey between Bulgar and the Ves' may be reconciled with the estimate of three months allotted by Ibn Fadlan if the latter is interpreted as the time necessary for a round-trip and for concluding commercial transactions, Biruni's twelve-day journey between the Ves' and the Iugra would be impossible if the Ves' lived near Beloozero and the Iugra on the lower Pechora. 90 Indeed, a traveler starting from Bulgar and covering thirty to thirty-five miles per day 91 might reach either Beloozero or the mouth of the lug (following the Volga-Unzha-Iug rivers), both about 650 miles from Bulgar, in twenty days. But of the two, only from the mouth of the lug would it be possible, traveling at the same rate, to reach the headwaters of the Vymr and the mid-course of the Pechora in twelve days or a distance of 360 to 420 miles. Biruni, therefore, must have been referring to a route that linked the easternmost Ves' with Bulgar and the Iugra. During the eleventh century the upper Volga was still the main route used by Bulgar merchants to obtain northern fur from the Ves' and Novgorod. The route implied by Biruni must be considered an auxiliary one that was being developed to reach the migrating groups of Ves', who were in closer contact with the Iugra. During the first half of the twelfth century, however, that supplementary route became Bulgar's primary means of procuring northern fur. This was the fur supply system Abu Hamid described on the basis of observations he made during his visit to Bulgar in 1135-6. According to his account, it was a forty-day trip upriver from Saksin to Bulgar, which was then a large, wooden city.92 Beyond Bulgar there was an area whose inhabitants pay kharadj. It is a one-month journey between them and Bulgar and they call that area Visu. There is also another area, which they call Ara; in it they hunt for beaver, ermine, and excellent squirrel. In the summer the day there is twenty-two hours long. Extremely good beaver pelts come from there.... Beyond Visu on the sea is an area of darkness, known under the name Iura. In the summer the day there is very long, so that, as the merchants say, the sun does not set for forty days, and in the winter the night has the same length. The merchants say that the land of darkness is not far from them and that the people 21

Bulgar of Iura go to this land of darkness and enter it with torches and find there a large tree [wood] not unlike a large village, and in it is a large animal, which, they say, is a bird. They bring goods with them, and each merchant puts his property down in a separate place, makes his sign on it and goes away. Then after a while they return and find goods that are needed in their country. And each man finds some of those things near his own goods; if he agrees [to the exchange], then he takes them; if not, he gathers his own things and leaves the others and no exchange takes place. And they do not know from whom they are buying these goods. From Islamic countries the [Bulgar] people import swords, which are made in Zandjan, Abkhar, Tabriz, and Isfahan. The swords are in the form of blades without handles or decorations; [they consist] only of iron as it comes out of thefire.And they temper these swords [so well] that if the sword is suspended on a thread and hit with a nail or anything made of iron or wood, the sound will be heard for a long time. These swords are exactly suited to be taken to the Iura. The inhabitants of Iura have no wars; they have neither riding nor pack animals - only vast woods and forests, in which there is a lot of honey, and they have very many sables and they eat sable meat. The merchants bring these swords and sheep and cattle bones to them, and as payment for them they take sable skins and receive from this a huge profit.... The swords that are imported from Islamic countries to Bulgar bring a large profit. The Bulgars then carry them to Visu, where beaver are found, and then the inhabitants of Visu carry them to the Iura, and its inhabitants buy them for sable skins and male and female slaves.93 Abu Hamid, like Biruni, was not discussing the trade system associated with the upper Volga river. The Ves\ whom he described as intermediaries between Bulgar merchants and the Iugra,-paid kharadj to Bulgar. Clearly, they could not have been the Ves' of the Ladoga-Onega-Beloozero region, who had been incorporated into the Novgorod and Rostov principalities during the eleventh century. Those Ves' who had been migrating eastward, however, fit his description. Furthermore, Abu Hamid failed to mention Russians as participants in Bulgar's system of obtaining fur, an impossible omission had he been describing the upper Volga system.94 The fur procurement system by which Bulgar, according to Abu Hamid, obtained luxury fur - sable and beaver from the Ves' and Iugra in exchange for iron blades or harpoons specially designed in southern Islamic lands for the needs of northern hunters - did not involve the upper Volga route. Rather it was based upon the same route that Birum was discussing - the Volga-Unzha-Iug route that probably led Bulgar merchants to a meeting ground near the mouth of the lug or on the upper Dvina - a point accessible to the eastern Ves', the tribes dwelling east of the Dvina, as well as Novgorodians who were moving into the lower Dvina, Vaga, and other northern lands. Bulgar, under pressure from Rostov-Suzdal', reorganized its fur supply network and shifted its primary fur supply route from the upper Volga to the Volga-Unzha-Iug. Bulgar relied upon this route to obtain sable and 22

The eleventh and twelfth centuries other northern fur from the Ves' during the twelfth century. But by the turn of the century Suzdalian princes controlled the mouth of the lug river through the settlements of Gleden and Ustiug; by a series of military campaigns, they also assumed control over other segments of that route. With the foundation of Nizhnii Novgorod in 1221, Suzdalia gained dominance over the juncture of the Oka and Volga rivers and finally seized control of the full length of the Volga-Unzha-Iug route. Bulgar's stubborn insistence on maintaining an independent supply of fur, despite pressure from the Rostov-Suzdal' princes, may be explained by the persistent demand for northern fur from its southern consumers. But to meet this demand Bulgar also had to adjust to changes in authority over its export routes and over the consuming markets. In the mid-eleventh century, just before Rostov-Suzdal' pressure forced Bulgar to alter its supply routes, Polovtsy were gaining dominance in the steppe and Seljuk Turks were displacing the Ghaznevids (and subsequently the QaraKhanids95). Despite these disruptions, it was not long before a new equilibrium, symbolized by the rise of the town of Saksin, was established along Bulgar's traditional export routes. Inhabited by remnants of the Khazar population, Bulgars, and Oghuz Turks, Saksin had become by the twelfth century a center on the trade route linking Bulgar with the southern Islamic lands. 96 According to Abu Hamid, who lived there for twenty years, Saksin was located on " a great river, which was many times larger than the Tigris." In it there were forty Oghuz tribes, and each tribe [had]... a separate amir In the city... [were] thousands of merchants of various nationalities and (both) foreigners and Arabs from Magrib - [so many that it was impossible] to count their number.97 It maintained a lively trade with Amol, which, according to al-Kazwini, whose thirteenth-century description was drawn from earlier accounts, was the marketplace for goods from Bulgar and Saksin People came from Iraq, Syria, Khorasan, and the borders of Indostan, seeking their goods. Trade of the inhabitants of Tabaristan took place in Bulgar and Saksin because Saksin lay on the shore of the sea opposite Amul [Amol]; they say that a ship setting out to Saksin took three months, but if it left from there, one week.98 In the twelfth century four hundred large ships annually transported goods between Amol and Saksin.99 The passage followed the western coast of the Caspian and often involved stops at Baku and Derbent. 100 Merchants from Tabaristan as well as from Baku, Derbent, and Khwarezm, along with those from the areas mentioned above, participated in this trade; some also ventured up the Volga to Bulgar. 101 It was through these merchants that Bulgar exported its fur to the Seljuk centers; in exchange for the fur it received the glazed pottery from Iran, cheaper pottery and stone beads from 23

Bulgar

Central Asia, glass beads from the Middle East, as well as silks, spices and gems that it re-exported to Novgorod and the Ves'. By the twelfth century, the specially designed iron blades, produced in the towns of Zandjan, Abkhar, Tabriz, and Isfahan, were transported along the Volga route to Bulgar, which in turn traded them to its northern fur suppliers.102 The vitality of the Volga route, maintained despite changes in political leadership and the formation of a new trade center at Saksin, reflects the continuing demand among southern consumers for Bulgar's northern luxury fur. It also illustrates how the Bulgars were able to adapt to new conditions, affecting both their fur export and import patterns, and thereby use their traditional export routes to provide northern luxury fur to northern Iran and Central Asia. Bulgar's basic fur export pattern altered only after the two empires that had dominated the Muslim East-the Seljuk and the Qara-Khaniddisintegrated. This occurred in the middle of the twelfth century. The Qara-Khanids were replaced by a nomadic population that had migrated into their territory from the east - the Qara-Khitay. Extending their domain into Central Asia in 1138-41, the Qara-Khitay established local rulers in their western provinces, charged them with the collection and payment of tribute, and allowed the region to remain divided into several administrative units, lacking political cohesion.103 The Qara-Khitay themselves, unlike their Turkish predecessors, did not become integrated into the Muslim cultural and economic world, but retained their eastern orientation. Seljuk authority, after Sultan Sanjar's defeat by. the Qara-Khitay in 1141 and the successful rebellion of the Oghuz Turks in the 1150s, also effectively vanished in Khorasan.104 In the power vacuum that resulted from the demise of Qara-Khanid and Seljuk authority and the disinterested absence of the Qara-Khitay, Khwarezm emerged to form a new empire. The process of formation took several decades, and did not proceed without difficulties.105 Consequently, during most of the second half of the twelfth century the Muslim East was left without centralized political leadership and protection. This time the changes among the consuming empires had a profound impact on Bulgar's export patterns. In the third quarter of the twelfth century security on the Caspian and Caucasian trade routes deteriorated. Oghuz nomads spread disorder in Khorasan and disrupted urban and commercial life, while further west the Crusades and Byzantine wars were disrupting the trade routes to Iraq and the Middle East. Seljuk authority was no longer able to maintain order on the trade routes, support caravanserais and bazaars, or protect merchants;106 consequently, the Caspian and Caucasian routes connecting Bulgar to Iran were avoided by long-distance fur merchants. Khwarezm and Transoxania remained potential markets. But commer24

The eleventh and twelfth centuries cial conditions in Khwarezm were tempered by its own war with the invading Qara-Khitay and with the Oghuz in Khorasan. 107 Furthermore, Khwarezmian merchants during this period could scarcely perform their traditional roles as commercial middlemen, conveying northern fur from Urgench to more distant lands. Under the Qara-Khitay, whose interest in western goods was minimal and whose concern even with its own possessions in Central Asia was minor and limited to tribute collection, the points to which Urgench merchants could re-export northern products were reduced. The local elite of Bukhara and Samarkand may have remained consumers of these goods, but there is no indication that the Qara-Khitay themselves, situated further east, had any interest in importing these products. Only as the empire of the Khwarezm-shah took shape and restored order to Khorasan in the late twelfth century was it possible for Bulgar to export its northern products according to its former patterns. But in 1220 the Mongols invaded Khwarezm. Destroying Urgench, Bukhara and other commercial centers, 108 they eliminated the bazaars to which Bulgar had been exporting its fur since before the ninth and tenth centuries. Trade routes, caravanserais, wells and other amenities were left without maintenance or protection and the consumers were economically unable to purchase luxury fur. Bulgar's traditional avenues to the Muslim world were closed. In response to this catastrophe Bulgar sought new customers and found them in the Crimean port of Sudak, a commercial, center inhabited by Alans, Armenians, Polovtsy, Khazars, Byzantines, and Russians. Although a Byzantine port, it also paid tribute to the Polovtsy, and was achieving some prominence as a Black Sea port by the late twelfth century. 109 Cooperating with the Polovtsy, with whom they had also developed the routes along the lower Volga and across the steppe to Urgench, the Bulgars had already begun in the second half of the twelfth century to export fur across the steppe to the Crimean port of Sudak. The thirteenth-century historian Ibn al-Athir commented on the fur trade at Sudak at the time of the Mongols' first arrival in 1223. He wrote: [Sudak] is a city of Kipchaks, from which they receive their goods because it lies on the shore of the Khazar sea and ships with garments [textiles?] come to it; the garments are sold for girls, [male] slaves, and Burtas fur, beaver, squirrel, and other items that are found in their land.110 He went on to explain that The route to it [the Kipchak land] was cut from the time the Tatars invaded it and nothing was received from them (the Kipchaks) in the area of Burtas fur, squirrel, beaver and other items that were imported from this country. When they (the Tatars) left it and returned to their own land, then the route was restored and goods were again imported as before.111 25

Bulgar At Sudak, according to Ibn al-Athir, Burtas fur, beaver, and squirrel were exchanged along with slaves for cloth, which arrived there by ship. William of Rubruck, the thirteenth-century emissary of King Louis IX to Khan Sartak, also commented on Sudak. Referring to the trade system as it had been "restored" after the Mongol conquest but before the Mongols tightened their control over the steppe and closed the route across it, Rubruck observed that it was to Sudak that all the Turkie merchants, which traffique into the North countries, in their journey outward, arrive, and as they return homeward also from Russia and the said Northern regions, into Turkie. The foresaid merchants transport thither ermines and grey furres, with other rich and costly skinnes. Others carrie clothes [cloth?] made of cotton or bombast, and silke, and divers kinds of spices.112 The route across the steppe to Sudak was apparently opened during the second half of the twelfth century, the period when Sudak was emerging as a major port in the Crimea.113 But the "Turkie merchants" mentioned by Rubruck entered this system on a regular basis only in the thirteenth century. In 1214 the western Seljuks gained access to the Black Sea by seizing Sinop; at the same time they compelled the ruler of Trebizond to pay tribute to them. Apparently, some time after that, their merchants tried to trade at Sudak; but when their reception was less than cordial, those merchants complained to Sultan Keikobad, who responded by launching a campaign in the early 1220s against Sudak and the Polovtsy. The Seljuks, arriving in ships, defeated a Kipchak (Polovtsy) army, reached an agreement with some Russians, who feared the Seljuks were coming to fight them, and extracted a pledge from Sudak, according to which its inhabitants agreed that everything [the sultan] commands we will fulfill; we will pay kharadj and bad] [a gift or tax], we will provide supplies to travelers passing through our country; we will return the property of merchants who perish in our country; we will submit everything we have to his direction.114 This campaign marked the establishment of favorable conditions for regular Seljuk trade at Sudak. After securing their commercial position at Sudak, the Seljuks thus controlled or profited from the traffic of goods coming from Sudak to Trebizond and passing through Trebizond to Syria and Iran. Traffic between Sudak and its northern trading partners - Kiev and Bulgar - depended upon the Polovtsy, who controlled the caravan routes passing through the steppe and evidently promoted commercial interaction with Bulgar, with which they maintained friendlier relations. 115 It was by this steppe route that Bulgar supplied Sudak with the fur noted by Ibn al-Athir and Rubruck. When first opened during the second half of the twelfth century, and especially at the end of that century when Khwarezm 26

The Mongol period

was flourishing, the steppe route to Sudak must have carried a relatively minor share of Bulgar's fur exports in comparison with the lower Volga and the caravan route to Urgench. But after 1220, when the Mongols destroyed Urgench and the Seljuks established themselves as commercial middlemen, connecting Bulgar through Sudak with Iran and the Middle East, that route became the only means by which Bulgar could export fur. But by that time Bulgar had also been cut off from its northern fur suppliers. Bulgar's export patterns correspondingly shifted. The fur it was observed to export consisted of local varieties, obtained from the Burtas and the immediate Bulgar hinterland - fox, squirrel, and beaver. On the eve of the Mongol invasion Bulgar had ceased to export fine northern luxury fur throughout the Oriental world, but through a much contracted network dispatched local pelts to one port, Sudak, for consumption by one group, the Seljuk Turks of Anatolia. With the arrival of the Mongols even this much reduced fur trade network disappeared. THE MONGOL PERIOD

It was, paradoxically, also the Mongols who revived Bulgar's fur trade. In 1236 the armies of Batu and Subudey attacked and severely damaged the city of Bulgar and, judging from archeological evidence, Suvar and Bihar as well.116 Bulgar's fur trade was then brought to a halt. But almost immediately after the conquest the Golden Horde demonstrated a decided taste for fur, or so at least Friar Giovanni de Pian de Carpine, or Piano Carpini, was led to believe. When passing through Poland in 1245 as an envoy of Pope Innocent IV to the Mongol khan, he was advised to "bestow gifts upon them [the Mongols of the Golden Horde]"; to satisfy their known tastes, he accordingly caused certain skinnes of bevers and other beastes to be bought with part of that money, which was given upon almes to succour us by the way. Which thing duke Conradus and the duchess of Cracow, and a bishop and certain soldiers being advertised of, gave likewise more of the same skins.117 The same desire for fur was responsible for obliging Bulgar to pay tribute, at least initially, in fur to the Horde and to revive its fur exports. 118 But to acquire fur Bulgar merchants were unable to use their former supply routes, which were controlled by Russians who were also under Tatar pressure to provide fur. Bulgar access to traditional suppliers was either blocked or the suppliers were serving Russian masters. Consequently the types of fur that Bulgar could provide were local varieties, not fine luxury pelts from the Far North. Rubruck reported that ... out of Russia, Moxel, Bulgaria the greater, and Pascotir, that is Hungaria the greater, and out of Kersis (all of which are Northerne regions and full of woods) 27

Bulgar and also out of many other countries of the North, which are subject unto them [the Mongols], the inhabitants bring them rich and costly skins of divers sortes (which I never saw in our countries) wherewithal they are clad in winter. And alwaies against winter they make themselves two gownes, one with the fur inward to their skin, and another with the furre outward, to defend them from wind and snow, which for the most part are made of woolves skins or Fox skinnes, or els of Papions.119

Ibn Wa§il testified in his contemporary history that the fur worn by the Tatars of the Golden Horde, when they were engaged in hostilities against the Il-khans in 1263-4, were those befitting a poor people, beaver and other "foul" types of similar quality.120 Despite his derogatory estimation of its value and of those who wore it, his observation substantiates the role of the Golden Horde as fur consumers. To supply Sarai with luxury fur Bulgar developed yet another route. It was designed to obtain northern fur without the aid of intermediaries, directly from the fur-hunting tribes of the North. The route they employed was not entirely new. It had apparently been known and occasionally used in the twelfth century, for a description of it appeared in the Natural Properties of Animals by Marwazi. In his discussion of Turks, Marwazi included a description of Bulgar, in which he located the country and identified its two main cities, Bulgar and Suvar. After pointing out that "there are in their forests fur-bearing animals, such as grey squirrels, sable, and so on," he went on: ... At a distance of twenty days from them, towards the Pole, is a land called Isu, and beyond this a people called Yura; these are a savage people, living in forests and not mixing with other men, for they fear that they may be harmed by them. The people of Bulghar journey to them, taking wares, such as clothes, salt, and other things, in contrivances (lit. 'utensils') drawn by dogs over the heaped snows, which (never) clear away. It is impossible for a man to go over these snows, unless he binds on to his feet the thighbones of oxen, and takes in his hands a pair of javelins which he thrusts backwards into the snow, so that his feet slide forwards over the surface of the ice; with a favourable wind(?) he will travel a great distance by the day. The people of Yura trade by means of signs and dumb show, for they are wild and afraid of (other) men. From them are imported excellent sable and other fine furs; they hunt these animals, feeding on their flesh and wearing their skins.121

Muhammad 'Aufi basically repeated Marwazi's statement in his anthology compiled during the first half of the thirteenth century.122 Apparently the route they were describing had been explored by Bulgar merchants during the twelfth century, while the Suzdal' princes were applying pressurefirston the upper Volga and then on the Volga-Unzha-Iug routes. This route, by which Bulgar merchants traveled directly to the fur-hunting Iugra tribes, may have been developed from contacts made by Bulgar's tributaries, the Udmurts, with their northern neighbors. It entailed travel 28

The Mongol period through harsh, sparsely populated lands; it was difficult to travel long distances on sleds and skis and the risks for both the merchants and their animals made it dangerous and expensive. Consequently, as long as other routes, involving intermediaries who sustained the most difficult and dangerous parts of the journey, were available, the Bulgar merchants opted to use them. Only when those other possible routes were closed and a new demand for fur from their Golden Horde masters warranted it, did the Bulgar merchants develop this route. It was apparently in full operation by the 1320s, when Ibn Baftuta visited Bulgar. About its fur trade with the Far North, he wrote: I had intended to enter the Land of Darkness, which is reached from Bulghar after a journey of forty days. But I renounced this project in view of the immense effort and expense that it required and the small profit to be got from it. The journey to it can be made only in small waggons drawn by large dogs, for in that desert there is ice, so that neither the foot of man nor the hoof of beast has a firm hold on it, whereas the dogs have claws and so their feet remain firm on the ice. No one can go into this desert except merchants with great resources, each of whom will have a hundred waggons or thereabouts loaded with his food, drink, and firewood, for there are no trees in it, nor stones, nor habitations. The guide in that land is the dog that had already made the journey in it many times, and its price is as high as a thousand dinars or so. The waggon is fastened to its neck, and three other dogs are yoked with it; it is the leader and all the other dogs follow it with the waggons and stop when it stops. This dog is never beaten nor berated by its owner, who, when food is prepared, feeds the dogs first before the humans, otherwise the dog is angered and escapes, leaving its owner to perish. When the travellers have completed forty stages in this desert they ajight at the Darkness. Each one of them leaves thereabouts the goods that he has brought and they return to their usual camping-ground. Next day they go back to seek their goods, and they find alongside them skins of sable, minever, and ermine. If the owner of the goods is satisfied with what he has found alongside his goods he takes it, but if it does not satisfy him he leaves it, and then they add more skins, and sometimes they (I mean the people of the Darkness) take away their goods and leave those of the merchant. This is their method of selling and buying, and those who go to those parts do not know who it is who do this trading with them, whether they are of the jinn or of men, for they never see anyone.123 At Bulgar Ibn Battufa observed a thriving fur market, which was completely dependent for its supplies of northern luxury fur on the route that in the twelfth century was just being explored and occasionally used. Ibn Baftuta, however, did not name the fur-supplying men (or jinndemons), nor did he identify their land. For their location and identity it is necessary to turn to al-'Umari, who in his encyclopedic work written in the 1340s quoted a Khwarezmian merchant, Ibn an-Noman, as saying, "merchants from our countries (Oriental merchants) went no further than Bulgar; Bulgar merchants though went to Chulyman, and Chulyman merchants went to the land of Iugra in the extreme North." 124 Chulyman, according to al-'Umari, was the northern land to which 29

Bulgar

Bulgar merchants traveled in the fourteenth century, and evidently, the same place Ibn Battuta was describing. Chulyman has been variously interpreted to have been on a tributary of the Ob' river, to have been Novgorod, or to have been one of Novgorod's northern outposts, Kholmogory, on the Dvina river.125 The term Chulyman or Chulman is, however, also the Tatar word for Kama.126 Substituting Kama for Chulyman, al-'Umari's statement says that Bulgar merchants went to the Kama, and Kama merchants went to the Iugra. Indeed, as the Bulgar land recovered from the Mongol invasion, it was, in contrast to its former centers as Biliar and Suvar, precisely the lands on the Kama river that flourished.127 The territories along the upper Kama as well as those on its tributaries and those on the neighboring upper Pechora were inhabited in the early fourteenth century by a hunting population known as the Voguly (ancestors of the modern Mansi).128 Distant relatives of their northern neighbors, the Iugra (later known as the Ostiaki and Khanty), who were also hunters andfishermen,the Voguly had dwelled in this area at least since the twelfth century,129 when, perhaps not coincidentally, the Bulgars first began to explore the Kama route. Their hunting ground, the upper Pechora river basin, as well as that of the Iugra, the lower Pechora, was a well-known source of the finest sable pelts and remained so, according to later visitors and observers of Muscovy, such as Paulus Jovius, Sigismund von Herberstein, and Allesandro Guagnini, through the sixteenth century.130 By the first half of the fourteenth century Bulgar had recovered from the commercial collapse experienced a century before, and it had developed a new, flourishing fur supply system - one notably different from those it had employed in the past. Abandoning use of intermediaries, the Bulgar merchants no longer traded with Russians or Ves' to obtain their northern luxury pelts. But retaining their basic method of fur procurement, trade, they traveled by dog-sled in the winter along the Kama river, a route entirely under their control, through the territory of the Udmurts (Votiaki) and Perm' Velikaia directly to the primary fur suppliers of northern sable and ermine, the Voguly. There, in exchange for iron tools, clothing, salt and trinkets, they purchased the northern luxury pelts that the Voguly had procured either by the hunt or by trade with the Iugra.131 The Bulgars shipped this northern luxury fur in the form of tribute or as a commercial item exclusively down the Volga river to Sarai.132 The Tatar capital, originally founded by Batu, then relocated by Berke, had also become a thriving commercial center by the 1340s. Ibn Battuta, who visited it during that period, described it as " one of the finest of cities " He went on to note that there are various groups of people among its inhabitants; these include the Mughals, who are dwellers in this country and its sultans, and some of whom are 3O

The Mongol period Muslims, then the As [Ossetians], who are Muslims, the Qifjaq [Kipchaks], the Jarkas [Cherkass], the Rus, and the Rum [Greeks] - [all of] these are Christians. Each group lives in a separate quarter with its own bazaars. Merchants and strangers from the two 'Iraqs, Egypt, Syria and elsewhere, live in a quarter which is surrounded by a wall for the protection of the properties of the merchants.133 From Sarai fur was re-exported to both the west and the east. In 1342 Khan Janibeg sent the Egyptian sultan gifts consisting of slaves, falcons, and sable pelts. 134 The fur that went west was transported not only by diplomatic missions, but also by Italian merchants. With the restoration of Michael VIII Paleologus in Constantinople in 1261 Italian merchants became prominent traders in the Black Sea. At that time the Genoese in particular acquired trading privileges there and quickly thereafter obtained privileges from Mangu Temir, enabling them to operate at Caffa (c. 1267) and Sudak (12 74). 135 The Italians thus forged a trading link with the newly founded Golden Horde, from which they were able to purchase silks and spices and other Oriental luxury goods; they thereby extended the Mongols' east-west commercial route through the Black Sea to the Mediterranean and Europe. In addition to Oriental goods, fur was among the merchandise they handled. According to records for 1289, Genoese transactions at Caffa included the transport of ermine through that port. Two other entries in the records for 1289-90 show that vair, or northern gray squirrel, was shipped through Caffa to Genoa as well. 136 In 1315 a Florentine traveler similarly recorded that vair was among the commodities for sale at Sarai and Caffa.137 By the 1330s, when Bulgar's supply route was undoubtedly in operation, a wide variety of fur was appearing in the Black Sea ports; Francesco Balducci Pegolotti attested in his mercantile handbook that at Tana vair-skin, ermine, fox, sable, fitch, marten, wolfskin, and deerskin were all available for sale. 138 Merchants of Sarai also sold their fur to Oriental merchants, who transported it as far as India and China. Ibn Battuta testified that Ermine is of the best of the varieties of furs. One mantle of this fur is valued in the land of India at a thousand dinars (which are worth two hundred and fifty in our gold). It is exceedingly white [and comes] from the skin of a small animal of the length of a span, and with a large tail which they leave in the mantle in its natural state. Sable is less valuable; a mantle made from it is worth four hundred dinars or less. A special property of these skins is that lice do not enter into them. The amirs and dignitaries of China use a single skin, attached to their fur mantles round the neck, and so do the merchants of Fars and the two Iraqs. 139 The route to the Far East went from Bulgar to Sarai, via the Volga, then by land or water to Saraichik on the northeastern shore of the Caspian; from there the route led to Urgench. The trip from Sarai to Urgench took almost

Bulgar

one and one-half months, and it was there, according to Pegolotti, that some of the merchandise brought from Sarai was sold.140 Caravans, however, continued eastward, via Otrar and southeastward through the towns of the Central Asian portion of the Mongol Empire, the Chagatai ulus, to India.141 The merchants who came to Sarai from the "two Iraqs, Egypt, and Syria," evidently conducted northern products back to their lands in the Middle East. Sarai, in the tradition of Itilr and Saksin, had thus become a trade center, distributing that northern fur - luxury varieties as well as northern squirrel - received from Bulgar to Europe, the Middle and Far East and Central Asia. Within a century of the Mongol conquest a new pattern for the export of northern fur from Bulgar had taken shape. According to this pattern, Bulgar channeled its luxury fur supplies down the Volga river only as far south as Sarai. At that center the northern pelts joined the commercial flow along the Mongols' silk route and were redistributed both westward and eastward. This pattern was followed until the mid-fourteenth century. During the second half of the fourteenth century, however, Bulgar's new fur supply system became inoperable. At that time Moscow gained hegemony over the Perm' of the Vychegda-Vym' region. This action provoked the hostility of some of the Perm' as well as their Voguly and Iugra neighbors and allies, who, after some vain resistance,fledacross the Urals to join their kinsmen in western Siberia. At almost the same time the Golden Horde fell into political disarray. In the twenty years after the death of Khan Berdibek in 1359 the throne at Sarai passed through the hands of almost twenty-five contenders from both the Golden Horde and the White Horde branches of Juchi's ulus, while the authority of Sarai itself was challenged by local chiefs, especially Mamai, who controlled the western portion of the Golden Horde.142 Unstable political conditions within the Horde affected both Bulgar and security along the Volga route. In 1361 Bulgar itself and indeed the entire lower Volga became, temporarily, the possession of one of the contending chieftains of the Horde, Bulat Temir, while the state of Bulgar began to fragment politically.143 Novgorodian pirates or adventurers known as ushkuinniki, realizing that Bulgar in its weakness was less able to restrict access to the lower Volga, made daring attempts to break through the barriers imposed both by eastern Russian principalities and by Bulgar to that river route. Their piratical raids on Bulgar and Nizhnii Novgorod not only made the Volga even more dangerous, but aroused the hostility of northeastern Russians, who also attacked Bulgar in 1376 in order to impose controls on its commerce through the institution of a Muscovite customs official there.144 On the lower Volga travel and commerce were

The Mongol period

endangered not only by the contending factions at Sarai, but by the Tatars of Astrakhan'. In 1375, when Novgorodian ushkuinniki did successfully descend the Volga route to sell their goods and booty at Astrakhan', the Tatars there purchased their wares, but then murdered the piratemerchants and recovered their own goods. 145 Although Tokhtamysh, a prince of the White Horde and protege of Timur, gained control of the Golden Horde and restored unity and stability to its territories in the 1380s, 146 he later clashed with Timur. In 1391 Timur invaded the Volga regions and defeated Tokhtamysh near the modern city of Kuibyshev, not far from Bulgar. Four years later he defeated him again in the northern Caucasus. Following that battle Timur's "victorious army took Sarai and... burned it;" it went on to destroy Astrakhan', Tana (Azov), and the Crimean town of Caffa as well. The destruction of these towns along with that of Urgench, which had been similarly devastated by Timur in 1387-8, brought ruin to the east-west trade route, which, as the link between China and Europe, had served as the principal commercial prop of the Golden Horde. 147 Recovery of this route was hindered by the collapse in 1368 of the Yuan (Mongol) dynasty in China and an accompanying reduction in trade with that country; by Timur's diversion of the remaining Oriental, including Indian, commercial traffic from the route through Juchi's ulus to a more southerly route through Iran and Syria; and by the consequent disintegration of the Golden Horde, which after Edigey's rule divided into the independent and competing, although related, Crimean, Kazan', and Astrakhan' khanates. 148 The Golden Horde's eastern twin, the White Horde, similarly split into its main components: the Nogais, dominated by the descendants of Edigey of the Mangyt clan, and the Uzbeks, who in the course of the fifteenth century identified with the Shaibanid dynasty. 149 When Josafa Barbaro traveled in 1436 to Tana, where he remained for sixteen years, he witnessed the reduced level of commercial activity along the east-west route and commented: that going from Tumen [Taman] east northeast about vij iorneys [seven days], is the ryver Ledil, whereon standeth Cithercan [Astrakhan'], which at this p'nt is but a litle towne in maner destroied; albeit that in tyme passed it hath been great and of great fame. For, before it was destroied by Tamerlano, the spices and silke that passe no we through Sorea [Syria] came to Cithercan and from thence to Tana, wheare vj or vij [six or seven] galeys only were wonte to be sent from Venice to fetche those spices and silkesfromTana; so that, at that tyme, neither the Venetians nor yet any other nacion of this side of the sea costes, vsed merchandise into Soria.150 With such complete destruction of the consuming markets, Bulgar's fur export radically declined. Almost simultaneously separated from its fur supplies, Bulgar, although physically unaffected by Timur's campaigns, 33

Bulgar

waned as a political and commercial center, and its fur exports disappeared from the Volga.151 Bulgar, which had collected a variety of species of fur and provided them to the consumers of the Muslim East since before the ninth and tenth centuries, ceased to be a major fur trade center.

34

THE RUS'

THE TENTH CENTURY

The Rus' were major participants in Bulgar's fur trade network. They provided the Bulgar market with fur supplies as well as an exotic aura that attracted the attention of Oriental merchants and consumers. But the Rus' trade was not confined to Bulgar. On the contrary, viewed from the perspective of Aldeigjuborg, the earliest Scandinavian settlement in northwestern Russia, or its successor Novgorod, the Bulgar trade constituted only one branch of an entirely different commercial network, through which the Rus' traded not only with Bulgar, but also with Khazaria, Byzantium, and Scandinavia. The Rus' began to develop this trade network as soon as they arrived in eastern Europe, where they also became pivotalfiguresin the formation of a new state that became known as Kievan Rus'.. The legend in the Russian Primary Chronicle, telling of native tribes calling upon a certain Riurik and his brothers to rule them and bring order to their land and explaining how Riurik's descendants took power in Kiev, emphasizes their role in this political development.2 Although that version of the arrival of the Rus' in eastern Europe is controversial,3 it does, nevertheless, reflect the fact of their arrival and their political function in that part of Europe which was ultimately named after them. But other sources, which amplify that account, indicate that the Rus', having reached eastern Europe, made contacts with the states lying on its borders: Bulgar, Khazaria, and the Byzantine Empire. They made those contacts as traders. The arrival of the Rus' in eastern Europe, their means of obtaining fur, and their commercial interaction with Bulgar have been discussed in Chapter i. But the Rus' also sold their fur and slaves directly to Khazaria and the Byzantine Empire. To reach Khazaria the Rus' used a route known in the ninth century and described in the Arabic geographies of Ibn Khurradadhbih and Ibn al-Fakih. According to their accounts, written respectively in the late ninth and early tenth centuries and varying in some details, Rus' or Slavs took fur (beaver, black fox, fox, otter) and swords to the north shore of the Black 35

The Rus' Sea, which was controlled at the time by the Byzantines. The merchants stopped at Cherson on the Crimean peninsula and paid a toll of one-tenth of their goods to the Byzantines, then sailed eastward along the north shore of the sea to Samkarsh (Tmutorokan'), the Khazar outpost at the entrance to the Sea of Azov. They then proceeded up the Don to Sarkel where they transported their goods and boats by land to the Volga, and sailed down that river to Itil' and into the Caspian Sea and beyond. 4 The Rus' continued to use this route to Khazaria in the tenth century. To al-Mas'udi, who visited the Caspian area, it appeared that the "Pontus [the Black Sea, was].. .the sea of the Russians; for no nation, excepting the Russians, navigates this sea." 5 The Sea of Azov, the entrance to the Don, and passage to the Volga, however, were all at this time under Khazar control: ... the estuary (of the Don) which opens into the Pontus... is in communication with the river of the Khazar (Wolga). The king of the Khazar keeps a garrison on this side of the estuary, with efficient warlike equipments to exclude any other power from this passage, and to prevent them from occupying, by land, that branch of the river of the Khazar which stands in connection with the Pontus Access to those waterways was accordingly at Khazar discretion and subject to Khazar fees. Mas'udi reported When [in 913], the Russian vessels came to the garrison, on the entrance of the estuary, they sent to the king of the Khazar to ask his permission to pass through his dominions, to go down his river and enter the sea of Khazar, which is the sea of Jorjan [Gurgan], Tabaristan, and of other places of the Barbarians.. . 6 The Rus', while restricted from passing through Bulgar to reach the lower Volga, did use this Black Sea-Don-Volga route. They frequented Khazaria with such regularity that they were considered a permanent segment of the population at Itil' and were, therefore, granted the right to live according to their own laws and subject to their own judges, in a fashion parallel to the Jewish, Muslim, Christian and other pagan elements of the population. 7 These were the Rus' merchants who brought their fur, slaves and other goods to Itil' for sale. In contrast to their earlier practice, by the tenth century Rus' merchants went no further than the Caspian Sea. Previously, according to Ibn Khurradadhbih and Ibn al-Fakih, the Rus' had conducted their fur and other goods across the Caspian Sea and then transported them by land as far as Rey, "the warehouse of the whole world," 8 and Bagdad. But the Khazars had, as al-Mas'udi indicated, tightened their control over the entrance to the Caspian from the north. At least one Khazar ruler, Joseph, severely restricted access to that sea. He wrote to his Spanish correspondent, 4 'I...do not allow the Russians who come in ships to pass to the [the Arabs].... If I allowed them, they would destroy all the country of the Arabs 36

The tenth century

as far as Bagdad. " 9 In fact, the Rus' did manage to penetrate the Caspian in the late ninth and tenth centuries; but their purpose was, just as Joseph indicated, to stage plundering raids on the coastal populations, not to engage in commerce. This practice reinforces the notion that at that time the Rus' did not maintain regular commercial relations in the Caspian Sea region or beyond it. On the contrary, their raids may have been aimed at acquiring, in addition to booty, just such trading privileges. But the raids failed to accomplish the latter, and the Rus' were prevented by the Khazars from traveling and trading beyond Itil'.10 In addition to Bulgar and ItiT, the Rus' exported fur to the Byzantine Empire. As early as the ninth century the Rus' were trading with Byzantine outposts on the Crimean peninsula. The establishment of Rus' control over Kiev facilitated this trade. From the vantage point of Kiev, located on the Dnepr south of the entrances of all that river's major tributaries, the Rus' controlled all Dnepr commercial traffic conducted between the eastern Baltic or northwestern Russia and the Byzantine Black Sea. Initially Rus' trade with Byzantium was confined to the north shore of the Black Sea, where the Byzantines maintained their outpost, Cherson, on the west coast of the Crimean peninsula. In the tenth century the administrative town of Cherson was also a lively commercial center. Its economic prosperity was reflected by its production of bronze coins after a lapse of almost three centuries, by an expansive building program, and by an increase in its population. All these indicators peaked in the tenth century. Cherson's prosperity stemmed in part from its role as a market center for the Pechenegs of the steppe, for the Greek ships coming from Asia Minor and Constantinople, and for merchants conducting Chinese silk along the route passing through Itil' to Constantinople.11 Rus' and/or Slav merchants frequented this port on the Black Sea shore on their way to Itil'. With their fur and swords, slaves and wax, they stopped there and paid a tax to the Byzantine emperor. Then, as Ibn Khurradadhbih emphasized, if the merchants wanted to, they proceeded into Khazar territory.12 The fact that a choice was involved implies that the merchants regularly traded at Cherson and that their decisions to venture on to Itil' or return home depended upon the success of their trade at this market. In the tenth century, in contrast to the reduction in their trade beyond the Caspian, the Kievan Rus' expanded their role in the Byzantine trade network. With a military campaign against Constantinople, dated 907 in the chronicle account, Prince Oleg broke the Byzantine shipping monopoly in the western Black Sea and won for Rus' merchants the right to trade in Constantinople.13 That right, although in somewhat restricted form, was confirmed in 945 after renewed hostilities.14 Taking the fur they collected from their tributaries during their 37

The Rus'

"rounds," the Rus' made annual trading expeditions to Constantinople. Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus described them as they were conducted in the first half of the tenth century: The single-straked ships which come down from outer Russia to Constantinople are from Novgorod, where Sviatoslav, son of Igor, prince of Russia, had his seat, and others from the city of Smolensk and from Teliutza and Chernigov and from Busegard. All these come down the river Dnieper, and are collected together at the city of Kiev, also called Sambatas. Their Slav tributaries, the so-called Krivichians and the Lenzanines and the rest of the Slavonic regions, cut the single-strakers on their mountains in the time of winter, and when they have fastened them together, as spring approaches, and the ice melts, they bring them on to the neighbouring lakes. And since these lakes debouch into the river Dnieper, they enter thence onto this same river, and come down to Kiev, and draw the ships along to befittedout, and sell them to the Russians. The Russians buy these bottoms only, furnishing them with oars and rowlocks and other tackle from their old single-strakers, which they dismantle; and so they fit them out. And in the month of June they move off down the river Dnieper... [They proceed down this river made dangerous by seven sets of rapids and Pecheneg ambushes until] they come to the mouth of the Danube. From the Danube they proceed to the Konopas, and from the Konopas to Constantia, and from Constantia to the river Varna, and from Varna they come to the river Ditzina, all of which are Bulgarian territory. From the Ditzina they reach the district of Mesembria, and there at last their voyage, fraught with such travail and terror, such difficulty and danger, is at an end.15 Kiev's ability to trade with the Byzantines, either at Cherson or at Constantinople, depended upon its relations with the steppe nomads. Although Russian chronicles concentrate on hostile encounters with them, Emperor Constantine pointed out that the Rus' tried to maintain peaceful relations with the Pechenegs. He cited several reasons: This nation of the Pechenegs is neighbour to the district of Cherson, and if they are not friendly disposed towards us, they may make excursions and plundering raids against Cherson, and may ravage Cherson itself and the so-called Regions. The Pechenegs are neighbours to and march with the Russians also, and often, when the two are not at peace with one another, raid and do her considerable harm and outrage. The Russians also are much concerned to keep the peace with the Pechenegs. For they buy of them horned cattle and horses and sheep, whereby they live more easily and comfortably, since none of the aforesaid animals is found in Russia. Moreover, the Russians are quite unable to set out for wars beyond their borders unless they are at peace with the Pechenegs, because while they are away from their homes, these may come upon them and destroy and outrage their property. And so the Russians, both to avoid being harmed by them and because of the strength of that nation, are the more concerned always to be rid of their enmity and to enjoy the advantage of their assistance. Nor can the Russians come at this imperial city of the Romans either for war or for trade, unless they are at peace with the Pechenegs, because when the Russians come with their ships to the barrages of the river, and cannot pass through them unless they lift their ships off the river and carry them past by porting them on 38

The tenth century their shoulders, then the men of this nation of the Pechenegs set upon them, and, as they cannot do two things at once, they are easily routed and cut to pieces.16 When the steppe was peaceful, Rus' merchants traveled to Constantinople with the fur and swords testified to by Ibn Khurradadhbih and Ibn al-Fakih, the slaves mentioned by Emperor Constantine, and wax and honey. That these goods were considered valuable by the Byzantines is illustrated by the fact that Prince Igor presented them as gifts to the Byzantines upon conclusion of the 945 treaty. 17 In exchange the Rus' imported a variety of goods, including silks, brocades, wine, fruit, glass vessels, clothing, carpets, spices, moderate amounts of copper and silver coin, and other luxury items. Unlike their exchange with Bulgar, from which the Rus' received large quantities of silver coin for their fur, in Byzantium they traded mainly for other luxury products. 18 By the tenth century the Rus' had thus become prominent exporters of luxury fur. They supplied it to the Muslim East through their use of the upper Volga river route and their participation in Bulgar's trade network as well as through the Black Sea-Don-Volga route and their direct trade with Itil'. The Rus' also developed the Dnepr-Black Sea route and an export trade in fur with the Byzantine Empire. Both the Volga and the Dnepr routes led back to the Baltic Sea. The "trade route [that] connected the Varangians with the Greeks" was sketched in the Primary Chronicle: Starting from Greece this route proceeds along the Dnepr, above which a portage leads to the Lovat'. By following the Lovat', the great lake Il'men is reached. The river Volkhovflowsout of this lake and enters the great lake Nevo [Lake Ladoga]. The mouth of this lake [the Neva river] opens into the Varangian sea [the Baltic]. Over this sea goes the route to Rome, and on from Rome overseas to Tsargrad [Constantinople]. The Pontus, into whichflowsthe river Dnieper, may be reached from that point. The Dnieper itself rises in the upland forest, and flows south The Volga itself rises in this same forest but flows to the east, and discharges through seventy mouths in the Caspian sea. It is possible by this route to the eastward to reach the Bulgars and the Caspians 19 From the time of their arrival in eastern Europe the Rus' had maintained close relations with their Scandinavian cousins. Highlighting such relations were occasions when Norse princes, such as Olaf Trygveson, King Olaf the Saint, and Harald of Norway, resided or received asylum at Rus' princely courts. 20 Commercial contacts were even more common. Danish, Swedish and Norse ships all sailed to Novgorod in the tenth and eleventh centuries. Norse sagas tell of ships sailing from Sweden (Svithoid) in the summer and after a stop at the island of Gotland, reaching Ladoga by fall. Their return voyages began when the ice broke up in the spring.21 By the eleventh century Danes, who "oftentimes explored the length of...[the Baltic Sea,]... with a favorable wind" were able to reach " Ostrogard [Novgorod] in Russia in the course of a month." 22 39

The Rus'

As is intimated by unsurprised references to it in Norse sagas, commercial traffic along these routes became regular. In the late tenth century (c. 966), for example, a Norseman named Lodin departed "one summer.,.on a merchant voyage with much merchandise in a ship of his own." His first stop was Estland, where he attended the summer fair, and, had he proceeded according to his initial plan, he would have then gone on to Novgorod.23 Around 1035 the Norse bard Sigvat, concerned about the fate of his king, who had been residing at the court of Iaroslav, inquired of merchants who traded to Novgorod if they could tell him any news of Magnus Olafson. Sigvat composed these lines at the time: I ask the merchant oft who drives His trade to Russia, "How he thrives Our noble prince? How lives he there?" And still good news - his praise - I hear. 24

One route the merchants followed passed the islands of Bornholm and Gotland. This route was also delineated by deposits of Islamic coins, exported from the Russian lands. These hoards, excavated at Gotland and Bjorko in Sweden, may be considered markers of the western extensions of the Volga route connecting Novgorod through Bulgar with the Islamic East.25 Another route followed the southern Baltic coast. The route began at Hedeby or Oldenburg. The former was a port located at the neck of the Jutland peninsula. It flourished in the ninth and tenth centuries until it was destroyed by Harald Hardradi of Norway in the mid-eleventh century. Its commercial role was then taken over by Schleswig. Ships sailed from one or another of these ports to Volyn (Jumme or Jomsburg, located at the mouth of the Oder river); from there they went on to Novgorod, a journey of fourteen days.26 This route, which came into prominence in the eleventh century, was also lined with coin deposits. But, in contrast to the deposits found on Scandinavian territory, those along the southern Baltic coast contained predominantly silver coins of German origin and were similar in content to eleventh-century deposits discovered on Russian territory.27 The most important Scandinavian market associated with the Rus' trade in the tenth century was Bjorko (Birka). Located on an island in Lake Malar, Sweden, the port of Bjorko flourished in the ninth and tenth centuries. Markets were held there year-round. Its success was evidently closely related to the import of Oriental coins from the Rus'; silver dirhams, greatly outnumbering European coins, have been excavated at Bjorko along with fragments of the silks, glassware, jewelry and other luxury items transmitted by the Rus' from Bulgar and Byzantium to Sweden. Correspondingly, Bjorko declined rapidly in the second half of the tenth century, just after the Rus' ceased exporting Oriental silver.28 As the southern Baltic coastal route became more popular, Volyn, "a 40

The tenth century

most noble city [which] affords a very widely known trading center for the barbarians and Greeks [Orthodox Rus'] who live round about," became an important commercial center associated, among other connections, with the Rus' trade.29 The island of Gotland, located further east, similarly became a link in the route to the Rus'. Gotland belonged to Sweden, but served as both a consumption area and a transit point between the eastern Baltic including Novgorod, on the one hand, and Scandinavian as well as southern Baltic Slavic ports, on the other. Its importance is reflected by the fact that over one-half of the excavated Oriental coins, exported to Scandinavia before the end of the tenth century, have been found on the island.30 The Scandinavian merchants of the tenth century who visited Novgorod purchased silver coin and Byzantine and Oriental luxury goods there. By the eleventh century they were also purchasing Russian-made jewelry and pottery. In exchange they offered a variety of goods, including woolen cloth, pottery, salt, weapons, and some wine and jewelry, which came from all over Europe - England, Frisia, the Rhineland, the southern Baltic (including the towns of Volyn and Truso) and elsewhere. As a rule the merchandise the Rusr bought from the Scandinavians was of a common, practical nature, typical of the goods circulating in northern Europe.31 Fur was also an important commodity in the Scandinavian trade system, and was sold at Hedeby and other European markets.32 The fur handled by the Scandinavians came from a variety of sources. Some was supplied from their own domains. Ottar, for example, an adventurer from Halogaland (Helgoland) on the northwestern coast of Norway whose exploits were recounted by King Alfred of Wessex near the end of the ninth century, counted his wealth, as did others of his land, not so much in terms of the livestock they owned as in terms of the tribute which the Fynnes pay them, which was all in skinnes of wilde beastes, feathers of birds, whale bones, and cables, and tacklings for shippes made of whales or seales skinnes. Every man payeth according to his abilities. The richest pay ordinarily 15 cases of Martens, 5 Rane Deere skinnes, and one Beare, ten bushels of feathers, a coat of a Beares skinnes, two cables three score elles long a piece, the one made of Whales skin, the other of seales.33 Other fur came from the Lapps in Norway, from northern Sweden, and, according to the Heimskringla, from Iceland as well. The last source of fur is reflected in one saga, which recorded that one summer [in the late tenth century]... a vessel came from Iceland belonging to Icelanders, and loaded with skins and peltry. They sailed to Hardanger, where they heard the greatest number of people were assembled; but nobody would buy their skins. Then the steersman went out to King Harald, whom he had been acquainted with before and complained of his ill luck. The king promised to visit him, and did so. King Harald was very condescending, and full of fun. He came with a fully manned boat, looked at the skins, and then said to the steersman, "Wilt 41

The Rus' thou give me a present of one of these gray skins ?" "Willingly," said the steersman, "if it were ever so many." On this the king wrapped himself up in a gray-skin, and went back to his boat; but before they rowed away from the ship, every man in his suite bought such another skin as the king wore for himself. In a few days so many people came to buy skins, that not half of them could be served with what they wanted; and thereafter the king was called Harald Grayskin.34

The Scandinavians also conducted expeditions to purchase fur abroad. One such expedition, described in the Heimskringla, was conducted by Thorer Hund and the Halogalander Karle, who went to Biarmia in about 1026.

When they came to Biarmaland they went straight to the merchant town, and the market began. All who had money to pay with got filled up with goods. Thorer also got a number of furs, and of beaver and sable skins. Karle had a considerable sum of money with him, with which he purchased skins and furs. When the fair was at an end they went out of the Vina river, and then the truce with the country people was also at an end.35

These adventurers went on to plunder the country and were chased away. Although the location, even the existence, of Biarmia, complete with a market town, has never been confirmed,36 other saga episodes, described in more precise and probably accurate detail, reinforce the suggestion implicit in this tale that it was not uncommon for Scandinavian merchants of the early eleventh century, and probably of the tenth as well, to undertake voyages to distant lands, including the lands of Rus', to obtain fur. Another example discusses the voyage of Gudleik Gerske. ...He was a great merchant, who went far and wide by sea, was very rich, and drove a trade with various countries. He often went east to Gardarike (Russia), and therefore was called Gudleik Gerske (the Russian). This spring [1017] Gudleik fitted out his ship and intended to go east in summer to Russia. King Olaf sent a messenger to him that he wanted to speak to him; and when Gudleik came to the king he told him he would go in partnership with him, and told him to purchase costly articles which were difficult to be had in this country. Gudleik said that it would be according to the king's desire. The king ordered as much money to be delivered to Gudleik as he thought sufficient, and then Gudleik set out for the Baltic. They lay in a sound in Gotland;... Gudleik went in the summer eastwards to Novgorod, where he bought fine and costly clothes, which he intended for the king as a state dress; and also precious furs, and remarkably splendid table utensils.37

Fur played a dual role in the Rus' Baltic trade during the tenth century. It was exported to the Scandinavians, with whom the Rus' regularly traded, although in relatively small quantities. More importantly for this period, fur was the commodity traded by the Rusr for the Oriental and Byzantine goods - silver coin, silk, gems, jewelry, spices, and other luxury products that were in demand among their Scandinavian trading partners. The Rus' then sold those luxury items to Scandinavian merchants for European goods that could be used more universally by their own population. 42

The eleventh and twelfth centuries

In the ninth and tenth centuries the Rus' joined and became highly visible participants in a fur trade network that indeed supplied northern luxury fur to "all ends of the earth." Supplementing fur supplies obtained from the Bulgar population, Bulgar's neighbors and tributaries, and the Ves', those Rus' who had settled in the Novgorod area brought fur down the upper Volga to the Bulgar marketplace, whence it was transported to Khazaria and Khwarezm and from those points throughout the Muslim world. The Rus' centered at Kiev sent their stores of fur, which they obtained largely from Slav and Finn subjects and tributaries, down the Dnepr to the Black Sea, then westward to Constantinople or eastward to the Don-Volga route and Itil'. In exchange for their fur exports at Bulgar the Rus' received Oriental silver coin and other luxury items. From Byzantium they received similar products, including silks and spices, but excluding silver coin. The Rus' then sold portions of their imports, including their Oriental silver, and some fur to Scandinavian trading partners for salt, woolens, weapons, and other northern European products. These patterns and the relative importance of fur in the stock of Rus' exports to the Baltic peoples began to shift by the end of the tenth century. By then the Rus' were no longer re-exporting Oriental silver. Rather, they had begun to import European silver in increasing quantities from their Baltic trading partners. Also at this time the Danes, serving northwestern Europe as importers of northern fur, began to compete successfully for the Novgorodian trade with the Norsemen and Swedes, who were also fur exporters in the commercial network. A new pattern, which would become even more pronounced in the eleventh and twelfth centuries when German merchants came to dominate the Baltic trade, began to emerge: the Rus' of Novgorod imported silver and other European goods in exchange for their fur and other northern products. THE ELEVENTH AND TWELFTH CENTURIES

For the Russian fur trade the eleventh and twelfth centuries were a transition period. As the period began, the Russians were exporting a wide range of furs to Bulgar in the east, Byzantium in the south, and Baltic trading partners in the west. By the beginning of the thirteenth century, the Russians no longer exported fur to the east. Their export to the south through Kiev underwent some rearrangement, then ultimately disappeared. By the end of the period only the last element, which in the ninth and tenth centuries had been the weakest, the fur export centered in Novgorod and directed toward the Baltic market, remained functional and flourishing. The decline of Novgorod's fur export down the upper Volga to Bulgar became manifest in the twelfth century. It occurred in response to 43

The Rus'

territorial expansion undertaken by the Rostov-Suzdal' princes that had also caused the interference noted in Chapter i with Bulgar's acquisition of fur supplies. Novgorod responded by developing the Sukhona river into a trade route that served as both an alternate avenue for fur export to Bulgar and as a supply route. Further aggression by Suzdalia against Bulgar, however, resulted in the eviction of Bulgar merchants from the upper Dvina region by the early thirteenth century. Novgorod's direct contact with Bulgar was thereby broken and Novgorod's fur export to the east ceased. The southern trade

Novgorod's export of luxury fur to the south was dependent upon Kiev. From at least the late ninth century Novgorod had been exporting fur to Kiev. Some of these exports, at least while the ruler of Novgorod was an appointee of the Kievan grand prince (through the first third of the twelfth century), were sent to Kiev in the form of tribute.38 The remainder was dispatched as part of the regular Novgorodian commercial exchange of honey, wax, and fur for both Byzantine and Kievan products, including fabrics, spices, glass objects and jewelry.39 Kiev continued to export the northern goods it received to Constantinople during the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Although the evidence is scattered, it does suggest that the Kievan trade went on during this period with some regularity. In 1043, when Grand Prince Iaroslav Vladimirovich of Kiev sent an expedition under his son Vladimir against the Greeks, the issue of contention was the death of a member of a Russian trade expedition in Byzantium.40 Later, in 1069, when the populace of Kiev was embroiled in a dispute with Prince Iziaslav, the Kievan citizenry threatened to burn Kiev and go to Byzantium, a place which was evidently very familiar to them.41 Even after the Polovtsy replaced the Pechenegs in the steppe and disrupted the Dnepr route, commercial traffic persisted. By the twelfth century the nomads were on the defensive militarily and Russianflotillaswere able, at least occasionally, as in 1166 and 1168, to complete the journey from Kiev to Constantinople.42 The Russians appeared often enough for Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela to note, when he visited Constantinople, that merchants "from Babylon and Mesopotamia, Media and Persia, Egypt and Palestine, Russia and Hungary, Patzinacia and Budia, Lombardy and Spain," all contributed to the bustling commerce there.43 M. N. Tikhomirov has concluded that by 1200 Russo-Byzantine trade had become so important to the Byzantines that restrictions compelling Russian merchants to live outside the city walls in the suburb of St. Mamas were lifted and they were allowed to establish a trading "emblos" (a street covered with arcades to protect it from sun and rain). He also pointed out that the Golden Gate of Constantinople was 44

The eleventh and twelfth centuries

frequently called the ''Russian Gate" because it was used so often by Russian merchants entering the city.44 The fur the Russian merchants brought to the Constantinople market was renowned. Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela was well aware that the sable and ermine fur that reached Constantinople and the Middle East came from the lands of Rus'.45 Similarly, Michael Choniates, the metropolitan of Athens, was also familiar with Russian fur. After he had been expelled from Athens by the Latin Crusaders, he, then in poor health, appealed to Theodore Lascaris, the emperor of Nicea, for medicines. Specifically, he asked for " a white rabbit skin,... the kind the Russians supply to Constantinople," which he evidently believed would keep him warm.46 In exchange for that fur the Russians acquired silks and other rich fabrics, ceramics and glass items of various sorts, marble and glazed tiles, jewelry and gold coins, wines and olive oil, fruits and nuts, pepper and other spices, and icons and other church accoutrements.47 It is perhaps from these goods, rather than from the scattered evidence of Rus' trips to Constantinople and of their presence in that city, that the regularity, consistency, and even the scale of the Russo-Byzantine trade can be appreciated. Archeological excavations and analyses have revealed that increasing quantities of Byzantine silks, glass beads and bracelets, and amphorae containing wine, oil, and naphtha were being imported by the Rus' in the late eleventh and twelfth centuries. These goods became so prevalent that they reached the northern lands of Rus' and were available to common householders in towns and in the country. Only a regular trade could supply goods in such abundance that they would become inexpensive enough for widespread, common consumption. Byzantine merchants, traveling north to the Rus' lands, also played an active role in this exchange; they not only established themselves in Kiev, but by the late twelfth century were venturing further north as well.48 Although the trade persisted through the eleventh and well into the twelfth century, some factors that contributed to Byzantium's economic strength and its ability to purchase northern luxury goods were undergoing alteration during this period. Already in the eleventh century intercontinental trade routes were shifting to the detriment of Constantinople. The appearance of the Seljuk Turks in Asia Minor deprived the Byzantine Empire of control over the main avenue through which Oriental goods had been channeled to Constantinople. Continued warfare between the Byzantines and the Turks also contributed to the development of alternative east-west trade routes. By the end of the eleventh century a sea route that carried goods via the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea to Egypt was emerging as a substitute for the older route that had carried goods from the Persian Gulf to Bagdad, then west across Asia Minor or via Trebizond to Constantinople. Although Constantinople continued to flourish as a 45

The Rus'

commercial emporium through the middle of the twelfth century, these and other variations in intercontinental trade patterns had taken their toll by the last quarter of the century. By that time Italian merchants, on whom Constantinople's western trade depended, were responding to the availability of Oriental goods in the Crusader states and at Alexandria. Trading with both of those regions directly, they bypassed Constantinople, which evidently then rapidly lost its commercial magnetism.49 As Donald Queller and Gerald Day have convincingly demonstrated, "by the end of the twelfth century,... Byzantium no longer exercised... hegemony [over the strategic ports of south Asia Minor, Cyprus, Crete, and the southern Peloponnese, which were essential to its commercial well-being, and]... the Byzantine capital was fast losing commercial advantage." 50 While to the west of Constantinople new trade routes were opening, linking the Italians to Alexandria and the Middle East, a similar reorientation of trade routes was taking place to the east. Alternatives to the main east-west route emerged. One, avoiding Asia Minor, passed through Saksin, Sudak, and then crossed the Black Sea to Constantinople. Another bypassed Constantinople entirely by proceeding from Sudak by land to Kiev and thence to central Europe. Rus' merchants had long been familiar with northern Black Sea ports. Using land routes, especially the one known as the zaloznyi route, they had cut across the steppe to the Crimean peninsula or Tmutorokan'. The first of the ports at which the Rus' had traded was Cherson, the Byzantine town which had been of prime importance in the ninth and early tenth centuries. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries it continued to play a role as a transit point for merchants and others traveling between Constantinople and Kiev. Goods being transported across the Black Sea by ship were reloaded there onto carts and transported by land to Kiev. But in general Cherson had lost its importance as a commercial center after the tenth century. 51 An alternative and possibly a successor to Cherson in the eleventh century was Tmutorokan'. Rus' merchants had also become familiar with this trade center much earlier, when it had been known as Samkarsh, and they had regularly passed through it to enter Khazar territory. After the Khazar Empire disintegrated, the town became a Russian possession.52 The principality of Tmutorokan'flourishedthrough the eleventh century. The city was described as "very old,...surrounded by cultivatedfieldsand vineyards... [with] a port... and a market, where [merchants] come from all the surrounding lands and even from distant regions."53 Among its trading partners were the Georgians in Transcaucasia and Trebizond on the southern shore of the Black Sea. Russian fur may have been among the exports exchanged with the latter for the grain and wine produced in Asia Minor and the rich fabrics and spices that passed through Trebizond on their way westward to Constantinople.54 With the 46

The eleventh and twelfth centuries

advent of the Polovtsy in the steppe, the acquisition of Tmutorokan' by Byzantium, and the arrival of the Seljuk Turks in Transcaucasia and Asia Minor, Tmutorokan' declined as an export center for Kievan Rus' trade.55 As the commercial role of Cherson and Tmutorokan' diminished, Sudak replaced them. This Crimean port also maintained commercial relations with Constantinople, Trebizond, and the Seljuks of Asia Minor. For merchants from Kiev, the use of steppe routes leading to these ports depended upon the cooperation of the Polovtsy. In the late twelfth century, however, the nomads tolerated and seemingly encouraged commercial caravans to pass, even when they were at war with the Kievan princes. In 1184, for example, as Russian forces were advancing against the Polovtsy chief Konchak, they met a group of Russian merchants who were returning from the Polovtsy and were able to provide intelligence concerning the location of the horde.56 The Kievan merchants evidently paid transit duties to the Polovtsy while Sudak paid tribute to the Polovtsy as well; the Kievan caravans were thus able to cross the steppe in safety to this port.57 By the late twelfth century Sudak had become an important conduit through which the Russians exported their traditional goods, including fur, to the south. In the thirteenth century, when the European emissary Rubruck passed through the region on his journey to the Mongol khans, he remarked that Turkish merchants went through Sudak to reach the "Northern regions" as well as Russia to obtain fur.58 In arranging his transportation from Sudak to the camp of Sartak, Rubruck consulted "the merchants of Constantinople [whom he met at Sudak. They] advised... [him] not to take the cartes of the citizens of Soldaia [Sudak], but to buy covered cartes of... [his] owne (such as the Russians carried their skinnes in)... ."59 The method of transport of Russian fur to Sudak, regarded as common in the thirteenth century, no doubt reflected the trade that had evolved and been conducted on an even more extensive scale in the twelfth century. For the Kievan merchants Sudak provided an alternative market to Constantinople. But once they had established that connection, Kiev itself also became a transit point in the land route linking the Black Sea with central Europe. Kiev's commercial contacts with central Europe dated at least from the ninth century. In the early tenth century a cross-country route went from Regensburg down the Danube through Raffelstettin and Passau, then turned to Prague and continued through Cracow and Przemysl to Kiev. Several variants of it subsequently developed. One path went from Regensburg by land to Prague and then continued eastward, while another descended the Danube to Passau, but then went through Brno before proceeding to Cracow, Przemysl and Kiev.60 By the eleventh century, when conditions in Hungary had stabilized after the Magyar 47

The Rus'

invasions of the previous century, a third route between central Europe and Kiev, which brought merchants to the Danube near the towns of Budapest, Estergom (Gran), and Vienna, also became popular.61 In the twelfth century these routes were used for both commercial and diplomatic purposes.62 During that century Kiev also became a transit center in the European-Oriental trade.63 Petachiah of Regensburg, a wealthy Jewish merchant and the brother of the rabbis of Prague and Regensburg, made the journey through Kiev to Bagdad in 1175. After traveling "... from Prague, which is in Bohemia, to Poland and from Poland to Kiev, which is in Russia, [Petachiah] then...journeyed six days on the Dnieper and on the other side of the Dnieper... cut across the land of Kedar (i.e. the land of the nomads). " 64 He then traveled for sixteen days through the lands of the Polovtsy before reaching the sea, which he crossed in one day to reach the eastern coast of the Crimean peninsula. From there he traveled another eight days to a port where "gather all those who wish to take ship for distant lands. " 65 From that port he sailed to a Turkish port, then went on to Bagdad via Nizibus and Mosul.66 Merchants traveling in the opposite direction brought Oriental goods through Sudak and Kiev to central Europe. A late twelfth-century regulation on tolls listed the items imported along the Danube river route. They included Oriental spices, such as pepper, saffron, ginger and cloves, as well as olive oil, nuts, cloth embroidered with gold, and satin.67 As Kiev developed its role as a transit center in the east-west trade, it also began to export fur to Europe. The central European merchants who came to Kiev for Oriental products found and purchased northern fur there. Although Bishop Meinwerk of Podeborn (d. 1038) seems to have been among the first to have imported sable and gray fur from Kiev, European purchases of fur at Kiev became more common in the twelfth century.68 Individual accounts, such as the life of St. Martin written in 1185 but referring to a purchase made by the monks of Regensburg earlier in the century, relate instances of European import of fur from Kiev.69 But in 1198, when King Imre of Hungary confirmed the right of the Estergom monastery to collect customs duties from traveling merchants, he authorized it to take "half a mark" from "a merchant who has arrived from Rus' on one horse... just as [from] those who bring expensive furs " 70 By that time fur was clearly a regular import from Kiev. By the end of the twelfth century the patterns of fur export from Kiev had changed. One focus of Kiev's exports remained the Byzantine Empire. But with Constantinople's reduced ability to offer a market for luxury goods, including northern fur, Kiev had sought and developed alternative routes and customers. One new avenue led from Kiev to Sudak. That connection not only brought Russian fur to Turkish merchants, but also attracted central European merchants, who established through Kiev a 48

The eleventh and twelfth centuries

northern branch of the intercontinental east-west trade route that was developing in the twelfth century. As more European merchants came through Kiev, traders were able to broaden the scope of their fur export pattern to include central Europe. Thus, when Constantinople was sacked in 1204, when the Latin Empire was founded, and when Kiev's declining fur export to its Byzantine customers finally halted, Kiev was able, as was Bulgar at the same time, to continue to export fur, but within a vastly altered network. Kiev then exported expensive pelts to central Europe as well as cheaper, local varieties to the Turks who frequented Sudak. This continued until both Kiev and its commerce were destroyed by the Mongols in

1240.

The Baltic trade

During the tenth and part of the eleventh centuries, Novgorod's chief trading partners in the Baltic had been Scandinavians. Through their mediation Oriental products channeled through Novgorod had reached northwestern Europe. During the eleventh century and certainly by the twelfth, Germans replaced Scandinavians as Novgorod's most prominent Baltic trading partners. German merchants from the region between the Rhine and Weser rivers, the region of Friesland and Westphalia, as well as their eastern neighbors the Saxons, became increasingly involved in Baltic trade.71 By the beginning of the twelfth century they had formed outposts at Schleswig, the western endpoint of the Baltic sea route, and at Visby, on the island of Gotland. Due to their control over these positions, the Westphalians no longer had to use the intermediary services of the Scandinavian Gotlanders or the western Slavs, but instead became their rivals in Baltic commercial activities.72 Their commercial enterprises extended as far eastward as Novgorod. Although the Westphalians took the early lead among the Germans in Baltic commerce, they were quickly challenged by their own colonists, the merchants of Liibeck. During the second half of the twelfth century, as other, older, Baltic emporia were declining,73 the Germans were building new towns on the coastlands conquered from western Slavs. Liibeck, in particular, emerged as a major port. Although it burned in 1x43, it was rebuilt on a new site at the junction of the Trave and Wakenitz rivers by the count of Holstein, Adolf II.74 His vassal, the Saxon duke Henry the Lion, promoted Liibeck's commerce. In 1163, he granted duty-free privileges to merchants, including Russians, encouraging them to travel to Liibeck. He also concluded a trade agreement with Gotland, and thereby brought peace to therivalGerman and Gotlander merchants, arranged for travel and trade between Liibeck and Visby, and laid the groundwork for a formal association of German merchants on Gotland.75 Liibeck and Visby emerged to dominate Baltic trade, including the trade with Novgorod, where the 49

The Rus'

German merchants established their own trading depot, Peterhof, late in the twelfth century.76 Although the role of the German merchants was increasing in importance, Novgorodians and Scandinavians continued to be active participants in Novgorod's Baltic trade through the twelfth century. The Gotlanders, who founded a trading settlement centered around their own church of St. Olaf in Novgorod sometime before the middle of the century, remained pre-eminent there.77 Novgorod merchants also conducted their goods to many points around the Baltic Sea, including Gotland, Sweden, Denmark, and northwest Germany, principally Lubeck. In 1130, a group of Novgorodian merchants was noted to have returned home safely from Denmark. Not all trips ended so successfully. In the same year, seven Russians who had gone to Gotland lost their goods. Four years later some Novgorodian merchants were arrested in Denmark; in 1142 another group sailing home from Denmark was attacked by the Swedish king; and in 1157, when the Danish king was besieging Schleswig, he seized many ships, including those containing Russian merchants and their cargoes. Despite these dangers, Novgorodians continued to sail abroad through the twelfth century, at least as far as Gotland. In 1188, when a Russo-Swedish conflict broke out, the Novgorodians then visiting Gotland, Sweden, and some German lands were arrested. The treaty settling the dispute confirmed the rights of Novgorodians, including merchants, to go in peace to the German lands or to the Gotland shore. It is possible that by the late twelfth or thirteenth century Russian merchants had their own trading establishment on the island of Gotland.78 It is more certain that in the twelfth century Novgorodian merchants engaged in foreign trade formed their own association affiliated with the church of St. Paraskeva-Piatnitsa.79 In the same period other, political, changes occurring in the city minimized the authority of the princes and increased that of the archbishop and military commander (tysiatskii), officials who were specifically associated with commercial activities and who supported Novgorodian merchants' interests. In the 1130s Prince Vsevolod transferred control over weights and measures, the fees taken for weighing and measuring goods for sale, and judicial jurisdiction over the marketplace from the prince to the bishop, officials of the church of St. John (the wax merchants' association), and a civic official or the military commander.80 After these changes occurred, the Novgorod merchantry received much stronger official support in their foreign affairs than they had previously. During the eleventh and the first third of the twelfth century the princes had done little to defend the merchants' commercial interests in the Baltic. In the mid-eleventh century, for example, when the Norse king Olaf, who had dwelled at Prince Iaroslav's court, was killed while 50

The eleventh and twelfth centuries trying to regain his throne, Iaroslav for purely political reasons and ignoring the commercial repercussions, cut off all trade between his subjects and those of Olafs successors. Similarly, in 1134, when the Novgorodian merchants were arrested in Denmark, both the Kievan and Novgorodian princes had been passive. 81 But Novgorod's official reaction to the episode of 1188 sharply contrasted with the earlier pattern. When its merchants were detained, Novgorod retaliated: in the spring [Novgorodian officials] did not let a single one of their own men go abroad from Novgorod, nor did they dispatch an ambassador for the [arriving] Varangians, but let them travel unprotected.82 Prince Iaroslav Vladimirovich, in association with the mayor Miroshka and the military commander Iakov and all Novgorod, then negotiated a treaty with the Germans, Gotlanders, and all those of the Latin language. It provided, as indicated above, for Novgorodians and the other signatories to travel peacefully to one another's lands and fixed fines for harming an ambassador or a merchant while he was abroad. 83 Through the eleventh and twelfth centuries Novgorod's Baltic commerce had expanded. By the end of this period Novgorod was exchanging goods with both its traditional Scandinavian and newer German trading partners. That commerce was conducted both by Novgorodians traveling abroad and by foreign merchants visiting Novgorod. And it was during this period that Novgorod's Baltic trade became so firmly established and important that it both attracted political attention and acquired political protection. One factor contributing to this growing importance was the nature of the goods exchanged. The mix of goods imported by Novgorod through the Baltic network had changed. Some products were similar to those Novgorod had obtained in the tenth century - weapons, salt, pottery, jewelry, and alcoholic beverages. But at this time Novgorod also began to import valued Flemish cloth. Indeed, high quality cloth from Ypres was part of the entrance fee for one seeking to join the Novgorod wax merchants' association: Anyone who wants to join the St. lohn merchant association will give a fee of fifty silver grivnas to the merchant elders and [a bolt of] Ypres cloth to the military commander.... [And on the feast of St. John] the elders and [ordinary] merchants are to give the bishop a silver grivna and Ypres cloth.84 In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Novgorodians also became importers of silver from Europe. Replacing the Oriental silver coin that had become unavailable early in the eleventh century, silver coin, mainly from Germany and most notably from Friesland, began appearing in increasing quantities in northern Russia during the eleventh century. 85 In the twelfth century these coins were in turn replaced by ingots or small bars of silver

The Rus'

which became a staple among the Novgorodian imports for the next several centuries.86 In exchange for their silver and fine woolens, the German merchantry in the eleventh and twelfth centuries sought luxury furs. This was in sharp distinction from the Scandinavian merchants, who in the tenth century had been attracted to Novgorod's market by Orientalfineryand silver coin. Already in the early eleventh century western Europeans were displaying an avid taste for fur. Adam of Bremen, cited above, commented on their craving for fine martenskin robes. The fur so coveted by the western Europeans was used in clothing. Medieval fashion called for two types of garments - a tunic and another outer garment-to be worn over a shirt or chemise, breeches and stockings.87 The tunic, which varied in length, extended at times to the foot and in other periods reached only to the knee or even higher; it generally had a long, full sleeve. The style of the outer garment also varied in both length and sleeve design. But, regardless of changing fashion, this outer garment was frequently lined with fur. Although attached to the inside of the garment, the lining was folded back to form visible collars, cuffs, and borders or trimmings along the lower edges of the robes. Clothing of this type was worn in both winter and summer, outdoors and in, for the fur linings provided necessary warmth in cold climates and inefficiently heated buildings.88 Fur was also used to make exclusively outdoor garments - cloaks, caps, and gloves - and articles for the bedchamber dressing gowns, nightcaps, and an early form of quilt or eiderdown.89 For the wealthy and status-conscious, these furs were also an expression of elegance and social position. The most exclusive and expensive types of fur in the twelfth century, those used by kings to embellish their robes and even bedspreads, were sable and ermine.90 The importance of fine fur is reflected in the degree of sacrifice associated with giving it up. Richard I of England and Philip II of France emphasized the solemnity of their cause when they resolved not to wear their sables and ermines on the Third Crusade and demanded that their knights should do likewise. In the same spirit religious ascetics foreswore robes of luxury fur. According to one anecdotal account, the bishop of Worcester was urged to wear at least catskins rather than lambskins if he would "not wear sable, beaver or fox as he ought to do." To this he replied, "Believe me.. .men sing oftener of the Lamb of God than of the cat of God." In later periods in England specific statutes were enacted, if not enforced, defining the type of fur that could be worn by each social class.91

The eleventh and twelfth centuries

Fur supplies

To obtain the luxury fur necessary to meet the demand from the Bulgar, Byzantine, and Baltic markets in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, Novgorod's traders and explorers, enduring the harsh climatic conditions and dangers of the unfamiliar northlands, extended Novgorod's domain northward and eastward. By the end of the eleventh century or the beginning of the next, their search for additional tributaries and trading partners had taken them to the limits of the European continent. In the Primary Chronicle the following passage appears under the year

1096: 92 I wish at this point to recount a story which I heard four years ago, and which was told to me by Giuriata Rogovich of Novgorod: "I sent my servant [or slave]," said he, "to the Pechera, a people who pay tribute to Novgorod. When he arrived among them, he went on among the Iugra. The latter are an alien people dwelling in the north with the Samoyedes. The Iugra said to my servant. '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 forests. Hence we don't always reach them, and they are also far to the north.

The passage attests that Novgorod had made the Pechora its tributary and had established trading contact with the Pechora's more distant neighbors, the Iugra.93 But the peoples and lands beyond them in the Ural mountains were at this time still mysterious and known only through the Iugra, who were apparently trying to discourage direct contact between them and keep their association with those peoples exclusive. Nevertheless, by 1114 expeditions were going from Staraia Ladoga beyond the Iugra and Samoedy to the "land of midnight."94 Tribute from the Pechora, which in 1113 Novgorod turned over to the Kievan grand prince,95 and trade with their more remote neighbors became dependable forms of income only as the Novgorodians, in conjunction with their advance to the northeast, secured their travel routes. Novgorod's expansion to the north and northeast had resulted by the mid-eleventh century in the incorporation of Staraia Ladoga, along with its routes leading to Priladozh'e, Zaonezh'e and the North Dvina in the north and northeast, and also of some lands of the Ves', located east of Lake Ladoga along the Sias', Pasha, and Oiat' rivers.96 In these lands, which came to be known as the Obonezhskii riad (later Obonezhskaia piatina or Obonezh'e), 53

The Rus' Novgorod created pogosts, administrative centers responsible, among other duties, for tax collection from neighboring, subordinated settlements.97 From these locations Novgorodians gradually extended their domain further toward the northeast, demanding dari, or tribute, from local Finnic populations as they proceeded.98 Such demands were not always benignly received. Legends abound describing how the Chud\ apparently a generic name used by the Russians for their Finnic neighbors, especially in Zavoloch'e, resisted Russian domination and the spread of Christianity.99 One version of the legend vividly depicts the Chud' reaction to Russian encroachment of their territory: When the Russians appeared in Chud' territory, the Chud' dug pits, and entered them with all their property. The [roofs of the] pits were covered with earth and stones, which were supported by wooden stakes. To save themselves from the Russians, the Chud' chopped down or set fire to the stakes; the roofs collapsed into the pits and buried under them everything that was in them.100 In a more specific instance, in 1079, native objections to Russian infiltration and demands resulted in the death of Prince Gleb, who was trying to collect tribute in Zavoloch'e.101 Despite these displays of resistance, Novgorod extended its network of pogosts northward along the Onega river and northeastward to the North Dvina and beyond to the Pinega river by 113 7.102 The pogosts in these areas were identified by Prince Sviatoslav in a set of regulations (ustavnaia gramota) he issued that year, transferring one-tenth of the revenues received from them to the treasury of St, Sophia. The pogosts and the amounts each was to pay the archbishopric are listed below.103 pogost

In Onega-Voldutov Tudorov Ivan' Rakula Spirkov Vikhtui Pinez Kegrel Ust' Em'tsy Ust' Vaga Puite Chiudin Ligui Vavdit Veli Vekshenza

amount

2 2 3 3

sorocheks sorocheks sorocheks with the dar [sorocheks]

2

1 sorochek 3 3 2 2

1 \ 2 2

sorochek sorochek [sorocheks] with dar with dar

2 2

54

The eleventh and twelfth centuries pogost

Borka Otmin Toima Poma Toshma Penenich Porogopust'ts Valdit Volots on the Mosha Tudor

amount

i i i \ i i \ 2

sorochek sorochek sorochek sorochek sorochek sorochek sorochek sorocheks

2

i sorochek

Of these pogosts, Spirkov located on the Svir' river, Tudorov at the southeast corner of Lake Onega, and Voldutov at the southern tip of Lake Vodlo formed a chain leading northeastward from Lake Ladoga toward the Onega river. Porogopust'ts and the "pogost on the sea" continued this chain along the lower Onega to its mouth.104 The pogosts Ust' Em'tsy, Rakula, and Ivan', all on the lower Dvina, represented Novgorodian control over that river segment, while Pinez, Vikhtui, Kegrel and Penenich bear witness to Novgorod's presence on the Pinega. Ust' Vaga on the Dvina, Chiudin, Puite and Veli were all located at points along the Vaga river, while Vekshenza and possibly Toshma were on the Sukhona river.105 The distribution of these pogosts not only demonstrates the extent of Novgorod's holdings by 113 7, but delineates its transportation routes stretching through these holdings toward its more distant tributaries. One route, marked by Spirkov, Tudorov, Voldutov, Porogopust'ts, and the "pogost on the sea," proceeded from Lake Ladoga along the Svir' river to the southern shore of Lake Onega, around that shore through Tudorov and up Onega's eastern shore to the Vodlo river, then down that river either all the way to its entrance into Lake Vodlo at Vavdit or, leaving the river further upstream, to the lake at Voldutov. From Lake Vodlo the route continued to the Onega river by two branches. One followed the rivers north of Lake Vodlo, which joined the Onega river just south of Porogopust'ts; the other went through Kenoozero, from which it was possible to join the Onega further upstream. By turning from the Vodlo river to Kenoozero it was also possible to reach the lower Dvina river by descending the Onega river only to the point where it approached the headwaters of the Emtsa, then joining and following that stream to its mouth on the Dvina.106 From Ivan' pogost near the juncture of the Pinega and Dvina rivers, Novgorodians went even further northeast, following the Pinega river upstream as far as Kegrel. From the pogost Pinez on the Pinega river, it was possible to make a short portage to the Kuloi river, then transfer to the Mezen' and Peza rivers, which led to the lands 55

The Rus'

9

Routes 200 miles 300 km

Map i Novgorod's northern pogosts and routes 56

The eleventh and twelfth centuries of the Pechora. Pinez could be reached, as noted, by traveling down the Dvina, then up the Pinega, or by proceeding from Toima pogost to Kegrel and following the Pinega downstream. In addition to these northern routes leading to the northeast, the Novgorodians developed extensions from the Onega and the Dvina heading southward. Toima on the Dvina seems to have been the southern extreme of their holdings on that river at this time. 107 But the presence of a pogost on the Mosha river, located at the portage near Lake Mosha, and the possible location of Toshma pogost on the Mosha, indicate that Novgorodians controlled a passageway connecting the Onega and the Vaga rivers. The Vaga itself then constituted a route linking both the Dvina and the Onega-Mosha to the Sukhona. From the headwaters of the Vaga, it required only a portage to reach the Sukhona. The Sukhona was the key to another, more southerly route to the northeastern, fur-supplying tribes. In the tenth and eleventh centuries the Ves\ who traveled along the Sukhona and Vychegda rivers to reach the Vychegda Perm', dominated this route. 108 But by the early twelfth century Novgorod was assuming control over portions of it. It established the pogosts Vekshenza (Vekshenga), and perhaps Toshma or Tot'ma, on the Sukhona before 113 7. By 114 7, when the monk Gerasim of Kiev arrived at the site of Vologda, where he was to found a church that became the center of the Troitskii monastery, he found a land ''covered by a great forest," and also a Novgorodian trading settlement.109 By creating these pogosts, Novgorod acquired control over the rivers as well as the key portage points that made up the northern trade routes. It thus secured the routes to the distant northeast, from whose residents it exacted tribute in luxury fur pelts. By the same process Novgorod also developed a system for obtaining a regular supply of fur. The pogosts on the Onega, Dvina, Pinega, Mosha, and Vaga rivers paid their dari or tribute in fur. Unlike the pogosts of Obonezhskii riad, which were assessed in cash, 110 these more distant pogosts were assessed in units of "sorocheks" or "forties" of squirrel fur.111 Similar assessments were apparently made in other parts of Novgorod's territory. The text of one of the Novgorod birchbark documents dating from the eleventh or twelfth century reads: From Petr a letter to Vlotko. [Concerning the matter] that you ordered Rozhnet to collect 2 sorocheks from Nustui. He [now] does not owe even a veksha [a squirrel]. And nowfromDansha I have collected 2... 2 sorocheks out of 5 sorocheks. Collect [the remainder] from Dansha.112 L. V. Cherepnin, basing his judgment on the similarity of this document to Sviatoslav's 113 7 charter, has interpreted it to be a communication regarding tribute collection.113 The location of the tributaries has not been identified. 57

The Rus'

By thefirstthird of the twelfth century, when German merchant activity in the Baltic was creating an increased demand for fur in Novgorod and offering coveted woolen cloth and silver in exchange, Novgorod was refining its methods of fur collection. It converted occasional acquisitions of booty and tribute into a system of tribute or tax collection, which regularly supplied the prince's and archbishop's treasuries with specified amounts of northern squirrel fur from regions that had been brought under the direct administrative control of Novgorod. The centers responsible for fur tax collection also protected Novgorod's river routes to the northeast. Control over this network of routes enabled Novgorod to supplement its squirrel fur supplies with less reliable, at times forced, collections of tribute in luxury fur from the tribes of the northeast. In addition, Novgorodian merchants, participating in private expeditions like those of Giuriata Rogovich and the men of Staraia Ladoga, supplied Novgorod not only with squirrel and luxury fur from the north and northeast, but also with information about new fur sources. During the twelfth century Novgorod attempted to increase its income in luxury fur by securing and opening the Sukhona river. By this river its officials and merchants could more easily reach, collect tribute from, and trade with the tribes of the extreme northeast corner of Europe. The initial impetus for Novgorod to open the Sukhona was probably associated with the shift of Bulgar's fur trade to the north. Novgorod, in order to continue to rendezvous with its Bulgar customers, developed the Sukhona river as an alternative route to the upper Volga. The growth of its settlements on the Sukhona, particularly Vologda, point to the increasing importance of the Sukhona in the twelfth century. Although the Novgorodians initially used the Sukhona river to transport fur from the Onega and Vaga regions to the upper Dvina, where Bulgar's merchants using the Volga-Unzha-Iug route met them, they soon began to use it also as a supply route to bring fur from the northeastern tribes as well as from the lower Dvina to Novgorod. Through the extensions of the Sukhona route - the Vychegda. Vym', and Pechora rivers - Novgorod gained access to the Perm7 and a new approach to the Pechora and Iugra tribes. Although the Pechora had been paying tribute to Novgorod since the eleventh century, it was not until Novgorod secured the Sukhona-Vychegda route that the Perm' and Iugra were also subjected to Novgorod and required to pay tribute. It was probably in conjunction with this process that in 1144 a Novgorodian force allegedly attacked the Iugra and Samoedy.114 By the end of the century Novgorod's efforts to subordinate the Perm' and Iugra were still being contested. In 118 7 " Perem [Perm'] and Iugra tribute-collecters were killed, as were others beyond the portage." * *5 In 119 3 Novgorod mounted a major military campaign against the Iugra. Initially it was successful. When the 58

The eleventh and twelfth centuries

army under the commander (voevoda) Iadrei "arrived in the land of the Iugra,... [it] captured one fortified place (gorod) and arrived at another one (grad), and blockaded it and besieged it for five weeks " But then the Iugra deceived the Novgorodians. Offering to pay them silver and sable and pleading that they not destroy their "slaves" and their source of tribute, they invited the voevoda and his lieutenants to parley. Once inside the fortification the Russian commanders were killed. The Iugra then sent for thirty more, thenfifty,and thus gradually reduced the Novgorodian force, which was also starving, until "on the holy day of St. Nikola they came out of the fortification and cut down all of them... so there remained only 80 men." Not until the following year did the survivorsfinallyreturn from the Iugra.116 Whether battles and massacres such as these signified rebellion against previously established tribute collections or opposition to an attempt to impose tribute at this time is unclear. They are, however, the first indications that Novgorod was asserting its authority over the Perm' and Iugra tribes. Within a century its claim to dominance over these peoples had been clearly established and was regularly and formally recognized by other Russian principalities.117 It appears, then, that during the twelfth century Novgorod, having added the Sukhona-Vychegda river route to its fur supply network, extended its suzerainty over the tribes at the eastern end of it, and, at least intermittently, collected tribute from them. But Novgorod was already losing control over an-important segment of the Sukhona-Vychegda route by the late twelfth century and early thirteenth century. Sometime during the last quarter of the twelfth century, Prince Vsevolod of Vladimir asserted his control over the settlement of Gleden, located near the mouth of the lug river.118 Not long afterward his son, the Rostov prince Konstantin, founded Ustiug at a site not far from Gleden.119 By the early thirteenth century a critical section of this route, the point near which Bulgar merchants met their Ves' and Novgorodian trading partners and which linked the Sukhona traffic with the Dvina and the Vychegda, was in the hands of the northeastern Russian princes. Rostov's possession of Ustiug gave it control not only over a segment of Novgorod's fur supply route, but also, as noted above, over Bulgar's access to its luxury fur supplies. It destroyed Bulgar's northern fur supply system. It also made the fur of the Ves' and their northeastern trading partners available for purchase by Russian fur merchants, both Novgorodian and Suzdalian. The princes of Rostov-Suzdal' had sought in the twelfth century to control the transfer of fur from west to east by dominating the upper Volga and by concentrating fur sales in Suzdalian towns; by the early thirteenth century they had also succeeded in acquiring 59

The Rus'

control over the transport of fur from east to west through Ustiug along the Sukhona route. It is possible that merchants of Rostov-Suzdal' participated in this trade, buying fur from the Ves', the Perm' and even Novgorodian settlers on the Dvina and selling it to Novgorodian merchants. In this manner RostovSuzdal' became a supplier of northern fur to Novgorod. During the eleventh and twelfth centuries Novgorod exported northern fur, as it had in the previous period, in three directions: to Bulgar in the east, Kiev in the south, and the Baltic market in the west. In response to the demands of all three markets, Novgorod extended its realm, carved out new trade routes across northern Russia, and subjected non-Russian tribes to tributary status. From those tribes Novgorod collected luxury fur. From the northern population in districts subject to direct Novgorodian administration it collected squirrel pelts. By the end of the period, however, the relative importance of the three consuming areas in Novgorod's trade network changed. The growth of Rostov-Suzdal' interfered with Novgorod's fur export to Bulgar, whose demand for fur diminished as its own consumer markets deteriorated. The decline of Byzantium similarly disrupted Russian fur export to the south, and redirected Kiev's fur export to Sudak and central Europe. In contrast to the decline in fur export to the east and south, Novgorod's export to the west increased. The Scandinavians, who had looked to Novgorod as a source of Oriental luxury goods and silver and had been interested in fur only as a -secondary item, were displaced by German merchants who brought silver and Flemish woolen cloth to exchange for fur and other northern products. Under these circumstances Novgorod increasingly focused on the Baltic market and within that market on the German merchants and the export of northern fur.

60

NOVGOROD: THE SQUIRREL FUR TRADE

THE NOVGOROD-HANSA TRADE

By the thirteenth century eastern Europe's interlocking fur trade network had fragmented. Bulgar, temporarily stunned by the Mongol destruction of its markets, would resurrect its fur trade, but without the involvement of its Russian neighbors and for the benefit of its masters to the south. The fur center at Kiev, destroyed by the Mongols, would not recover its place in the trade network. The third center, Novgorod, would remain an active fur market. But its pattern of trade from the thirteenth century would contrast sharply with those of the preceding centuries. From the thirteenth century Novgorod's fur trade no longer overlapped with that of Bulgar or Kiev. And although Russian commerce with both the south and the east would revive, specifically along the Volga route in the fourteenth century, it would not be conducted by Novgorod. Rather, when it recovered from the general economic decline it suffered immediately after the Mongol invasion,1 Novgorod focused its fur exports on one region. In the tenth century that region had received only token amounts of fur. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries it had been reorganizing its commercial relations. From the thirteenth century, however, it would be the chief consumption area for Novgorodian fur. The area was the Baltic region. Novgorod's concentration on the Baltic market was encouraged in a paradoxical manner not only by the Mongol invasion, but also by a second invasion, the German drive eastward along the southern Baltic coast. During the thirteenth century the Order of the Brothers of the Sword (the Livonian Knights) and the Teutonic Knights conducted crusades against the pagan Baits and Finns of Prussia, Lithuania, and Livonia. Christianity had been introduced into Livonia in 1184 by the missionary Meinhard who had established himself on the lower West Dvina river and was appointed bishop of Livonia in 1186. It was his successor Albert, however, who, with the support of Pope Innocent III, northern German lay rulers, the city of Liibeck and the German community of Gotland, 61

Novgorod: the squirrel fur trade

launched a crusade against the Bait and Finn population of Livonia; it was completed with the wresting of Reval from Danish domination in the 12 70s. The Teutonic Order, invited by the Polish duke of Mazovia to subdue the Prussians, began their crusade in 1230; six years later this Order merged with the Livonian Order and subsequently conducted a drive eastward in an attempt to join their domains. Retarded for fifty years by Prussian resistance and interrupted by the Lithuanians, the German advance was halted in the east by Alexander Nevsky at Lake Peipus in 1242.2 During this period Novgorod and Visby were continuing to conduct trade, with merchants from both playing active roles in it. Novgorodians made commercial trips to Gotland. Treaties from the 1260s and 1270 between Novgorod and the German merchant association indicate that foreign merchants were required to "take the Novgorod ambassador and Novgorodian merchants from Novgorod or from Gotland." If they refused, Novgorod could deny responsibility for their safety along the route between the Gulf of Finland and Novgorod. Provision was made in 1270 for Novgorodian merchants to pay a fee to the foreigners if the former elected not to return to Novgorod on the latters' ships.3 The bulk of the trade was probably conducted, however, by representatives of the Scandinavian and German merchant communities of Gotland. The German merchants conducted their goods from Visby to Liibeck, Flanders and England.4 Simultaneously, however, another group of German merchants, particularly those from Liibeck, were benefiting from the Knights' conquests and insinuating themselves in the Novgorodian trade. In the course of the thirteenth century they established themselves in a network of towns along the southern coast of the Baltic Sea. At the east end the main towns in this chain were Riga and Reval, with Dorpat as an inland center. The towns were federated around Liibeck in a hansa or merchant association.5 By the end of the century the Germans of these coastal towns dominated Baltic trade. They eclipsed both the Scandinavian and German communities of Gotland and became the chief conveyors of goods between Novgorod and northwest Europe. By the fourteenth century the Scandinavian court of St. Olaf in Novgorod was attached to Peterhof. In a parallel fashion the German Gotland community yielded partial control over Peterhof to Liibeck, and Gotland itself by the fourteenth century lost its position as the primary intermediary between Novgorod and northwestern Europe.6 The trade patterns that developed between the Hansa merchants and Novgorod became the basis for the organization of the trade that continued between them until the fall of Novgorod. The best documented portion of the trade is that conducted by the Germans.7 Each year two groupssummer and winter merchants - set out from the Livonian towns for Novgorod.8 They traveled by both land and sea; but land routes, developed 62

The Novgorod-Hansa trade

from the time of the foundation of the German communities in Livonia,9 became particularly important after Swedish threats endangered passage along the Neva in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries.10 By the late fourteenth century those land routes were safe enough for small groups of travelers to complete the journey from Konigsberg to Novgorod without incident.11 Seafarers sailed from Reval to the island of Kotlin (Kronstadt) where Russian boatmen met them, transferred their cargoes to Russian river boats, and conducted them up the Neva river to Lake Ladoga. After reloading once again to avoid rapids on the Volkhov river, the Germans continued their journey to Novgorod, using Russian pilots and porters until they reached Peterhof.12 In the thirteenth century the Germans had been itinerant merchants, conducting business on their own behalf. By the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries they had developed more sophisticated types of commercial organization, including firms that permanently stationed agents in a number of Hansa towns. Such business relationships allowed merchants to send consignments of goods on credit to partners or associates stationed in other towns, and itinerant merchants, making their rounds among the Baltic ports, appeared rarely. Hansa rules, however, forbade its members to enter into such relationships with Novgorodians; the biannual expeditions, therefore, continued.13 Once within Novgorod's realm, members of both land and sea parties enjoyed customs privileges and the protection of the Novgorodian authorities.14 As many as 200 Germans, including merchants, their assistants and servants, were in Novgorod each season.15 They lived and conducted their business in the Peterhof compound, which was located on the market side of the Volkhov river and consisted of a complex of buildings, including the church of St. Peter, dwelling places, stables, storage space, a jail, and other accommodations.16 Within the compound the Germans were subject to their own regulations, administered by their own officials.17 Only on such occasions as a dispute involving both a Novgorodian and a German were the Novgorod city officials, the commander (tysiatsku) and mayor (posadnik), called upon to intervene and judge the case.18 The statutes of Peterhof were modified over the centuries; authority was transferred from the merchants present in Novgorod to the supervising merchant communities, first in Liibeck and later in the Livonian towns. In conjunction with this the office of alderman, elected by the arriving merchants in the thirteenth century, evolved into an appointee of Liibeck and Visby in the fourteenth century; in the fifteenth century an official, who dwelled permanently in Novgorod and was selected by the Livonian towns, directed the affairs of Peterhof.19 In this well-regulated compound the Germans purchased the goods brought to them by Novgorodian merchants.20 63

Novgorod: the squirrel fur trade

As in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, fur was one of the most important commodities in the Novgorod-Hansa exchange. But by the fourteenth century the type of fur the Germans sought was changing. In western Europe the appetite for imported furs had been growing and infecting a broader spectrum of the population and altering the nature of its demand. As fine woolen cloth, available in a variety of brilliant colors, became popular, northern squirrel, known for its soft and silky texture and gray and white color, came into fashion as the ideal material for trim or linings. For the latter hundreds of pelts were cut, matched, and sewn together to form "furs" or mantles - large rectangular lengths of fur.21 The distinctive gray and white coloring of the northern squirrel, known in the west as vair or minever, was utilized to create patterns in the "fur."22 In contrast to their predecessors, who had preferred sable, Kings Henry III and Edward I of England filled their wardrobes mainly with northern squirrel. The fashion continued through the fourteenth century with Queen Phillipa, wife of King Edward III, wearing five matching garments, each trimmed with northern squirrel, at a banquet held in honor of the birth of her first son. Similarly, at her wedding in 1406 to the king of Denmark, Princess Phillipa, the daughter of Henry IV, wore a gown of white satin worked with velvet and trimmed with ermine and northern squirrel.23 These fashions, although perhaps set by royalty, were not confined to those families. Nobles and members of lower social classes alike imitated their kings and queens by wearing fur, often imported varieties if sometimes second-hand. Records from England show not only that northern squirrel was almost the exclusive choice for the linings of garments owned by persons of gentle birth in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, but that the fashion was spreading to wealthy members of the humbler classes. Merchants and craftsmen were investing their savings in highly-valued lined gowns, "furs," and cloaks of northern squirrel. This trend was so strong that social distinctions expressed by manner of dress were becoming blurred, and the English authorities felt compelled in 1327 to reserve wearing fur garments as a privilege for royalty and for persons of high birth with incomes over 100 pounds per annum. Twenty-five years later new legislation, still trying to control the irrepressible dissemination of fur among lower levels of society, was passed. The provisions of that sumptuary act permitted only members of the nobility and clergy, as well as citizens with comparable wealth, to wear the most highly-valued imported furs; northern gray squirrel was reserved for ranks above and including the wealthiest stratum of knights.24 Gray squirrel, unlike the red varieties found throughout Europe, dwelled, like the sable and ermine that had dominated the fur trade in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, in Scandinavia and northern Russia. It was this 64

The Novgorod-Hansa trade

northern gray squirrel that Novgorod exported through the Hansa to northwestern Europe. Records of actual commercial transactions in Novgorod are rare. 25 But records regarding trade disputes26 indicate that northern gray squirrel was the object of the German trade at Peterhof. The terms designating fur most commonly mentioned in those documents on the German trade all refer to categories of squirrel pelts. Schoenewerke was the term for the finest quality pelts; lushwerke, the next level in quality; anigen or anygen was squirrel from the Onega region, while klezemes or clesmes was squirrel from the Kliaz'ma region. Poppelen was a poor quality squirrel, either an early summer skin or a defective pelt; schevenissen was the poorest quality, possibly summer skins or pieces of pelts. Harwerke was a tanned or dressed skin; and troyenissen was evidently a dressed or damaged high quality pelt. At least some of these varieties of squirrel pelt, most notably anigen, schevenissen and troyenissen, came exclusively from Novgorod.27 Not surprisingly, these furs made up a major portion of the German property that was confiscated at Peterhof by the Novgorodian hosts during a dispute between Novgorod and the Hansa in 1370.28 Hansa regulations confirm the identification of Novgorodian fur with the gray squirrel shipped to western Europe. They not only forbade summer merchants to buy fur,29 which was of inferior quality during the season when they were in Novgorod, but proscribed the purchase of certain types of pelts, such as harwerke and troyenissen, the dressed skins that the Germans evidently believed might be inferior pelts disguised and sold as a better quality.30 The actual exchange of fur for other items took place when Novgorod merchants brought their fur, packed in sacks, to Peterhof. The German merchants had the right to hold it there overnight for inspection. Despite this precaution, the purchase price was regularly adjusted by a bonus (upgifte or naddacha) to compensate for the low-quality pelts assumed to be hidden inside the batch.31 Upon purchase the Germans unpacked the fur, sorted it according to quality, origin, and manner or degree of dressing, bound it in bundles usually of forty pelts, then repacked it in barrels, each containing 5,000 to 10,000 pelts, and stored it for shipment in the spring.32 From Novgorod German merchants sent their fur to Livonia. Livonian merchants then reshipped it, although they did not necessarily pack or sort it again, further west to their associates in Danzig, Lubeck, and Bruges. From Danzig the fur was often shipped further, to Bruges or other ports, while from Lubeck it was generally sent by land to Hamburg and then on to Flanders or England. The business activities of a few merchants are well enough known to illustrate the transmission of fur from Livonia to northwestern Europe. They also show that, except in years when trade between the Hansa towns 65

Novgorod: the squirrel fur trade

and Novgorod was banned, fur sales accounted for a major portion of the business conducted by the recipients of exports from Livonia. Engelbrecht Witte, for example, sent shipments from Riga to his son-in-law and agent in Bruges, Hildebrand Veckinchusen. Fur accounted for 60 percent of the value of his goods in 1404 and 40 percent in 1405-7. When Veckinchusen again received shipments of goods from Witte between 1410 and 1413, 78 percent of their value was attributable to fur.33 Veckinchusen himself was involved in other business associations that also brought him fur from Livonia. He had hired agents in Reval, whose shipments to him in 1407 consisted almost exclusively of fur. He had partners in Riga; almost one-half (49 percent) of their business in 1405-8 involved fur. He also had partners in Danzig, who shipped fur, worth 33 to 70 percent of the association's total proceeds, to Veckinchusen between 1403 and 1409. 34 Veckinchusen also received miscellaneous shipments of fur from Hamburg. 35 Witte and Veckinchusen were not alone in Livonia's fur trade. Half a century earlier (during the 13 50s) the Wittenborg brothers of Liibeck were receiving annual shipments of fur from their associates in Livonia. 36 Cargo records, which reveal that it was customary for many merchants to rent space on carrier ships, also show that numerous Livonian merchants were engaged in the export of fur. Cargo lists taken from the Liibeck toll register for 1368 show that on one ship sailing from Reval six different merchants were transporting seventeen barrels of squirrel pelts, along with some ermine and weasel; the fur was valued at 2,985 Marks. 37 Other records show that in 1391 another ship dispatched from Reval was carrying fur owned by twenty-three Reval merchants. 38 The cargo of a ship under the command of Jakob Johannesson, going from Reval to Flanders in 1393, included eight barrels of fur belonging to six merchants. 39 Two of a group of three ships from Riga, bound for Bruges but seized by English pirates in 1404, carried fur belonging to fifty-four merchants from Dorpat and Riga.40 In some instances fur made up either the entire cargo or a major portion of the goods transported by these merchants. Four of the nine merchants who sent their goods on one ship from Reval to Liibeck in 1368, for example, were shipping only fur, which alone accounted for 40 percent of the value of the entire cargo. Of the five ships that arrived in Liibeck from Reval later in that year, two, according to the toll register, carried only fur.41 There is little doubt that much of the fur shipped from Livonia to the west was the squirrel fur the Livonian merchants bought in Novgorod. One list of property belonging to Reval merchants in 1389, just before trade with Novgorod was cut off, explicitly identified thousands of pelts as Novgorodian squirrel.42 Other fur in this list, as well as fur identified in 66

The Novgorod-Hansa trade

the shipload dispatched by the twenty-three Reval merchants in 1391, in the lost cargoes of the three ill-fated Riga ships of 1404, and in the records of Veckinchusen, was described as " anigen, schevenissen and troyenissen," Novgorodian categories of squirrel. Based on our knowledge of packing practices, it may be concluded that all the fur contained in the barrels with these pelts came from Novgorod. One other consideration confirms the identification of the Livonian exports specifically with Novgorodian fur. The only years when fur did not account for the major portion of Veckinchusen's business activities were years when trade between Novgorod and the Hansa had been banned. This is clearly apparent from records of Veckinchusen's commercial transactions with a set of Prussian partners between 1416 and 1421. Fur made up a major portion (60 percent) of the value of shipments to Bruges in the first year only; afterwards in 1416 and 1417 and again from 1420 to 1422, when trade between Novgorod and Livonia, then Novgorod and the entire Hansa was interrupted, fur accounted for 11 percent or less of the value of the goods his association brought from Danzig to Bruges.43 Similar declines in the receipt of fur in northwestern Europe had occurred during the interruption in Livonian-Novgorod commerce in 1368, In addition to the expeditions of the Hansa merchants from the Livonian towns, agents representing the Teutonic Order also traveled to Novgorod for fur and wax in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Account books containing records of these operations show that three agents, Dietrich Stechmessir, Hennyg Demeker, and Ludwig von der Heyde made annual trips to Novgorod during the period 1398 to 1404.44 In each case they traveled by horse and cart, possibly alone or in small parties, to Novgorod, where they bought squirrel pelts and wax. Like the Hansa fur merchants, they made their purchases in winter, then sent them by sea in the spring to Danzig, where they were combined with other goods acquired by the Order and sent on for sale in Bruges. Forty-eight percent of the value of the goods dispatched by the Order to Bruges was attributable to fur and wax.45 In exchange for fur and wax, the Hansa merchants offered the Novgorodians Flemish cloth, salt, and sweet wine; beer, herring, metal products, fruit, and occasionally grain appeared on the market, but less frequently and in small quantities.46 The Teutonic Order purchased its fur and wax almost exclusively with silver.47 Although Veckinchusen and his associates did not apparently do so, other Hanseatic merchants also used silver to buy Novgorodian goods. As was already becoming true in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, silver was one of Novgorod's major imports.48 From 1373 the Hansa, in fact, tried to impose restrictions on its merchants' use of silver. But the fact that such restrictions were discussed repeatedly at Hansa congresses through the remainder of the 67

Novgorod: the squirrel fur trade

fourteenth and into the fifteenth centuries indicates that attempts at embargoes had failed. Silver continued to be exported to Novgorod particularly by agents of the Teutonic Order at least through the first quarter of the fifteenth century, and by Hansa merchants for an even longer period.49 The quality of silver coin and ingots varied, and in the fifteenth century (for example in 1434) Novgorodians were registering complaints about their purity.50 Despite repeated quarrels and occasional interruptions of trade, by the end of the fourteenth century the volume of fur exported by Novgorod through the Hansa had become substantial.51 England alone was importing hundreds of thousands of northern squirrel pelts, almost entirely through Hansa merchants. By 1410 prices correspondingly had begun to fall, and northern squirrel became more accessible to the lower social classes.52 Under these circumstances Novgorod's export of squirrel skins to northwestern Europe through the agency of Hansa merchants and the Teutonic Order persisted well into the fifteenth century. THE SQUIRREL SUPPLY SYSTEM

The European demand for northern gray squirrel caused Novgorod officials, boyars, other property owners, and settlers to exploit the squirrel resources of the Onega and Dvina basins in an organized fashion. A systematic method of squirrel supply was developed in the fourteenth century. It basically had three components: fur was supplied through boyar estates, through the Novgorodian city government, and directly by the peasantry. Novgorodian colonization of these regions was already in progress in 113 7 when Sviatoslav listed the pogosts that had been created there. But the first evidence of large-scale land estates competing with small-scale settlement appears in the early fourteenth century. At that time (between 1315 and 1322) one Vasilii Matfeev (Matveevich), according to the terms of a settlement of a dispute, paid 20,000 belki or squirrel pelts and ten Novgorodian rubles to the elders of the local Finnic population for a huge tract of land on the Vaga river in Shenkursk pogost.53 The agreement, however, limited Vasilii's property rights by stipulating that those persons who had previously acquired land parcels in the area were to retain possession of them.54 Somewhat later in the century another Novgorodian boyar, Grigorii Semenovich, claimed land in pogosts around Lake Onega; he too became embroiled in disputes with his neighbors, which were settled in 1375.55 Other Novgorodian boyars also carved estates for themselves out of territory in Obonezh'e and in lands along the Vaga and Emtsa rivers. By the mid-fifteenth century, boyar estates were well established throughout the Novgorodian North (with the exception of the lower Dvina).56 68

The squirrel supply system

Fur was an important factor in the economies of the boyar estates. Vasilii Matfeev's agreement not only illustrated that both small-scale settlers and large-scale estate owners were taking possession of property in the Vaga region by the early fourteenth century, but also that fur was one of the attractive features of the region. The price of the estate - 20,000 squirrel pelts - is testimony to the fact that fur was considered a desirable and valuable commodity in that region at that time. Although Vasilii acquired rights to the "lands and waters and forests used for hunting or trapping and rivers used for trapping or fishing, swamps and lakes, and falcon nests,"57 he did not obtain exclusive hunting or trapping privileges with the purchase of his property. They were evidently left as the common possession of all the inhabitants of the area, who were thus able to hunt the squirrel and the famed black fox of the Vaga region.58 Documents recording northern land transactions in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries reflect the continued pervasiveness and importance of hunting in the estate economies. Although agriculture, fishing and salt-boiling emerge as basic occupations of the northern population, hunting also appears as a prominent activity. Lands used for hunting were indicated in the documents by reference to putiki (trapping trails); perevesishcha (nets or sites for setting nets used to trap birds, animals or fish); bobrovaia lovishcha (beaver traps or beaver trapping rights); lovishcha (general hunting rights, especially when it appeared in conjunction with forests); and less specifically vse ugod'ia (all non-agricultural means of exploiting the land). Due to the fact that there is HO basis for considering the preserved documents representative in any statistical sense, they cannot be used to determine the relative importance of fur-hunting among the northern population nor to determine precisely which districts contained preferred hunting grounds. Nevertheless, they do illustrate widespread involvement in hunting. They also indicate, in contrast to the early fourteenth century, that rights to hunting and the fur resources of the North had become the exclusive possession of the owner of the property on which they were located. The following examples drawn from these documents illustrate the extent of both boyar landholding and fur-hunting in Novgorod's northern possessions. In the Karelian Pomor'e several Novgorodian boyars, including the mayor (posadnik) Ofanas Esipovich and Dmitrii Vasil'evich, owned estates.59 In the deed to one of their properties "hunting rights " or lovishcha on land and water were among the resources of the estate.60 Similarly, a number of other documents concerning donations or sales of land to Solovetskii monastery, as well as land sales among peasants in the same district, mention lovishcha, referring to hunting on land.61 According to the grant that transferred possession of Solovka and the neighboring islands to the new Solovetskii monastery in 1459, the monastery gained exclusive 69

Novgorod: the squirrel fur trade

rights to the land, hunting and fishing resources, meadows, and lakes on the islands used for trapping or fishing.62 Hunting was also, with fishing, a common occupation in Tolvui pogost, the neighbor of Shungskii pogost at the northern end of Lake Onega. There, when twenty landowners made a joint donation of land to the Paleostrov monastery, local villagers were warned to refrain from using the lands thus transferred for fishing, hunting, or other customary purposes.63 The hunting and fur potential of the Emtsa region was reflected in a deed for land purchased by one Samson Perkhur'evich (Porfir'evich) whose property, bordering a portage, contained not only cultivatedfieldsand meadows but also hunting rights in general, net sites, and hunting rights in the portage.64 The exploitation of fur resources in the Vaga region was recorded from the fourteenth century. As we have noted, sometime in the period between 1315 and 1322 Vasilii Matfeev had paid Azika and other elders of the local tribe in Shenkursk pogost 20,000 squirrel pelts and 10 rubles for the land he had taken from them. When his descendants, Ostafii Anan'evich and his father and brother, inherited large estates in the Vaga region later in the fourteenth century, forests, lakes, trapping rights, and streams were still considered their outstanding and valuable features.65 In that period other families were acquiring estates in the area; Ostafii sold some of his holdings to a mayor, Aleksandr; he left other portions in his will to a second mayor, Fedor.66 By thefifteenthcentury members of the Esipovy, Boretskie, Gruzovye, Ofonasovy, and Tuchiny families had also become landowners in the Vaga district.67 The lands they held, as revealed in land transfers made by some of the Vaga landowners (such as Ivan Vasil'evich and his wife Evdokia, Isak Semenovich and his mother Efina, and the mayor Vasilii Stepanovich) to the Bogoslavskii Vazhskii monastery in the mid-fifteenth century,68 were characterized and valued for their meadows, cultivated lands in forests, and forests; upon receipt of the lands the monastery regularly acquired all trapping rights on the lands in question.69 Finally, trapping trails, beaver trapping rights, and general hunting rights were recorded in land transfer documents for the lower Dvina land. The few estate owners in this area, such as the church of St. Nikola, Melentii Efimovich Chevaka, Iakov Dmitrievich, and Fedor Makarov, accumulated rich reserves of these resources.70 One mechanism of fur supply revolved around these boyar estates. Boyar landlords collected a significant portion of their rents from their northern estates in squirrel fur. This method of fur procurement was already in full operation by the first quarter of the fifteenth century. A birchbark document from that period leaves traces of a Novgorodian estate whose owner collected various fees and assessments from the villages in squirrel fur.71 Specific information on the systematic collection of fur is available, however, only for a later period in the century and for twenty estates, 70

The squirrel supply system owned by twenty boyars, in Obonezh'e. That information is drawn from a cadastre dated 1496. 72 It lists the rents peasants were obliged to pay the grand prince of Moscow, who had become the formal owner of their lands. But the census takers also recorded rents collected according to a staroe pis'mo, which had been formulated in the 1470s or 1480s, shortly after Ivan III confiscated the Novgorodian boyar estates. That staroe pis'mo contained a staryi dokhod, the incomes previously received by the Novgorodian boyar owners of the estates. The staryi dokhod shows that thirteen of the twenty boyars collected a substantial portion of their rents in fur. Table 1 identifies the rents paid to each boyar landlord. From the cash equivalencies provided in the cadastre for some of these rents immediately after the confiscations, when the staroe pis'mo replaced the staryi dokhod, it has been possible to determine the relative portions of grain, fur, and cash in most of the rents. 73 Table 2, based on such calculations, shows the portions of rent on the estates of the named boyars that consisted of fur. Several others also received fur, in some cases in larger quantities than their neighbors, but in smaller or indeterminable percentages: Fedor Morozov Fedor Ostafev Glukhov Luka Fedorov Natal'ia Moseev Babkina

35% 34% ? ?

The remainder collected no fur or only negligible quantities of it: Ivan Onan'in Berdenev, Ivan Dmitreev Vorvarin, Kuz'ma Fefilatov, Perfurii's sons, and Bogdan Esipov. At least one-half of the boyars, for whom rent data are known, collected about 50% or more of their rents in fur. Nine of the thirteen fur-collecting boyars, however, also held estates in eleven other pogosts of Obonezh'e or in Zavoloch'e. Assuming their economic motivations were consistent, it may be inferred that they demanded rent in fur from their tenants on their other estates as well. It is also probable that their neighbors in other pogosts collected rent in the form of fur from their estates.74 Novgorodian boyars similarly collected fur from their northern estates beyond Obonezh'e. An excerpt (sotnaia) from a mid-sixteenth-century tax book reveals that before the Emtsa district was transferred to the Muscovite grand prince, Novgorodian boyars owned estates there. 75 The taxes recorded in the sotnaia for 1552-3 included two - the bel (or belka) or squirrel tax and the gornostal or ermine tax - that are related by their names to fur collection. They were carry-overs from the Novgorodian period when the fees, on which these taxes were based, were actually paid in fur.76 In the mid-sixteenth century, after other, new, Muscovite taxes had been added to the bel and gornostal, those two taxes accounted for 65 percent 71

Table i. Rents received by Novgorodian boyars (staryi dokhod) (R = ruble, g = grivna, d = denga) Rent Landowner

Land units (in obzhas)

Grain (in korob'ia)b

104

—

Fur

Cash

1,309 + 2 soroks squirrel 121 squirrels

—

Vytegorskii pogost

Marfa Isakova Boretskaia0 Zakhar Morozov

18

Ivan Ofanasii Patrekeev

22

Fedor Morozov

20

Grigorii Nagatin

19

Boris Dmitreev Zubarev

5

6irye 7J oats 6 rye 9 \ oats 1\ rye 15! oats 7|rye 17^ oats i^rye

128 squirrels 83 \ squirrels 122 squirrels 34 squirrels

1 g, 10 d ig. 9d 7g, id ig, 3id 2g

3 oats

Oshtinskii pogost

Marfa Isakova Boretskaia

278

n i rye 21 oats

3,094 squirrels

2 R, 10 g, 10 d

Shungskii pogost

Fedor Ostaf 'ev Glukhov

Mikhail Berdenev

103

from 83 obzhas 1 obzha 10 obzhas 9 obzhas no income

—

404 \ squirrels —

16

from 11 obzhas 4 obzhas 1 obzha

320 squirrels

\ \

1 2 1 j

—

102 squirrels

— — — — — — —

Luka Fedorov

Oleksandr Timofeev Natal'ia Moseev Babkina

II

from 9 obzha I obzha i obzha 9 14

from 7 obzhas 1 obzha 2 obzhas 2 obzhas - no rent 2 obzhas Venitskii pogost Ivan Zakhar'in Ovinov Mikhail Berdenev Ivan Onan'in Berdenev Ivan Shirokov Iazhyshchinskii

42 20 1 48

1

J 1 4 1 2 1

3d

42 squirrels

1 —

24 squirrels

17 rye

165 squirrels 240 squirrels

I T rye

207 squirrels

34 28

4g.

I

21

32

squirrels squirrels fox squirrels

—

2g iR, 8g 1 d, 1 chetveritsa 2g, 2d

Pelushskii pogost

Kuz'ma Fefilatov

95

15 rye 11 piatoks, 4 gorsts flax

Sons of Perfurii: Ignatii, Zakhar, Grigorii, Fedor Khotslavl'skii

30 squirrels 54 lopatki borani

3JR, 11 d

15 g, 2d

pogost

Ivan Dmitreev Vorvarin

115

39 29^ 4J 1

rye oats wheat hops

6 R less s

Khoigushskii pogost

Bogdan Esipov

a

155

60 rye 175 gorsts flax

9 R. k g

The name of this landholder is not given in the 1496 cadastre, but in the 1563 cadastre Marfa Boretskaia is identified as a former landowner of this pogost. Bernadskii, Novgorod, p. 55.

Novgorod: the squirrel fur trade Table 2. Proportion of rent paid in fur to Obonezh'e boyars Marfa Boretskaia (2 estates) Mikhail Berdenev (2 estates) Ivan Zakhar'in Ovinov Ivan Iazhyshchinskii Zakhar Morozov Ivan Ofanasii Patrekeev, Grigorii Nagatin Boris Dmitreev Zubarev Oleksandr Timofeev a

100% and 8o%fl 34% and 70% 65 % 63% 60% 60% 54% 48% 47%

80% is Khoroshkevich's estimate.

of the levy imposed on the Emtsa peasantry; the bel constituted 56 percent and the gornostal 9 percent in all the areas that had previously belonged to Novgorodian boyars. Like those in Obonezh'e, boyar landlords of the Emtsa region were, therefore, also recipients of fur, primarily squirrel fur, which they obtained in the form of rent from their peasant tenants. It appears probable that most of the boyars who owned estates in northern Obonezh'e and in Zavoloch'e could have and did collect some of their rents in the form of fur during the fifteenth century. In this fashion the boyars, while personally living in Novgorod or on climatically more comfortable estates, accumulated relatively large quantities of fur, primarily squirrel pelts, from their northern possessions and sold them to the Novgorodian merchants. 77 Some of the Novgorodian boyar estate owners may have received fur in a more complex manner. In some Obonezh'e pogosts grain was the preferred commodity for rent collection and by inference agriculture was the most important occupation. This was true for the more southerly pogosts of Obonezh'e - Pelushskii, Khotslavl'skii and Khoigushskii, where the percentages of grain and other agricultural products in the rents amounted to approximately 47 percent, 25 percent, and 33 percent respectively.78 Curiously, however, in Shungskii pogost, much further north, on Glukhov's estate, the one estate for which calculations are possible, grain accounted for an even larger portion of the rent, almost two-thirds of the entire amount. 79 The emphasis on agriculture in this pogost80 may be associated with its favorable position in a relative sense, not only for production, but also for transporting grain products. Located on the northern shore of Lake Onega, the Shungskii estates had access to Novgorod via that lake, the Svir' river, lake Ladoga and the Volkhov river. In addition, however, they had relatively direct access via the rivers and 74

The squirrel supply system lakes to settlements further north in the vicinity of Lake Sego and Lake Vyg and even on the White Sea. The owners of the Shungskii estates could, therefore, ship their grain northward to support the grain-deficient populations, who produced northern commodities - fish, salt, and fur. Six of the seven known landowners in Shungskii pogost or members of their families did, in fact, also own property in Vygozero: they may have used their grain incomes from Shungskii for just that purpose.81 Novgorodian boyars who owned estates in the northern provinces thus procured squirrel pelts through rents and inter-regional trade, and in this fashion formed one group of fur suppliers in the Novgorodian fur acquisition system. The Novgorodian government also participated in the squirrel fur supply system. Its participation was based on the collection of taxes in squirrel pelts from the northern peasantry. This form of fur procurement prevailed in the lower Dvina land. There peasants were the predominant landholders.82 As confirmed by the documents detailing land transactions in the Dvina land in the fifteenth century, they had clear title to their property with full rights to dispose of it as they wished.83 Just as on privately owned estates, peasants on their own lands engaged in hunting as at least a supplementary occupation. Furthermore, virtually all the peasants of the lower Dvina contributed fur to the Novgorodian government through taxation. The peasants of Terpilov pogost on the lower Dvina made reference to such taxes when they complained about the collection practices in the early 1420s. 84 But more complete and detailed information about the taxes is contained in two mid-sixteenth century tax payment books, composed by agents of the Muscovite grand prince to assess the taxes on the inhabitants on the Dvina and Onega rivers.85 As in the sotnaia for the Emtsa district, two of the most prominent taxes levied on the population were the belka or bel and the gornostal. All the tax-payers of the region paid the latter tax; all except those dwelling on church or monastery lands paid the former. In the mid-sixteenth century these taxes, while retaining their fur-related names - squirrel and ermine tax - were assessed in cash at the rate of" 3 dengas for a squirrel" and " 7 dengas for an ermine." In an earlier era under Novgorodian administration the taxes were actually paid in fur pelts.86 In the sixteenth century, the bel and gornostal constituted significant proportions of the taxes paid by the Dvina residents. One of the books, that compiled by Iakov Saburov and Ivan Kutuzov, breaks down the total assessment and states the amount paid for each tax or group of taxes. According to it, the belka ranged in Kargopol' from 55 percent to 66 percent, but generally amounted to 57 or 58 percent of the total cash tax paid; this is almost the same proportion the belka made up in the Emtsa district. The smaller gornostal ranged from 6 to 12 percent; but its average, 75

Novgorod: the squirrel fur trade

10 percent, was again very similar to the Emtsa figure of 9 percent. In the Turchesov district (located north of Kargopol' along the Onega river) the range of the belka was between 54 and 84 percent; payment seems to have fallen into two categories, one averaging around 66 to 67 percent, the other 78 to 79 percent. The gornostal in this district was correspondingly lower, ranging from 3 to 9 percent, with the lower amount occurring in locations where the belka was high and increasing as the belka decreased. In interpreting these figures for the Novgorod period, it is important to note that while the Muscovite grand prince retained the belka and gornostal he also added new taxes such as the postal tax (iamskie dengi), arquebusier fee (pishal'nye or pishchal'nye dengi), taxes on land parcels (vytnye), and maintenance fees (pososhnoi khleb).87 In Kargopol' the iam constituted approximately 25 percent of the cash paid in taxes, in Turchesov that tax made up 11 or 12 percent. The vytnye, on the other hand, was a minor tax; it generally amounted to less than 1 percent and rarely exceeded 2 or 3 percent. Novgorod's taxes on the residents of the Dvina land necessarily excluded the levies added later, but there is no indication that the Muscovites reduced the former Novgorodian taxes. Rather, the amounts previously collected are stated in the formula "and the obrok from them for x belkas, at 3 dengas per belka, a total of y rubles." A similar formula was less consistently used for the gornostal Thus, just as the Emtsa sotnaia reflected the volume of fur collected by Novgorod boyar landlorders in rent, these payment books reveal the numbers, if not the percentage^ monetary value, of the pelts collected in taxes by the Novgorodian government from the peasant inhabitants of the Dvina land. Indeed, the fur so collected may have made up a yet higher percentage, possibly almost all, of the non-grain taxes collected by Novgorod.88 Through this tax system the Novgorodian treasury collected squirrel fur. Like the Novgorodian boyars, it converted the fur it collected into silver and other commodities by making it available for sale to German merchants, who frequented the Novgorodian market precisely to obtain these northern gray squirrel pelts. The peasantry made up the third component of Novgorod's fur supply system. In fact, the peasantry dwelling in Novgorod's northern lands composed the backbone of the fur procurement system conducted by the boyars and the government. Paying their landlords rent and the city government taxes in the form of fur, the peasants supplied squirrel pelts to members of the boyar class and the city treasury, which amassed significant volumes of that fur and evidently marketed it through the Novgorod merchantry. The peasantry also provided fur to the merchants directly. Looking back to the figures in Tables 1 and 2, it is evident that some 76

The squirrel supply system

boyar landlords in Obonezh'e preferred to receive their rents fully or at least partially in cash rather than in kind. In order to obtain cash, the peasant tenants had to sell some of those products which they would otherwise have paid to their landlords, that is, fur or grain, directly to merchants. A number of factors suggest that the peasants were selling primarily squirrel pelts to obtain that cash.89 On some estates, although fur no longer made up a major portion of the rent, the peasants were still paying small amounts of fur either to the landlord himself, or as part of the fee to his agent. The former was the case on the estate of Kuz'ma Fefilatov in Pelushskii pogost; the latter occurred on a regular basis in Shungskii and Vytegorskii pogosts, in three out of four cases in Venitskii pogost, and on the estate of Bogdan Esipov in Khoigushskii.90 This practice suggests that fur may have been at one time a more prominent factor in the rent mix in some of those pogosts where cash became the major component; it also implies that the cash may have been substituted for fur. Data on Venitskii pogost provide even more convincing evidence that fur was the component being converted into cash. There, 44 percent of the rent was paid in cash, 38 percent in fur, and 18 percent in grain. These figures, however, represent the averages of four estates, on which the distribution of the rent mix varied: Rent

Estate owner Ivan Zakhar'in Ovinov M. Berdenev I. 0. Berdenev I. Sh. Iazhyshchinskii

% grain

% fur

%cash

35

65

—

25 —

70 —

100

c. 30

c 63

5

c. 6

On three of the four estates, fur was the predominant factor in the rent mix. It is therefore likely that the peasants on the fourth estate were selling a proportionate amount of fur to obtain the cash, which their landlord, I. 0. Berdenev, demanded. This may also have been true for the peasants on the estate owned by the Ontov monastery in the same pogost who, like those on I. Berdenev's estate, paid their rent in cash (and butter).91 In the seven pogosts, for which data on the rent paid to the Novgorodian boyars are known, the peasants who paid all or a portion of their rent in fur paid an average of six squirrel pelts per person, eleven pelts per household, or nine and one-half pelts per obzha. The peasants who paid no fur but were charged in cash paid amounts that were equivalent on average to five and one-half pelts per man, eight and one-half pelts per household, or seven and one-half pelts per obzha.92 The tendency for the peasantry to sell fur became even more pronounced 77

Novgorod: the squirrel fur trade Table 3. A comparison of the proportion of forms of rent collected by Novgorodian boyars and the Muscovite grand prince Proportions of rent

Pogost Grain

Oshtinskii Vytegorskii Shungskii Venitskii Koigushskii Khotslavl'skii Pelushskii

Fur

Cash

s.d.

n.p.

s.d.

n.p.

s.d.

n.p.

5

4 5 73

80 81 34 38

— — —

12

96 95

13

66 18

33 25

33

80 90

—

85 78

2

—

—

6 -

— 44 67 75 50

27 20 10

15 22

s.d. = staryi dokhod, n.p. = novoe pis'mo.

after Moscow annexed Novgorod and the grand prince confiscated the boyars' estates.93 By 1496, when the novoe pis'mo was put into effect, the fur in the rent mix in Obonezh'e was replaced entirely by cash and grain. Table 3, based onfiguresfrom the 1496 cadastre, compares the proportions of the various forms of rent paid to the Novgorod boyars (staryi dokhod) with the rent assessed in 1496 (novoe pis'mo). Comparing the staryi dokhod with the njsw cadastre, it is possible to see whether grain or cash replaced fur. In some cases, as in Oshtinskii, Vytegorskii, and Shungskii pogost, the grain element remained approximately stable while the cash component significantly increased. In those cases agricultural production remained relatively constant. The peasants evidently were selling their squirrel pelts to acquire the needed cash. In the other four pogosts, there was, under Muscovite influence, a decided emphasis on agricultural production. Grain became the major item in the rent mix, while fur disappeared and cash was greatly reduced. The Muscovite demand that the peasantry concentrate on grain production at the expense of both fur and cash suggests a pre-existing linkage between those two elements: cash, prior to 1496, had been a substitute for the fur element in their rents. Furthermore, the fact that in every one of the four agricultural pogosts some cash remained in the rent, despite the overwhelming preference for grain, also suggests the peasants were selling fur rather than grain for cash. Correspondingly, before 1496 they had obtained cash, which then made up an even larger component of the rent mix, by selling the other major commodity available to them - squirrel fur. To obtain cash the peasants inhabiting Obonezh'e estates in the fifteenth century sold fur pelts directly. It may be assumed that peasants in other 78

The squirrel supply system

northern districts observed the same practice. And where they sold them to acquire cash to meet the demands of private landlords and government treasuries, at least some peasants no doubt also caught and sold additional pelts to supplement their own incomes. The peasantry must, therefore, be counted, along with boyars and the treasury, among the directly contributing sources of fur in Novgorod's fur supply system. The role of the other large estate-holders in the north, ecclesiastical institutions, is more difficult to determine. Six institutions are recorded in the 1496 cadastre as landholders in that region during the fifteenth century; but the rent collected is recorded for only one - Ontov monastery in Venitskii pogost. That rent was all in cash. In contrast to this information for one small estate of a single monastery, it should be recalled that examples cited earlier indicate that a number of other, larger monasteries commonly acquired northern estates containing hunting grounds with fur resources. The Emtsa sotnaia also revealed that villages attached to the church of the Transfiguration of the Savior (Preobrazhen'e Spasovo) on Lake Shchuk possessed forests on the Kargopol' border, trapping trails, grouse and game hunting rights, and net sites on various lakes and streams.94 Nevertheless, the ecclesiastical institutions in the Emtsa district and those in the Dvina land did not, apparently, collect rents in the same manner as their lay neighbors. In the sixteenth century neither churches nor monasteries collected the bel or squirrel tax although they did collect the gornostal, and at a higher rate than on the lay estates - close to 20 percent of the cash assessments in the Kargopol' and Turchesov areas, 16 percent in the Emtsa district.95 If the same practices were followed in the fifteenth century, ecclesiastical institutions did not collect their rents in squirrel pelts. Evidently the ecclesiastical institutions of the North acquired fur by using a variation of the methods employed by boyar landlords. Like the boyars, they owned estates with fur resources, but they tended to exploit those resources to a lesser degree, collecting a much smaller portion of their rents in fur. They also tended to avoid collection of the most marketable type of fur, squirrel, and to seek payment in higher quality pelts, notably ermine. The extent to which they used these furs for commercial purposes or for their own consumption remains unclear.96 The ecclesiastical institutions may have participated in Novgorod's fur supply system in another way, however. Some of their possessions were strategically located on Novgorod's northern transportation routes. St. Sophia, for example, owned one district on the Vel' or Vel'ia river, which empties into the Vaga river. The Vel' pogost, at the juncture of the two rivers, was mentioned in the 1137 ustavnaia gramota. Although a section of the Vel' river belonged to the Rostov principality from the end of the fourteenth century, the archbishop of Novgorod controlled the land 79

Novgorod: the squirrel fur trade

upstream along the Vaga and that stretching westward between Rostov's holdings to the north and the Iaroslavl' principality to the south.97 From this location the archbishopric controlled a segment of one of the main trade routes crossing Novgorod's northern possessions, a route that had been carved out by the early twelfth century, the route along the Vaga river that linked the Sukhona with either the lower Dvina or the Onega river. St. Sophia in this case, as well as other ecclesiastical institutions, may thus have participated in Novgorod's supply system indirectly by safeguarding, and perhaps exacting tolls on, fur traffic passing through their possessions on Novgorod's trade routes, as well as by accumulating luxury fur through their rents and selling it. Alongside the structured fur supply network based on rents and taxes, commercial avenues also brought fur to the Novgorodian market. Novgorodian merchants purchased fur accumulated by the city treasury, the archbishop, the boyars, and peasants and sold those pelts to their foreign counterparts.98 In the thirteenth century a specialized group of merchants known as the obonezhskie kuptsy had already emerged. In the fourteenth century Novgorodian merchants were traveling to and from Iugra. Although they were molested at Ustiug in 1323 and 1329, the business of these merchants, who became known collectively as the lugorishche, had become so important to Novgorod that the city raised an army and forced Ustiug to restore their rights of passage.99 During thefifteenthcentury, despite Novgorod's emphasis on gathering supplies of northern gray squirrel from Obonezh'e and the Dvina basin, Novgorod merchants maintained their tradition of exploring distant and relatively unknown lands in search of luxury fur, especially sable. One account, based on expeditions into Siberia, provides particularly colorful evidence of this activity. This treatise, entitled "On unknown men in the eastern land" (0 chelovetsikh neznaemykh v vostochnei strane),

presents semi-apocryphal descriptions of nine groups discovered in Siberia. The characteristics assigned each of these groups are seemingly fantastic. Thefirstgroup, Samoedy called Molgonzei, were said to be cannibals, who celebrated the arrival of a merchant by serving a feast featuring as a main course their own children, especially slaughtered for the occasion. The account reported a second group of Samoedy to be semi-aquatic; these "people" lived in the sea for a month every year while they shed their old and grew new skin. A third group, also Samoedy, were similar to other humans but for their distinctive hairiness from the waist down. A fourth group of Samoedy lacked mouths and consequently could not speak; when they ate, they placed their meat or fish under their caps and "chewed" with their shoulders, which moved up and down. Afifthgroup were similar in appearance to other men, but died for two months every winter, then returned to life. The sixth group, not Samoedy, lived on the river Ob' and 80

The decline of Novgorod's fur trade network

in the ground. The seventh had no heads, but conveniently had mouths between their shoulders and eyes on their chest. The next group, dwelling further upriver, had access to an underground city where trade in all manner of goods was conducted in absolute silence. The final group were more simply a mountainous population.100 These improbable characteristics have led some scholars to conclude that this text is a demonstration of Russian ignorance of Siberia and its population, generated by lack of contact with them.101 On the contrary, the anonymous composer of the document was a fifteenth-century Novgorodian merchant.102 Although he recorded exaggerated, misunderstood, purely fictional, or even deliberately terrifying information, he presented his readers, presumably other Novgorodian merchants, with precise documentation of the location of various known tribes and identification of those who offered hospitality and sable.103 His work circulated,104 and his readers learned that the "headless" group had no goods for sale at all, while the "mountain" group had very effective medicines and healing techniques. The first and third groups had sable to trade, but the sixth group, who dwelled on the upper Ob' river, not only "ate sable meat" and wore clothing made from sable, but hadtio other animals except their sable, which were very black, very large, and had fur so long that it dragged on the ground.105 Novgorod merchants thus not only acted as intermediaries between the accumulators of squirrel pelts and the foreign merchants, but also supplemented the squirrel supply network by seeking out and procuring Siberian sable. By the fifteenth century the Novgorod fur supply network, greatly influenced by changes in the nature of foreign demand, had thus undergone significant evolution. From a loose structure, relying heavily on Finnic tributaries for luxury fur, it became an organized network involving almost all strata of society and a complex system of rents, taxes, and peasant trade that brought a regular flow of northern gray squirrel from Obonezh'e and the Dvina basin to the Novgorod market. That system was supplemented by looser commercial practices that brought relatively minor amounts of luxury fur to market. THE DECLINE OF NOVGOROD'S FUR TRADE NETWORK

During the second half of the fifteenth century Novgorod's fur trade network disintegrated. Its role as a fur mart and export center declined; and its carefully constructed squirrel supply system crumbled. A variety of factors interfered with the Novgorodian market. One was Novgorod's relations with the Hanseatic League. Commercial relations between the Germans and Novgorodians had been tenuous throughout the thirteenth 81

Novgorod: the squirrel fur trade

and fourteenth centuries. The two groups engaged in numerous disputes that, in extreme situations, involved arrest, death, and/or the confiscation of property of one party by the other. In such cases the Hansa would ban trade with Novgorod, while Novgorod might temporarily close Peterhof.106 In the fifteenth century such disputes became more severe and had longer-lasting effects. In conjunction with a war between Novgorod and the Iivonian Knights in the 1440s, the Hansa blockaded Novgorod; this time the Hansa also abandoned Peterhof for six years (1443-8). Twenty years later the visiting German merchants were arrested and Peterhof again remained closed for an extended period. During that episode the Hansa transferred its merchant quarters from Novgorod to Narva for four years.107 The effects of these politically induced disruptions combined with several economic factors to undermine the centrality and value of Novgorod's fur trade. One factor, alluded to above, was the Hansa's increasing reluctance to export silver to Novgorod. Its attitude developed as production in central Europe's silver mines diminished in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries. The cumulative effect of the Hansa's exhortations to ban silver export was to reduce the amount of silver reaching Novgorod; even the silver that continued to be received was likely to be less pure than in preceding decades.108 A second factor that affected Novgorod's fur trade from the mid-fifteenth century was the change in patterns of foreign fur consumption. The very success of the squirrel trade had resulted in thefifteenthcentury in a drop in the price of squirrel pelts abroad. Members of the lower classes were more easily able to purchase squirrel fur; upper class consumers in England, Burgundy and other northern European centers responded by favoring luxury fur - sable, fox, and marten.109 Novgorod, which had specialized in the production of northern gray squirrel, was not equipped, especially in the context of a weak market structure, to adjust to the changing demand.110 At this time the role of two of the major contributing groups in the supply system-the boyars and the government treasury - radically declined. Some of the boyars, such as those mentioned earlier who transferred their estates to monasteries, divested themselves of their northern fur-producing estates. Others, as also indicated above, converted their rents in the fifteenth century from fur into cash; they thereby transferred the burden of selling squirrel in an uncertain market onto their peasant tenants.111 Only a few Novgorodian boyars tried to adapt to the new demand; to do so, they attempted to gain control over northeastern lands beyond the Dvina river that provided sable and ermine. By this time, however, these territories belonged to Moscow, and the Novgorodian attempts to recapture 82

The decline of Novgorod's fur trade network

them were unsuccessful.112 The net result of all these actions was the withdrawal of the Novgorodian boyars from the fur supply system. The Novgorod city government's ability to procure its fur supplies also declined after the middle of the fifteenth century. By 1462 Novgorod had ceded extensive holdings in its fur hinterland as well as important points along its northern fur supply routes to the Muscovite grand prince. The territories included parcels on the Pinega river, near the mouth of the Dvina, and on the seashore stretching between the mouth of the Onega and the mouth of the Mezen'. The grand prince also acquired land around Kholomogory, along the Dvina just south of that town, and above the mouth of the Vaga river. He owned still others along the Iumysh and Kodima rivers.113 These territories were all peasant lands, which had been subject to Novgorodian taxes. Their loss meant a decrease in tax revenue for Novgorod, specifically a decrease in fur revenue. As the boyars retreated from the fur trade and the Novgorodian government lost some of its taxable lands in the Dvina region, only the peasants themselves and the Novgorodian merchants remained to supply fur for the market. Some merchants, like those who were interested in the anonymous text on Siberia, responded to these conditions by concentrating on the pursuit of valuable sable, which, along with ermine and marten, did begin to reappear on the Novgorodian market.114 But their efforts were insufficient to cope with the mounting problems confronting Novgorod's fur trade. By the time Ivan III annexed Novgorod, the latter's fur trade network was already in disarray. Ivan's policies intensified a trend that was well under way. After annexing Novgorod, he confiscated the privately owned estates of its boyars and many eccesiastical institutions. He also assumed title to the remaining peasant holdings among Novgorod's northern territories, and thereby took over Novgorod's remaining fur resource areas. On the confiscated estates the Muscovite government restructured the rents. Grain and cash became the sole acceptable forms of payment; rent in squirrel fur was eliminated. By the mid-sixteenth century fur taxes paid by the peasants to the government had undergone a similar conversion to cash. Even as he dismantled the squirrel supply system, Ivan also undermined Novgorod's ability to develop a luxury fur trade by evicting Novgorod's chief merchants and replacing them with Muscovite tradesmen. By the end of the century all that remained were, on the one hand, small supplies of squirrel fur in the hands of individual peasants, some of whom did opt to sell their pelts for cash. On the other hand, there were supplies of luxury fur, which Muscovite merchants purchased from Swedes, Finns, Karelians, and Laplanders in the northwestern Russian lands on the Swedish border.115 Finally, the Hansa-Novgorod disputes in the mid-fifteenth century had 83

Novgorod: the squirrel fur trade

provided the Livonian towns with an opportunity to gain a commercial advantage over Novgorod. The fact that the Hanseatic League was itself disintegrating contributed to this circumstance. The League was losing command of the Baltic seaways. The Livonian towns further undermined the League's cohesiveness by extending their own dominance over Peterhof and conducting their own policy there, at times in direct defiance of Lubeck.116 As a result, by the third quarter of the fifteenth century the RussianEuropean trade was already shifting away from Novgorod to the Livonian towns, which became the major centers of exchange. Novgorodian and, increasingly, Pskovian merchants brought their goods to Reval and Dorpat. They sold them to local merchants as well as to Hansa merchants from the other towns, and, despite the League's prohibitions, to non-Hanseatic merchants, such as the Dutch, who also frequented those towns.117 When Muscovy annexed Novgorod, its policies further reduced Novgorod's ability to function as a fur market. Ivan III ordered the construction of Ivangorod in 1492, and two years later closed the Hanseatic trading compound or dvor in Novgorod.118 Pskov, Narva, and Vyborg and ultimately Ivangorod subsequently played increasingly important roles in the Russian export trade to northwestern Europe.119 Novgorod never fully recovered its position as the major fur center of the Russian lands. Already by the early sixteenth century fur had been eclipsed by other goods in the German demand. This became evident during the negotiations for the re-opening of the Hanseatic dvor. One issue upon which the Muscovites insisted was that the Germans pay for Russian goods with silver rather than salt. Liibeck's ambassador in 1510 responded that the Hanseatic merchants could not possibly afford to pay for the "hemp and tallow and other goods" they bought exclusively with silver. Significantly, fur was not among the items at the top of his shopping list.120 After the German dvor re-opened in 1514, Novgorod's eminence as a commercial center revived.121 Fur, however, was at best a secondary item. The bulk of Novgorodian goods trans-shipped through Reval to Europe consisted of flax, cable-yarn, wax, train oil, and leather. Novgorodian fur made up only a minor portion of these shipments.122 The account books of Olric Elers, one of the Reval merchants, illustrate this in more detail.123 Elers' books record his business transactions between 1534 and 1541 with his agents in Novgorod, Narva, Tartu, and Pskov. Fur accounted for less than 5 percent of the goods he received from those towns. Wax, flax, hemp, tallow, and rye had become their predominant exports. Furthermore, the squirrel fur he did handle was not the fine quality northern gray squirrel for which Novgorod had been famous; he referred to it simply as "werk," the generic term for squirrel, and did not employ the precise nomenclature developed in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries to 84

The decline of Novgorod's fur trade network

distinguish the various qualities and types of Novgorod's squirrel pelts. In addition to squirrel, Elers dealt in the more desirable luxury pelts - sable, marten and ermine. Although he received the latter from Narva and Tartu as well as directly from Novgorodian merchants, his marten and sable were identified only as Russian and may well have been transported from Moscow via Pskov to Reval. Elers purchased almost two-thirds of his fur from Narva, which was the intermediary between Novgorod and Reval. But the amount and types of fur he traded constitute strong evidence that in thefirsthalf of the sixteenth century the nature of the Novgorod market had significantly changed; fur had become a relatively minor commodity. The observations of the English merchants who arrived in northern Russia in the 1550s confirm this conclusion. Although Richard Chancellor described Novgorod as the "greatest mart town of all Muscovy," that reputation was based not on the sale of fur or even fur and wax, the two premier commodities of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, but on the availability, again, offlax,hemp, honey, wax and hides.124 John Hasse, who accompanied Chancellor to Muscovy, wrote about Novgorod as one of several important market towns and cited it as a "place wel furnished with flaxe, waxe, hides, tallow and many other things—" The "furres and feathers" that he did note, were distributed by Kholmogory merchants not only to Novgorod, but to Vologda and Moscow as well.125 Fur did not disappear entirely from the Novgorodian market.126 But Novgorod's role as a fur center had, by the mid-sixteenth century, radically diminished. In contrast to Bulgar, which continually adapted to the changing nature of foreign demand and identity of consumers by seeking new sources of fur and organizing new supply routes, Novgorod from the thirteenth century remained committed to a relatively stable and increasingly specialized fur trade. It focused principally on one set of foreign customers and geared an intricate fur supply network, involving wealthy boyars and the city treasury as well as peasants and merchants, to meet that group's demand. That supply network provided northern gray squirrel to Novgorod's market; in the process of creating that network, Novgorod released its control over luxury fur supplies. As long as the Hansa demand for squirrel fur remained, Novgorod's specialized supply network served well. But Novgorod's trade organization proved too inflexible to adjust when the nature of the fur market changed in the latter half of the fifteenth and in the sixteenth centuries. The combination of economic and political factors that developed then created a situation in which the fur trade network Novgorod had built up from the thirteenth century, that had concentrated on an exchange with northern Germans at Novgorod of northern gray squirrel for silver, salt, and cloth, ceased to function. After six centuries Novgorod was no longer Russia's foremost fur trade center.

MOSCOW AND KAZAN': THE LUXURY FUR TRADE The final arrangement of fur trade patterns prior to the Russian conquest of Siberia centered around two markets, Moscow and Kazan'. Moscow initially developed its fur trade while under the suzerainty of the Golden Horde. Kazan' emerged in a parallel capacity only in the wake of the Horde's power. For a century the two centers conducted a trade in luxury fur that overlapped and competed. In the middle of the sixteenth century, however, the fur trade generated from the two centers finally merged. When Moscow annexed Kazan', it gained full control of the latter's fur supplies as well as its export trade to the south and east. Moscow then dominated that sector as well as its own southern trade and the European trade, which it had already acquired by displacing Novgorod. Thus, by the mid-sixteenth century, Moscow had established itself as the exclusive authority over the fundamental elements of easternmost Europe's fur trade network. MOSCOW'S ENTRY INTO THE FUR TRADE

When the Mongols invaded the Russian lands between 1237 and 1240, the fur trade network generated from that part of eastern Europe since the tenth century had already fragmented. Novgorod and Bulgar, the two centers whose supply and export patterns had augmented one another, were separated by the recently established principality of Rostov-Suzdal', which interfered with their fur exchange. Kiev, the third center in the early fur trade network, was declining in both political and economic significance. The Mongol invasion reinforced those trends. Kiev ceased to be an important trade center. Novgorod, encouraged to conduct foreign commerce that would bring silver into the Russian lands, focused its fur exports on the west, and ceased contributing to the flow of fur southward and eastward. That segment of the fur trade network fell under the control of Bulgar, whose participation has already been surveyed, and Rostov-Suzdal'; it was later taken over by their successor states, the khanates of Kazan' and Muscovy. 86

Moscow's entry into the fur trade

Suzdalia's involvement in the fur trade began in the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, when its princes ejected Bulgar from the upper Volga above Nizhnii Novgorod and also extended their authority northward to the lower Sukhona river through their outpost Ustiug. As Bulgar's exports were reduced to local fur, merchants from Suzdalia joined others from Novgorod to redirect fur, previously sent southward, toward Novgorod and the Baltic trade. From Ustiug Suzdalian authorities were able to exercise control over the fur traffic Novgorod conducted between its northeastern tributaries and its Baltic customers. The Mongol conquest initially disrupted these newly established commercial patterns. Ultimately, however, it reinforced Suzdalia's authority over Novgorod's Sukhona supply route. The conquest itself began with an attack on Riazan', progressed with campaigns against Kolomna and Moscow, and culminated in an attack on Vladimir, then the main city of northeastern Russia. After a five-day siege, during which they also captured Suzdal', the Mongols defeated and destroyed Vladimir. Shortly thereafter their campaign in northeastern Russia ended; they turned southward, devastating Kiev in 1240.1 Although the remaining subjected towns of northeastern Russia were left intact and Novgorod remained unscathed, the Russian centers that had participated in the fur export along the Volga, Dnepr and steppe routes had been destroyed. Just as with Bulgar, the Russian lands were almost immediately required to pay tribute to the Golden Horde. Scattered evidence suggests that at least a portion of the tribute was assessed in fur. Piano Carpini, who traveled through southwestern Russia in 1246, reported the presence of a Saracen (a Muslim merchant acting as a tax collector) in the region. Sent by Guyuk Khan and Batu, the Saracen was drafting men, women, and children for service and taking a census of the remaining population. On the basis of the census, he was also levying a dan', the tribute. According to Carpini, each person was to pay one white bearskin, one black beaver, one black sable, one black fox, and one black skin of an iltis (an animal Carpini did not know, but which was so identified by the Germans and was also known as dochori by the Poles and the Russians).2 Although Carpini's account of the amount of tribute is probably an exaggeration, the assertion that payment was in fur is confirmed by the Voskresenskaia chronicle. A passage in that text indicated that when the Mongols attacked Riazan', they demanded that the princes there turn over one-tenth of everything; "everything" included princes, people, horses, and squirrel fur - black, brown, red, and skewbald.3 The payment of tribute in fur marked a new departure in fur export for the northeastern Russian principalities. Previously the role of the merchants of Rostov-Suzdal' in the fur trade had been limited. By the late twelfth century they were as yet only middlemen in Novgorod's trade network, and 87

Moscow and Kazan': the luxury fur trade

the fur they handled went west as part of Novgorod's supply system. But under the pressure for tribute exerted by the Golden Horde, the towns of northeastern Russia, whose princes ultimately became responsible for collecting and delivering tribute to the Horde, joined Bulgar to become exporters of fur to the south, specifically to Sarai. In the aftermath of the Mongol invasion the town of Vladimir declined. Its surviving population moved from their devastated town to the more northerly towns of the Rostov principality - Rostov, Beloozero, Uglich, Iaroslavl', Ustiug, and Mologa. Despite the efforts of its prince Iaroslav Vsevolodich to restore its population, Vladimir fell into a secondary position while Rostov, whose towns and countryside had escaped direct Mongol attack, remained economically viable. With the influx of population, Rostov became the largest town of northeastern Russia, and the principality became the one that attracted the most direct attention of the new Mongol overlords.4 Its princes also retained possession of Ustiug. That town, through which Novgorod's fur traffic passed, became the key supply center for the fur the northeastern Russians sent to the Mongols. The method of fur procurement is reflected in the location of the headquarters of the baskaki, the Tatar officials who commanded armed military units and were responsible for maintaining internal order and providing support for the tax collectors.5 According to A. N. Nasonov, who based his findings on the location of towns bearing names derived from the term "baskak", the baskak settlements were concentrated not just within the Rostov principality (which would not be surprising since that principality had become relatively densely populated), but were located in a line forming the path that led from Rostov through the Iaroslavl' lands toward Vologda and then along the Sukhona river to Ustiug, which was the headquarters of Buga, a Tatar tax collector.6 The fur traded at and conducted through Ustiug was taxed and sent along the route protected by the baskaki to Rostov. From there it was shipped, probably along the Volga route, to the Horde. Although the baskaki were subsequently replaced by agents of the Russian princes and fur payments were replaced by silver,7 Ustiug and the Sukhona-Vychegda route remained central to the tribute collection system. Through the thirteenth century the city of Ustiug continued to be an important component of the principality of Rostov; when the Rostov principality was divided in 1286 between Prince Dmitrii and his brother Konstantin, the latter received the city of Rostov along with Ustiug while the former acquired Uglich and Beloozero.8 Konstantin even made Ustiug his capital for a brief period.9 The town's political importance was matched by economic prosperity. By 1290 it was wealthy enough to construct a church of such prominence that Bishop Tarasii of Rostov personally went to Ustiug to consecrate it and deliver the expensive gifts of the Rostov princes, an 88

Moscow's entry into the fur trade icon and a bell.10 In the following century Ustiug itself expanded, acquiring lands of its own in Perm'.11 It was in this period that Moscow began to involve itself in the fur trade. It did so by exercising its influence and control over northern supply routes and resources, specifically and initially Ustiug and the Sukhona-Vychegda route. Ustiug's growth, political importance, and prosperity were undoubtedly associated with its location, which made it a pivotal link between Novgorod and its tributaries and trading partners in the northeast. Ustiug was able to intercept and tax Novgorod's fur traffic on the SukhonaVychegda route and use the proceeds, at least in part, for contributions to the Tatar tribute payment. In the 1320s, when the Muscovite princes were aspiring to the Mongol patent for the position of grand prince, it was essential to them that the trade and its associated taxes should flow smoothly. But in 1323, "Novgorodian merchants, returning from the Iugra lands to Novgorod were plundered by the people of Ustiug "In direct response the "Grand Prince Georgii Danilovich" led the Novgorodians in an attack on "Ustiug and plundered it." Then again in 1329 "the people of Ustiug attacked and killed Novgorodian merchants and hunters who were setting out for the Iugra land."12 These episodes confirm that Novgorodians regularly used this route for their fur trade. They also indicate that, like the Rostov-Suzdal' princes before them, the Muscovite princes' interest in maintaining the safety of the Sukhona route through Ustiug was related- to the transport of northeastern fur to Novgorod. Iurii's (or Georgii's) concern was Novgorod's right to safe passage along the route and through Ustiug. Other versions of the report on the 1324 campaign against Ustiug, however, reveal that Iurii had an additional concern; his intervention was aimed at guaranteeing regular collection and payment of funds for the tribute to the Golden Horde. That year the Novgorodians with Grand Prince Iurii Danilovich invaded Zavoloch'e, seized Ustiug and went on to the Dvina. The Ustiug princes sent ambassadors to Prince Iurii and the Novgorodians and concluded peace based on former custom and (agreed) to give tribute (vykhod) as before to the Horde.13 Similarly in 1333 Grand Prince Ivan Danilovich became angry at the people of Ustiug and the Novgorodians because they did not give the tribute (chernyi bor) from Vychegda and the Pechora to the Horde tsar.14 Possibly because of these displays of independence and lack of cooperation, Moscow extended its political authority directly over Ustiug. In 1328, according to a late chronicle report, Ivan Danilovich attached both Rostov and Ustiug to his principality. Other reports indicate that the prince of those 89

Moscow and Kazan': the luxury fur trade

towns, Konstantin Vasil'evich, married Ivan's daughter, and, as a loyal supporter of his father-in-law, linked his lands with Moscow.15 Ustiug, situated at a critical point on the Sukhona-Vychegda trade route, had evidently become responsible, along with the Novgorodian tributecollectors, hunters and traders who dealt with the northeastern fur suppliers, for providing an important portion of the tribute owed to the Golden Horde. like the Rostov princes before them, the Moscow princes, who were trying to secure the position of grand prince and the task of paying that tribute to the Horde, tightened their authority over Ustiug. They used it to ensure the collection of taxes and tolls and/or fur from Novgorod's fur traffic and they thus guaranteed payment of this portion of the tribute.16 Moscow initially became involved in the fur trade in response to Tatar demands for tribute. During the thirteenth and first part of the fourteenth centuries the Russians transported the fur they acquired in the manner described down the Volga past Bulgar to Sarai.17 Even after tribute payments were converted to silver, they continued to export fur along with other northern products by this avenue to their Tatar overlords.18 Some fur accompanied princes and diplomats, who presented it as gifts to Tatar notables. But some was also transported for purely commercial purposes, and was exchanged for salt, silk, spices, gems and silver. Thus along with Bulgar's contributions, Russian fur, ranging from sable to gray squirrel or vair, entered not only the Khan's treasury at Sarai but also the commercial stocks that were re-exported, as discussed in Chapter i, along the Mongols' east-west highway to the Italians and western Europe and also to China and India. MOSCOW S FUR TRADE NETWORK: THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY

Moscow's role in this pattern changed in the second half of the fourteenth century. During that period the Golden Horde weakened, and the Muscovite princes converted and extended their practices related to tribute collection and delivery to create the basis of a fur trade network, centered around Moscow and serving southern as well as European customers. When the Golden Horde began to decline in the second half of the fourteenth century, its control over the north-south trade relaxed. Moscow took advantage of this condition by refusing to make tribute payments to the Horde19 and by expanding its role in commerce. The focus of Moscow's trade at this time probably continued to be Sarai; and its main export route remained the Volga, along which it tried to extend its influence during the late fourteenth century.20 But at the same time it increased its contacts with the Italian merchants of the Crimean colonies, with whom the Russian merchants had initially become acquainted at Sarai.21 Such contacts are 90

Moscow's fur trade network: fourteenth century

reflected in the appearance of the term " gosti-surozhane ", merchants who specialized in trade with Surozh (Sudak), in contemporary episodes recorded in the Russian chronicles.22 In exactly the same period Moscow began to establish its own system of fur supply. Until the middle of the fourteenth century the Russian grand princes relied on Novgorod's fur supply system and the tribute and taxes drawn from it at Ustiug for their own tribute payments and commercial fur exports to Sarai. But from the second half of the fourteenth century, the Muscovite princes secured the title of grand prince. They also acquired control over the trade route through Ustiug as well as the fur tribute paid by northeastern tribes. With those elements they began to create a fur supply system serving Moscow. Tribute collection from non-Russian northern populations became the most important method of fur supply in the Muscovite system. During the first half of the fourteenth century the Muscovite princes had established some claim to the lands of Perm' and Pechora. Prince Ivan Danilovich acquired some specific privileges pertaining to falconing and some seashore enterprises in those northern regions. And one northern chronicle, possibly in reference to that, asserted that Moscow had full control over both the Vychegda-Vym' Perm' and the Pechora in 1333. Other evidence indicates that Prince Dmitrii Ivanovich issued a grant of the Pechora to one Andrei Friazan, certainly implying that the Pechora was his to give away.23 In 1364 Dmitrii reportedly acquired Ustiug along with its possessions in Perm'. Despite these inroads into the area, it was not until the last quarter of the fourteenth century that Moscow extended its authority over the Vychegda Perm', the people dwelling along the Vychegda and Vym' rivers, whom Novgorod had subjected in the twelfth century and whose tribute had later been earmarked for payment to the Horde.24 It did so through the Orthodox Church, particularly through the offices of a monk, who came to be known as Stefan of Perm'. While serving in Ustiug, he reputedly met individuals from Perm' and learned their language.25 In 1379, having received permission from his monastery, he went to the Perm' settlement of Pyros near the juncture of the Vychegda and Dvina rivers, converted the population there, and gradually worked his way up the Vychegda to the mouth of Vym' where he constructed a church.26 In 1383 Metropolitan Pimen in Moscow created a new bishopric of Perm' and appointed Stefan its first bishop.27 The subjugation of the Vychegda Perm' through missionary efforts entailed not only religious conversion but also political recognition of the Muscovite grand prince. The latter was symbolized in part by acceptance of the grand prince as suzerain, acknowledgement of his right to appoint the native princes of the subordinate land,28 and providing troops for his armies.29 But the main obligation of the population was the payment of 91

Moscow and Kazan': the luxury fur trade

tribute to Moscow.30 In this fashion Moscow assumed the tribute from the Vychegda Perm' that had earlier been collected by Novgorod and then had been relegated to the Golden Horde. The process of Christianization and subordination to Muscovy met fierce resistance from some of the Perm' population. Those who objected fled from the Vychegda and Vym' to the Udor and Pinega rivers or to the Pechora river, where they found allies among the Voguly and Iugra populations.31 The refugees and their allies repeatedly attacked Stefan, who died in 1396, and his successors;32 but the pagans' efforts to evict the Christians and regain their lands resulted only in their own exile and flight across the Urals to the Ob' valley.33 Through its expansion to the northeast and its establishment of ties with the Italian merchants of the Crimean peninsula at Sarai, Moscow created the basis for a new fur trade network that would deliver northern sable and other luxury fur to southern consumers. In the following decades, however, the central market that had attracted northern fur southward for over a century declined and fragmented. The Golden Horde, having suffered internal discord through the second half of the fourteenth century and, more significantly, the destructive blows of Timur at the end of the century, disintegrated during the first half of the next century. In its place appeared a series of Tatar khanates: the Crimean khanate, the khanate of Kazan', the khanate of Astrakhan', and the khanate of Sibir'. Moscow's developing fur trade network, as its political organization, had to adjust to this new context created by the khanates that assumed roles affecting the supply, export, and consumption of luxury fur. THE FUR TRADE NETWORKS OF KAZAN' AND MOSCOW: THE FIFTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH CENTURIES

While Novgorod was clinging to its squirrel trade and the methods of fur supply associated with that commodity, Moscow and the khanate of Kazan' gained control over access to the supplies of northern luxury fur. The khanate of Kazan' emerged as an organized political unit on the mid-Volga by the middle of the fifteenth century. It owed its foundation to Ulu Muhammad and his son Mahmutek, who, after abandoning Sarai and the Golden Horde, led their horde to the Crimea, then migrated northward across the steppe to Belev and eastward through Nizhnii Novgorod and Murom to the town of Kazan', which they had established as their center by 1445. 34 The city of Kazan' almost immediately became known as a "towne of great merchandise," and by the time it was conquered in 1552 it had become a major market where thousands of merchants from Bukhara, Shemiakha, Armenia and other Oriental lands assembled.35 The principal 92

Kazan' and Moscow: fifteenth and sixteenth centuries

commercial attraction at Kazan' was its annual fair held on "Merchants' Island," which was located, according to Sigismund von Herberstein, "amidst the waters of the Volga not far from the fortress of Kazan'."36 There a wide variety of merchandise was exchanged. Silks and spices, fish and salt, livestock and rice, nuts and oil, brought from the northern Caucasus, Shirwan and northern Iran, from the steppe nomads, and from Central Asia, were sold for European woolens, Russian linen, leather goods including bridles and saddles, hides, weapons and, again, salt.37 Kazan's commercial success was due in part to its role as transit center, linking Muscovy and Europe on the one hand with Central Asia and the Orient on the other. But Kazan' also made its own contributions to the commercial transactions. Luxury fur from the northeasteramost corner of Europe and from Siberia was chief among them. So when Moscow conquered it, Kazan' was said to be full of rich profits for the army; it was teeming with gold and silver, valuable gems, sables and other great riches.38 Kazan' obtained its fur from the tribes to its north and east. Some of Kazan's fur suppliers, such as its immediate neighbors in Perm' Velikaia and the Udmurts, had previously served Bulgar in a similar manner. In addition to its immediate northern neighbors, Kazan' received fur from the khanate of Tiumen', later the khanate of Sibir', in the east. The khanate of Tiumen' appeared on the mid-Tobol' river, between the Tura and the Tavda, during the second half of the fourteenth century. Initially linked to the Tatars of the Golden Horde, it absorbed the Tatar population of western Siberia and also gained dominance over the population of northwestern Siberia, including those Voguly and Iugra tribes that, at the same time the Tiumen' khanate was forming, were relocating east of the Ural mountains, especially on the Ob' river.39 During the second half of the fifteenth century Ibak, a member of the Uzbek Shaibanid dynasty, asserted his rule over the Tiumen' khanate. Supported by a portion of the Nogai population, Ibak extended the Tiumen' realm. But local Tatars, known as Taibugins, of the mid-Irtysh river challenged this expansion. Despite a marriage alliance between Ibak and the Taibugins, the former was assassinated in 1495. Although his heirs continued to rule at Tiumen', the Taibugins reversed that khanate's expansionist tendencies and instead gathered Tiumen' territory and tributaries around their own center, Sibir'. By the first decade of the sixteenth century the new khanate of Sibir' had absorbed the Tiumen' khanate.40 Under Ibak, Tiumen' and Kazan' forged close relations. Tiumen's involvement with Kazan' was such that in the late 1480s, when Kazan' was experiencing a succession struggle, Ibak was actively committed to one of the contenders for the throne, Ali-Khan. The association between the two khanates was even more dramatically highlighted in 1496, when Mamuk, the brother of the assassinated Ibak and himself a deposed khan 93

Moscow and Kazan': the luxury fur trade

of Tiumen', attempted, with the backing of some Kazan' factions, to install himself as khan of Kazan'; in 1499 his brother Agalak repeated the attempt.41 Kazan'-Tiumen' relations were not only political, but also commercial. Kazan' jealously guarded its exclusive access to Tiumen'-Sibir'. Dominating the Kama river, Kazan' controlled access to the passes across the Urals leading to the Tavda, Tura, and Tobol' rivers and hence to Tiumen'. Although it encouraged Tiumen' merchants to enter its realm by these routes, Kazan' forces strictly forbade Russian use of them to visit Tiumen's markets.42 Siberian luxury fur, particularly sable, was the most prominent item Kazan' received from Tiumen'. Tiumen' in turn obtained its fur supplies from its Voguly and Ostiaki tributaries on the Ob' river.43 Cordial relations, which included the exchange of grain and weapons for sable, were maintained between these tribes and Tiumen'.44 The sable, ermine, fox and other luxury pelts the Ugric tribes sold came into their possession not only through their own hunting, but also through their trade with their own northern Samoed neighbors, the Nentsy. Some of the Ostiaki tribes in particular traded with the Nentsy at specified outposts, exchanging dried fish,fishoil, and deer for sable pelts.45 The Voguly and Ostiaki tribes, by moving across the Urals, had undermined Bulgar's supply network. But by joining their kinsmen, who already inhabited northwestern Siberia, they became important contributors to the commerce of the coalescing Tiumen' khanate and indirectly to that of Kazan'. While the Tatars were consolidating their political and commercial position at Kazan', Moscow was also beginning to expand to the northeast and thereby to multiply its sources of luxury fur. During the second half of the fifteenth century it conducted a series of campaigns against its northeastern non-Russian neighbors. The campaigns encroached upon Kazan's sphere of influence, but resulted in the subjugation of the northeastern populations, an increased volume of sable holdings for the Muscovite treasury, and a more direct, secure fur supply route for Muscovite merchants. The policy affecting the northeast evolved in part from Bishop Stefan's missionary work. But his methods produced results slowly. It was not until 1444 that the population on the Udor river, including refugees from the Vychegda-Vym' region, accepted Christianity from Bishop Pitirim. And when the bishop subsequently turned his attention to the Voguly on the upper Pechora and to Perm' Velikaia, the Voguly responded savagely.46 Led by their chief Asyka and armed with bows and arrows, they floated down the Vychegda river on rafts until they were within ten versts of Ust'vym', the bishop's city. From some inhabitants of the town who happened upon 94

Kazan' and Moscow: fifteenth and sixteenth centuries them the Voguly learned that the town was undefended and that the bishop would be conducting a service on the river bank. The Voguly then camouflaged their rafts with fir and pine branches. The bishop and his congregation did indeed gather on the river, but noticed nothing unusual in the landscape, only ''trees" floating downstream. By the time they recognized the ruse, the defenseless crowd could only flee. Pitirim was assassinated by Asyka.47 Despite the danger, Pitirim's successor Iona continued the missionary activity and was rewarded for his efforts in 1463 when Prince Mikhail of Cherdyn' led the people of Perm' Velikaia in a conversion to Christianity.48 In this case, however, where the population was subject to political, economic, and cultural pressures from both Moscow and Kazan', political subjugation and commercial reorientation to Moscow did not automatically follow religious conversion. In 1472 Grand Prince Ivan ordered the Ustiug commander Fedor Pestryi and the people of Ustiug, Beloozero, Vologda, and Vychegda to make war on Velikaia Perm' because the inhabitants of Perm' had favored the Kazan' Tatars, had honored Kazan' merchants, and been rude to the trading people of the grand prince.49 Only as a result of that campaign did Perm' Velikaia take an oath to the grand prince and agree to pay tribute to Moscow. Mikhail was sent to Moscow, where he was confirmed as the ruler of Perm' Velikaia. Upon his return he collected and sent tribute to Ivan along with gifts that included 640 black sable pelts and a valuable sable coat.50 As this episode illustrates, Moscow was shifting from its reliance on the relatively slow process of missionary work to the surer and swifter techniques of military force as its primary means of subjugating the northern, fur-supplying peoples. Military might had been used previously to support the Perm' bishopric. On more than one occasion armed forces, especially from Ustiug, had been called upon to defend the bishops from the hostile Voguly and Iugra; they had no doubt added to the persuasive power of the Christian faith.51 But to subordinate the Voguly and Iugra, who in the preceding century had responded to Russian pressure not only with aggressive raids but also with flight across the Urals to the Ob' river, military campaigns became the main method of effecting Muscovite policy. The first Muscovite campaign into the wilderness inhabited by the Iugra was undertaken in 1465. That year Grand Prince Ivan Vasil'evich ordered Vasilii Skriaba of Ustiug to make war on the Iugra land. Volunteers went with him, as did Prince Vasilii Ermolich of Vym' with the people of Vym' and Vychegda. The army left Ustiug on May 9. They proceeded to make war on the Iugra land, took many prisoners, and conquered the land for the grand prince. They brought the Iugra princes - Kalpak and Techik - to the grand prince Ivan Vasil'evich in Moscow, and the grand prince granted them the Iugra principality and sent them back to the Iugra, but imposed a tribute on them and on the whole Iugra land 52 95

Moscow and Kazan': the luxury fur trade Significantly, another version of this tale identified the tribute as sable. 53 This campaign did not, however, pacify all the Voguly and Iugra tribes. In 1481 Asyka with his Voguly from Pelym attacked Perm' Velikaia, 54 and in 1483 Grand Prince Ivan sent an army under general Fedor Kurbskii and Ivan SaltykTravin to the Great Ob' against Asyka of the Voguly and against the Iugra; with them went forces from Vologda, Ustiug, Beloozero, Vychegda, Vym', Sysola, and Cherdyn'. There was a battle with the Vogulichi at the mouth of the Pelym river, and the Vogul prince Iushman fled with all his people. The generals of the grand prince went from there down the Tavda river [past Tiumen'] to the Sibir' land, making war as they went, and they went from Sibir' along the Irtysh river down to the Ob' river and made war on the Great Iugra land; they took their prince Moldan prisoner and captured many good prisoners.55 The following year Voguly and Iugra princes approached the grand prince with many gifts, seeking the release of Moldan and the other prisoners. The grand prince agreed to set them free and returned them to the Iugra; and after some mediation by the Perm' bishop Filofei, they also made peace with the population of the Vychegda-Vym' and agreed for the first time to pay tribute to the grand prince. 56 Nevertheless, in 1499 Grand Prince Ivan ordered his generals Prince Petr Ushatoi and Prince Semen Kurbskii and Vasilii Brazhnik to made war against the Iugra land and the Kuda and the Vogulichi; with them went military contingents from Iaroslavl', Viatka, Ustiug, the Dvina, Vaga and Pinega and the princes Petr and Fedor, the sons of Vasilii of Vym' with 700 menfromVychegda, Vym' and Sysola. Prince Petr Ushatoi went with the men from Vologda, the Dvina and Vaga via the Pinega, Kuloi, Mezen', Peza, Chilma [Tsil'ma] to the Pechora river to Pusta and conquered the Samoedtsy for the grand prince. Prince Semon and Vasilii Brazhnik with the men from Viatka, Ustiug and the Vychegda met him here and founded a town for the people of the grand prince. Having spent the autumn, the generals went in different directions from there. The princes Petr and Semen went via the Shelia and Liapina rivers to the Iugra and Kuda, and Vasilii went to Pelym against the Voguly princes. They went on foot the whole winter, seized many fortified places, made war on their lands and brought the disobedient princes to Moscow.57 There they reaffirmed their oath of allegiance to the grand prince and peace was restored. Although faced with occasional uprisings, 58 Moscow had by the end of the fifteenth century reduced the fur-producing tribes of the north to tributary status. The Vychegda and Vym' Perm', the people of Perm' Velikaia, the Voguly and the Iugra as far northeast as the lower Ob' river, and some of the Samoedy and probably the tribe known earlier as the Pechora (Pechera) 59 all made annual payments to Moscow. They made their payments in sable fur. This is evident from the chronicle report that specified that the tribute imposed on the Iugra in 1465 was 96

Kazan' and Moscow: fifteenth and sixteenth centuries to be paid in sable fur. A charter issued in 1485 to the Perm' population of the Vychegda, Vym\ Udor and Sysola lands, verifies that this practice was more widespread. In it Ivan Vasil'evich declared precisely the amounts of sable he expected to receive from those populations. A later decree addressed to a Prince Pevgei of the Sorykad land similarly demanded the payment of tribute at the rate of one sable per person.60 Russian diplomats and foreign visitors to Muscovy in the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries confirm the pattern of fur collection. The Muscovite ambassador to Milan, Georgii Percamota, told his hosts in i486 that his ruler is very powerful, has large possessions and good incomes, exceeding annually a million gold ducats, one gold ducat being equal in value and weight to a Turkish and Venetian ducat [This income was derived in part from] some provinces, particularly pagan, [that] annually pay a large number of sable [and] ermine as tribute 61 Raphael Berberini, during his visit to Moscow in the mid-sixteenth century, similarly noted that the Voguly, Iugra, and Samoedy all paid tribute in fur to the Muscovite treasury; he further attested: I conversed and ate with two such hunters, who were at the court on the occasion of bringing their customary tribute to the ruler. This tribute consisted of various ermine ... as tribute....61 Herberstein also reported that the Iugra paid tribute in fur to Moscow.63 The increased volume of sable tribute secured by the northeastern expansion was a boon for the Muscovite treasury. The expansion also provided an important benefit for Ustiug. That city, as the excerpts quoted above illustrate, supplied the military leadership and a major component of the fighting forces for the drive to the northeast. Their efforts resulted in Russian domination over a trade route that linked Ustiug with the Ob' population via Cherdyn'. The acquisition of this route opened a safer, more direct path to and from Ustiug for both Ustiug merchants and the fur traders from as far away as the Ob' river.64 The routes previously open to the Russians for tribute collection and commercial fur expeditions all also led to and from Ustiug. But they were more northerly and more difficult to traverse. The main route followed the Vychegda upstream to the Vym', then followed that river and its tributaries to the portage to the Ukhta and Izhma and Pechora.65 Another route went down the Dvina to the Pinega and then crossed over to the Mezen', which led to the Peva, Tsil'ma, and the Pechora. From the Pechora the route branched into several paths across the Ural mountains. One led to the Sygva (Liapin) and another led to the Pelym river.66 With the subordination of Cherdyn', a third route, extending from the upper Vychegda to the upper Kama and Cherdyn' provided a more southerly means of crossing the Urals than the route following the Pelym and Tavda rivers. Access to the 97

Moscow and Kazan': the luxury fur trade

Nizhni Novgorod

Map 2 Ustiug's routes to northwestern Siberia

Chusovaia, located even more comfortably to the south, however, remained under the control of Kazan' and Tiumen'-Sibir' until their annexation by Moscow in the sixteenth century.67 By using the new route Ustiug could compete with Kazan' more successfully. Since its foundation Ustiug had been a mart for non-Russian traders, who brought their pelts, often acquired from even more distant tribes, to the Bulgar and Novgorodian merchants there. While Stefan of Perm' was still a monk in Ustiug, he met some of the Perm' individuals who were bringing their fur there from the Vychegda and Vym' rivers. But in the context of Muscovy's conquests, Ustiug became the main Russian 98

Kazan' and Moscow: fifteenth and sixteenth centuries outpost for obtaining commercial supplies of northern luxury fur. Paulus Jovius described it as " the famous Marte towne called Vstiuga, distant from the cheefe citie Mosca vi hundre myles." He went on to explain that Unto Vstiuga, from the Permians, Pecerrians, Inugrians, Vgolicans, and Pinnegians, people inhabytyng the North and Northeast prouinces, are brought the precious furres of Marterns and Sables, also the cases of Woolfes and Foxes both whyte and black; and lykewyse the skynnes of the beastes called Ceruarii Lupi (that is), harte woolfes, beying engendered eyther of a Woolfe and a Hynde, or a Harte and a bytch Woolfe. These furres and skynnes they exchaunge for diuers other wares.68 While much of the fur trade at Ustiug relied on the delivery of pelts by non-Russian traders, Ustiug merchants also conducted lengthy and dangerous expeditions to procure fur. They ventured beyond the territories controlled by Moscow, and, although intercepted by Kazan' Tatars, merchants from Ustiug were trying to reach Tiumen' in 1475. 69 The Stroganov family, even before they moved to Sol'vychegodsk and founded a salt empire, were engaged in the fur trade, probably from a base at Ustiug.70 Other northern towns were also developing into flourishing provincial trade centers, which directed their fur to the central market being formed in Moscow. By the mid-sixteenth century, according to the English merchants who "discovered" northern Russia through the White Sea, Vologda and Kholmogory, in addition to Moscow and Novgorod, were notable fur centers. John Hasse, who accompanied Richard Chancellor to Muscovy in 1554, wrote: The Furres and Fethers which come to Colmogro, as Sables, Beavers, Minkes, Armine, Lettis, Graies, Woolverings, and white Foxes, with Deere skinnes, they are brought thither, by the men of Penninge, Lampas, and Powstezer, which fetch them from the Samoedes that are counted savage people: and the merchants that bring these Furres doe use to trucke with the merchants of Colmogro for Cloth, Tinne, Batrie, & such other like, and the merchants of Colmogro carie them to Novogrode, Vologda, or Mosco, & sell them there.71 Anthony Jenkinson, arriving a few years later, confirmed that Vologda, located on the route connecting Moscow with Ustiug and Kholmogory in the North, was the home of many merchants who owned boats that carried the wares back and forth between those towns. 72 Ustiug, along with the other northern market towns, was an outpost where Russian peasants and non-Russian tribesmen could sell their fur. This fur was subsequently channeled to Moscow. Ustiug thus became central to Moscow's developing fur supply system. By that system the Muscovite treasury collected sable from non-Russian northern tribes as tribute. The system also created a network of northern market centers through which merchants purchased fur from the Russian and non-Russian populace alike, all of whom sold luxury fur and gray squirrel for the cash 99

Moscow and Kazan': the luxury fur trade

they needed to meet their tax obligations, and for tools, cloth, and other items required to ease their harsh existence in the northlands. Moscow's aggressive policies in the northeast, however, provoked hostile reactions from Kazan', which met Muscovite campaigns with counterattacks, particularly on the Ustiug area. Ultimately, Kazan's reactions obliged Moscow to confine its expansionary efforts to periods when Kazan' was hampered by internal disorders.73 In effect, by the end of the fifteenth century Moscow and Kazan' accepted a state of equilibrium, in which they divided control over the northeastern tribes, access to them, and the fur resources they supplied. For Muscovy those resources were obtained by two methods. The treasury received tribute payments, while merchants, centered at Ustiug, obtained the fur commercially. Far less is known about Kazan's actual methods of acquiring its fur supplies. But references such as those cited above to the presence of Kazan' merchants in Perm' Velikaia and to Kazan's attempts to maintain its exclusive access to the trade routes to Siberia suggest that commercial exchange continued to serve as one principal method of fur acquisition even after Muscovy had successfully redirected tribute payments to its own treasury. While Muscovy and the khanate of Kazan' were competing for supplies of luxury fur, the foreign markets they served were multiplying and their export patterns were becoming more complex. In this area too, Moscow and Kazan' seemed to divide the markets until the sixteenth century. One of the most important markets for Moscow was located to its south. In the fourteenth century, when Moscow was first securing its own sources of supply, its fur exports, like those of Bulgar, were directed to the south, down the Volga river to Sarai. By the end of that century, especially after Timur's attack and the destruction of the east-west trade route through Sarai in the 1390s, Sarai's capacity to attract northern fur correspondingly declined. But Muscovite merchants, building upon contacts made under the shadow of Sarai, developed direct trade with the Italian merchants of the Crimean colonies. Little is known of the volume or nature of the Muscovite-Italian exchange. It is clear, however, that by 1474, when extant MuscoviteCrimean khanate diplomatic records begin, caravans with large numbers of Russian merchants were already regularly going through the territory of the Crimean khanate to the Italian colonies. Later references to customs and transit fees paid by the Russians in the pre-Ottoman period confirm the conduct of this trade.74 It may be surmised that the Russian caravans visiting Tana (Azov) and Caffa, which superseded Sudak as the principal Crimean trade center, carried the same northern goods they had previously sold to the Italians at Sarai.75 To reach the Italian colonies the Russians opened new trade routes. 100

Kazan' and Moscow: fifteenth and sixteenth centuries

These routes cut southward across the steppe, which was claimed by both the Crimean khanate and the Great Horde (the core of the Golden Horde); they extended to the port cities of Azov and Caffa.76 To use these routes the Muscovites had to reach an accord with the Crimean khanate. This Tatar state, like Kazan', was an offshoot of the Golden Horde. By the mid-fifteenth century it was led by Hadji-Girey, who had gained the support of Lithuania and then succeeded in becoming khan of the Tatar clans dwelling in the Crimean peninsula and the steppe to the north of it.77 Although the Crimean Tatars were allied with Lithuania, their hostility toward the Great Horde and the basic advantages to be derived from allowing commercial caravans to cross their territory in safety induced them to encourage the Muscovite-Italian trade. In exchange for gifts (pominki) and transit fees distributed to the khan, members of his family, chiefs of the clans, and other notables, Russian merchant caravans were allowed to travel across their territory to the ports. At least three routes were available to the Russian merchants headed for the Crimea - the Donriver;a steppe route that went more directly south to the Oskol river and then followed it to the Donets where the travelers crossed the steppe to reach the Crimea; and a more westerly route that passed through the Seversk lands to Putivl' and then cut across the steppe to Perekop and the Crimean ports. In the late fifteenth century, while the Great Horde continued to harass travelers on the Don and the western route was contained in Lithuania, the direct steppe route was favored, although the others were also in use. 78 Only in the early sixteenth century, after the Great Horde had been destroyed by the Crimean Tatars and Moscow had acquired the northern segment of the western route, did the Don and the western routes begin to displace the steppe route.79 In the mid-fifteenth century the Great Horde frequently raided the Russian borderlands on the mid-Oka and disrupted these routes. The Crimean Tatars, on the other hand, protected them. In 1465, for example, Hadji-Girey attacked the Great Horde while it was massing on the Don for a major expedition against the Russian principalities. He thereby prevented the Horde's campaign and simultaneously safeguarded the steppe route. 80 By the last quarter of the fifteenth century the identity of the southern consumers had changed. In 1475 the Ottoman Turks annexed the northern coast of the Black Sea, evicted the Italians from the Crimean coast, and established their suzerainty over the Crimean khanate. Russian export to the Black Sea ports continued, but was directed from this time on toward Greek, Armenian, and other merchants representing the Ottoman Empire. Russian merchants traveled in large caravans, composed at times of parties of over one hundred merchants, that often accompanied diplomatic embassies to Azov and Caffa.81 101

Moscow and Kazan': the luxury fur trade

To the Crimean ports the Russians carried high quality luxury fur - sable, ermine, marten, northern squirrel, and fox.82 Julius Laetus, who passed through Azov in 1479-80 during his travels from Rome, met the fur merchants, who were selling sable and various types of squirrel that originated in the land of the Iugra.83 In exchange the Russians received a variety of silks and satins, spices, gems, and other luxury goods.84 The trade conducted by the Russian merchants at the Crimean ports and the other Ottoman towns to which some Russian merchants traveled85 was one method of fur export. Another was diplomatic means. Not only did the caravans pay transit fees and deliver gifts of fur to the Crimean khanate, but after 1480, when Ivan III concluded an alliance with Mengli-Girey, the grand prince regularly sent pominki to the Crimean notables. Those gifts were composed of hunting birds, walrus tusks, armor and other northern luxuries, but mainly of precious fur.86 Distributed by the Muscovite ambassadors to the khan and other officials of distinction, according to careful instructions composed in Moscow,87 these gifts were eagerly awaited by their recipients who hesitated neither to make requests for specific "gifts" nor to re-export them as their own offerings to other courts, such as the Ottoman and Egyptian.88 After Ivan III opened diplomatic relations with the Ottomans in 1496, his ambassadors similarly presented gifts of luxury fur to the important officials of the Ottoman court as well as those of the port towns of the Crimea.89 In the last quarter of the fifteenth century northeastern Russian fur export to the south was thus conducted.on the one hand by Russian merchants, who traveled to the Crimean ports and other Ottoman towns beyond and sold their fur for silks, satins, and spices and, on the other hand, by the Muscovite court, which exported fur in the form of diplomatic gifts to the notables of the Crimean khanate and the Ottoman Empire. In a few known instances southern traders went north during this period to purchase fur in Moscow. Mengli-Girey, for example, sent his agent Dmitrii with orders to buy fur in Moscow. On another occasion his agent ordered four squirrel coats and forty sable pelts from a boyar named Konstantin in Moscow, but although Konstantin delivered the fur, the agent, who delivered it to the khan, never paid him.90 Through his repeated reminders to the Russians that his special agents and diplomats should be exempt from paying regular commercial and transit taxes, the Crimean khan has provided evidence that the scale of fur purchases by this mechanism was not insignificant.91 When the alliance between Muscovy and the Crimean khanate decayed and was transformed into a relationship of overt hostility in the first decades of the sixteenth century, the ability of the Muscovite merchants to cross the steppe in safety was limited and Muscovy's trade with southern fur consumers underwent reorganization. Moscow ceased shipping fur to 102

Kazan' and Moscow: fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the Crimean khanate, and its merchants stopped traveling to the south. Instead, purchasing agents representing the Ottomans began making the journey northward to Moscow to purchase fur.92 The first indication of a shift in the trade pattern was recorded in 1515, when the Ottoman governor of Caffa requested permission from Vasilii III for his agent to purchase fur and hunting birds in Moscow. 9' Seven years later the Ottoman court sent an expedition to Moscow to purchase fur.94 The Ottoman court was developing a special interest in acquiring Muscovite luxury fur. Sable, ermine and other types of luxury fur were being used prominently in the court etiquette of the Ottoman Empire. 95 Specific quantities and types of fur were becoming symbols of office and were ceremonially bestowed upon appointees as part of their inauguration into their new offices.96 As fur acquired a stately symbolism and was valued accordingly, the court monopolized Ottoman fur purchases from Muscovy, and the private exchange between merchants of Russia and the Ottoman Empire that had characterized their trade in the late fifteenth century disappeared. The practice of large-scale purchases of luxury pelts for silver and gold by the Ottoman court from the Muscovite treasury developed in its place. 97 Muscovy dominated the export of luxury fur southward to the Crimean khanate and the Ottoman Empire. But it did not command a full monopoly on that trade. Kazan's reputation as a fur center was also well known to those southern consumers. So when Mengli-Girey sent his agent Dmitrii to Moscow to purchase fur, he also instructed his agent to go on to Kazan/ if the pelts were too expensive in Moscow.98 Similarly, Mengli-Girey's wife, Nur-Saltan, wrote to her son, Mahmed Amin, while he was khan of Kazan, to send good black sable to be presented as a gift to the Ottoman sultan Bayazit." Moscow was the primary export center for the southern trade. In this sector of the fur trade network Kazan' participated as a source of commercial supply for Moscow and also a secondary market for the southern consumers. The same arrangement between Moscow and Kazan' prevailed over the European trade. In a complete reversal of the pattern established by the early Rus' and Bulgar, Kazan' became a supplier of luxury fur to Moscow, which in turn exported the pelts to Europe. Trade between Kazan' and Moscow became so important that, despite the misfortunes of those Muscovite merchants who were in Kazan' on occasions when relations did become strained, as happened in 1505, 1 0 0 Vasilii III was able to keep the Kazan' "kings under his sway," according to Herberstein's explanation, because of "the commercial intercourse which they could not dispense with. " 1 0 1 It was through this trade pattern that Kazan' provided "the moste parte of the furres that... [were] carried to Mosco" and hence to Poland, Prussia and Flanders. 102 103

Moscow and Kazan': the luxury fur trade With the decline of Novgorod and the squirrel trade, Moscow became the primary center for fur export to Europe. In Europe, as noted in the last chapter, fashion was once again changing. Already in the late fourteenth century, Richard II had supplemented the English court's purchase of northern squirrel with ermine and marten. By the fifteenth century the English royalty, following a trend probably set by the dukes of Burgundy and imitated all over northern Europe, set a standard for luxury and elegance. This was exemplified by Henry V's acquisition of 625 sable pelts, two sable linings and 20,000 pelts and 113 linings of marten, all within a five-year period (1413-18). Henry VI's personal preference was marten, and the declining quantities of gray squirrel that were purchased during his reign were used for court dependents. Edward IV, however, favored sable and ermine; sable was also prominent in the wardrobes of Henry VII and Henry VIII, who had one gown of damask and velvet embellished with eighty sable pelts and another of black satin with 350 sable pelts. Legislative attempts to restrict the use of the finest fur continued to be ineffective and noblemen as well as wealthy burghers, merchants and craftsmen adopted the new styles favoring sable and other luxury fur.103 Novgorod, which had monopolized trade with Europe in previous centuries, could not satisfy the changing demand with its squirrel supplies. Nor could it successfully regain the luxury fur supplies of the northeast, which were being captured by Moscow. Consequently, while Novgorod was losing the European market, Moscow, better equipped with its supplies of sable from the tribes of the northeast and from Kazan', was able to respond to the new demand. It became the chief center for European purchase of luxury fur. Visitors to that city returned home, spreading tales of "the best kynde of sables and of the finest heare wherewith nowe the vestures of princes are lyned, and the tender neckes of delicate dames are couered " 1 0 4 Merchants were thus inspired to cross the European continent to partake of this finery. The Venetian ambassador Ambrogio Contarini observed that a great many merchants frequent this city from Germany and Poland during the winter, for the sole purpose of buying peltries, such as the furs of young goats, foxes, ermines, squirrels, and other animals; and, although these furs are procured at places many days' journey from Moscow..., they are all brought here where the merchants buy them.105 Georgii Percamota, the ambassador sent to Milan by Ivan III, similarly informed his hosts in i 4 8 6 that foreigners from Germany, Hungary, and Greece frequented Moscow; he pointed out that Germans were beginning to outnumber the others. 106 In Moscow the European merchants found a variety of fur. There they could buy fur from Kazan', which they took back with them to Poland, Prussia, and Flanders. 107 And there they could find sable, ermine, marten, 104

Kazan' and Moscow: fifteenth and sixteenth centuries black and Arctic fox, gray squirrel, wolf (which was popular in Germany), beaver, catskins, and the less popular lynx. 108 Herberstein reported that, although he had never actually seen them, he had "heard of sable skins being seen at Moscow, some of which have been sold for thirty, and some for twenty gold pieces." 109 And he recommended Moscow as the place to purchase fur even though he personally encountered difficulties when the "counsellor of the prince" from whom he sought assistance tried to "obtrude his own skins" upon him. 110 Russian traveling merchants also exported fur to Europe. One group of traders led by Otukh Pavlov of Kolomna and Vasko Kitai of Mozhaisk conducted an expedition in 1488-9 that took them to Putivl'; while they were proceeding to Viaz'ma they were apprehended on the road and detained by the customs officials of Briansk, who confiscated their property. The inventory of the stolen goods included money and wax, a variety of silks and satins, dyes, other miscellaneous goods, their horses, and fur-beaver, otter, ermine, lynx, fox, and squirrel. 111 The merchants had obtained their fur, as they had their silks and satins, in Moscow. About a year later another group of merchants from Tver' went to the fair at Polotsk, then set out for Vil'no. 112 They were intercepted by local officials who demanded 20 Riga rubles as payment for the Smolensk transit duties. The unfortunate travelers were halted again near Vil'no; this time the Vil'no officials, claiming they were collecting the Minsk transit fee, deprived them of one-half of their goods. Arguing that traditionally there had been no Smolensk or Minsk transit fees and that the seizure of money and property was therefore little more than highway robbery, Ivan III through his diplomatic envoys demanded that King Casimir of Lithuania restore the stolen property. Like the goods lost the year before, this property consisted of fur - sheepskins, squirrel, fox, marten, ermine, mink, and sable - as well as fur coats, cash, silks and satins, and other Muscovite goods. The possessions of one of the eight men, Fedko, the son of Ofrei, consisted solely of fur: 13,000 Ustiug and Chuvash squirrel pelts, four squirrel coats, forty marten, forty mink, and fifteen ermine pelts. The others were each transporting a greater variety of goods, but all were transporting some fur to Virno. These merchants, although based in Tver', must have obtained their goods from Moscow, which alone could have been the collection point for squirrel from Ustiug and the Chuvash region, sable and ermine, rare mink as well as Oriental products. The fur exported to Europe from Moscow by European and Russian merchants went overland through Lithuania to Germany. The routes they followed went from Moscow through Smolensk and Mogilev or through Toropets-Velikie Luki-Polotsk to Vil'no, and then went on to Warsaw, Breslau, Leipzig or Frankfurt-am-Main. 113 Much of the fur was sold in these towns. According to Herberstein, "The merchants take the best and 105

Moscow and Kazan': the luxury fur trade selected ones [fur pelts] into Germany and other parts, and derive great profit therefrom." 114 An alternate route brought luxury fur from Moscow to Pskov. From there it was often transferred to local merchants, who under formal treaty guarantees conducted it to Dorpat and there sold it to Livonians, to other Hanseatic merchants, and, when Hansa restrictions could be circumvented, to non-Hanseatic merchants like the Dutch as well. 115 From Dorpat the Muscovite fur followed the traditional Hansa routes to Reval, then to Danzig, Liibeck, Hamburg, and further west to the Netherlands and England. The Europeans purchased their fur and other Russian goods mainly with salt, textiles, herring, metals and metal products and silver, in currency and ingots. 116 Silver was a particularly coveted item among the Russian imports. Ivan III in fact suspended the import of salt at the end of the fifteenth century, hoping, according to I. E. Kleinenberg's quite plausible theory, to force the Germans to pay for their Russian products with silver.117 Although his successor Vasilii III could not maintain the salt boycott, which proved equally damaging to the Russians and Germans, the Muscovites nevertheless succeeded in obtaining a relatively large amount of silver in payment for their exports to Europe. Olrik Elers, the Reval merchant discussed in the previous chapter, paid for his Russian flax, fur, leather, and skins in the 1530s with salt, tin, cloth, and silver; the last item amounted to approximately half of his outlay. 118 The Muscovite court was also responsible.for exporting luxury fur to Europe.119 Precious fur became in the second half of the fifteenth century and first half of the sixteenth a standard item among diplomatic gifts bestowed by the Muscovite grand princes on visiting envoys and sent by them to rulers abroad. When Contarini was finally allowed to leave Moscow after his debts had been settled, Ivan III gave him a coat of ermine skins. 12° and a few years later when Ivan sent Percamota as his envoy to Milan, he sent the duke eighty beautiful, selected sable pelts, two hunting birds, and several live sables. 121 Muscovite ambassadors to Hungary in 1488 presented a black sable whose paws were encrusted with gold and pearls to the king, while those sent to Venice in 1499 similarly bore sable pelts as gifts to the doge. 122 Dmitrii Gerasimov, the Muscovite ambassador who informed Paulus Jovius about Muscovy and who delivered messages and gifts from Vasilii III to Pope Clement VII, was upon his arrival brought to the byshops presence, whom he honoured kneelying with great humilities and reuerence..., and therewith presented unto his holiness certeyne furres of sables in his owne name, and in the name of his prince, and also delyuered the letters of Basilius...123 Ivan IV continued this practice, exchanging fur for the gift of a horse 106

Kazan' and Moscow: fifteenth and sixteenth centuries presented by a Pole124 and sending sable pelts to Queen Elizabeth of England in 1567. 125 Moscow dominated the luxury fur export to the south and to the west. Kazan', however, controlled the export to the southeast. By virtue of its position on the mid-Volga, it played the leading role in the commerce along the lower Volga and on the land routes to Central Asia. The route along the lower Volga river was, in the second half of the fifteenth century, desolate, lacking in provision for travelers, and not entirely safe.126 Nevertheless, it was reactivated for diplomatic and commercial use. 127 For the latter purpose a few Russians ventured beyond Kazan' down the Volga. They included Afanasii Nikitin and his companions (1466) and some Russian merchants, whom Contarini encountered on his journey up the river in 1475-6. 1 2 8 Fur export along this route was conducted primarily by Transcaucasian merchants, who were noted above as visitors to the Kazan' fairs, as well as by Russians and Persians. On the lower Volga, at Astrakhan', they sold some of the sable and other fur they carried downstream to Tatar merchants, who, Contarini observed, went there specifically to buy fur for subsequent sale in Derbent.129 This fur was probably also purchased there by "the Merchants of Media, Armenia and Persia," who, according to Paulus Jovius, maintained "Martes" in Astrakhan'. 130 A passage written by Herberstein clearly reflects Kazan's domination over commercial traffic on the lower Volga. Referring to an incident in 1523, when Grand Prince Vasilii III was engage^ in hostilities against Kazan' and transferred to Nizhnii Novgorod "the fairs which it had been the custom to hold near Kazan', in the Island of Merchants/' Herberstein explained that Vasilii had proclaimed a heavy penalty upon any of his subjects who should in the future go to the island for purposes of merchandise, in the hope that this removal of the fair might prove a great inconvenience to the people of Kazan', that being deprived from buying salt, which they received in large quantities from the Russians at that fair alone, they might be induced to surrender. It happened, however, that by the removal of a fair of this sort, the Russians suffered as much inconvenience as the people of Kazan'; for it produced a scarcity and dearness in many articles, which had been the custome to import through the Caspian Sea from Persia and Armenia by the Volga from the emporium of Astrachan, and especially of the finer kinds offish, amongst which was the beluga, which is taken in the Volga, both on this and the other side of Kazan'.131 Kazan' also played a key role in the trade with Central Asia. Reviving Bulgar's ancient trade patterns, Kazan' received merchants from Bukhara and Khiva and also employed Nogai intermediaries.132 These merchants, who brought cotton materials, silks, and Indian indigo to Kazan',133 had a variety of routes available to them. One, which became the planned itinerary of Anthony Jenkinson, the English explorer and merchant who 107

Moscow and Kazan': the luxury fur trade

traveled from Russia to Bukhara in 1558, involved a land journey from Bukhara to the southeastern shore of the Caspian, a sea crossing to Astrakhan', then a trip upriver to Kazan'.134 Other routes led travelers to Astrakhan' via Saraichik on the northern coast of the Caspian Sea; arriving there by land, some continued from that port by land and others by sea.135 Yet another land route from Bukhara extended to the northwest and crossed the upper Iaik river to reach Kazan'.136 Kazan' may also have traded fur to the Nogai, who brought their herds to Kazan' for sale.137 Although it is not known what they received from the Kazan' Tatars for their livestock,138 it is known that in the mid-sixteenth century the Nogai were requesting ermine from the Muscovite grand prince.139 They may well have earlier received similar goods from Kazan'. Muscovy, however, was also developing its political relations with the people dwelling along the Volga, and in this context it expanded its fur export to them as well. Contarini remarked that the khan of Astrakhan' annually sent ambassadors to Moscow ''mainly to obtain presents;" accompanying his ambassadors were caravans of Tatar merchants who brought silk manufactured at Yezd, fustian stuffs, and horses to exchange for fur, saddles, swords, and bridles.140 A similar pattern was followed by the Great Horde, when not at war with Muscovy, until itsfinaldisintegration in 1502. In 1474, when the Muscovite ambassador Nikifor Pasenkov returned from the Horde, he was accompanied not only by Tsar Ahmad's ambassador, but by 600 official diplomatic personnel and 3,200 merchants who brought over 40,000 horses and other goods to sell in Moscow.141 A similar situation prevailed in the first half of the sixteenth century in the Muscovite-Nogai trade. The Nogai, after 1520, drove large herds of horses from the steppe to Moscow for sale.142 From the Russians they requested and received a variety of goods, ranging from grain and metal utensils to dyes, paper, and cloth; they also received luxury fur. Ermine, as noted, was specifically mentioned in a diplomatic request addressed to the grand prince.143 Muscovy's fur export to the peoples of the southeast, the steppe nomads of the Great Horde, Astrakhan', and the Nogai, was conducted, as was its trade to the south, by both merchants and the treasury. But in this case the steppe populations bore the responsibility for delivering their goods to Moscow; only a few Muscovite merchants, impeded by Kazan', traveled to the nomads. Until the mid-sixteenth century Muscovite export in this direction extended no further than Astrakhan' and the Nogai. Astrakhan', like Kazan', served as a transit center where merchants from the Caucasus, northern Iran, and Bukhara could obtain northern fur. Only when Moscow annexed those two khanates did it integrate the southeastern trade with the other segments of the luxury fur trade and become the directing center for the entire fur trade network. 108

Kazan' and Moscow: fifteenth and sixteenth centuries

By the middle of the sixteenth century Moscow was exporting fur to Europe in the west, the Ottoman Empire in the south, and the Astrakhan' Tatars and the Nogai in the southeast. It had displaced Novgorod as Russia's chief fur trade center for Europeans, and with the conquest of Kazan' in 1552, it absorbed the latter's export trade to Iran and Central Asia as well. Moscow had entered the fur trade in order to deliver tribute to the Golden Horde and thereby enhance the political situation of its princes. When the Golden Horde disintegrated, Moscow expanded its role, securing fur resources and developing direct commercial ties with southern consumers first the Italian merchants of the Crimean colonies and later the Tatars of the Crimean khanate and the Ottoman Turks. But when the Golden Horde disintegrated, it spawned successor states, including the khanate of Kazan'. Kazan' competed with Moscow in various areas, including the realm of the fur trade. The two interacted commercially; and Kazan' served as a transit center between Moscow and the southeast as well as a supplier of Siberian fur for the Muscovite market. But Muscovite expansion to the northeast in the fifteenth century reduced Kazan's sources of fur supply. And by the sixteenth century Muscovy was also attracting the southeastern consumers served by Kazan' directly to Moscow. In the middle of the sixteenth century, when Moscow politically subordinated Kazan', it also gained control over those segments of the fur trade still dominated by its competitor. At that time the Muscovite merchants and the Muscovite treasury were served by a supply system that collected fur through tribute payments from subordinated non-Russian tribes as well as through commercial exchanges with those same tribes and northern Russian peasants. The fur was channeled through northern provincial outposts, principally Ustiug, to Moscow, which became the hub of the international fur trade. Moscow had taken over the supplies and customers of its chief competitors, Novgorod and Kazan', which it also politically annexed. In the process it reunified the distinct trade practices and patterns pursued by Novgorod and Bulgar-Kazan' and fashioned them into a single fur network, centered at Moscow, which eclipsed and absorbed those of its rivals. Moscow became the sole market center controlling the basic elements of a fur trade network that had been evolving for more than six centuries. Moscow had monopolized the fur trade.

109

THE POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FUR TRADE The preceding examination of the fur trade networks centered around Bulgar, Kievan Rus', Novgorod, and Moscow and Kazan' has identified the main sources, routes, and mechanisms of fur supply as well as the major markets and export routes in each network. That examination has also traced the transfer of control over these elements from one center to another. In order to determine how they occurred, the present chapter will consider the political and military episodes that were responsible for the transfers. It also provides the basis for another observation: the same episodes that resulted in the transfer of control over critical elements of the fur trade network yielded important results affecting the political ascendancy successively of Kievan Rus\ Suzdalia, and Muscovy over their political and commercial rivals, Bulgar, Novgorod, and Kazan'. Recognition of the elements of the fur trade networks and the means by which control over them was transferred lends a new dimension to the understanding of incidents associated with the territorial expansion and political consolidation of the Rus' states. In some of the reviewed cases the commercial gains made by the challenging polity seem to be secondary results of predominantly political struggles. In other cases, however, the priorities appear to be reversed or at least merged. The purpose of this chapter is not to prove decisively that control over the fur trade, or even more broadly commercial concerns, took precedence over political objectives in the series of episodes to be reviewed. It is, however, to demonstrate that those conflicts that significantly affected the territorial expansion and political growth of these dynamic, aggressive Russian states were regularly also the mechanisms by which control over fundamental elements in the fur trade network was transferred from one center to another. The consistency of this relationship indicates that the political success of each of these polities and its establishment of control over essential elements in the fur trade were interconnected, even if the direction of causality in the relationship is at times indeterminable.

no

Kievan Rus' KIEVAN RUS'

The political and military adventures of the Kievan Rus' princes demonstrate in a general manner the coincidence of political and commercial objectives and outcomes. The establishment and consolidation of Rus' political authority involved confrontations with Khazaria, the Byzantine Empire, and the steppe nomads. In a parallel fashion, Riurikid control over the fur trade network of Kievan Rus', which consisted of the export of luxury fur to Caspian and Black Sea markets, depended upon the ability of the Rus' princes to obtain regular supplies of luxury fur from their tributaries and to command use of the export routes to those Caspian and Black Sea market centers. The Riurikid princes secured their fur supplies, their right to use the export routes, and certain trading privileges through a series of confrontations with their neighbors: Khazaria, the Byzantine Empire, and the steppe nomads, the same rivals they confronted in their political struggle for control over the Kievan Rus' territories. Khazaria was thefirstrivalthe emerging state of Kievan Rus' challenged. As early as the ninth century, when they established themselves in the city of Kiev, the Rus' began encroaching on the Khazarian realm. The legendary account of the seizure of Kiev by Askol'd and Dir, contained in the Povest' vremmenykh let or Primary Chronicle, explicitly indicates that the inhabitants of the city, descendants of its founder, "were... tributaries of the Khazars."1 Displacement of Khazar suzerainty by the Rus' marked the beginning of a rivalry for control over Khazaria's tributaries. Subsequent stages in the expansion of the Kievan state resulted in continued displacement of the Khazars. In 884, when Prince Oleg conquered the Severiane and imposed tribute on them, he forbade them to make further tribute payments to the Khazars. The following year he likewise ordered the Radimichi to pay him the tribute they had previously been giving to the Khazars.2 Eighty years later, in 964, Prince Sviatoslav went to "the Oka and the Volga, and on coming in contact with the Viatichi, he inquired of them to whom they paid tribute. They made answer that they paid a silver piece per ploughshare to the Khazars."3 Two years later " Sviatoslav conquered the Viatichi, and made them his tributaries."4 The subordination of these tribes contributed to the political expansion of Kievan Rus' and contraction of Khazaria. It was also precisely the subjugation of these tributaries that provided the regular supplies of black marten and other luxury fur that enabled the Kievan princes to participate in the export trade to both the Caspian and Black Sea markets. The process of political expansion, undertaken partially at Khazaria's expense, was also the process by which Kievan Rus' acquired its regular supply of commercial fur. The Rus' challenge to the Khazars was not limited to the seizure of the in

The political significance of the fur trade

city of Kiev and the gradual encroachment upon the empire through the absorption of its tributaries. The Rus' also challenged Khazar control over access to the Caspian Sea and trade with the Muslim East. During the ninth century the Rus' had used the route that descended the Dnepr, followed the northern coast of the Black Sea to the shores of the Crimean peninsula, proceeded to the mouth of the Don, then went up that river to the Volga portage and down the Volga to Ml' and the Caspian Sea. Acquisition of Kiev enabled the Rus' to monitor river traffic moving southward down the Dnepr toward the Black Sea. It provided the Rus' with greater control over a segment of the export route leading to the Black Sea, which served both the Byzantines and Ml'. Another segment of the route, that portion leading from the Don to Ml', as well as an extension of the route beyond Ml' across the Caspian, remained in the hands of the Khazars. Attempts to secure the right to use that route for commercial expeditions brought the Rus' once again into conflict with the Khazars. According to Ibn Khurradadhbih and Ibn al-Fakih, the Rus' had in the ninth century gone beyond the Caspian to Rey and even to Bagdad. But by the end of that century the Rus' who did venture into the Caspian were pirates who raided the southeastern and southern coasts of the sea, not merchants who peaceably traded there. 5 At the same time the Rus' were securing fur supplies, they were also staging raids on the Caspian coast. Such ventures occurred in 880 and 909-10. In 913-14 the Rus' conducted another predatory expedition. But this time they entered the Caspian Sea with the permission of the Khazar kagan, with whom they had promised to share their booty. According to an account left by al-Mas'udi, the Rus' raided all along the Caspian coast and as far inland as ...three days' journey from the sea. They shed blood, plundered property, made children prisoners, and sent out predatory and incendiary corps in all directions. The inhabitants of the coast of this sea were thrown into consternation, for they had never had to contend with an enemy from these quarters; for the sea had only been frequented by peaceful traders and fishing boats The Russians [Rus'] landed on the coast of Naptha Country,... (Baku), [which] belongs to the kingdom Shirwan-shah. On their return from the coast, the Russians landed in the islands which are near the Naptha Country As the merchants sailed in boats and vessels in pursuit of their commercial business to those islands, the Russians attacked them; thousands of Moslims [Muslims] perished, and were partly put to the sword, partly drowned. The Russians remained several months in this sea — When they had made booty and captives, they [the Rus'] sailed to the mouths of the river of the Khazar (Wolga), and sent a messenger with money and booty to the king, in conformity with the stipulations which they had made. The king of the Khazar has no ships on this sea, for the Khazars are not sailors; if they were, they would be of the greatest danger to the Moslims. The Larisians and other Moslims in the country of the Khazar heard of the conduct of the Russians and said to their king: "The Russians have invaded the country of our Moslim brothers; they have shed 112

Kievan Rus' their blood and made their wives and children captives, as they were unable to resist; permit us to oppose them." As the king was not able to keep them quiet, he sent messengers to the Russians, informing them that the Moslims intended to attack them. The Moslims took the field and marched against them, going down the banks of the river. When both parties saw each other, the Russians left their vessels and formed their battle array opposite the Moslims. In the ranks of the latter were many Christians of Itil' The number of the Moslim army was about fifteen thousand men, provided with horses and equipments. They fought three days, and God gave victory to the Moslims; they put the Russians to the sword, others were drowned, and onlyfivethousand escaped; who sailed (first) along the bank of the river, on which Bortas is situated; (then) they left their vessels and proceeded by land. Some of them were slain by the inhabitants of Bortas, and others came into the country of Targhiz [Bulgar], where they fell under the sword of the Moslims. There were about thirty thousand dead counted on the banks of the river of the Khazar. The Russians did not make a similar attempt after that year.6 Despite al-Mas'udi's last assertion, the Rus' did conduct other expeditions into the Caspian Sea. In 943 or 944 they sailed again to the coast of Azerbaijan, then proceeded up the Kura river to Bardaa, which they captured. Muslim attacks and disease, however, weakened the Rus' and forced them to depart. Rus' activities in the Caspian Sea in the ninth and tenth centuries were basically piratical raids. As al-Mas'tidi and the Khazar ruler Joseph indicated, the Khazars did their best to prevent the Rus' from entering the Caspian in any capacity. When the Rus' did manage to force their way into that sea, they ravaged the coastal populations. The raids may also be interpreted as attempts on the part of the Rus' to pressure the Khazars into restoring to them the right to travel and trade in Caspian waters on a regular basis. Such an objective would be consistent with that pursued by the Rus' at the same time in Constantinople. Through their dealings with the Khazars and raids on the Caspian coast, however, the Rus' had not by 943 made any permanent gains in the Caspian region.7 Then in 965 Sviatoslav of Kiev: sallied forth against the Khazars. When they heard of his approach, they went out to meet him with their prince, the Kagan, and the armies came to blows. When the battle thus took place, Sviatoslav defeated the Khazars and took their city Bela Vezha. He also conquered the Iasi and Kasogi.8 The capture of Bela Vezha or Sarkel,9 the fortress guarding the approach to Itil' from the Black Sea, transferred a strategic point along the Black Sea-Don-Caspian route to Rus' control. But, unexpectedly, the victory over the Khazars brought about the disintegration of their empire. Khazaran, Itil', and Semender (located between Itil' and Derbent) were all destroyed. Khazar authority over access to the lower Volga and the Caspian disappeared.10 The collapse of Khazaria provided an opportunity for the Rus' to expand 113

The political significance of the fur trade

southeastward and establish themselves on the Caspian Sea. But the Rus' failed to replace the Khazars in either capacity. Their campaign against Bulgar in 985, although militarily successful, neither subordinated Bulgar nor opened its lock on the middle Volga to Rus' passage.11 Neither did the Rus' inherit Khazar territory or responsibilities on the lower Volga. Their legacy was limited to Tmutorokan' (Samkarsh), a center inhabited mainly by Jewish merchants and located at the entrance to the Sea of Azov. Rus' entry to the Caspian Sea was, furthermore, barred by other powers, such as the Shirwan-shah, who had filled the political void left by the Khazars. Subsequent Rus' activities in the Caspian were limited to occasional mercenary and plundering expeditions. They appeared in 987 and 989 as mercenaries aiding an amir of Derbent. In 1029, "the Rus' entered Sharvan [Shirwan],'' made their way past the Shirwan-shah and his forces, who tried to stop them near Baku, and then sold their services to " the lord of Janza (Ganja)" to suppress a local revolt. Two years later a Rus' band conducted a devastating raid on Shirwan, but were intercepted and defeated as they tried to escape with their rich booty. "Then the Rus' and the Alans (returned) with the intention of revenge... [but] God let victory descend on the Muslims and wrought great havoc among the Alans and the Rus'...and the infidels' greed for these Islamic 'Centres' was extinguished absolutely."12 Despite the absolute cure of their greed, in 1035, when the Ghaznevid amir Masud was in Amol and Abaskun on the southern shore of the Caspian, members of his court "saw Rus/ ships, which appeared from all directions and passed by."13 This, however, is the last entry in the Islamic texts on Rus' activity in the Caspian Sea. After the decline of Khazaria, no power was able to control the entrances to the Caspian sofirmlythat the Rus' were completely barred from it. Nevertheless, the Rus' appearances on the Caspian remained occasional and they continued to perform as mercenaries and pirates. The Rus' did not establish regular, peaceful commercial relations with the inhabitants of the Caspian's shores. In the ninth and tenth centuries the Rus' presented a political challenge to Khazaria. During that period they evicted the Khazars from Kiev, replaced them as the suzerian of many tributary tribes, and ultimately destroyed Khazaria's political might. The same process also yielded to the Rus' control over regular fur supplies, over Dnepr river traffic, and over the Black Sea-Don river approach to the Caspian. Nevertheless, the Rus' did not gain from their contest with Khazaria access to the Caspian Sea. By 1035, after a number of raids on its southern shores, they had given up the attempt. The Rus' ceased using the route connecting the Black Sea and the Caspian14 and relied instead on intermediaries trading at Bulgar to conduct their goods down the Volga to the Caspian and the Muslim East. 114

Kievan Rus' The Rus' were more successful in their attempts to control the Dnepr river and enlarge their role in the trade with the Byzantine Empire. The legend of Askol'd and Dir indicates that the original goal of those two adventurers had been to reach Constantinople. Their acquisition of Kiev constituted the first step toward that goal. The next phase took place in 860. According to the chronicle report, dated 866, they " attacked the Byzantine capital... "while another campaign was absorbing the emperor's attention. The Rus', "arriving inside the strait,...made a great massacre of the Christians, and attacked Constantinople in two hundred boats " Presumably in answer to the Byzantines' prayers, " a storm of wind came up, and.. .threw [the boats of the 'godless Russians'] upon the shore and broke them up, so that few escaped destruction. The survivors returned to their native land." 15 After this failure Russo-Byzantine interaction was apparently confined to Cherson, where the trade described by Ibn Khurradadhbih and Ibn al-Fakih was conducted. Subsequent Rus' leaders continued striving to achieve the same goal. The chronicle entry of 882, relating the story of how Oleg killed Askol'd and Dir and established his capital at Kiev, implies that at about this time the length of the Dnepr route between Novgorod and Kiev was under solitary control. 16 Then, as had Askol'd and Dir before him, Oleg launched a campaign against the Byzantine Empire. In 907 he attacked Constantinople with a force of 2,000 vessels. Finding the Bosphorus barred, he beached his fleet, then plundered the area around Constantinople and reached the city itself.17 The outcome of this venture was the conclusion of the treaties of 907 and 911, which regulated trade between the Rus' and the Byzantines. Rus' merchants gained the right to trade in Constantinople, and for the duration of their six-month stays they would be supplied with food and baths. They would also be given provisions for their return journeys. The Byzantines added certain stipulations: If the Rus' come hither without merchandise, they shall receive no provisions. Your prince shall personally lay an injunction upon such Rus' as journey hither that they shall do no violence in the towns and throughout our territory. Such Rus' as arrive here shall dwell in the St. Mamas quarter. Our government will send officers to record their names, and they shall then receive their monthly allowance, first the natives of Kiev, then those from Chernigov, Pereiaslavl', and the other cities. They shall not enter the city save through one gate, unarmed and fifty at a time, escorted by an agent of the Emperor. They may conduct business according to their requirements without payment of taxes.18 With this victory Oleg won the right for Rus' merchants to extend their journeys beyond the northern shore of the Black Sea to Constantinople, where they could trade, duty-free, with Greek and other merchants. The treaty of 911 remained in force for about thirty years. In 941 and 944 the Rus' again launched attacks on the Byzantine Empire. Although

The political significance of the fur trade

thefirstwas a total failure, the second resulted in a new treaty (945) which restored commercial relations, but denied the Rus' their duty-free status.19 Later in the century the Kievan Rus' once again attacked a Byzantine port. This attack was aimed at the Crimean outpost of Cherson, and occurred in conjunction with Prince Vladimir's marriage to Anna, the sister of the Byzantine emperor, and also with the Rus' conversion to Orthodoxy. The tale surrounding Vladimir's attack on Cherson indicates that his purpose was to pressure the emperor into honoring his pledge to give his sister in marriage. According to J. Shepard, however, Cherson during the late tenth century was a Byzantine commercial center serving primarily the Pecheneg trade. The sack and destruction of Cherson thus eliminated the Pechenegs as rivals for the transmission of Byzantine goods northward and gave the Rus' a virtual monopoly on the conduct of northern trade with Byzantium.20 The aggressive acts of the Rus' toward Byzantium clearly served the interests of Rus' trade, including the trade in fur. In contrast to their Caspian adventures, Rus' raids on Constantinople resulted in an extension of their trading privileges, specifically access to the Constantinople market. Thus, by the mid-tenth century the Riurikid princes not only securely held Kiev, but they controlled the Dnepr river from Kiev northward, the portage to the Lovat' river, Lake Il'men and Novgorod. And they also had secured the right to travel beyond the northern shore of the Black Sea to Constantinople. In addition, their military pressure on Byzantine ports had reduced the commercial role of the Pechenegs^ Rus' successes resulted in the establishment of their control over a combination of elements in the trade network that enabled the Kievan princes to transport their supplies of northern luxury fur, as well as other northern products, southward and market them at Constantinople. The political aspect and advantage of Rus' adventures against Byzantium are less direct. Nevertheless, improved relations with Byzantium, Byzantine acquiescence in the establishment of the Rus' as their primary northern trading partners, and the import of Byzantine culture, including Orthodoxy as well as of material products, all lent the Kievan princes prestige and respectability that, however intangibly, helped them consolidate their political position in the lands of Rus'.21 As the Cherson incident implies, Rus' relations with the steppe nomads also influenced their commercial activities and political position. At the end of the ninth century Pecheneg tribes, migrating westward into the steppe north of the Black Sea, had pushed the Magyars out of the area. The Primary Chronicle recorded the first appearance of the Pechenegs in Rus' territory under the year 915, at which time they concluded a peace agreement with Igor.22 For the next half century relations between the Pechenegs and the Rus' were peaceful.23 It was against that background 116

Kievan Rus'

that the Kievan Rus' developed their commercial relations with Constantinople and attempted to establish themselves in the Caspian. Only after the Khazar kaganate fell, allowing new Pecheneg tribes to cross the Don, did the nomads demonstrate hostility toward the Rus'. They staged attacks, such as those described in the chronicle in 968 and 982, on Kiev. And, involving themselves in interprincely feuds, they participated in the power struggle following Sviatoslav's death in 972 and preceding Vladimir's accession to the throne, as well as in the disputes after Vladimir's death.24 The upsurge in hostilities may have contributed to Vladimir's decision to destroy Cherson, the market serving the Pechenegs. Probably more critical to the Rus', however, was the Dnepr trade route. When the Pechenegs were hostile, they directed their raids not only at Kiev, but, as Emperor Constantine indicated, at Rus' river fleets descending the Dnepr. It was essential for the Rus' to keep the Pechenegs pacified simply because they could not "come at [the] imperial city of the Romans either for war or trade unless they [were] at peace with the Pechenegs "As Emperor Constantine explained, the Pechenegs could easily attack the Rus' while they were carrying their boats and cargo on land around the series of "barrages" that broke the course of the lower Dnepr. While the Rus' were ' 'lifting] their ships off the river and carrying] them past by porting them on their shoulders,... the Pechenegs set upon them, and, as they cannot do two things at once, they are easily routed and cut to pieces."25 Thus, despite some dramatic and not infrequent exceptions, the Pechenegs and the Rus' did maintain the peace for sufficiently long periods to conduct trade with each other and for the Rus' to sail flotillas on a fairly regular basis down the Dnepr to Constantinople. Relations between the sedentary population of Kievan Rus' and the steppe nomads became severely strained in the second half of the eleventh century when the Polovtsy displaced the Pechenegs in the steppe. From their first attack on the Rus' in 1061, the Polovtsy engaged in wars with the Kievan Rus' that lasted into the early thirteenth century. In this case, even more clearly than with the Pechenegs, a major factor in the conflict was the Dnepr trade route. One of the Polovtsy's primary targets was the lower Dnepr waterway, which at times they were able to close completely to Rus' traffic.26 An examination of the chronicle reports of the Polovtsy attacks on the Rus' during the second half of the eleventh century shows that, with the exception of those forays made in conjunction with their ally Oleg Sviatoslavich, the Polovtsy directed their attacks on points along the Dnepr below Kiev. At least two of the major campaigns were conducted in the spring, when the Rus' would have been beginning their commercial expeditions down the Dnepr and, therefore, when the raids would have been most detrimental to river traffic.27 From 1103, however, the Rus' took the offensive against the Polovtsy. 117

The political significance of the fur trade

The arena of conflict then became broader as the Rus' advances extended as far as the Don river.28 It appears from the evidence of successful trade activity discussed in Chapter 2 that during the twelfth century the Rus' once again gained superiority over the lower Dnepr and were able to use the route for their continued transport of fur and other goods to Constantinople. Rus' relations with the steppe nomads, the Pechenegs and the Polovtsy, are consistent with a policy designed to keep the lower Dnepr export route open. The Rus' favored peaceful relations with the Pechenegs; and when confronted with the more aggressive Polovtsy, the Rus' attempted to intercept their attacks before the Polovtsy reached and closed the Dnepr. When it became possible, the Rus' assumed the offensive, forced the Polovtsy away from that waterway, and redeveloped the trade with Constantinople. The Kievan fur trade network was constructed on the basis of the outcome of its political clashes with its neighbors. The conflicts that characterized relations between Kievan Rus' and its neighbors from the ninth through the twelfth centuries had not only political significance, but had direct impact on the Rus' role in the fur trade. This is most evident in the Rus' challenges to the Khazar Empire, which resulted in the subordination of tributaries and consequently in the creation of a mechanism assuring a regular supply of fur. Other Rus' clashes with the Khazars, the Byzantines, and the steppe nomads affected Rus' access to export routes and foreign markets. The commercial benefits derived from the success of such ventures were not exclusive to the fur trade, but affected the trade in slaves, honey, and wax as well as the ability of the Rus' to control the import of Byzantine products. Nevertheless, the general commercial advantages obtained through negotiated treaties following military clashes, especially with the Byzantines and the steppe nomads, and later utilized in the development of extensive commercial interaction, indicate that commercial concerns were not divorced from political and military aggression. Further, the fact that the princes' efforts, which resulted in improving the general commercial position of Kievan Rus', were accompanied by efforts to secure regular and reliable supplies of fur for Rus' export suggests that the Rus' princes were neither unaware of nor indifferent to the positive impact their political activities would have on their role in the fur trade. SUZDALIA

The primacy of fur becomes more apparent as the successors of Kievan Rus', engaged in their own struggles of political supremacy, also acquired control over elements identified as components of the fur trade network. 118

Suzdalia

In their cases, however, those elements - sources of supply and fur supply routes - were specific to the fur trade. Even as Kievan Rus' persisted in its efforts to maintain the Dnepr trade in the twelfth century, it was fragmenting politically. Suzdalia, including the principalities of Rostov, Suzdal', and Vladimir, was gaining power. Suzdalia's political growth was related to its own geographic expansion, which involved capturing control of the upper Volga river from Novgorod and Bulgar. Its expansion resulted in direct conflicts with Novgorod and Bulgar; it also entailed a challenge to Kievan supremacy in the Rus' lands. Suzdalia's victory was marked by Kiev's demise as the political center of the Rus' principalities at the end of the twelfth century. It was also marked by the transfer to Suzdalia of Novgorod's and Bulgar's main fur supply routes. For a century after Vladimir's attack on Bulgar in 985 peace reigned between Bulgar and the Russians. It was broken only in 1088 when there were robbers on the Volga and the Oka and they plundered and killed many Bulgar merchants. The Bulgars sent word to Oleg and his brother laroslav asking [them to take action] against the robbers. But receiving no justice, they went with their armies, seized and plundered Murom and burned the villages.29 Bulgar broke the peace not out of aggressive or expansionist motives, but because its trade, evidently its chief concern in relation to the Rus', had been interrupted. Shortly thereafter the lands of northeastern Rus' came under the rule of the sons of Vladimir Monomakh, who received the Rostov-Suzdal' region after the death of Grand Prince Vsevolod in 1093. By that time Rostov had come to include the territory along the upper Volga from Iaroslavl' to the Medveditsa river; it extended southward from Iaroslavl' to the mouth of the Nerl' river; and it contained Beloozero. Vladimir placed his son Mstislav in Rostov-Suzdal'; then when Mstislav moved to Novgorod, one of his younger brothers replaced him. Vladimir appointed yet another of his sons, Iziaslav, to Murom. 30 Although the Vladimirovichi later lost Murom to their rivals, the Sviatoslavichi, they retained Rostov-Suzdal', which they successfully defended against a Sviatoslavichi invasion.31 As the Vladimirovichi consolidated their position in Rostov-Suzdal', however, antagonisms with both Bulgar and Novgorod developed. These were manifested first in 1107, when Bulgar forces attacked Suzdal' while its prince was participating in a joint campaign of the Rus' princes against the Polovtsy.32 In 1120 Prince Iurii, who by then was the prince in the Rostov lands, retaliated by attacking Bulgar territory. 33 Then, after a thirty-two-year truce, Bulgar, once again choosing a time when Iurii was engaged elsewhere and had left his realm relatively unprotected, attacked Iaroslavl', the easternmost town of the Rostov principality on the Volga.34 119

The political significance of the fur trade

Novgorod's relations with Rostov-Suzdal' followed a parallel pattern in the first half of the twelfth century. In the Novgorodian case political considerations, including Novgorod's assertion of the right to select its own prince, the rivalry among Novgorodian political factions, each of which favored a different branch of the princely family, and the associated competition between Suzdal' and Kiev for influence over Novgorod through this position, played a central role in its relations with Suzdalia.35 The role of commercial interests as a factor governing Novgorod's actions toward Bulgar must not, however, be disregarded. This is signaled by the fact that Novgorod's basic posture toward Rostov-Suzdal' was so similar to that of Bulgar, Novgorod's trading partner. Novgorod's measured hostility erupted in 1134 when its armies under Prince Vsevolod Mstislavich engaged in an unsuccessful attack on Suzdal' and again a decade later when in 1146 the Novgorod forces followed Prince Sviatopolk in another attack on Suzdal'.36 After Novgorod's archbishop failed to negotiate a peace settlement in the following year, Iaroslav, who was then the ruler in Novgorod, received aid from his father Iziaslav, the grand prince of Kiev, and attacked the Rostov lands again. The campaign of 1148 brought the Novgorod army all the way down the Volga river to Iaroslavl', the object of Bulgar's attack on the Volga river route.37 The parallel nature of the behavior of Bulgar and Novgorod toward Rostov-Suzdal' suggests that the two were reacting to a single provocation. An examination of the episodes provides some clues concerning the nature of the provocation. The sources do not- identify the issue of the conflict between Bulgar and Rostov. Bulgar, however, had refrained from quarreling with Rostov before the Vladimirovichi arrived, when the region was chronically poorly defended. Its aggression cannot, therefore, be attributed to simple opportunism, taking advantage of the absence of the prince and his retinue. Furthermore, before 1120, when Prince Iurii launched his first offensive against Bulgar, Rostov-Suzdal' had committed no recorded act of aggression or hostility against Bulgar or its tributaries or neighbors. The incident of 1088, however, points to one factor that could provoke Bulgar to use force - interference with its trade. Extrapolating from that incident, it is plausible that the motivation for Bulgar's attack in 1107 stemmed from an affront to persons from Bulgar who were within Rostov-Suzdal's boundaries, namely Bulgar's merchants, or from interference by the new Rostov princes in Bulgar's trade on the upper Volga. The version of the 1148 incident in the Hypatian text supports this hypothesis by quoting Iziaslav declaring as his justification for attacking Rostov: "Giurgii [Iurii] of Rostov is offending my Novgorod, has taken tribute away from them, and breathes insults on their trade " 38 Iurii's "insult" to Novgorod's trade would very likely have been an affront to Bulgar's as well. Two other factors further support this interpretation. Thefirstis the fact 120

Suzdalia

that during this period the Rostov princes were also tightening their control over Beloozero, the eastern end of the homeland of the Ves\ the other participants in the fur trade along the upper Volga river. The precise time of the incorporation of Beloozero into Rostov is disputed. According to the Riurik legend, Beloozero was associated with Novgorod in the ninth century. A. N. Nasonov has argued that it then became a possession of Rostov in the first half of the eleventh century; others, however, have maintained that it was transferred from Novgorod to Rostov only at the end of the eleventh or in the early twelfth century.39 Although Rostov may have nominally possessed Beloozero in the late eleventh century, at that time Rostov itself was dependent upon Novgorod and so was Beloozero. This is illustrated by the fact that in 1071 when the "magicians" who had appeared in Rostov during a time of famine went on to Beloozero, their disruptive activities there were suppressed by a tribute collector representing Sviatoslav of Chernigov, who through his son Gleb also dominated Novgorod.40 But by 113 7, when Sviatoslav issued his charter, Beloozero was not included as a possession of Novgorod. Direct Rostov control over Beloozero was probably instituted sometime early in the twelfth century.41 Beloozero's importance was associated at this time with the Ves' and their commercial role. Rostov's absorption of that area suggests that its princes' goals were not confined to political consolidation, but extended to gaining control of the upper Volga trade route, Bulgar's fur supply route from Novgorod and the Ves'. The assertion is also borne out by the fact that the Rostov princes concentrated Volga trade in market towns within their principality. By the second half of the twelfth century both Bulgar and Novgorod merchants were obliged to exchange their goods within Rostov-Suzdal' and, conversely, were prevented from traveling through that principality to sell them in one another's cities. The Russian chronicles record that Bulgar merchants, along with Greeks, Latins [Roman Catholics] and Jews, were in Vladimir when Andrei Bogoliubskii was killed in 1175.42 But there is no comparable evidence that Bulgar merchants reached Novgorod at this time. On the contrary, the fact that Novgorod was only able to receive some Oriental goods, such as pepper, imported from Bulgar through Suzdal' intermediaries43 implies that Bulgar merchants were in fact traveling no further west than Rostov-Suzdal'. Similarly, although there is evidence of Novgorodian merchants in Rostov-Suzdal' and even a suggestion of Russian merchants in Bulgar at this time,44 there is no indication that Novgorodians were able to pass through Rostov-Suzdal' to trade at Bulgar. The concerns of the Rostov princes with Beloozero and Volga trade suggest that when they extended their control along the upper Volga in the first half of the twelfth century, Bulgar and Novgorod perceived their 121

The political significance of the fur trade

actions not only as measures aimed at Rostov's political consolidation as a distinct principality but also as disruptions to their trade. For that reason they both regarded Rostov's actions as provocations and they both responded hostilely and aggressively. Their attacks failed to prevent the assertion by Rostov of control over the upper Volga. On the contrary, Rostov constructed fortified outposts along the river to protect its position. But Rostov did not block east-west commercial traffic on the upper Volga. Rather it appears that the Rostov-Suzdal' princes fostered that trade, channeling it through their own towns, which they thereby transformed into central trading emporia where merchants from Bulgar and Novgorod met to exchange eastern and western goods through the mediation of northeast Russian merchants.45 An exception to this general commercial pattern was the fur trade. Bulgar, it will be recalled, did not rely exclusively upon Russian suppliers for its northern luxury fur. Thus, while Bulgar and Novgorod conceded control over the upper Volga and accepted Rostov-Suzdal's conditions for trade in its markets, both developed alternative routes specifically in order to conduct their fur trade. The fact that both did so reinforces the conclusion that Rostov's expansion had interfered with the transport of fur and that such interference had prompted Bulgar's and Novgorod's hostility toward Rostov. The additional fact that Rostov-Suzdal's continued political and military clashes with Bulgar and Novgorod resulted in its increased control over the new routes as well suggests that the new principality was deliberately pursuing a- goal of gaining control over its neighbors' fur supply routes. During the second half of the twelfth century Rostov-Suzdal' and Bulgar continued to engage in periodic border raids and confrontations. The objects of the struggle were the portion of the upper Volga extending downstream from Iaroslavl' toward Bulgar and including access to the Unzha river, the lug, and the mouth of the latter. These objectives are indicated by the territorial gains made by the Suzdalian princes during this period, which in turn are revealed by the routes their armies were able to use on their military campaigns, by the locations of the fortresses they constructed, and by the positions most fiercely defended by Bulgar. But these objectives, the upper Volga, the Unzha, and the lug rivers, also form the route to the mouth of the lug on the Sukhona, the new fur supply route developed by Bulgar in the twelfth century. The Suzdal'-Bulgar conflict may be viewed as another struggle for control over the substitute route Bulgar had cleared east of Suzdalia to reach its northern fur suppliers, the Ves' and the Novgorodians. Beginning in 1164, the Suzdalian princes Andrei and Vsevolod engaged in a series of military ventures that pushed Bulgar authority down the Volga toward Bulgar proper. In 1164 Prince Andrei led his forces by boat as far 122

Suzdalia

as the Kama river, capturing five Bulgar towns on the way. 46 It is significant that Andrei approached Bulgar by proceeding down the Kliaz'ma to the Oka and then to the Volga.47 A second campaign took place in 1171-2. Led by Andrei's son Mstislav and reinforced by Murom and Riazan' armed contingents, the Suzdalian army advanced from the mouth of the Oka down the Volga. In the course of the campaign it captured six villages and one fortified town in the vicinity of the mouth of the Oka. 48 The route of the Suzdal' army to the mouth of the Oka, where the various contingents made their rendezvous, is not clear. The implication of the sources concerning this campaign as well as the previous one, however, is that the course of the upper Volga below Iaroslavl' was not securely controlled by Suzdal'; in neither case did its forces freely use this route. A change in the respective possessions of the Russians and Bulgar had, however, taken place along the Oka river. Previously Bulgar had dominated the Oka, and in 1107 it had used the Volga-Oka-Kliaz'ma route for its attack on Suzdal'. Correspondingly, Suzdalian forces avoided it in 1120. These factors, coupled with Abu Hamid's testimony, 49 noted in Chapter 1, suggests that in the first half of the twelfth century that river was still controlled by Bulgar. Nevertheless, by 1164 and in 1171-2 Suzdalian forces were comfortably and safely moving down the Oka from the mouth of the Kliaz'ma to its juncture with the Volga. By this means they had access to one point on the Volga - the mouth of the Oka. Suzdal's campaigns against Bulgar may be interpreted as part of its attempt to secure that position at the mouth of the Oka. Suzdal's construction, between 1164 and 1171, of a fortress at Radilov, approximately thirty-three miles up the Volga from the mouth of the Oka,50 and its conquest of the villages near that point in 1171-2, may be seen as steps toward the same goal. The next Russian campaign occurred in 1183. The participation of the combined forces of princes from Murom and Riazan' as well as Suzdalia made this campaign one of significantly greater proportion than those preceding it. With this force the Russians penetrated into the heartland of Bulgar and laid siege to Velikii Gorod (Biliar). The three-day siege of Biliar, however, was readily lifted in response to a Bulgar offer of peace, and the Russian forces left without making any enduring gains in Bulgar. 51 It is noteworthy that the Russian army used two routes to reach Bulgar territory: the Volga river, along which one segment of the army sailed from Iaroslavl', and the more familiar Kliaz'ma-Oka route. Suzdalia's previous campaigns had evidently rendered it an advantage on the Volga, which in 1183 it was putting to use. After the campaign, however, the Russian position on the Volga deteriorated; when Prince Vsevolod resumed hostilities two years later, his forces were not able to proceed down the Volga and they confined their activity to the region around the fortress at Radilov,52 where they were evidently trying to restore their position. By 123

The political significance of the fur trade

1205, however, the situation had once again been reversed; when Vsevolod waged war on Bulgar in that year, he was in full control of the Volga, down which his armies sailed into their opponents' territory.53 The routes used by the Suzdalian armies in campaigns against Bulgar suggest both their goals and gains. In 1164 when its aggression began, Suzdal' did not yet possess the segment of the Volga river between Iaroslavl' and the mouth of the Oka. During the second half of the twelfth century, however, Suzdalian princes extended their authority, despite Bulgar's consistent and at times - as in the 1180s - successful opposition, down the river. By the early thirteenth century they had taken possession of territory that formerly had been within Bulgar's sphere of influence. The purpose of this series of military adventures was not the annexation of Bulgar; this is evident from the limits of most of the campaigns and the ready withdrawal from the seige of Biliar. The objective was dominance over this additional segment of the Volga river. Having obtained it, Suzdal' began to subjugate the local Mordva (Burtas) population and collect tribute from them.54 To appreciate the purpose and significance of the drive to gain control over the Iaroslav'-Oka segment of the upper Volga, however, it is useful to consider also another set of events, related to Suzdalia's northward expansion. During the last quarter of the twelfth century, while the Suzdalian princes were pushing their way down the Volga, Prince Vsevolod also extended the principality of Vladimir's dominance northward, notably over the settlement of Gleden. Early in the thirteenth century Konstantin, the prince of Rostov, founded Ustiug Velikii not far from Gleden at the mouth of the lug river. Significantly, of all the Suzdalian acts of aggression, this was the one that Bulgar considered intolerable and responded to violently. In 1218, the year Konstantin died, Bulgar attacked Ustiug.55 Afterward, Bulgar's forces made their way along the lug and fought their way down the Unzha river to the Volga and hence to Bulgar.56 The mouth of the lug, the location of the twelfth-century trading post for the Ves' and the Novgorodians, and the Unzha, the river leading to it, were clearly areas of great importance to Bulgar. Recognition of Ustiug and the Unzha as significant elements in Bulgar's fur supply system provides a basis for satisfactorily explaining Bulgar's attack on Ustiug. For Bulgar, Russian control over the Volga river between the mouths of the Unzha and the Oka and its establishment of a fortified post above the mouth of the Oka constituted obstacles that prevented Bulgar from using its fur supply route, the Volga-Unzha-Iug. In 1218 Bulgar tried to clear and repossess that route.57 Bulgar's control over the Volga-Unzha-Iug route was short-lived. By 1220 Prince Iurii had recovered Ustiug and the Unzha and had launched 124

Bulgar—Ustiug route N E Rus1 eastern border (early 13th C.) — — Suzdalian eastern border (approx. position mid-12thC.) 0 200 miles

6

'

'

300km

Map 3 Russian eastward expansion (second half twelfth century)

The political significance of the fur trade

another attack directly on Bulgar territory; after concluding a peace treaty, he constructed Nizhnii Novgorod at the mouth of the Oka river in 1221.58 The construction of a Russian fortification at the site of Bulgar's ancient outpost finally eliminated Bulgar control on the upper Volga and Oka. It thereby blocked Bulgar's access not only to those rivers but to its northern fur supply route, and transferred to Suzdalia, which possessed both Nizhnii Novgorod and Ustiug, control over that route. Suzdalia's relations with Bulgar, particularly their hostile interactions, caused the transfer of control over the Volga-Unzha-Iug route. That transfer may also have been the intended result of Suzdal's aggression against Bulgar. During the first half of the century Novgorod was equally affected by the establishment of Suzdalian hegemony over the upper Volga. And, like Bulgar, Novgorod resorted to use of a more northerly route as a substitute for the upper Volga. Novgorod's focus was the Sukhona river. That river served a dual purpose. It was becoming the most convenient avenue for Novgorod to collect and transport its tribute from both its northeastern and Zavoloch'e tributaries. It was also Novgorod's northern alternative to the upper Volga for making contact with Bulgar merchants near the mouth of the lug. And along with Zavoloch'e it became a target of Suzdalian northward expansion. Before the twelfth century the Sukhona route had been dominated by the Ves', who used it to reach their trading partners from the Vym'Vychedga region. By the early twelfth century, Novgorod had established pogosts on the Sukhona and a trading settlement at the site of Vologda, and was thereby laying claim to the Sukhona river. This claim was, however, almost immediately challenged by Iurii Dolgorukii of Rostov. His interest in the route and the tribute conveyed along it had probably been demonstrated even before 1148, for it was in that year that Grand Prince Iziaslav justified the combined Novgorodian and Kievan attack on Suzdalia with the charge that Iurii had "offended" Novgorod, stolen its tribute, and "breathed insults on its trade routes."59 In any case, in 1149, just two years after the monk Gerasim arrived at Vologda and joined a group of Novgorodians there, Novgorodian tribute collectors in the area were attacked by a Suzdalian force. The Novgorodians held out on an island, but on the third day they sailed to the mainland and attacked the Suzdalians; although casualties on both sides were great, the Suzdalian losses were heavier and Novgorod evidently remained master of Zavoloch'e and the Sukhona.60 Iurii's successor Andrei Bogoliubskii renewed the challenge, but indirectly. Acting on his 1160 declaration, "Let it be known, I shall seek Novgorod by means fair or foul...,"61 he set out to dominate Novgorod through the imposition of his nominee as prince in that city. In 1161, 126

Suzdalia

having reached an accord with Grand Prince Rostislav of Kiev, he supported the candidacy of Sviatoslav Rostislavich, who accepted the Novgorodian throne. 62 In 1166, while the accord was in effect, he pressed his ambitions further, and his son "Mstislav went beyond the portage," that is to say into Zavoloch'e. 63 Novgorod subsequently expelled Sviatoslav and appealed to the new grand prince in Kiev, Mstislav II, to send another prince, while the ejected Sviastoslav turned to his patron Andrei for support.64 The political conflict generated war between Prince Andrei and Mstislav II in alliance with Novgorod. The war culminated in Andrei's sack of Kiev in 1169 and the eviction of Mstislav as grand prince. But it was also an expression of Kievan-Suzdalian rivalry for dominance over Novgorod. 65 To achieve that dominance, Suzdalian forces, in addition to their advance against Kiev, levied attacks on several Novgorodian possessions, including Novyi Torg. But once again Zavoloch'e, the key to which was the Sukhona river, became an object of contention. In 1169 the Novgorodian "Danslav Lazutinits went with his retinue as a tribute collector beyond the portage. Andrei sent his army against them and they fought with them." In this advance the Novgorodians were victorious. There were 400 Novgorodians and 7,000 Suzdalians. God aided the Novgorodians and while 1,300 of their forces fell, [only] fifteen of the Novgorodians [fell]; the Novgorodians then retreated, but returned, collected the entire tribute and a second from the Suzdalian peasants and all arrived [in Novgorod] in good health. 66

That winter the sons of Andrei led an army consisting of contingents from Suzdalia, Smolensk, Toropets, Murom, Riazan\ and Polotsk against Novgorod. Unintimidated by the display of might, the Novgorodians under Prince Roman Mstislavich resisted, and in a miraculous battle overseen by the Icon of the Virgin they defeated the invaders, taking so many prisoners that Suzdalian captives were sold for the notably low price of two nogaty per slave. Nevertheless, in the following year Novgorod, then suffering a severe famine, expelled Prince Roman and made peace with Prince Andrei. In October 1170 it received Suzdal's candidate, Riurik Rostislavich, as its prince, then almost two years later Andrei's son Iurii. 67 Suzdalia's relations with Novgorod in the third quarter of the twelfth century revolved around Novgorod's choice of prince and were complicated by and interrelated with Suzdal's political rivalry with Kiev. But Suzdalian efforts to gain political leverage and domination over Novgorod were also closely associated with its attempts to undermine Novgorodian supremacy in Zavoloch'e and on the Sukhona river route, just as it had earlier done on the upper Volga. In 1174 Andrei was assassinated, and the rivalry for dominance over Novgorod was renewed. In this stage of the contest, however, the rivals 127

The political significance of the fur trade

were not Kiev and Suzdal', but two branches of the princely family of Suzdalia, the princes of Rostov and Vladimir. Once again, control over Novgorod's Sukhona route in the north was a factor in the contest. In the aftermath of Andrei's death, Novgorod expelled Iurii Andreevich and, aligning itself with Rostov, selected Prince Sviatoslav, the son of the new prince of Rostov, Mstislav Rostislavich, as his replacement. Mstislav, evicted from Rostov, personally took the post of prince of Novgorod in 1175. He then became embroiled in a struggle with Vsevolod, who in 1176 became the prince of Vladimir, and embarked on an unsuccessful campaign against his rival. Upon his return to Novgorod, the city refused to receive him and for a brief period threw in its lot with the victor. But in 1177 it again placed the former Rostov prince Mstislav on the throne, assigned Novyi Torg to his brother Iaropolk, and sent Vsevolod's nominee to Volokolamsk. When in the following year Mstislav died and Novgorod chose Iaropolk as his successor, Vsevolod of Vladimirfinallytook action. He arrested Novgorodian merchants, and attacked Novyi Torg. He also, almost simultaneously, extended his authority over Gleden at the entrance of the lug river into the Sukhona.68 Although Novgorod then renounced Iaropolk, it did not immediately submit to Vsevolod. Instead, under a series of princes, it continued to defy him, and in 1180 it conducted a campaign down the Volga into the heartland of Suzdalia. This, however, provoked Vsevolod to lead a retaliatory expedition; after afive-weeksiege of Novyi Torg, Novgorod accepted his nominees as its princes.69 Although intricately interwoven with their efforts to extend political influence over Novgorod, the princes of Vladimir-Suzdal' were steadily gaming control over the Sukhona river route and possession of the tribute to which the route gave Novgorod access. Their challenges to Novgorod, although also intended to achieve political goals, nevertheless resulted in Suzdalia's acquisition of partial control over the Sukhona river, including Gleden. At the end of the twelfth century control over the Sukhona river route was shared by Novgorod and Vladimir. When the rivalry between the Rostov and Vladimir princes emerged with greater intensity in the early thirteenth century, shortly after the death of Vsevolod, the fragile settlement between Vladimir and Novgorod collapsed. In 1207-8 Grand Prince Vsevolod had given Rostov along with five other towns to his eldest son Konstantin. In a redistribution of his possessions made in 1211, he granted Rostov to another son, Iurii. Although he intended to leave Vladimir and the bulk of the grand principality to Konstantin, the latter was unwilling to give up his appanage, Rostov. In 1212 he founded Ustiug, which replaced his father's settlement of Gleden. When Vsevolod died, also in 1212, Konstantin battled with his 128

Suzdalia

brothers for possession of his father's heritage. In the course of their wars Iurii temporarily seized Ustiug and the adjoining lands and tribute from Konstantin. Novgorod supported Konstantin, who ultimately won the wars and became the grand prince of Vladimir. 70 Upon Konstantin's death in 1218 Ustiug remained attached to Rostov; both were inherited by his son Vasil'ko. 71 It was after Konstantin had died and he had been succeeded by his brother Iurii, who had fought against him and Novgorod, that Bulgar attacked Ustiug. Iurii undertook responsibility for the retaliation against Bulgar. But Ustiug, access to the Sukhona from the Vychegda or the Dvina, and revenues from customs and transit duties remained in the possession of the prince of Rostov. At the western end of the route the princes of Beloozero took control over the approaches to the Sukhona river. Like Ustiug, Beloozero belonged to the Rostov principality, and it had been inherited along with Rostov by Prince Vasil'ko in 1218. But Vasil'ko subdivided his principality among his sons, leaving Rostov to Boris and Beloozero to Gleb in 1237. 72 The Beloozero principality contained not only Lake Beloe itself, but also other lakes and rivers that flowed southeast, providing access to the Sukhona. Gleb Vasirkovich improved conditions along these waterways, and encouraged travelers to pass through his possessions rather than go northward around the Beloozero bulge that divided Novgorod from the Sukhona river. One of Gleb's achievements was the foundation of the Spasokamennyi monastery on an island in Lake Kubenskoe. According to legend, Gleb was sailing across the lake to the Sukhona river (which originates at the lake) and Ustiug, when a severe storm arose. The prince, fearing a fatal shipwreck, prayed and vowed that if he should reach shore alive, he would construct a church on the spot of his landing. Finally coming safely to rest on an island, Gleb encountered twenty-three hermits who were trying to convert the local natives to Christianity. Their poverty and the hostility of their neighbors had prevented them from building their own church, but Gleb, honoring his pledge, constructed a wooden church on the island and upon his return from Ustiug bedecked it with icons. The monastery into which this church developed proved to be a haven for travelers crossing the lake and entering the Sukhona, just as it had been for Gleb. 73 In addition, it is recorded in the Spasokamennyi chronicle that Gleb, while sailing from Beloozero to Ustiug and emerging from Lake Kubenskoe on the Sukhona river... noticed that near the lake the course of the river made a bend, curving from the straight path for two versts, whereas the direct distance was not more than 'a stone's throw'; therefore he ordered that a channel be cut across the isthmus so the riverflowedthrough a canal, which from that time was called 'Prince Gleb's line.' He then made a similar canal on the Vologda river, which received the same name.74 129

The political significance of the fur trade

On the eve of the Mongol invasion Novgorod's control over the Sukhona river had been eroded. It was obliged to share control of the route that bore tribute and commercial fur from the northeast and the Dvina to Novgorod, first with Vladimir, then with the appanage princes of the Rostov line, who in the first decades of the thirteenth century established their authority at Ustiug and through Beloozero over the approaches to the upper Sukhona river. In the twelfth century Suzdalia developed into a powerful principality of northeastern Rus'. In the course of its development it came into conflict with neighboring established principalities, Bulgar and Novgorod. Suzdalian expansion resulted in clashes with Bulgar and, as a result, the transfer of Bulgar's new fur supply route to Suzdalian control. Suzdalian clashes with Novgorod were more intricately involved with Rus' politics and Kievan-Suzdalian rivalries. Nevertheless, Suzdal's northern expansion and bid to establish political dominance over Novgorod involved clashes over control of Novgorod's trade routes, both the upper Volga and the Sukhona. The latter was the route Novgorod had developed as a substitute for the upper Volga in order to trade with Bulgar; it also served as a fur supply route from Novgorod's tributaries. By the early thirteenth century Suzdalia had not only imposed its political influence and princes on Novgorod, but had inserted itself on that northern fur trade route as well. Suzdalia's aggressive expansion had resulted in the transfer to its control of trade routes critical to the fur trade of both Bulgar and Novgorod. MOSCOW

Just as Suzdalia's growth involved rivalries with Bulgar and Novgorod, the emergence of Moscow as the political center of the Russian lands was closely related to Moscow's successes in conflicts with its neighbors and rivals, Novgorod, Lithuania, and the khanate of Kazan'. The immediate objectives of those conflicts too were often control over elements critical to the conduct of the fur trade. Moscow and Novgorod

Early evidence of Moscow-Novgorodian rivalry relates to the North, the source of fur supplies. As noted above, Novgorod had acquired dominance over extensive areas of the North by the twelfth century. It had also secured the Sukhona route, by which its merchants and military forces reached the Perm' population of the Vychegda-Vym' area. But by the early thirteenth century Novgorod was losing control over segments of this route to the princes of Vladimir, Rostov, and Beloozero. Then in the first half of 130

Moscow the fourteenth century Moscow began to encroach upon the territory along this route. It extended its influence on the west end of the Sukhona route by establishing firmer authority over the appanage princes ruling there. The princes of Beloozero controlled the west end of the Sukhona route. They had been stalwart supporters of Moscow since Ivan I had given his daughter in marriage to Prince Fedor Romanovich, but after both Fedor and his son and heir died at the Battle of Kulikovo the bond between Beloozero and Moscow tightened. Dmitrii Donskoi gave Beloozero to his own son, Andrei of Mozhaisk, and thereby transformed the appanage principality into a possession of a branch of the Muscovite line of princes. 75 During the fourteenth century Moscow similarly gained the allegiance of the Iaroslavr princes, who held appanages on the Mologa and Sheksna rivers and in the vicinity of Lake Kubenskoe, as well as of the appanage Rostov princes, who were acquiring small holdings on the Vaga and Emtsa rivers.76 At the east end of the Sukhona route Moscow focused on the Perm' population. The Perm', who gave offerings to their gods in the form of sable, beaver, marten, and fox pelts, 77 maintained commercial contact with their own eastern neighbors, the Voguly and Iugra, and supplied luxury fur to Novgorod through tribute and trade. Although Novgorodians had to pass through Ustiug, which fell first under Vladimir's and then Rostov's control, to reach the Perm', Novgorod retained its dominance over that people into the first half of the fourteenth century. In the 1320s, however, Ustiug began to interfere with Novgorodian passage to the Perm'. In the first recorded incidents of Ustiug interference, in 1323 and 1329, the Muscovite prince supported Novgorod. But this support soon turned into a bid to displace Novgorod in the northeast. The first suggestion of a Muscovite challenge to Novgorod's supremacy in this area appears in the Vychegda-Vym' chronicle in the entry under the year 1333. At that time, the Muscovite prince "Ivan Danilovich unleashed anger on the Ustiugians and the Novgorodians because they did not give tribute (chernyi vykhod) from Vychegda and from Pechora to the Horde tsar." Their response was to give the "...Vychegda and Pechera [Pechora] to Prince Ivan for the tribute (chernyi bor) and from those times the Moscow prince began to take the tribute from the Perm' people." 78 A permanent transfer of the Perm' from Novgorod to Moscow at this time, however, is contradicted by Novgorodian treaties with various grand princes, in which the Perm' continued to be listed among Novgorod's possessions.79 Moscow manifested its interest in the Perm' more consistently in the second half of the fourteenth century. It began by tightening its control 131

The political significance of the fur trade

over Rostov and Ustiug. In the early 1360s the Rostov principality was held by Prince Andrei Fedorovich and his uncle Konstantin Vasirevich. In 1360 the two quarreled, evidently over Konstantin's attempt to gather the entire principality under his personal rule; but in 1364 Konstantin was forced to go to Ustiug, and according to the Vychegda-Vym' chronicle version, "grand prince Dmitrei Ivanovich unleashed his anger at the Rostov prince Konstantin and took Rostov and Ustiug and the Ustiugian Perm' places from him." Andrei in fact remained the prince of Rostov and, presumably, of Ustiug until his death in 1409, but was also a loyal dependent of the Muscovite grand prince.80 In the same period Moscow also displayed a direct interest in the Vychegda Perm'. Following a Novgorodian ushkuinniki attack on the Volga, Prince Dmitrii Ivanovich arrested a Novgorodian boyar at Vologda. The Novgorodians sued for peace and accordingly in 13 6 7," Prince Dmitrei took for himself Pechora, Mezen', and Kegrolskie. The Perm' people kissed the cross for Prince Dmitrei, and no longer acted in the interest of the Novgorodians."81 It is difficult to determine how extensive or permanent Moscow's authority over Perm' actually was by the end of the 1360s.82 When Stefan appeared in the area, the native population was already familiar with Muscovite authority (which according to one source, demanded higher tribute payments than Novgorod had), and consequently received this visitor, who bore letters from the grand prince, with overt hostility.83 Nevertheless, it was through the efforts of this missionary that Muscovite rule over Perm' was confirmed and consolidated. Stefan ventured from Ustiug up the Vychegda river to convert the Perm' population in 1379. Four years later he went to Moscow, where he petitioned the metropolitan to establish a bishopric in that region. His petition granted, he was appointed the new bishop;84 and the grand prince transferred fees collected from merchants and hunters who went to Perm' from his treasury to Stefan for the maintenance of the church.85 While Novgorod had offered little objection to Moscow's earlier claims to the Perm' and the tribute from it, it did protest at the formation of the Perm' bishopric and the channeling of funds for its support. The archbishop of Novgorod was particularly offended that the metropolitan had dared to carve a new bishopric from the territory officially under the jurisdiction of St. Sophia, and sent a force in 1385 to make war on the Perm' bishopric. Stefan, however, called upon Ustiug to defend the Perm' land; the Ustiug army destroyed the Novgorodian force.86 The following year the Novgorodians, reinforced by a contingent from the Dvina region, "made war on the Volga and from there on the volosts of the grand prince, both Vychegda and Ustiug, but the grand prince Dmitrei killed the offenders, recovered the volosts, and took a ransom from 132

Moscow

the Novgorodians and the Dvintsy."87 That year Stefan also made a trip to Novgorod and made his peace with the archbishop and the Novgorod boyars, "so that they would not ruin the Perm' land" but "would defend the Vychegda bishopric. " 88 Subsequently, only the native population and their allies, the Voguly and Iugra, mounted resistance to Muscovite rule and Christianity in the Perm' region. Although the defense of the new bishopric became the responsibility more of Ustiug than Moscow,89 the tribute collected from the Perm' population, the sable and other luxury fur that had previously filled the coffers of Novgorod's treasury, was transferred to those of Moscow. Muscovy's expansion into the North in the fourteenth century may therefore be associated with its princes' desire to develop their own source of luxury fur. At the time the Muscovite princes involved themselves in defending Novgorod's passage through Ustiug, they were also trying to impress the Tatar khans with their ability to deliver the tribute. An unhindered flow of fur through Ustiug benefited the Muscovite princes in this respect. And, as the 1333 incident makes clear, the tribute from the northeastern peoples was identified with the payments for the Horde. By the second half of the century, Muscovite motives had changed. Rather than support Novgorod, the Muscovite princes were attempting to dispossess Novgorod of the Perm' and convert that population into a Muscovite tributary. The shift in goal occurred just when the Horde was weakened by internal discord, when Dmitrii Donskoi was refusing to pay tribute to the Tatars, and when Muscovy was beginning to develop direct trade contacts with Europeans, most notably Italian merchants from the Crimean colonies. Muscovy consolidated its hold over the Vychegda Perm' just when it required a supply of luxury fur for its own use. Although Muscovy's subordination and conversion of the Vychegda Perm' constituted an affront to Novgorod, the latter did little to defend its possession. This response, too, may be understood in terms of the fur trade. As observed above, Novgorod's trading partners in the fourteenth century were demanding northern gray squirrel rather than sable. The boyars and government of Novgorod, concerned with creating reliable methods of supplying squirrel to the market, focused attention on Obonezh'e, Zavoloch'e, and the Dvina land. The luxury fur-supplying tributaries of the distant northeast lost their importance for Novgorod, which, therefore, virtually allowed Moscow to establish suzerainty over the Vychegda Perm'. Muscovy's attempts to absorb the Dvina land, however, received a sharply different response. From the final years of the fourteenth century through the first quarter of the fifteenth Moscow tried to expand into the Dvina land. But in contrast to its almost murmurless withdrawal from the Vychegda-Vym' region and its cession of rights to the luxury fur tribute not only from the Perm', but also from the Voguly and Iugra, Novgorod 133

The political significance of the fur trade

fiercely defended the Dvina land. Four times in a quarter of a century the armies of the grand prince attempted to seize the Dvina. Each time Novgorod mounted a swift and effective defense, driving his forces out. Vasilii I made his first attempt to annex the Dvina land in 139 7. In that year he sent some of his boyars to the Dvina land, calling upon its inhabitants to break away from Novgorod and become his subjects. In response the Dvina populace, led by Ivan Mikitin, swore allegiance to the grand prince, who not only issued a charter to the Dvina land, establishing the jurisdiction of his governors there, issuing laws, and significantly, granting privileges to the Dvina merchants, but also sent a military force into Novgorod's other territories, Volok Lamskii, Torzhok, Vologda, and Bezhetskii Verkh.90 Novgorod's immediate reaction was to send ambassadors to Moscow seeking a peaceful withdrawal. But when the grand prince refused, it rapidly gathered its forces and departed for Orlets on the Dvina. On the way, the army encountered a local official from the volost Vel', which belonged to the archbishop of Novgorod. He informed the commanders that Andrei, the boyar sent to Dvina by the grand prince, and Ivan Mikitin had attacked Vel' with a Dvina force and taken a ransom from it. In addition, he told them, Prince Fedor of Rostov was collecting taxes from Novgorodian volosts on the Dvina in the name of the grand prince, while the Dvina generals Ivan and Konon were dividing the Novgorodian volosts among themselves.91 The Novgorodian army then altered its- route and proceeded "against the grand prince's volosts at Beloozero;" the Novgorodians burned the old town and forced the Beloozero prince and voevoda and the grand prince to pay a ransom. They then went through the Kubenskie volosts, passed around Vologda, and pushed their way eastward to Ustiug, where they remained for four weeks, while a portion of the army ravaged the volosts belonging to the grand prince in the direction of Galich. From there they finally went to their original destination, the Orlets fortress on the Dvina river, and besieged Orlets for four weeks, until the Dviniane surrendered.92 The Novgorodians then concluded peace with the people of the Dvina and arrested their traitorous leaders, condemning some to death and keeping others captive. They also confiscated the taxes Fedor of Rostov had collected and in addition took 300 rubles from the Dvina merchants, and "from the people of the Dvina for their transgression and for their guilt, the generals and the entire army took 2,000 rubles and 3,000 horses " 93 In the fall Novgorod once again sent ambassadors to the Muscovite grand prince, who this time was more amenable to restoring the pre-war situation in the Dvina land. The Novgorodian army returned home. Of the captives they brought back to Novgorod, the villain Ivan Mikitin was thrown from the bridge to drown in the Volkhov river; other leaders were 134

Moscow pardoned on the condition they take the vows of monks; and one instigator, Anfal Mikitin, escaped.94 Novgorod's swift and firm retaliation had thwarted Muscovy's attempt to seize the Dvina land. Nevertheless, during the confrontation, Moscow placed its own governor in Vologda and also replaced the Rostov prince in Ustiug with an appointed governor; furthermore, in 1399 new fortifications were built around that city.95 Then in 1401 a second attempt to seize the Dvina land was made. ...at the command of grand prince Vasilii, Anfal Mikitin and Gerasim Rostriga broke the peace, violated their oath, and with an army of the grand prince attacked [the lands] beyond the Portage on the Dvina and took the entire Dvina land by assault by surprise on St. Peter's Day. They hung some peasants, butchered others, and seized their goods and livestock. They also arrested Ondrei Ivanovich and the Dvina mayors Esif Filipovich and Naum Ivanovich.96 Novgorod's response was again immediate and effective. Led by Stefan Ivanovich, his brother Mikhail and Mikita Golovnia, an army raised in the Vaga region engaged the Muscovite force in battle near Kholmogory. The victorious Novgorodians gained the release of the captives and chased the invading army out of the region, although another Muscovite force attacked Torzhok.97 The Dvina land was left in peace under Novgorodian control until 1417, when an army made up of men from Viatka and Ustiug secretly sailed to Zavoloch'e. Burning and pillaging as it went, the army attacked the volost Borok, the Emtsa region and Kholmogory; it also took several Novgorodian boyars captive. Once again a Novgorodian force quickly assembled and chased the intruders from the Dvina basin; this time the Novgorodians and their Zavoloch'e force pursued the invaders and plundered Ustiug.98 Finally just after the death of Vasilii I in 1425, the men of Ustiug made war on the Zavoloch'e land; and the Novgorodians with an army went against them to Ustiug, and took from them a ransom of 50,000 squirrels and 6 "sorok" [240] of sable." At the time of Vasilii Dmitrievich's death, Novgorod had overcome repeated Muscovite challenges to its control over the Dvina land. The chronicles that report the battles in this struggle do not directly reveal Moscow's motive for coveting this region. But the discussions in the chronicles of the incidents of 1397 and 1425 do suggest that both Moscow and Novgorod valued the Dvina land because of its wealth. The discussion of the 1397 incident, in particular, indicates that both sides were anxious to possess the tax collected from the Dvina population. Novgorod's tax on the Dvina land, as discussed above in Chapter 3, consisted largely of northern gray squirrel. The ransom demanded by Novgorod from Ustiug in 1425 was similarly in fur. The Dvina land was essential to the squirrel supply system developed by Novgorod, especially the treasury component, 135

The political significance of the fur trade

to meet the German demand for fur in the fourteenth century. Consequently, in contrast to its reaction to Muscovite penetration into Perm', Novgorod refused to yield possession of the Dvina land. By defending the Dvina, Novgorod was safeguarding its squirrel supplies and thereby its fur trade. By 1425 Moscow had expanded into the North. It had acquired the Vychegda-Vym' basin and a source of luxury fur; it also exercised strong influence, either directly or through the subordinate Rostov, Iaroslavl' and Beloozero appanage princes, over the Sukhona route, which led from Novgorod to the Perm', as well as over segments of the Vaga and Emtsa. Novgorod, on the other hand, retained control of the Dvina land and its squirrel supplies. During the next fifty years a complex struggle for these lands and trade routes and the fur obtained from them was waged. On one level this contest was conducted by Novgorodian boyars, who directly challenged the appanage princes and later Muscovite grantees for possession of their landholdings. During the fourteenth century the domain of the Rostov princes in particular had expanded into Zavoloch'e as these minor princes acquired land parcels along the Vaga, Emtsa and Mekrenga rivers, roughly forming a chain across Zavoloch'e from Beloozero in the southwest to the Dvina in the northeast. 100 The precise time of the acquisition of lands in Zavoloch'e by the Rostov princes has not been clearly established. Judicial claims made later in the fifteenth century, however, trace the ownership of several properties along the North Dvina, the Vaga, the Emtsa and their tributaries to the Rostov princes Konstantin Vladimirovich (d. 1415), Ivan Vladimirovich (the younger brother of Konstantin, dates unknown), Feodor Andreevich (fifteenth century, son of Andrei Aleksandrovich, d. 1417), and Ivan Aleksandrovich (possibly the son of Aleksandr Ivanovich and the grandson of Ivan Vladimirovich).101 But some property, such as a tract on the Vaga that bordered the Shenkur'ia estate purchased by Vasilii Matfeev of Novgorod between 1315 and 1322, was already in Rostov's possession in the early fourteenth century. 102 Nevertheless, in the late fourteenth century and even moreso in the first half of the fifteenth century, Novgorodian boyars, buoyed by their Dvina victory, began to purchase these lands or expropriate the Rostov princes by other means. The wills of Ostafei Anan'evich and his son Fedor Ostaf evich, dated 1393 and 1435 respectively, reflect the expansion of one family's holdings on the Kokshenga river; these acquisitions were probably made at the expense of the Rostov princes. 103 While Novgorodian boyars were taking possession of lands held by the Rostov princes and thereby pushing back Muscovite authority in Zavoloch'e, the contest was also being conducted indirectly, though more 136

Moscow dramatically, through the political battle waged by Vasilii Vasirevich of Moscow with his cousins, the sons of Iurii of Galich, for the title of grand prince and political supremacy in the Russian lands. One focus of their struggle was Ustiug, its hinterland, and the trade routes it commanded. As is well known, the conflict for the grand princely throne, which lasted almost a quarter of a century, began upon the death of Vasilii Dmitrievich in 1425. Although the grand prince left his position to his young son Vasilii Vasirevich, the heir was challenged by his uncle, Iurii of Galich. The realization of Iurii's plan to depose his nephew was delayed by the powerful protection granted to Vasilii by his guardian Vitovt of Lithuania. When Vitovt died in 1430, both Iurii and Vasilii presented their cases to the Tatars, but when Iurii failed to win their support, he took Moscow by force. Failing also to gain support from the boyars, however, he retreated again to Galich, to which Vasilii pursued him in 1434. In the conflict that followed, Iurii once again ousted Vasilii from Moscow, but died before he could consolidate his position.104 Vasilii then returned to his throne, only to be challenged anew by his cousin, Vasilii Iur'evich. It was in conjunction with Vasilii Iur'evich's campaign that the towns of the North, located specifically along the Sukhona route, became foci in the disputes for the throne. In 1435 Vasilii Iur'evich attacked the grand prince's defense post at Vologda and captured its commanders as well as several other Muscovite servitors. Proceeding then to Kostroma, he awaited reinforcements from Viatka, but the grand prince blocked their passage, prevented their union, and forced his cousin to agree to a truce. 105 Soon afterward, however, Vasilii Iur'evich resumed his offensive. He left Dmitrov, which the grand prince had assigned him, and went northeastward to Kostroma, then to Galich, and then further to Ustiug. With an army from Viatka he besieged Ustiug for nine weeks, then captured the town along with its military commanders. It was only after he had secured this northern region containing the routes connecting the Dvina to Moscow106 that he attempted to confront the grand prince directly; but when the two met in the Rostov region in the spring of 1436, Vasilii Iur'evich was captured and blinded.107 His brother Dmitrii Shemiakha resumed the battle against Grand Prince Vasilii. In 1446, Vasilii, having been captured and then released by the Kazan' Tatars, returned to the Muscovite throne only to be seized by Dmitrii Shemiakha, who then occupied Moscow. Shemiakha, after blinding Vasilii, granted him Vologda as an appanage. But in less than a year Vasilii had gathered an army and evicted Shemiakha, whose supporters were deserting him, from Moscow.108 The contest between the two then shifted to the northern front. In 1450 Vasilii assumed the offensive and drove Shemiakha out of Galich. The latter 137

The political significance of the fur trade

fled to Novgorod; from there he went to the Dvina and from that vantage point attacked Ustiug, which surrendered to him. Shemiakha then called upon the Voguly to support him by plundering the possessions of the grand prince, and when he failed to win their cooperation he led a campaign up the Vychedga, Vym' and Sysola rivers.109 The grand prince responded in 1451 by appointing a military governor for the Vychegda Perm', but Shemiakha, persisting in his practice of disruptive tactics, captured the Perm' bishop Pitirim and imprisoned him at Ustiug.110 Muscovy displayed its interest in the North both through its conflicts with Novgorod over the Dvina land and Zavoloch'e and through Vasilii's struggle with Shemiakha. Muscovy had not, however, won control over the northern region. On the contrary, one combined result of these political competitions was that Novgorod, whose squirrel supplies were no longer satisfying the European demand that was increasingly favoring luxury fur varieties, had by 1450 expanded its territory in Zavoloch'e and, by supporting Shemiakha, had gained an opportunity to acquire luxury fur commercially through Ustiug, the Vychegda Perm', and Viatka, all of which had come under Shemiakha's control. 111 From the 1450s, though, Moscow rapidly reversed the situation. It not only recovered its former position in the North, but finally annexed Novgorod and all its northern possessions. In 1452 the grand prince launched a major offensive to oust Shemiakha from Ustiug. At the approach of Vasilii's armies, Shemiakha fled, first to the Dvina and then to Novgorod, where he was subsequently poisoned and died. In the course of their pursuit of him, Vasilii's forces retook Ustiug and in addition went up the Sukhona, crossed to the Kokshenga, seized the forts along the rivers and then plundered their way downstream to the Vaga and the Dvina.112 With the defeat of Shemiakha, Vasilii recovered Ustiug, re-established firm control over Vychegda Perm', and also strengthened his claims to the Kokshenga and Vaga territory. In 1456 he continued his offensive, attacking Novgorod in retaliation for its complicity with Shemiakha. The Treaty of Iazhelbitsy, which concluded that campaign, required the Novgorod boyars to cede all lands purchased or otherwise acquired from Rostov or Beloozero princes to the grand prince. 113 After 1456 the grand prince also acquired Vologda.114 and by 1462 he held title to lands previously owned by Novgorod and populated by tax-paying peasantry on the Pinega and Mezen' rivers and also along the Dvina itself; in addition he owned Velikaia Sloboda, the territory around the mouths of the Ust'ia and Kokshenga rivers on the Vaga river.115 The Novgorodians did not meekly surrender their holdings in Zavoloch'e. On the contrary, they made bold efforts to recover their lands. A document dated March 25, 1471 detailed Novgorodian seizures of grand princely property. 116 For example, the document charged: 138

Moscow ... Fedor Borisovich Briukho held Kegrola and Chiakala and Perm' and Mezen'. And after him Iurii Zakharich held all these lands, and after Iurii Ivan Gavrilov held them all. And in the seventh year the Novgorodians arrived, burned the Kegrola fortress, took a ransom from the Chakala fortress, beat Ivan Gavrilov's steward, beat his slaves and plundered them and took all these volosts for themselves. Similarly, Petrusha Korobin held the Vyia and Pinezhka seven years, and after Petrusha, Iarets was there, and after Iarets, Fedor Petrushkov was there, and after Fedor, his brother Fedin. And the Novgorodians have now arrived, killed Fedin's steward and slaves, taken over the volosts for themselves, and they have taken a ransom of 15,000 squirrel pelts from them. Similar occurrences took place in the Perm' lands. In 14 71, however, after another major Muscovite military offensive, which included a Dvina campaign, Novgorod rescinded all claims to the lands that the "Novgorodians has seized for themselves on the Pinega, the Kegrola, Chakola, Perm' and Mezen', Pill gory, Neminga, Pinezka, Vyia, and Sura Poganaia" and acknowledged the grand prince's ownership of the territories. 117 After 1456 Novgorodian boyars also repossessed those holdings in the western portion of the Dvina basin that they had been required to cede to the grand prince. But by 14 71 some Muscovites, who had received many parcels as grants from the grand prince, had filed legal suits against the Novgorodians who physically held them. 118 By that time the Muscovite grand prince had gained control of significant portions of northern territory and claimed even more. 119 Novgorod had not only lost the opportunity to recreate a luxury fur supply network, but with the transfer of the peasant communities on the lower Dvina, Pinega, and Mezen' rivers to Moscow it was also deprived of the squirrel fur that its treasury had received from those areas through taxation. Indeed, the inhabitants of the Pinega and Mezen' districts had paid among the highest tax rates and about 80 percent of their assessments in fur to the Novgorodians.120 The attachment of Novgorod boyar estates to Moscow similarly interfered with the process of collection and marketing of fur through the rent mechanism. Despite Novgorod's victories in the first quarter of the fifteenth century, it was subsequently confronted by a situation of changing market demands, punctuated by poor relations with the Teutonic Knights and the Hanseatic League, 121 and complicated by increasing Muscovite pressures on its fur resources. These conditions may have contributed to the growing tendencies, observed earlier, among Novgorodian boyars to convert their rent collections from fur to cash, reorganize their estates to produce more grain, 122 or aggressively seek lands in areas that produced luxury fur as well as top quality squirrel. The market conditions and the resulting 139

The political significance of the fur trade

transfer of the burden of selling squirrel pelts to the peasants may also have been responsible for the channeling of some of that fur, from the Dvina area at least, to Moscow.123 Commercial conditions combined with Muscovy's seizure of its northern territory and its fur supply routes to undermine and reduce the capacity of Novgorod's fur supply system. Moscow delivered the coup de grace when, after it had politically subordinated Novgorod, the grand prince confiscated the boyars' estates and converted taxes from peasant tax-paying lands into cash and grain, thereby eliminating fur as a form of payment. Moscow thus dismantled Novgorod's remaining fur supply system. Moscow and Kazan'

As Moscow was concluding its drive to control the North and gain dominance over Novgorod, it was beginning a series of confrontations with Kazan'. Their clashes, to a large degree, revolved around Muscovite expansion to the northeast. That expansion, in turn, was closely related to the creation and organization of Muscovy's luxury fur supply system. The first clash between Kazan' and Muscovy in this period occurred in 1462. Kazan' Tatars accompanied by Cheremis' forces attacked Ustiug territory on the lug river. The invaders were overcome and killed by an Ustiug defense force.124 The Tatar aggression was not, however, unprovoked. In 1458-9, Moscow had conducted two campaigns against Viatka. After the second campaign, two Viatka towns, Orlov and Kotel'nich, swore allegiance to the grand prince. Having secured Viatka, a Muscovite army consisting of contingents from Ustiug, Vologda, and Galich invaded Perm' Velikaia. The Muscovite army, officially directed against the Cheremis', traveled from Ustiug down the Viatka river, that is to say through the newly secured territory, then up the Kama to Perm' Velikaia. 125 It was in response to these invasions into their sphere of influence that the Tatars and Cheremis' attacked Ustiug. Nevertheless, the following year the inhabitants of Perm' Velikaia, known later as the Komi-Permiaki, formally accepted conversion to Christianity from the Perm' bishop Iona. 126 By expanding into Viatka and Perm' Velikaia, Moscow was advancing its fur interests. The fur that absorbed Moscow's interest in the second half of the fifteenth century was not the gray squirrel that Novgorod had been producing, but the luxury fur that would serve both commercial and diplomatic demands generated from the Crimean Tatars, the Ottoman Turks, and the western Europeans. Luxury fur was entering Muscovy through two channels. One channel was the route through Ustiug from the Vychegda Perm'. The Muscovite treasury was receiving tribute payments in sable from the Perm' of the Vychegda-Vym' region. Merchants were also obtaining commercial sup140

Moscow

plies through the market at Ustiug. The primary suppliers were the same Perm' population and their trading partners, the Voguly, Iugra, and Samoed tribes located to their north and east. Kazan' was the key to the other avenue through which Muscovite merchants could obtain fur supplies. From the time of its formation a few decades earlier, Kazan' had been developing its own fur supply system. Having inherited their territory and the trade routes within it from Bulgar, the Kazan' Tatars had access to the fur supplies from Perm' Velikaia on the upper Kama and controlled the routes extending from that river across the Urals to Tiumen' or to the Ob'. By the time Moscow began its northeastward drive, the tribes from Perm' Velikaia to the Ob' river were either under the protection of the Kazan' khanate or were tributaries of the khanate of Tiumen', which in turn maintained close relations with Kazan' via routes that were controlled by Kazan'. Kazan' had thus developed the means to supply Muscovy with fur. Rather than rely on Kazan' as an intermediary, however, the Muscovites brought a route linking Ustiug with the Iugra via Cherdyn' under their control. The military campaigns directed against Viatka and Perm' Velikaia subordinated the peoples on the Viatka and upper Kama rivers and opened that route. Those campaigns were almost immediately followed by a Muscovite attack on the Iugra. In 1465 Grand Prince Ivan sent an army consisting of forces from Ustiug, the Vychegda and the Vym' under the Ustiug commander Vasilii Skriaba against the Iugra. The Muscovite army succeeded in capturing many prisoners and forcing the subordination of at least portions of the Iugra population to Muscovy. The captive Iugra princes, Kalpak and Techik, who were brought to Moscow, returned home as Ivan's appointed rulers after formally recognizing the grand prince as their suzerain and agreeing to pay him tribute.127 That campaign subjected some Iugra tribes to Muscovite suzerainty, increased the Muscovite treasury's revenues from tribute, and also secured for Muscovite use the final segment of the Cherdyn' route, connecting Ustiug directly with the primary fur suppliers of the Iugra. These ventures elicited hostile responses from Kazan' and Viatka. In 1467 Viatka forces attacked Ustiug territories; in 1468 Kazan' Tatars conducted a similar campaign.128 The conflict over Muscovy's northeastern expansion and control over the Cherdyn' route then became fused with another issue highlighting Muscovite-Kazan' relations, the selection of a khan in Kazan'. In 1468 Kazan' experienced a succession crisis, during which Ivan III unsuccessfully tried to seat his candidate, Kasim, on the throne. During the struggle the rivalry for influence over Viatka and Perm' Velikaia continued. One of the Muscovite military expeditions against Kazan', conducted by armies sent by Moscow and consisting of contingents from Ustiug and Vologda, 141

The political significance of the fur trade

approached Kazan' through Viatka. The Muscovites requested reinforcements from Viatka. But the units they received refused to fight the Tatars and withdrew at the first confrontation.129 In a second instance the Viatka commanders refused an invitation to join the campaign, explaining that they had sworn to the Kazan' khan to maintain neutrality in case of hostilities between Moscow and Kazan'. 130 Just as the allegiance of Viatka became a factor in these campaigns, so did access to and use of the Kama trade routes. The northern Muscovite armies forced their way down the Kama to reach Kazan'; one of their targets was the Tatar merchants they encountered, whom they plundered and murdered. 131 Soon after the succession crisis was resolved, the Muscovites acted to consolidate their control over Perm' Velikaia. Because its population had shown favor to Kazan' and honored its merchants but had plundered those of the grand prince, 132 the Muscovites launched a new campaign against Perm' Velikaia in 1472. It resulted in the confirmation of the region's subordination to Moscow. Prince Mikhail of Cherdyn', who had been converted ten years before, was taken prisoner and sent to Moscow, where he swore an oath of loyalty to Ivan and was installed as Moscow's appointee to rule Perm' Velikaia.133 Despite resistance from Kazan', Muscovy had by 1472 firmly established its dominance over Perm' Velikaia and had extended its authority over some Iugra tribes. In the process it had gained access to a trade route that led from Ustiug through Cherdyn' to the fur-supplying Iugra tribes. Full Muscovite control over this route would have enabled Muscovite merchants, particularly those associated with the Ustiug market, to import luxury fur without using Kazan' as an intermediary. Its loss of influence in Viatka and Cherdyn' prompted Kazan' to attempt to recover its monopoly over trade with the Siberian tribes. In 1478 it attacked Viatka, but failed to persuade its former ally to break its ties with Muscovy, which retaliated with an expedition against Kazan'. 134 Kazan' was also determined to maintain its monopoly over direct contact with the khanate of Tiumen'. The Kazan' Tatars, therefore, patrolled the Kama river route; on at least one occasion, in 1475, they killed some Ustiug merchants who were intercepted while traveling along the Kama toward Tiumen'. 135 Muscovy, having effectively secured the Cherdyn' route across the Urals, proceeded to subordinate more of the northeastern fur-supplying tribes among the Voguly and Iugra. Difficulties arose in 1481, when some Voguly, through whose lands it was necessary to pass to reach either the Iugra or Tiumen', attacked Perm' Velikaia.136 Forces from Ustiug, again reflecting Ustiug's intimate involvement with this route, counterattacked. While engaged in the campaign, the Ustiuzhane encountered a group of merchants from Tiumen' on the Kama and plundered them. 137 142

Moscow In 1483, Muscovite forces, gathered from Ustiug, the Vychegda-Vym' region, and Perm' Velikaia, waged war on the Koda princes (Iugra or Khanty princes) and the troublesome Voguly. But after defeating them in battle on the Pelym river, the Muscovite forces "pursued" them by way of the Tavda river into Siberia, went past Tiumen', and made their way down the Irytsh and Ob' rivers to the Iugra land. There they captured several chiefs, including the Koda prince Moldan and the Pelym prince lushman. 138 As a consequence of this campaign and the mediation of the Perm' bishop, some Voguly groups pledged to discontinue their raids on the Perm' and to submit to Muscovite suzerainty; some of the hostile Koda princes also began to pay tribute to the grand prince. 139 In 1485 Ivan III also issued an edict to the Vychegda Perm' regarding the tribute they were to pay. 140 By subduing Perm' Velikaia and these northeastern tribes, which involved a breakthrough across the Urals and direct contact with Tiumen' and its former tributaries on the Ob', Moscow acquired secure sable supplies for its treasury as well as for its merchantry. It broke Kazan's monopoly on Siberian fur supplies and reduced Tiumen's influence over the northwestern Siberian tribes. Viatka, evidently displeased with this arrangement, once again attacked Ustiug. 141 But then the issues of control over the northeastern trade again became intertwined with another succession crisis in Kazan'. By 148 7, Mengli-Girey of the Crimean khanate had become an ally of Ivan III; he had also acquired a heightened interest in Kazan's affairs through his marriage to Nur-Saltan, the widow of Ibrahim, khan of Kazan', and mother of Mahmed Amin and Abdyl-Letif.142 In 1487, therefore, with the approval of MengliGirey, Ivan III forced Kazan' to accept Mahmed Amin as its khan. 143 For almost two decades after that peace reigned between Moscow and Kazan' and, notably, between Moscow and the northeastern tribes. In this relaxed climate trade between Muscovy and Kazan' acquired importance and renown. 144 And in 1489 Moscow finally reasserted its control over Viatka.145 The peace was not broken until almost a decade after that event. The provocation for the renewal of hostilities was a political upheaval in the khanate of Tiumen'. Mamuk, the khan of Tiumen', had been expelled from his lands, which were in the process of being engulfed by the new khanate of Sibir'. In 1496, various Tatar factions, opposed to Mahmed Amin and his Muscovite patron, supported Mamuk of Tiumen' who served briefly as khan of Kazan'. Mamuk, nevertheless, soon lost the confidence of his supporters and was replaced by Abdyl-Letif, who, like his predecessor and brother Mahmed Amin, had the support of Ivan III and Mengli-Girey. In 1499, Mamuk's brother, Agalak, once again having received support from a political faction within Kazan', made a bid for the Kazan' throne. Ivan 143

The political significance of the fur trade

responded to Abdyl-Letif s appeal for aid by sending an army in his defense, and forced the challengers to retreat. He also sent an army made up of contingents from Ustiug, Viatka, Perm', the Dvina, Vaga, and Pinega against the Iugra, Voguly, and Samoedy; that Muscovite force captured forty fortified places and fifty-eight princes.146 The second response may have constituted a signal of Moscow's willingness to abandon the Kazan' market and re-emphasize direct trade between Ustiug and the Ob' population for its commercial fur supplies. Hostilities occurred again in 1505-6 when Mahmed Amin, khan again since 1502, staged a "revolt" against Moscow. The revolt consisted of seizing Muscovy's ambassador to Kazan' along with Muscovite merchants.147 Possibly as part of its response to these events, which were highlighted by another military expedition against Kazan', Moscow in 1505 replaced the line of native princes in Perm' Velikaia with appointed governors.148 This act, which may also have represented a willingness to re-emphasize the Cherdyn' route and renew its expansion into Siberia, prompted the Tiumen' khan to attack the newly installed Muscovite official in 1506, while Moscow was engaged in direct conflicts with Kazan'.149 The creation of Muscovy's fur supply system in the second half of the fifteenth century was thus closely related to its relations with the khanate of Kazan'. One basic component of Muscovy's fur supply involved subordinating the tribes of northeastern Europe and northwestern Siberia. These tribes paid tribute in sable to the Muscovite treasury and engaged in trade with Muscovite merchants centered at the Ustiug market. Their subordination was accompanied by Muscovite acquisition of control over a route connecting Ustiug through Cherdyn' directly with the Ob' population. That factor, as well as the significant role regularly played by Ustiug forces in the military campaigns, suggests that Muscovy undertook its conquest of the northeastern tribes in response to pressure from Ustiug. Muscovy's expansion to the northeast, however, penetrated Kazan's sphere of influence, and provoked Tatar reprisals, which were, not surprisingly, aimed particularly at Ustiug territories. Tension between Moscow and Kazan', stimulated by their rivalry for control over routes to Siberia and the northeastern tributaries, continued until 1487, when Kazan' was drawn into the Muscovite-Crimean Tatar alliance by the placement of Mahmed Amin on the Kazan' throne. Within the context of the new alignment the Muscovite treasury retained its tributaries and the Ustiug merchants continued to have access to fur suppliers via Cherdyn'. But Kazan' also served as a major transit center for goods flowing to Muscovy not only from Siberia but from Persia, Central Asia, and the Caucasus as well. Although political relations among the allies would change, and Muscovy and the Crimean Tatars would engage in a bitter rivalry for the dominant 144

Moscow

influence among the Kazan' Tatars,150 the fur supply system Muscovy created in the second half of the fifteenth century would remain in operation and would be reinforced after the annexation of Kazan'. Indeed, by 1555, Ediger, the Taibugin khan of Sibir\ had pledged loyalty to Ivan IV and begun to pay tribute to Moscow, while at about the same time Ivan demanded tribute from the Sorykad branch of the Ostiaki.151 Only toward the end of the sixteenth century, when Muscovy also incorporated the khanate of Sibir' and all of Siberia became a fur resource, would this fur supply system, established as a result of rivalry and conflict with Kazan' and at its expense, substantially change. Moscow, Lithuania, and the Crimean khanate

The close interconnection between political and military goals on the one hand and commercial interests, particularly relating to the fur trade, on the other, are clearly evident in Muscovy's relations with its rivals, Novgorod and the khanate of Kazan'. Muscovy's steady efforts to gain political ascendancy over Novgorod led to the destruction of the latter's fur supply system, while Muscovy's efforts to redirect Kazan's fur supplies led to political clashes that undermined Kazan's independence. Muscovy's relations with its western and southern neighbors, Lithuania and the Crimean khanate, were also interrelated with control over elements in the fur trade network. As in the case of Kievan Rus', the elements involved were export routes; the commercial concerns were the acquisition of access to consumer markets. The direct association of political actions specifically with the fur trade is thus less clear than in the cases affecting fur supply elements of the trade network. Nevertheless, Muscovy's political interaction with these neighbors followed a pattern that may be matched by changing consumer demand and trade practices. These examples thus also support the contention that achievement of political power, attained successively by Kievan Rus', Suzdalia, and Muscovy, was closely related to the enhancement of their roles in the fur trade. Moscow's expansion to the northeast and consequent conflicts with Kazan' were closely associated with Moscow's creation and organization of a fur supply system that served its developing trade with southern and western consumers. The development and maintenance of those commercial relations also depended upon Muscovy's ability to export that fur. That factor was in turn affected by Muscovy's relations with both its western neighbor, Lithuania, and its southern neighbor, the Crimean khanate. Muscovy's relations with them were associated with its efforts to keep export routes to the south and west open and safe. Although Moscow sent some squirrel fur, specifically klezemes, to northwestern Europe through Novgorod from the late fourteenth century, the 145

The political significance of the fur trade

two main directions of its fur export, developed in the fifteenth century, were the south, where the Italians of the Crimea and later the Ottoman Turks were located, and the west, where central and western Europeans were indulging their taste for luxury fur. Moscow's interest in serving these customers was expressed, as noted above, in its campaigns to gather northeastern tributaries and their sable supplies. At the same time Muscovy's policies toward its western and southern neighbors alternated between alliance and hostility. But regardless of the choice of strategy or its success in terms of extending or securing frontiers, Muscovy's interaction with these neighbors consistently promoted fur export to the south and west. While securing fur supplies in the northeast, Ivan III concluded an alliance with Mengli-Girey of the Crimean khanate. Reversing his allegiance, Mengli-Girey joined forces with Ivan against Lithuania and their common foe, the Great Horde. One major result of the alliance was the cooperation of the two states in keeping the commercial routes between Muscovy and the northern Black Sea coast open and safe. Although he frequently urged Mengli-Girey to be more arduous in safeguarding the routes and scolded him for his failures to protect all travelers adequately, Ivan III was content for the first ten years of the alliance to use the steppe route to the south and to leave its security in the hands of the Crimean khan. But by the early 1490s trading conditions for Russian merchants at Azov and Caffa were deteriorating. The Ottoman administration had made these ports unattractive to Russian merchants.-Ivan, speaking on their behalf through Mengli-Girey, registered a number of complaints to the Ottomans about irregular trade practicies, maltreatment of the merchants, and high customs fees. In 1492 he forbade his merchants to travel to their ports; he thereby cut off Russo-Turkish trade at Azov and Caffa for several years.152 At the same time Moscow's relations with Lithuania deteriorated. In addition to the various political considerations motivating Muscovite policy, aggressive action toward Lithuania in the face of poor commercial conditions at Azov and Caffa provided an opportunity to gain control of an alternate trade route to the Ottoman Empire. The route in question ran through Lithuanian territory. It extended from Moscow through Kaluga, Briansk, Novgorod-Seversk and Putivl' southward to Tavan or Perekop and then turned westward to Akkerman, which the Ottomans had acquired in 1484.153 In 1492, the same year he cut off trade with Azov and Caffa, Ivan launched an offensive against Lithuania. The gains from this war of 1492-4 were modest. The peace agreement transferred the Viaz'ma and upper Oka regions to Muscovy, and also created a Muscovite-Lithuanian 146

Moscow 154

alliance. The territorial acquisitions brought Muscovy's border closer to the western route to the south, although Moscow as yet controlled only a very small portion of it. Shortly after the conclusion of the war, Sultan Bayazit named his son viceroy of Caffa, instructed Mengli-Girey to resolve the commercial dispute centering around Caffa and Azov, and dispatched an envoy to Moscow.155 Although that envoy was detained in Lithuania and never reached his destination, Ivan sent his own ambassador to Caffa and on to Istanbul. He thus opened direct diplomatic relations with the Ottomans and also restored commercial relations in the northern Black Sea ports.156 The western route nevertheless remained viable. Under the protection of the Muscovite-Lithuanian treaty of 1495, caravan traffic began to flow along it. In the following years Ivan repeatedly sent messages to Alexander of Lithuania, requesting that he allow Muscovite, Crimean, and Ottoman ambassadors and the commercial caravans accompanying them to pass through Lithuania on their way between Moscow and the Black Sea coasts.157 In 1497, when the Ottomans defended Moldavia from a Polish attack, sable pelts were among the booty taken, indicating that indeed northern fur was reaching the southern end of this route.158 In 1500 Ivan went to war once again with Lithuania. His military objective, judging from his gains, was the territory from Putivl' northward. That was precisely the territory that made up the northern segment of the western route to the Black Sea. During the war Lithuania's ally, the Great Horde, disrupted the steppe and Don trade routes, in 1502, however, the forces of Moscow's ally, the Crimean khanate, destroyed the Great Horde and preserved the integrity of those routes. One consequence of these wars, which were altering the balance of power in eastern Europe, was that by 1503, Moscow and its ally had extended their joint control over the major routes connecting Moscow and the Black Sea coasts. Their military gains made it possible for Russian merchants to travel through Muscovite territory to Putivl', then enter Tatar-controlled lands and complete the journey south without entering Lithuania and, of course, without hindrance from the Great Horde. The territory transferred from Lithuania also gave Muscovy greater control along the route to western Europe. One major route used by Russian merchants in the late fifteenth century went from Moscow through Viaz'ma to Smolensk and Mogilev. Another followed the path from Moscow to Toropets, Velikie Luki, Polotsk and Virno. 159 The MuscoviteLithuanian agreement of 1494 left Viaz'ma, a key point on the route toward Smolensk as well as on the route southward toward Putivl', in Muscovite hands. The subsequent agreement in 1503 gave Muscovy control over Toropets. Finally in 1512, after a nine-year truce, Muscovy 147

The political significance of the fur trade • •••• Lithuanian border 1490 . — Lithuanian border 1514 • —• Routes 200 miles i

Toropets )"•••.. ••. ./•.. Velikie j

Map 4 Muscovite trade routes to the south and west 148

Moscow

and Lithuania renewed their war. Moscow captured Smolensk in 1514, but, despite the continuation of hostilities until 1522, made no further advances. As a result of the war Muscovy gained control of a greater segment of the route to the west. But while the war dragged on, the Muscovite-Crimean alliance broke down irrevocably. It consequently became impossible for Muscovite merchants to use either the steppe and Don routes or the "Lithuanian route" to reach Ottoman ports in the South. Against the background of this shift in the political configuration on the steppe, Muscovite merchants were discouraged from traveling to the south. At just this time, though, the Ottomans began expressing an interest in traveling north to Muscovy to purchase fur. When the governor of Caffa requested in 1515 that his agent be allowed to purchase hunting birds and fur in Moscow,160 he took the first step in the creation of a new trade pattern. In 1522, when the Muscovite-Lithuanian war ended, the earliest known Ottoman trade expedition to Moscow, made up of six traders from Istanbul and Caffa accompanying the Turkish ambassador Skinder, took place.161 As the pattern of trade shifted from Russian travel to the south to Ottoman agents traveling to the north, the Muscovite need to gain control over and maintain export routes to the Ottoman markets disappeared. Muscovy's expansionist drive into Lithuanian territory then also relaxed for almost forty years. Muscovy's political ascendancy, like that of Kievan Rus' and Suzdalia, was closely associated with the establishment of control over critical elements of the fur trade. Moscow's expansion to the north and northeast, which constituted political challenges to Novgorod and later to Kazan', was inextricably linked with new opportunities for Muscovite participation in the southern and also the European luxury fur trade and with Muscovy's perceived need to secure luxury fur supplies for its treasury and its merchants. The fur trade played an even greater role in Muscovite-Novgorodian relations insofar as the defense of its fur supplies assumed a priority in Novgorod's political calculations. That factor proved to be a determinant of Novgorod's reactions to Muscovite northward expansion. And it was only when the changing nature of foreign demand reduced the value of Novgorod's squirrel supplies and Muscovite pressures also prevented a successful adjustment to those new commercial conditions that Muscovy was able to subordinate Novgorod politically. The fur trade was similarly significant in defining Muscovy's relations with the Crimean Tatars and the Lithuanians. In these cases, however, Moscow's objective was safe export rather than secure supplies. Russian interests in fur export through the Black Sea ports must be considered as a factor contributing to the Muscovite-Crimean Tatar rapprochement in the 149

The political significance of the fur trade

late fifteenth century. Dissatisfaction with conditions at those outlets and growing interests in the European trade may also be considered as factors influencing Muscovy's aggressive behavior toward Lithuania, which yielded control over segments of export routes within Lithuanian territory. Muscovy's territoral expansion and political growth were interlocked with the evolution of the fur trade and its control over the fur trade network. Possession of essential elements in that network figured prominently in all Muscovy's major political rivalries. Muscovy's victories resulted not only in its acquisition of secure and abundant fur supplies and access to export routes, but also in the political absorption of its rivals.

150

THE ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FUR TRADE There is little question that the fur trade was a highly visible and significant component of Russian foreign trade. It was an important means for the Russians to obtain silver, luxury goods, fine woolen cloth, salt and other items from their trading partners. Fur also had diplomatic value, as gifts sent through emissaries by the Russian princes to foreign rulers colored and cemented relations with foreign powers. Control over the trade, furthermore, was repeatedly found to be a factor in political contests among the principalities of the Rus' and the mid-Volga lands. Although observation generally verifies these statements, it has been very difficult to measure the volume and value of the fur trade, and thereby determine just how significant, commercially and politically, the fur trade was. References to the volume of fur traded in the pre-Mongol and early Mongol periods are non-existent, and even statements of the price of fur are rare and not necessarily reliable. More data are available from material on the Novgorod trade in the late and post-Mongol periods. These data relate to exported fur; consequently previous attempts to estimate the volume and value of the trade have been constructed on export data. Yet, there are a variety of problems with this approach. The data are incomplete. Although prices for some types of fur in European markets are available, it is not known how much of it was Novgorodian nor how much was traded in any given year. Similarly, although there are data on fur exports shipped from Reval or through Lubeck in specific years, the origin of all the fur involved is not known and these years cannot be assumed to be representative.1 The results of the foregoing study of the patterns of the fur trade, however, open a new avenue for approaching the problem of the value of the trade. Having charted not only export but also supply patterns, it is possible to use the latter as a basis for calculating the volume of fur made available to the Novgorod market. Once that volume is determined, it is then possible to apply available price information to estimate the value of that trade for Novgorod. A variation of this procedure may also be applied to estimate minimum values for the Muscovite fur trade.

The economic significance of the fur trade NOVGOROD

The data on Novgorod's fur supply system, combined with fragmentary information on exports, provide a basis for estimating the minimum profit Novgorod received from its Baltic fur trade and thus for gaining a sense of its monetary and political value. As determined in Chapter 3, the systematic sectors of the Novgorod supply network were operated, by the second half of the fourteenth century, by boyars, who acquired fur as rent from the peasants living on their northern estates, and by the Novgorodian treasury, which similarly collected taxes from the peasants of Novgorod's northern districts in squirrel pelts. Additional quantities of fur were obtained through the direct sale of pelts by the peasants of these regions themselves, some of whom individually sold fur to obtain the cash they needed to meet obligations to their landlords or for other expenses. Smaller amounts came through fees to stewards on private estates and other sources. From the data presented in the cadastres for Obonezhskaia piatina of 1496 and 1563 and the payment books of the mid-sixteenth century for Kargopol', Turchesov, and the Dvina land, it is possible to calculate a minimumfigurefor the volume of squirrel supplied to the Novgorod market through the mechanisms of rent and taxes. The volume of fur supplied through the rent mechanism may be extrapolated from data drawn from the 1496 cadastre. The largest component of "rent fur" is the number of pelts actually paid by the peasants to their landlords as a form of rent. As shown in Table 4, eighteen landlords in Obonezh'e collected some rent in this form; the total number of squirrel pelts they collected was 6,616 (9.5 pelts per obzha from the 700 obzhas making up the fur-producing estates).2 A second component of the total amount of fur reaching the market through the rent mechanism, albeit less directly, was the fur sold by peasants to obtain cash in order to pay rental fees assessed in that medium. The lay landlords of the seven Obonezh'e pogosts and the Ontov monastery, which collected 639 dengas from seventy obzhas, received a combined total of 28 rubles, 21 dengas as rent from their peasants. If the cash was indeed derived from peasant sales of squirrel pelts, as discussed in Chapter 3, and if each pelt had a value of 1.4 dengas,3 then the cash component of the rent represents an additional sale of 4,335 squirrel pelts (1 Novgorod ruble = 216 dengas). In addition, the peasants of Obonezh'e paid 162.5 squirrel pelts to estate stewards and sold another 83.5 pelts to obtain cash to pay steward fees. The total volume of squirrel pelts made available for market through the rent system on the seven pogosts of Obonezh'e in the third quarter of the fifteenth century was then 6,616 + 4,335 + 162.5-1-83.5 = 1 squirrel pelts. This total represents a rate of 9.4 pelts per obzha. 152

Table 4. The fur and cash components of the rent collected by Novgorodian boyars in Obonezh'e Landowner

Men

Obzhas

146

104 18 22 20

1,389

19

122

5

34

482

278

3.O94

93

168 29

103 16 11

5

16 11 11

13

14

18

14

21

22 .

30

21

165

33 36

33 38

49 54

32

34

240 —

28 329

27

29

42

28

207

30

90

96

126

95

19

19

23

21

30 —

208

81

97

155

115

—

1,291

206

155 1,120

—

1,946

Villages

Households

(derevnia)

(dvor)

59 8

11

23

17 12 12

25

4

6

214

247

91 16 11

Rent in squirrels

Rent in dengas

Vytegorsku pogost

Marfa Boretskaia Zakhar Morozov I. 0. Patrekeev Fedor Morozov Grigorii Nagatin B. D. Zubarev

14

9 9 4

79

24 20

121 128

83.5

— 24 23

97.5 17.5 28

Oshtinskii pogost

Marfa Boreskaia

582

Shungskii pogost

F. 0. Glukhov Mikhail Berdenev Luka Fedorov Oleksandr Timofeev Natal'ia Babkina

15 14

9

724.5 102 62

48 66

— — —

59

Venitskii pogost

Ivan Ovinov Mikhail Berdenev Ivan Berdenev I. Sh. Iazhyshchinskii

—

Pelushskii pogost

K. Fefilatov Perfurii's sons

767

Khotslavl'skii pogost

I. D. Vorvarin Khoigushskii pogost

Bogdan Esipov Totals

107

i n

867

972

1.655

6,616

5.430

The economic significance of the fur trade

It is possible to project these figures onto the remainder of the piatina. It is estimated that there were eighty-one pogosts in the Obonezhskaia piatina.4 If the known seven pogosts were representative, then their fur supply would equal 8.6 percent (^-) of the total fur supplied by the piatina peasants through rent. This would mean that 11,200 pelts were 8.6 percent of the piatina's rental fur supplies or that rent from the entire piatina produced 130,200 pelts. The assumption that the seven pogosts were representative, however, is not necessarily valid. These pogosts were concentrated in the southern portion of the piatina, and had relatively good communication with Novgorod. Estates in four of them, the three most southerly and Shungskii on Lake Onega, concentrated more heavily on agricultural production than did those in the other pogosts.5 This might mean the rent in fur and cash for the seven pogosts was lower than the remainder of the piatina. On the other hand, the population and number of obzha in these pogosts may have, for the same reasons, been greater than elsewhere, and the total fur and cash collected from them may have been proportionately greater than 8.6 percent. It is therefore prudent to employ a second method to estimate the volume of fur supplies as a check on the first. The alternate method is based on the cadastre of 1563, which lists population, production, and rents for nineteen pogosts. Within each pogost the lands that formerly belonged to Novgorodian boyars are identified, and the population size, number of villages, households, and obzhas for 156.3 are enumerated. In 1563 there were 2,356 obzhas on lands that had belonged to Novgorodian boyars a century before. An additional eighteen obzhas in these pogosts belonged to svoezemtsy or local property owners. Before accepting this figure as the number of obzhas in Obonezh'e involved in the fur-supplying rent network, it is necessary to adjust it. This is due to the fact that the number of obzhas, into which estates were divided, changed between the time of the staroe pis'mo (the 1470s or 1480s) and 1563. The manner and size of that change may be determined by comparing the data on those pogosts that are considered in the cadastres of both 1496 and 1563. There are only four such pogosts. Population figures for those pogosts, taken from estates for which rents in the Novgorodian era are known, appear in Table 5. The number of obzhas in these four pogosts decreased by an average of 22 percent between 1496 and 1563. If a similar decline is assumed to have taken place on all those lands in Obonezh'e that had been involved in the rent system in the fifteenth century, then at the end of the fifteenth century there would have been 3,04 3 obzhas rather than 2,3 74 on private, lay estates, in nineteen pogosts of Obonezh'e.7 Using then, the rate of 9.5 to 10 squirrel pelts per obzha, which was applied in the seven pogosts of 154

Novgorod Table 5. A comparison of 1470S-80S and 1 5 6 3 population data in four Obonezh'e pogosts6

Pogost

Villages (derevnia)

Households (dvor)

Men

1470s1470s1470s80s 80s 1563 80s 1563 1563 Vytegorskii Oshtinskii Venitskii Shungskii Total % Change

104 214 189 136 643

163 236 224 146 769

+ 20%

135 247 196 145 723

244 248 482 355 233 280 139 244 975 1,250

+ 35%

226 355 269 358 1,208

-3%

Obzhas

1470s80s 1563 188 278 186 153 805

159 185 118 165 627

-22%

the 1496 book, it is possible to estimate that the rent system applied to 3,043 obzhas in the nineteen pogosts would have made between 28,900 and 30,400 pelts available to the Novgorod market in the third quarter of thefifteenthcentury. The nineteen pogosts constitute 23 percent of the eighty-one pogosts in the entire piatina. If 28,900-30,400 pelts also represent 23 percent of the fur produced by rent from the entire piatina's estates, then the minimum total this system of supply produced was between 125,650 and 132,175 pelts. This range approximates the 130,000 pelts determined by the first method of calculation, which may therefore be accepted as the minimum number of pelts collected through the rent system on boyar estates in the third quarter of the fifteenth century. This sum includes fur paid to landlords and their stewards as well as fur sold by peasants to acquire cash for their rent payments; it does not include any additional fur sold by peasants to supplement their personal incomes. Novgorod's squirrel supply territory was not confined to the Obonezhskaia piatina and its supply system was not confined to rent from private estates. Peasants dwelling on lands in Zavoloch'e and the lower Dvina basin also contributed squirrel to Novgorod's fur trade network. Although some of them lived on boyar estates in these regions, the majority inhabited taxable lands and made their contribution to the fur network through taxes to the Novgorod treasury.8 Information on the taxes they paid is contained in payment books for two regions, one compiled for the Kargopol' and Turchesov districts in 1555-6 by Iakov Saburov and Ivan Kutuzov and the other compiled for the Dvina land. The latter consists of two parts: one compiled in 1552-3 by I. Zabolotskii and a revision made in 1559 by 155

The economic significance of the fur trade V. Gagin. In these books the volosts are listed with the number of villages, obzhas, and rent, which at the time of compilation was paid to the Muscovite grand prince. The rent or tax was itemized in the Saburo v-Kutuzov book; that is, the separate fees and the amounts to be paid for each were listed. The fees included the bel or belka tax, the gornostal iamskie dengi vytnye dengi, kaznacheevye poshliny, and diiachie i podiachie poshliny; grain payments were also recorded. Some monetary fees, as iamskie dengi and the vytnye, were imposed by the Muscovite government after it annexed the Novgorodian territories. But others, notably the bel and the gornostal were clearly holdovers from the Novgorod epoch. This is indicated by the fact that the belka tax rate in the Kargopol' region was identical to the rental rates for squirrel on Novgorod boyar estates in Obonezhskaia piatina. From 1,062 obzhas, from which the belka was collected, the peasants paid a cash sum equivalent to 9,889 squirrel pelts or 9.3 pelts obzha. 9 If it is assumed that Kargopol' experienced the same decline in the number of obzhas as Obonezhskaia piatina and the figures taken from the mid-sixteenth century book are adjusted accordingly, then it may be estimated that peasants from 1,360 obzhas, paying at a rate of 9.3 squirrel pelts per obzha, provided a total of 12,660 pelts to the Novgorod treasury in the third quarter of the fifteenth century. 10 The material on the Turchesov district shows that the cash equivalent of 18,288 squirrel pelts was paid by peasants on 991 obzhas to the Muscovite grand prince in the mid-sixteenth century. In this district, where the belka tax made up 70 percent of the monetary fees, it was assessed at a rate of 18.5 squirrels per obzha or approximately twice the rate applied in Kargopor and in the known pogosts of the Obonezhskaia piatina. Projecting these figures into the fifteenth century and adjusting for the probable decline in the number of obzhas, it may be estimated that in the earlier period, the peasants of 1,270 obzhas in Turchesov paid 23,500 squirrel pelts or their cash equivalent to the Novgorod treasury. Zabolotskii's compilation for the Dvina land does not list the monetary fees for all the different taxes separately, but lumps the belka and gornostal together with several other fees. The iamskaia danf (postal fee) is, however, stated separately. As in Kargopol', this fee amounted to about 25 percent of the total cash fees. It is probable, therefore, that the rates of other taxes in most of the volosts in this region were similar to those in Kargopor. Indeed a sotnaia from this book for the Emtsa district (Emetskii stan) lists the taxes for this district in detail. The combined monetary fees from Emetskii stan were 54 dengas per obzha; in Kargopor they were 52 dengas. Of these the belka tax, collected at a rate often pelts per obzha in the Emtsa region, accounted for 56 percent; in Kargopor it made up 57 percent. The similarity of the Kargopor and Emtsa tax patterns provides a basis for 156

Novgorod

applying the Kargopol' pattern to 2,093 obzhas of the Dvina region, of which the Emetskii stan was a part.11 The size of the belka tax in the Dvina may then be estimated by two methods. First it is possible to determine 56 percent of the total cash portion of the tax, which was 465 rubles or 93,000 dengas (where one Moscow ruble is equal to 200 dengas.) This amounts to 52,080 dengas or, calculating at the rate of 3 dengas per squirrel pelt as the payment book states, 17,360 squirrel pelts. If the Dvina rate is considered at 57 percent rather than 56 percent, the area would have been providing 17,670 pelts or 8.5 pelts per obzha. The second method begins with the number of squirrel-producing obzhas in the Dvina land-2,093 obzhas. If that figure is projected into the fifteenth century by correcting for a loss in the number of obzhas, the number of obzhas producing fur in the fifteenth century becomes 2,683. Multiplying that figure then by the assumed belka rates, a low of 8.5 and a high of ten, yields the number of squirrel pelts provided through the tax component of the fur supply network from the Dvina land through the Novgorod treasury to market: between 22,800 and 26,800 pelts. In addition to the 2,093 obzhas just discussed, Zabolotskii listed another 661 squirrel-producing obzhas in volosts in the Pinega-Mezen' region. These volosts are distinguished by the fact that almost all their inhabitants paid only the belka and the gornostal taxes, listed in a single sum, and the iamskaia dari. In these volosts the belka and the gornostal made up 77 percent of the monetary fees paid by the peasants on squirrel-producing land; the region thus resembled Turchesov, where the belka accounted for 70 percent and the gornostal 6 percent of monetary taxes. It is therefore plausible to consider the belka tax from this region as 70 percent of the monetary tax, or 232.75 rubles. The belka tax was then the equivalent of 10,862 squirrel pelts. The belka tax rate would have been 16.4 pelts per obzha. If it is assumed that the taxpayers of the 661 obzhas paid the belka tax at the rate of 18.5 pelts per obzha, as in Turchesov, then they would have supplied 12,228.5 pelts. If the 22 percent of the fifteenth-century obzhas is restored, then the number of pelts collected in this region in the fifteenth century from 847 obzhas becomes 13,900 to 15,700 pelts. The preceding calculations are summarized in Table 6. Novgorod's rent-tax mechanism thus appears to have supplied a minimum of 200,000 squirrel pelts per year to the Novgorod market. It must be emphasized that this is a minimum figure. Available data allow an estimate of the size of supplies only in the third quarter of the century, when the squirrel market had already declined. Substantial numbers of boyars had disposed of their northern estates during the course of the fifteenth century, often transferring them to monasteries, which evidently 157

The economic significance of the fur trade Table 6. Estimated number of squirrel pelts collected in Novgorod through rent-tax system ]figures

based on cadastres and payment books 1555-6

1552-3

Obonezhskaia piatina Kargopol' Turchesov Dvina (2,093 obzhas) Dvina (661 obzhas)

1496 cadastre

cadastre

11,200

23,000

1563

Zabolotskii payment book

SaburinKutuzov payment book

for

fifteenth century 130,000

9,889

18,288 17,36021,000 10,90012,000

Total

Projections

12,650 23,500 22,80026,800 13,90015,700 202,850208,650

did not participate in the fur trade system.12 The fur that these estates had produced in earlier decades is not reflected in the available data and in these calculations. Furthermore, these calculations are based on the rate of squirrel collection that evidently prevailed in the northern districts, nine to ten pelts per obzha. In some districts the rate was almost twice that, 18.5 pelts per obzha. Clearly, if this rate had been applied to a broader area than is assumed here, the volume of pelts collected through the rent-tax mechanism would have been substantially higher. It must also be recalled that, while the rent-tax mechanism represents the most systematic and reliable portion of Novgorod's squirrel supply, it was not responsible for the entire supply. Commercial operations through which peasants sold fur to supplement their incomes also channeled fur to the market, as did merchants who traded among northeastern nonRussian populations. The operation of these mechanisms is reflected in the incident of 1425, when Novgorod attacked Ustiug and subsequently demanded 50,000 squirrel pelts and 240 sable pelts from it.13 It is not improbable that the bulk of the fur that in 1425 had accumulated in Ustiug's warehouse would, under normal conditions, have been dispatched through Novgorod to the Baltic market. Similarly, in one incident recorded in 14 71, Novgorodians seizing lands on the Vyia and Pinezhka also took 15,000 squirrel pelts;14 this fur in an earlier period may also have made up part of the Novgorod supply. The volume of Novgorod's squirrel supplies, certainly through the first 158

Novgorod

third of the fifteenth century, was thus larger than the estimates calculated above indicate. When European demand for squirrel was still high, the supplies were no doubt correspondingly greater. This is indicated by somefigureson fur exports. In 1393 one ship, that of Captain J. Dubbelson sailing from Reval to Flanders and captured by the Herzog of Mecklenberg, was carrying over 225,000 fur pelts. A second ship sailing the same route was loaded with eight barrels of fur, which must have contained at least another 40,000 pelts.15 Ten years later Engelbrecht Bonnit's ship, sailing from Riga to Flanders, also had a cargo containing over 200,000 fur pelts. Of these about one-quarter belonged to Dorpat merchants, who probably had acquired them in Novgorod and Pskov. Captain R. Boitin's ship, sailing at the same time and also loaded with goods of Dorpat merchants, carried almost 90,000 fur pelts.16 In April 1410 at the end of the winter trading season, the German merchants had accumulated sixty barrels of fur in Novgorod; these probably contained 300,000 to 420,000 pelts.17 London alone in the late fourteenth century imported over 300,000 squirrel pelts, albeit not all from Novgorod, on an annual basis.18 Several decades later, however, in April 1441, Novgorod officials confiscated the property of the Germans in the Novgorod dvor; this property included only forty barrels of fur or 200,000 to 280,000 pelts,19 a figure approximating the estimate calculated to have been supplied during the third quarter of the fifteenth century. It may thus be concluded that 200,000 squirrel pelts represents a reasonable estimate for the minimum volume of fur supplied annually through Novgorod's supply network in the late fifteenth century. 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.20 A value for the profits made by the boyars, city treasury, and other fur suppliers from their trade in squirrel pelts may now be calculated on the basis of these figures for the minimum amount of squirrel Novgorod merchants had available for sale. This may be done by comparing the market price of fur in Novgorod with the value assigned to it in the hinterlands. M. P. Lesnikov, using data on the trade of the Teutonic Knights in Novgorod, determined the prices of various types of squirrel in Novgorod. Using information on the quantities of silver the Order's agents brought to Novgorod and the relative value of the various types of squirrel, Lesnikov determined that in 1398 the Teutonic Knights were able to purchase schoenewerke at 31.25 Prussian marks per 1,000 pelts, anigen at 28.15 PrM. per 1,000 pelts, and lushwerke at 2 5 Pr. M. per 1,000.2 x One Novgorodian ruble (N.R.) was equivalent to 3.5 Prussian marks.22 Prices in Novgorod were therefore: 159

The economic significance of the fur trade

1,000 schoenewerke = 8.9 N.R. 1,000 anigen = 8 N.R. 1,000 lushwerke = 7 . 1 N.R. The data in the 1496 cadastre indicated that one squirrel pelt on an estate in Obonezhskaia piatina was valued at the time of the staroe pis'mo at 1.4 dengas. Unfortunately, the available documentary evidence does not include any indication of earlier levels of the estate price for fur squirrel pelts. Consequently, despite circumstantial evidence of some inflation during the fifteenth century, which would suggest a lower estate price for the earlier decades, the available higher estate price applicable in the 1470S-80S is used here. By doing so, the calculations may underestimate the markup on squirrel prices. Although they correspondingly may overestimate the value of the direct tax income of the Novgorodian treasury for the earlier period, it is a contention of this study that the benefit derived by the treasury from the collection of the belka was not limited to the direct income from that tax; rather, the economic benefits of acquiring other commodities, particularly silver, through the sale of squirrel were broader than the purely fiscal proceeds. Recognizing the possible errors and their nature, a calculation of the markup or profit on the fur trade may be made. Taking the value of squirrel pelts on the estate in the fifteenth century as 1.4 dengas per pelt or 6.5 N.R. per 1,000, the difference between the estate price and the market price can be determined. In 1398 that difference, or the markup on fur, ranged from six-tenths of one ruble to 2.4 rubles per 1,000 pelts. Similar evaluations based on the Order's purchases and Lesnikov's calculated prices in the following four years may be made. In 1399 the Order sold 76,640 pelts in Bruges; of these 48,070 originated in Novgorod. The cost of squirrel in Novgorod in that year was: 1,000 schoenewerke = 32.73 Pr.M. = 9.35 N.R. 1,000 anigen = 29.5 Pr.M. = 8.4 N.R. 1,000 lushwerke = 26.23 Pr.M. = 7.5 N.R. Profits based on the estate value of 6.5 N.R. per 1,000 were thus 2.85 N.R., 1.9 N.R., and 1 N.R. per 1,000 pelts, respectively. In 1400 the Order sold in Bruges 43,250 squirrel pelts, all schoenewerke, anigen, and lushwerke from Novgorod. The prices of those furs that year were 34.85 Pr.M., 31.36 Pr.M., and 27.88 Pr.M. or 10 N.R., 9 N.R., and 8 N.R., respectively. Profits for Novgorodian suppliers were correspondingly 3.5, 2.5, and 1.5 rubles per 1,000 pelts. In 1402-3 the Order sold 56,250 pelts in Bruges; they consisted of 12,500 schoenewerke, 8,000 anigen, and 9,000 klezemes that the Order 160

Novgorod Table 7. Differences between the estate value and Novgorod market prices for squirrel fur in 1398-1404 Anigen

Schoenewerke

1398 1399

1400 1402-3

1403-4 a

price in N.R.*

Market price

Difference

Market price

Difference

6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5

8.9 935

2.4 2.85 3-5 3

8 8.4 9 8.6 8.7

1-5 1.9 2.5

10

9-5 9-7

3-2

2.1 2.2

Lushwerke Market price

Difference

7-1

0.6

7«5 8 7.6 7-7

1

1.5 1.1 1.2

Based on estate price of squirrel in the 1470s, the time of the staroe pis'mo.

obtained via Novgorod, 23 and 2 6 , 7 5 0 lushwerke. Prices in Novgorod that winter were: 1,000 schoenewerke = 33.36 Pr.M. = 9.5 N.R.

1,000 anigen 1,000 lushwerke

= 30.02 Pr.M. = 8.6 N.R. = 26.69 Pr.M. = 7.6 N.R.

The difference between the market prices and the values assigned on the estate were 3, 2.1, and 1.1 N.R. per 1,000 pelts, respectively. The last year for which the Order's purchase in Novgorod are recorded is 1403-4, when they sold 59,790 pelts in Bruges. Of this amount all but 6,180 pelts were purchased in Novgorod directly or came from Novgorod to Prussia, where the Order purchased them. The Order's fur included 17,500 schoenewerke, 6,620 anigen, 14,970 klezemes, 14,250 lushwerke, and 270 troyenissen. Novgorod prices that year have been determined by Lesnikov to be: 1,000 schoenewerke= 33.9 Pr.M. = 9.7 N.R. 1,000 anigen = 30.5 Pr.M. = 8.7 N.R. 1,000 lushwerke = 2 7 . 1 1 Pr.M. = 7.7 N.R. The price differential was thus 3.2, 2.2, and 1.2 N.R. per 1,000 pelts, respectively. The price differences between the estate value and the Novgorod market prices for 1398-1404 are summarized in Table 7. These price differentials represent the profit made by the Novgorodian suppliers and merchants and paid by the Order's fur purchasers. The amounts and percentages of profit or markup on the Order's purchases appear in Table 8. 161

The economic significance of the fur trade Table 8. Markup on squirrel fur purchased by the Teutonic Order in Novgorod in 13 9 8 - 1 4 0 4

1398

schoenewerke anigen lushwerke

1399

schoenewerke anigen lushwerke

1400 schoenewerke anigen lushwerke

1402-3

schoenewerke anigen lushwerke

1403-4

schoenewerke anigen lushwerke

Number of pelts

Estate value in N.R.

Market value in N.R.

39*750 19,500 40,250 99,500

258.4 126.8 261.6 646.8

353-8 285.8 795.6

95-4 29.2 24.2 148.8

13,250 18,750 11,750 43.750

86.1 121.9 76.4 284.4

123.9 157-5 88.1 3695

37-8 35-6 11.7 85.1

44

19.250 14,000 10,000 43.250

125.1

192.5

67.4 35

54 38

398.5

117.4

42

3 7-5 16.8 29.4

46

83-7

^7

55-8

49 34

9i

65 281.1

156

126 80

12,500 8,000 26,750 47.250

173-9. 307.2

118.8 68.8 203.3 390.9

17.500 6,620 14.250 38.370

113.8 43 92.6 249.4

169.6 57-6 109.7 336.9

81.3 52

Markup in N.R.

% Markup 37 23

9 23

29 15 30

15

14.6 17.1 87.5

32 17

18

35

Although price information on squirrel fur sold by individual merchants in western Europe in adjacent periods is available, corresponding figures for the critical value, the price of fur in Novgorod, are lacking.24 The proceeds derived from fur sales in Novgorod at the turn of the fourteenth-fifteenth centuries were substantial. The difference between the cost and the market price of the highest quality pelts, which were probably those collected and marketed by the landlords, ranged from 2.5 to 3.5 N.R. per 1,000 pelts or from 37 to 54 percent. Even allowing for transportation costs and for the profit of intermediary merchants, the sale of squirrel fur was a profitable business. 25 Through the fur trade Novgorod was able to exchange pelts at a profit and inject into the economy silver and other commodities worth a minimum of 2,000 rubles. The significance of this figure is difficult to gauge. Prices of other goods on the domestic market in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries 162

Moscow are rarely available. But it is possible to compare this figure with the size of the tribute paid by the Russian principalities to the Golden Horde in the fourteenth century, and in this manner to get a sense of its practical and political value. The vykhod or tribute collected for the Horde in the late fourteenth century was probably 5,000 silver rubles.26 Available data do not reveal how much silver was imported by Novgorod, nor the proportion attributable to fur sales. It is known, however, that Novgorod did possess significant quantities of silver. In 1327, for example, when Tatar forces were suppressing a rebellion in Tver', Novgorod had in its possession and was obliged to pay a special assessment of 2,000 silver pieces to the Tatar envoys.2 7 Thefigurescalculated above show that through the fur exchange, Novgorod's treasury converted a minimum of 70,000 squirrel pelts into 600 to 700 rubles. When it is considered that the volume of trade in the fourteenth century was probably two or three times larger than those minimum estimates, then the treasury's receipts from its share of the fur trade alone were sufficient to pay this special assessment.28 Furthermore, the gross proceeds from the entire fur sales, a minimum of 2,000 rubles and a more probable figure of 4,000 to 6,000 rubles were, even, if not all in silver and in proper form to pay the Horde, equivalent in value to the tribute (vykhod) paid by all the Russian principalities to the Golden Horde. The net income from Novgorod's fur trade, which amounted to a minimum of 600 to 700 rubles and to the more likely sum of 1,200 to 2,100 rubles, was sufficient to restore to the economy a substantial portion of the wealth drained by tribute payments to the Horde. In the fourteenth and earlyfifteenthcenturies when Novgorod's squirrel trade reached its peak, when its supply system was well organized and functioning smoothly, when foreign demand for northern gray squirrel was great and consistent, and when prices and volume were high, that trade played an important role not only in Novgorod's but in the entire Russian economy. MOSCOW

During thefifteenthcentury, however, Novgorod's squirrel trade declined, and the center of the Russian fur trade shifted to Moscow. The value of this trade is even more difficult to determine than that of Novgorod. The method employed for Novgorod cannot be applied to Moscow. Moscow's trade depended upon supplies from tributaries and commercial activity. There is, though, virtually no information on the volume of fur supplied to the Muscovite market through commercial means; this discussion is consequently limited to a consideration of the value of the fur trade to the Muscovite treasury. It must be borne in mind that, as was the case in Novgorod, the benefit to the Muscovite treasury was derived not solely from 163

The economic significance of the fur trade

thefiscalrevenue from fur tribute, but from the commercial profit obtained through the sale of fur. Even within these limits, it is impossible to estimate the volume of fur supply. The available sources provide very little data on the quantities of pelts supplied by tributaries. It is known that in 1485 the Vychegda Perm' population was obliged to provide 1,707 sable pelts,29 and in 1556 Ediger of the khanate of Sibir' sent 700 sable pelts, less than the normal figure, which was probably 1,000, to Moscow.30 Although the size of the tribute was clearly growing as the Muscovite grand prince subordinated more and more northeastern tribes, and, at least by the mid-sixteenth century, assessed tribute at the rate of one sable pelt per person,31 there is neither precise information on nor a means of calculating the number of pelts regularly channeled to the Muscovite treasury.32 Data on the volume of fur exported from Moscow in thefifteenthcentury are also lacking. Although records from the last quarter of that century relate to caravans transporting goods to the Black Sea ports and Lithuania and list fur among the goods in the transport, they fail to detail amounts or values of the fur.33 Nevertheless, some estimates of minimum volume and value of the Moscow treasury's fur trade can be made, based on scattered references to fur prices in Moscow and isolated sixteenth century fur purchases in Moscow. Fur prices in Moscow were recorded by several visitors to that city. Herberstein claimed that the very best sable sold for as much as twenty or thirty gold pieces; since elsewhere he equated one gold piece with one-half of a ruble, a single prized sable cost between 10 and 15 rubles. It may be significant that Herberstein also confessed that he never personally saw a pelt of this quality and price.34 Dietrich Shoenberg, an emissary of the Teutonic Order who visited Moscow in 1517 and again in 1518, noted that a sorok of sable, or forty pelts, sold for 11, 12, 15 and 18 rubles; forty ermine skins cost a ruble; 1,000 gray squirrel sold for 14 rubles, and a sorok of marten claimed 4, 5, and 6 rubles.35 M. V. Fekhner, using data from later in the sixteenth century, determined that sable sold in Moscow for 10 altyns to 7.5 rubles per pelt or 12 to 300 rubles per sorok with the normal price ranging from one-half to one ruble per pelt to 20 or 40 rubles per sorok. Fekhner also placed the cost of marten from 8 to 13 rubles per sorok, ermine at 1.2 rubles per sorok, and squirrel at only 2.5 rubles per i,ooo. 36 In 1573, finally, Ivan IV sent a message to Iakov Stroganov authorizing him to spend between 8 and 13 rubles per sorok to purchase sable for him or larger amounts for single, high-quality pelts. Although unable to fill the order in Moscow, Stroganov did buy the sable in the Vychegda-Vym' region for 10 rubles per sorok.37 The price information may be used in combination with information on sizable fur sales to calculate the value of the Muscovite trade. Some data 164

Moscow

on Ottoman fur purchase in Moscow in the second quarter of the sixteenth century are available. It is possible to determine the profit the Muscovites made on at least those transactions. By the second quarter of the sixteenth century, the Muscovite-Crimean alliance had broken down, and Ottoman agents were making the journey to Moscow to buy fur. In 1529 Suleiman I sent his merchants with 500,000 aqce to Moscow for that purpose.38 In 1542 Andrian the Greek, also acting on behalf of the Ottoman sultan, arrived in Moscow with 600,000 silver aqce, and in 15 51 he returned with 10,000 in gold to buy Muscovite goods.39 The exchange rate between the Ottoman and Muscovite currencies during thefirsthalf of the sixteenth century is not precisely known. In the 1580s, however, 5 gold altins were equated with 4 Russian rubles, and approximately 50 aqce made up one altin.40 At that rate the 500,000 aqce sent to Moscow in 1529 were equivalent to 8,000 rubles; 600,000 aqce were equivalent to 9,600 rubles, 10,000 altins were again 8,000 rubles. With sable valued at between 8 and 40 rubles per sorok, the Ottomans' 8,000 rubles were sufficient to purchase between 200 and 1,000 sorok or between 8,000 and 40,000 sable pelts. These figures can then be considered the very minimum amount supplied by Moscow's tributaries and merchants. The value derived from the exchange of this fur can be determined by the same method applied in the calculations for Novgorod. The document issued in 1485 by Ivan III to the Vychegda Perm' specified that if there were no sable, the tribute should be paid in cash, at the rate of 4 grivnas (80 dengas) per sable. A single sable pelt, therefore, had a wholesale value of 4 grivnas while a sorok of forty pelts had a value of 16 rubles. This figure is clearly higher than some of the market prices. As cited above, sable sold in Moscow for as little as 11 rubles per forty, and it was not considered unreasonable to look for it at a price of 8 rubles per forty. It must be assumed, therefore, that the treasury was either adding a penalty if the tribute payment were not made in sable or demanding relatively high-quality pelts in tribute; for lack of any other figures, 4 grivnas per pelt is assumed to be the wholesale value of the relatively expensive sable pelts on the Muscovite market. Using then Shoenberg's highestfigures,the markup on the sale of forty pelts would have been 2 rubles or 12.5 percent. This rate of profit compares rather poorly with the 37-54 percent achieved from the sale of squirrel in Novgorod. The markup probably did not improve during the sixteenth century. Although Fekhner'sfiguresshow sable prices to have risen to between 20 and 40 rubles per sorok in the second half of the century, inflation had by then intensified. Other prices, including those of other types of fur, had at least doubled between the late fifteenth and mid-sixteenth centuries. 41 Fekhner's prices for sable are correspondingly about twice those reported 165

The economic significance of the fur trade

by Shoenberg, and it is reasonable to assume that the wholesale price of sable rose by a similar factor. Thus, even those sable pelts selling for the higher prices cited by Fekhner, that is for at least 40 rubles per sorok, brought a rate of profit of only 25 percent (assuming a wholesale value of 32 rubles per sorok). Net proceeds from an 8,000 R. sale, at a rate of profit of 12.5 to 25 percent, were therefore from 100 to 200 R.42 Although the markup was relatively low in comparison to Novgorod's, the gross proceeds were nevertheless substantial. Moscow received for its fur a minimum of 8,000 rubles from a single transaction with the Ottoman purchasing agents. By the mid-sixteenth century, inflation had raised fur prices just over two times their fifteenth-century levels. The 8,000 rubles spent on fur would have been worth just under 4,000 rubles in fifteenthcentury Novgorod. This single Muscovite customer thus provided twice the minimum income received by Novgorod for its fur or about the equivalent of Novgorod's probable income in more prosperous times. When the income from Moscow's other customers is added to the Ottoman agents' 8,000 rubles, it must be concluded that Moscow, in replacing Novgorod as the chief fur trade center and in substituting luxury fur for squirrel pelts, also broadened the scope and increased the gross income from the fur trade. The income derived from Moscow's sale of fur to the Ottoman Empire alone was certainly large in comparison to the 2,300 to 2,450 rubles the Muscovite treasury received from the belka tax, the payment made in lieu of squirrel pelts by the inhabitants of Novgorod's former squirrel supply territories.43 The available data, which are adequate only for minimum estimates, clearly indicate that Moscow's fur trade was at least as lucrative as Novgorod's had been. The study of the patterns of the fur trade has made it feasible to extrapolate from partial data and make some estimates of the minimum volume and value of the Russian fur trade, at least as it was conducted by Novgorod and Moscow. The calculations made in this chapter make it evident that in both cases government treasuries were receiving sizable incomes from their participation in the fur trade. That factor demonstrates that the trade was not merely an exotic exercise that captured the imaginations of distant and awed Muslim consumers. On the contrary, the fur trade, particularly through its capacity to attract precious metals into the Rus' lands, was an economic enterprise that had real and significant value for the participating central fur markets. Its value was certainly great enough to warrant the sustained and determined political and military contests that resulted over the centuries in changes in control over segments of the trade network and ultimately in Muscovy's monopolization of the fur trade. 166

CONCLUSION

The fur trade, for which Muscovy became famous in the sixteenth century, had been in operation for centuries before the formation of the principality. That trade involved the transport of northern pelts - sable, ermine, marten, fox and squirrel - from the "land of darkness" (the northern regions stretching from Finland to the Ob' river) to "all ends of the earth" (the Muslim East, the Byzantine Empire, North Africa, western Europe, and even to India and China). Within the fur trade network the particular centers responsible for accumulating northern fur and redistributing it varied through the ages, as did the sources and types of fur they collected and the consumers to whom they sold it. But through the foregoing examination of the vicissitudes of the fur trade centered around Bulgar-on-the-Volga, Kievan Rus\ Novgorod, and Moscow and Kazan', several relatively consistent factors or patterns manifest themselves. The first is perhaps the most obvious, but nevertheless is worthy of articulation. The fur trade persisted. Despite the numerous variations and transformations its elements underwent, despite its overall expansions and contractions, and despite shifts in the relative importance of its trade centers, the fur trade was a constant, ever-present economic factor in the Rus' and mid-Volga lands throughout all the centuries considered in this study. A second observable and constant factor regarding this trade is that it involved the sale of fur to foreign merchants for valuable commodities. Fur was exchanged for a variety of goods, including Oriental silks and gems, European woolen cloth, and even gold. But chief among the items that fur regularly brought into the Rus' and mid-Volga lands was silver. This factor remained constant, despite or due to the changes in market centers, the types of fur sold, and the identity of the most important purchasers. In the tenth century silver coin was the chief commodity imported from the Muslim East by Bulgar and through it to the Rus' centers, Novgorod and, to a lesser degree, Kiev. When Oriental silver coin ceased to be available, the direction of Novgorod's fur trade shifted toward northwestern Europe, which became a substitute for Bulgar and the East as a supplier of silver in exchange for fur. Novgorod's focus on the European market 167

Conclusion

influenced the degree and direction of its own northern expansion, so that during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, in conjunction with its efforts to provide luxury pelts, Novgorod ventured further and further to the northeast, carving out communication routes and demanding tribute from the northeastern non-Russian populations. When Europeans displayed a preference for the more readily available gray squirrel, Novgorod, still eager for the European silver, correspondingly developed rental and tax systems, by which its boyar landowners and the city treasury could deliver squirrel pelts to the market. But when Europeans once again sought sable and Novgorodians were unable to satisfy that demand, the European silver began toflowto Moscow, which by that time had captured control of the sable supplies. In a similar fashion the Ottomans sent silver to Moscow to purchase sable and other types of luxury fur. A third phenomenon that becomes apparent is that a major beneficiary of the fur trade, a primary recipient of the inflowing silver was, regularly, the political ruler of the market center. This phenomenon reflects the fact that the political leaders of the Rus' and mid-Volga lands were, again on a consistent basis, participants in the fur trade. They were not the only participants. Private merchants and other fur suppliers also played significant roles. Nor was the nature of their participation always the same. Nevertheless, from the early Kievan Rus' princes, who collected fur from their subordinated tribes and then conducted it to Constantinople, to the Kazan' khans, who fought to maintain their exclusive access to Siberia's fur supplies; from the Bulgar rulers, who taxed both their subjects and the fur merchants who congregated at their market, to the Novgorod city officials, who developed a specialized tax system to regularize the treasury's marketable fur revenue; from the princes of Rostov and Suzdal', who extended their control over the fur supply lines of Bulgar and Novgorod, to the Muscovite grand princes, who aggressively incorporated fur suppliers, supply routes, and rival market centers into their realm; throughout the history of the fur trade network, the political leadership of the region was intimately and regularly involved with that trade. That involvement, as has been noted, assumed different forms. At times it was direct or indirect participation in the exchange of goods. At other times, however, it was the exercise of political and military power directed toward controlling key elements of the fur trade network. By engaging in the latter type of activity, the princes and khans directly influenced the evolution of that trade network. They forced the transfer of control over supply routes; they subjugated fur suppliers; and they created conditions that contributed to the ability of selected markets to achieve primacy. Another observation that may be made regarding the fur trade then is that certain political or military activities undertaken by rulers in the Rus' and mid-Volga principalities had as their objectives, or were otherwise closely 168

Conclusion bound with, control over important segments of the fur trade network. Such political actions or military clashes were the events that effected changes in control over important elements of that network. The shifting control over the fur trade followed patterns that were parallel to those defining the political fates of the principalities in the Rus' and mid-Volga lands that contained the fur trade centers. Bulgar's trade, for example, was characterized by flexibility, resilience, and adaptability; and it survived for centuries despite numerous challenges to its supplies and periodic instability among its foreign consumers. Yet, when Bulgar finally faced a loss of fur supplies as well as of consumers, its fur trade collapsed. Bulgar also then collapsed politically. A similar correspondence existed between the success of its fur trade and the political viability of each of the other market centers, Kiev, Novgorod, and Kazan'. In every case, political collapse closely followed the decline or loss of control over vital elements in the center's fur trade network. These observations, considered together, suggest the following conclusions. The fur trade was a vital economic factor in the principalities of the Rus' and mid-Volga lands. It provided a most important mechanism for drawing significant quantities of silver, as well as other commercially important commodities, into the region. The political entity and its ruler, who controlled the fur supplies, supply routes, and/or the fur market centers, received a sizable income from this trade, and thereby gained a distinct advantage over political competitors. The importance of the trade is reflected in, related to, and in some instances may be considered responsible for the recurrent political and military clashes that occurred among the political leaders of rival market centers. Those clashes provided the dynamic for the transfer of control over supplies and market centers from one political entity to another. The same clashes were responsible for the political transformations that ultimately resulted in Muscovy's acquisition of a monopoly over the fur trade network as well as over political power in the region. The fur trade was an economic factor that certainly and significantly influenced the political development and growth of the Rus' and mid-Volga principalities between the tenth and midsixteenth centuries.

169

NOTES

Introduction i This observation was made by al-Mas'udi (Abu '1-Hasan 'Ali b. al-Husayn al-Mas'udi), a tenth-century traveler, geographer and historian from Bagdad. He is classified, along with Ibn Khurradadhbih (see below), as a representative of the Iraqi School of Muslim Geographers. Although his wanderings took him from Africa in the west to the Far East and through the southern Caspian coastal region, al-Mas'udi never ventured further north. Two of the works he wrote describing his travels have survived: Meadows of Gold and Mines of Gems (Murudj al-dhahab wa ma'adin al-djawahir) and Book of Warnings (al-Tanbih wa 'l-ishraf). As geographies, Mas'udi's works are not considered by some to be of the caliber of those of some of his scholarly contemporaries. He neglected original sources and tended to incorporate material uncritically into his text. Nevertheless, he drew upon earlier geographical works as well as his own experiences and knowledge derived from his travels to present original interpretations and theories about the assembled data. His work is especially valuable for its accurate contemporary information relating to those areas he visited beyond the Islamic realm. Numerous manuscripts of Meadows of Gold have survived, providing the bases for translations into English and French. The quotation cited in the text is drawn from El-Masudi's Historical Encyclopedia entitled " Meadows of Gold and Mines of Gems", trans, by A. Sprenger (London: Oriental Translation Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, 1841), p. 412. It may also be found in the French edition prepared by Charles Pellat, Les Prairies a"or, 3 vols. (Paris: Societe Asiatique, Collection d'Ouvrages Orientaux, 1962-71) 1:164. Pellat's edition is an incomplete revision of an earlier French translation prepared by C. Barbier de Meynard and Pavet de Courteille, Les Prairies d'or, 9 vols. (Paris: Imprimerie imperiale, 1861-1917). Another important edition is: Michael Jan de Goeje, ed., Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum, 8 vols. (Lugduni Batavorum: E. J. Brill, 1870-1939; 3rd ed., 1967), vol. 8: Kitab at-tanbih wafl-ishrdf by al-Mas'udi. Excerpts from al-Mas'udi have been translated into Russian and published by A. E. Harkavy (Garkavi), Skazaniia musul'manskikh pisatelei 0 slavianakh i russkikh (St. Petersburg: 1870; reprint, The Hague: Mouton, 1969), pp. 117-24, and D. A. Khvol'son, hvestiia 0 khozarakh, burtasakh, bolgarakh, mad'iarakh, slavianakh i russakh Abu-ali Akhmeda ben Omar ibn-Dasta (St. Petersburg: n.p., 1869), pp. 162-8. Information about alMas'udi may be found in the introductions to cited translations as well as in A. Iu. Krachkovskii, Izbrannye sochineniia, vol. 4: Arabskaia geograflcheskaia literatura (Moscow and Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1957), pp. 171-9 and Encyclo170

Notes to pages 1-5 pedia of Islam (El), new edition, 5 vols. with supplements (Leiden: E. J. Brill and London: Luzac, 1960-86), 2 : 5 8 0 - 1 . 2 Adam of Bremen, History of the Archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen,

trans, by

Francis J. Tschan (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959), p. 198-9. 1. Bulgar 1 A. P. Smirnov, Volzhskie Bolgary, Trudy gosudarstvennogo istoricheskogo muzeia, no. 19 (Moscow: GIM, 1951), pp. 3, 1 0 - 1 1 ; B. D. Grekov and N. F. Kalinin, "Bulgarskoe gosudarstvo do Mongol'skogo zavoevaniia," in Materialy po istorii Tatarii (Kazan': Tatgosizdat, 1948), pp. 110-12; B. D. Grekov, ''Volzhskie Bolgary: IX-X vv.," Istoricheskie zapiski 14 (1945): 32; V. V. Grigor'ev, "Bulgary volzhskie," in Rossiia i Aziia (St. Petersburg: n.p., 1876), p. 98. For accounts of the establishment of Khazar authority in the region, see D. M. Dunlop, The History of the Jewish Khazars (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1954), pp. 4iff, and M. I. Artamonov, Istoriia Khazar (Leningrad: Gosudarstvennyi Ermitazh, 1962), pp. 171-2. 2 Much of the available information on Bulgar is found in the Islamic sources. The anonymous Hudud al-alam, for example, identifies two of these towns, Bulgar and Suvar. Composed in 982-3, Hudud al-alam combines the traditions of the Classical School of Muslim Geography and of Ibn Rusta, both of which will be discussed below. The text has survived in a mid-thirteenthcentury copy; it has been translated into English by V. Minorsky and published under the title Hudud al-Alam: " The Regions of the World": A Persian

Geography as volume 11 in the new "E. J. W. Gibb Memorial" Publication series (London: 1937). For information about the text, see A. P. Novosel'tsev, "Vostochnye istochniki o vostochnykh Slavianakh i Rusi VI-IX vv.," Drevnerusskoe gosudarstvo i ego mezhdunarodnoe znachenie-(Moscow: Nauka, 1965),

pp. 378-80 and Krachkovskii, Arabskaia literatura, pp. 223-4, 2 2 6 . For additional information on the chief cities of Bulgar, see Grekov and Kalinin, "Bulgarskoegosudarstvo," pp. 147-51,163; Grigor'ev, "Bulgary volzhskie," p. 100; Smirnov, Volzhskie Bolgary, pp. 26-8, 30. On Suvar's independent status, see also A. P. Smirnov, "Nekotorye spornye voprosy istorii Volzhskikh Bolgar" in Istoriko-arkheologicheskii sbornik, ed. D. A. Avdusin and V. L. Ianin (Moscow: MGU, 1962), pp. 173-4. 3 See for example, Puteshestvie Ibn Fadlana na Volgu, trans, and ed. with commentary by I. Iu. Krachkovskii (Moscow and Leningrad: AN SSSR, X 939)> PP- 67, 68, 76; see also Grekov, "Volzhskie Bolgary," pp. 28, 32 and Smirnov, '' Nekotorye voprosy," p. 173. The "Notes" 'Kitab or Risala) of Ibn Fadlan (Ahmad b. Fadlan b. al-'Abbas b. Rashid b. Hammad) are a unique source, composed by a member of an embassy that, representing Caliph al-Muktadir, visited Bulgar in 922. The embassy was dispatched in response to a request by the Bulgars for teachers in the Islamic faith and for technical aid in constructing defenses against the Khazars. Although details of the length of the embassy's sojourn in Bulgar and of the return journey are unknown, Ibn Fadlan, a secretary for the mission with responsibility for delivering the caliph's message to the Bulgar ruler, carefully recorded the experiences of the embassy on their route to Bulgar as well as his observations of Bulgar, including its trading activities. There is some scholarly dispute concerning the impact his work had on 171

Notes to page 5 other tenth-century Islamic geographers. A. E. Harkavy maintained that it was locked in official archives and unavailable to them; D. A. Khvol'son, on the other hand, concluded that al-Balkhi copied it and that Mas'udi was also familiar with it. V. Minorsky has suggested that Ibn Fabian's information entered the literature through al-Djayhani, the vizir in Bukhara. Ibn Facjlan, according to Minorsky, must have told Djayhani about Bulgar and Djayhani then used Ibn Facjlan's tales in his own work. It was through Djayhani that Ibn Fabian's account of Bulgar and the northern peoples was transmitted to others, including Marwazi in the twelfth century. Among later Islamic authors Ibn Fabian's work was known directly only by Yakut, who in the thirteenth century used portions of it in his encyclopedia, Until the 1920s those excerpts were all that modern scholars knew of Ibn Facjlan's travels to Bulgar. But then a more complete manuscript was discovered at Mashhad. Among the editions based on it, two contain photocopies of the Arabic text with Russian translations. They are Krach-

kovskii's edition, noted above, and Kniga Akhmeda Ibn-Fadlana 0 ego puteshestvii

na Volgu v 921-922 gg., ed. and trans, with commentary by A. P. Kovalevskii (Khar'kov: Khar'kovskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 1956). In the latter edition, Kovalevskii attempted to reconstruct Ibn Fadlan's complete text. A translation into French, made by M. Canard in 1958, appeared in Annales de

Tlnstitut a"Etudes Orientates, vol. 16, pp. 41-145. For information about Ibn Facjlan, see the introductions to each of these translations as well as Krachkovskii, Arabskaia literatura, pp. 185-6; Harkavy, Skazaniia, pp. 4 4 - 7 ; D. A. Khvol'son, Izvestiia, pp. 3-4; El 3:759; V. Minorsky, introduction to Sharaf al-Zaman Tahir Marvazi on China, the Turks and

India, trans, with commentary by V. Minorsky, James G. Furlong Fund, vol. 22 (London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1942), p. 7. 4 The Bulgars shared tributary status with other tribes inhabiting the lower Volga region. Mas'udi reported that "along [the river upstream from the Khazar town] live sedentary... Turkish tribes forming part of the Khazar kingdom. Their settlements extend in an uninterrupted succession between the Khazar kingdom and Bulghar." V. Minorsky, A History of Sharvan and Darband in the loth-nth Centuries (Cambridge: W. Heffer and Sons, 1958), p. 148; Sprenger, El-Masudi's Historical Encyclopedia, p. 412. The Khazar emperor Joseph, who ruled around 960, made a more elaborate claim. In a letter attributed to him and sent to Hasdai ibn Shafrat (Hasday ibn Shaprut), a Spanish Jew who was an official in the court of the caliph of Cordova, it was written:

Numerous peoples, living in open and fortified cities and villages are established on this river (that is, Atil [or Volga]). Their names are burts [Burtas], bulgr [Bulgar], su'r [Suwar or Suvar], 'risu [Ar and Isu or Visu], srmis [Cheremis], uuntit [Viatichi], suur [Severiane], sluim [Slovenes]. All these peoples cannot be considered in detail; they are innumerable. They are all my subjects and pay tribute to me. Th. Lewicki, " 'Arisu, un nom de tribu enigmatique cite dans la lettre du roi khazar Joseph (Xe siecle)," Cahiers du monde russe et sovietique 3(1962) 193. The bracketed names of peoples are Lewicki's interpretations (pp. 93-101). Lewicki also pointed out that Joseph's claims to ruling all these peoples may have been exaggerated. For a discussion of Joseph's correspondence and its authenticity, see N. K. Chadwick, The Beginnings of Russian History: An Enquiry into Sources 172

Notes to pages 5-6 (Cambridge: University Press, 1946, reprint 1966), pp. 4 0 - 4 ; Artamonov, Istoriia Khazar, pp. 8-12; Dunlop, Jewish Khazars, pp. 125-55. 5 Krachkovskii, Puteshestvie Ibn Fadlana, pp. 55, 78; Smirnov, Volzhskie Bolgary, pp. 22, 27-8, 78. 6 Khvol'son, Izvestiia, p. 23, 82; Ibn Hauqal, Configuration de la terre (Kitab surat al-ard), trans, with intro. by J. H. Kramers and G. Wiet, 2 vols. (Beirut and Paris: Maisonneuve and Larose, 1964) 2:387; Grekov and Kalinin, "Bulgarskoe gosudarstvo," pp. 119, 147; Krachkovskii, Puteshestvie Ibn Fadlana, pp. 67-8, 7 2 - 3 ; Smirnov, Volzhskie Bolgary, pp. 12, 17, 30. One of the important sources for information about Bulgar, the Rus\ the Slavs, and the early fur trade is The Book of Precious Gems (Kitab al-A'lak al-nafisa), written by Ibn Rusta (Abu 'Ali Ahmad b. 'Umar b. Rusta; also known erroneously as Ibn Dasta). This tenth-century text was translated into Russian by D. A. Khvol'son and forms pages 15-40 of his book, Izvestiia, cited in full above. The precise date of the composition of this work is disputed. V. V. Bartol'd and Krachkovskii, following Khvol'son, place its appearance around 903, while Harkavy dated it after 923. These scholars similarly disagreed about Ibn Rusta's sources. The author, a well-educated native of northern Iran, did not personally travel and depended upon literary records and information supplied by others for his descriptions of the Muslim world and neighboring regions. Harkavy, among others, considered one of his informants to have been Ibn Fatjilan and for that reason placed the date of composition after Ibn Fatjlan's journey to Bulgar in 921-2. Others have given less credence to this hypothesis and claim the lost work of al-Djayhani and the complete edition of Ibn Khurradadhbih (see below) as the bases of Ibn Rusta's material. Although the exact sources of his information remain unconfirmed, it is evident that he did not obtain his knowledge of the Rus' and the Slavs through the same channel tapped by Ibn Khurradadhbih -and Ibn al-Fakih. Rather, along with his information about Bulgar, the Burtas, and Khazaria, that information reached Ibn Rusta through persons and sources familiar with the Volga river and the Caspian Sea region. His material on the Slavs and Rus', particularly his tale of the "island" location of the Rus', stems from a late ninth-century source, which was also incorporated into the Eudud al-'alam and the works of Mutahhar ibn Tahir al-Mukadassi and Gardizi (see below). Ibn Rusta's multi-volume work is known through only one manuscript, which consists only of the seventh volume. That manuscript, preserved in the British Museum in London, is a fourteenth or fifteenth-century copy, which contains numerous errors. Their presence is attributed to the Persian copyist's flawed comprehension of the popular Arabic style of the original text. For other editions of the text, see M. J. de Goeje, BGA, vol. 7: Kitab al-a'lak an-nafisa, by Abmad ibn 'Umar ibn Rustah; and Gaston Wiet's translation, Les Atours precieux, par Ahmad ibn 'Umar ibn Rustah (Cairo: Publications de la Societe de Geographie d'Egypte, 1955). For information about Ibn Rusta, see El 3 : 9 2 0 - 1 ; Krachkovskii, Arabskaia literatura, pp. 13 2,136,15 9-60; Harkavy, Skazaniia, p. 2 6 1 ; Khvol'son, Izvestiia, pp. 1-13; V. V. Bartol'd, "Arabskie izvestiia 0 Rusakh," Sovetskoe vostokovedenie 1 (1940)143; this article was reprinted in Bartol'd's Sochineniia, 9 vols. in 10 parts (Moscow: Vostochnaia literatura, 1963-77), 2, pt. 1 (1963):810-58. Ibn Hawfcal (Abu '1-Kasim b. 'Ali al-Nasibi) represents a tradition quite distinct from that of Ibn Rusta. Ibn Hawkal is one of the best exponents of 173

Notes to page 6 the Classical School of Muslim Geography or the Balkhi school, which also developed in the tenth century. As the representatives of this tradition characteristically focused their treatises on the regions within the Islamic realm and tended to ignore lands and peoples beyond, their treatment of peoples such as the Rus' and Slavs, who functioned as suppliers in the fur trade network, tend to be archaic. The same authors, however, some of whom were enthusiastic travelers, filled their works with personal observations and contemporary data on the Islamic world and its immediate periphery. Their main value for this study lies in those reports that relate to southern segments of the fur trade network, particularly the Caspian region, and to fur consumption in the Islamic lands. Ibn Hawkal's Book of Routes and Kingdoms (Kitab al-Masalik wal-mamalik) was based on that of al-Istakhri, whose own geographical handbook was a revision of that of the founder of this tradition, al-Balkhi (see below). Ibn Hawkal met al-Istakhri in 9 5 0 - 1 ; the latter asked him to read and correct his manuscript. Having done so, Ibn Hawkal in three successive versions of his own work expanded, revised, and brought the commentaries up to date by adding to them from the vast knowledge he had accumulated during his own thirty years of travel throughout the Muslim world as a merchant and possibly a spy. While traveling, he stated, he regularly referred to the works of Ibn Khurradadhbih and al-Djayhanl, which were then probably sources for his geographic work. Ibn Hawkal's text has been published by M. J. de Goeje in BGA, vol. 2: Opus geographicum, and by J. H. Kramers, who used a manuscript dated 1086 (BGA, 2nd ed, 1938-9). Kramers also produced the French translation of the text, which was revised and published by G. Wiet and is cited above. A. P. Novosel'tsev, using Kramers' edition of the text, translated excerpts into Russian; see his " Vostochnye istochniki," p. 412. See also El 2:581-2, 3:786-8. 7 V. V. BartoFd, "Arabskie izvestiia," p. 19. For the dating of the Sassanian coins found in the Kama region, see V. L. Ianin, Denezhno-vesovye sistemy russkogo srednevekov'ia: domongol'skiiperiod (Moscow: MGU, 1956), pp. 8 4 - 5 ; for pottery and beads found in the Kama excavations and on the pre-Bulgar trade from this area, see A. P. Smirnov, Volzhskie Bolgary, pp. 19, 20, 31, 40. 8 Al-Mas'udi, in his Book of Warnings as discussed by Khvol'son, Izvestiia, pp. 164-5. 9 Istoriia Tatarii v materialakh i dokumentakh (Moscow: 193 7), p. 18. This remark appears in works of geographers associated with the Classical School of Muslim Geographers, whose founder is considered to have been Abu Zayd Ahmad b. Sahl al-Balkhi. A scholar from the region of Balkh, al-Balkhi lived from the mid-ninth century to 934. Of the approximately sixty books on philosophy, astronomy, natural sciences, medicine, and religion that he wrote, the one for which he is best remembered is a geographic composition entitled Map of Climes or Suwar al-Akalim, written in 920-1. The work, which was not entirely original, apparently consisted of a series of maps accompanied by commentaries, the sources of which have not been identified. None of that work, as written by al-Balkhi, has survived. It did, nevertheless, become the model for the geographical handbook, Masalik al-Mamalik, written by alIstakhri (Abu Ishak Ibrahim b. Muhammad al-Farisi), a native of southern Iran. Using al-Balkhi's maps, al-Istakhri expanded the commentaries with material drawn from his own travel experiences and observations. He produced two editions of his work, the first in 930-3 and the second c. 950. 174

Notes to pages 6-8

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22

23 24

The latter became widely known, was copied many times in the original Arabic, and was also translated into Persian. It was this handbook that served as the basis for Ibn Hawkal's work (see above). Several manuscripts of al-Istakhri's work have survived, and several editions and translations of it have been published: Liber auctore scheicho Abu-Ishako el Farisi vulgo el-Isstachrl ed. by J. H. Moeller (Gothae: n.p., 1889); M. J. de Goeje, ed., BGA, vol. 1: Viae regnorum. Descriptio ditionis moslemicae, by Abu Ishak al-Farisi al-Istakhri; Das Buck der Lander, von Schech Ebu Ishak el Farsi el Isztachri, ed. and trans, by Andreas David Mordtmann with a foreword by C. Ritter (Hamburg: Druck und Lithographie des Rauhen Hauses in Horn, 1845); The Oriental Geography of Ebn-Haukal, an Arabian Traveller of the Tenth Century, trans, by William Ouseley (London: T. Cadelland W. Davies, 1800); Novosertsev, " Vostochnye istochniki," pp. 411-12; Harkavy, Skazaniia, pp. 141-3. For information about al-Balkhi, see El 1:1003; Novosel'tsev, "Vostochnye istochniki," p. 408; and Harkavy, Skazaniia, pp. 271-2. For information about al-Istakhri, see El 2:581-2, 4 : 2 2 2 - 3 ; Novosel'tsev, "Vostochnye istochniki," pp. 4 0 8 - 9 ; Krachkovskii, Arabskaia literatura, pp. 196-7; Harkavy, Skazaniia, pp. 187-90. Grekov, " Volzhskie Bolgary," p. 10; M. P. Pogodin, Issledovaniia, zamechaniia, i lektsii, 3 vois. (Moscow: Imperatorskoe obshchestvo istorii i drevnostei rossiiskikh, 1846; reprint, The Hague: Mouton, 1970) 3:278. Grekov and Kalinin, "Bulgarskoe gosudarstvo," p. 108. Ibid., p. 119. Ibn Hauqal, Configuration, 2:382; Khvol'son, Izvestiia, p. 182; Atlas okhotnich'ikh i promyslovykh ptits i zverei SSSR, vol. 2:Zveri, ed. B. S. Vinogradov. G. A. Novikov, and L. A. Portenko (Moscow: AN SSSR, 1953), pp. 81, 158. Krachkovskii, Puteshestvie Ibn Fadlana, p. 72. Narody mira. Etnograficheskie ocherki. Narody Evropeiskoi chasti SSSR, ed. V. A. Aleksandrov and V. N. Belitser, et al., 2 vols: (Moscow: Nauka, 1964) 2:473-4. Khvol'son, Izvestiia, pp. 19, 2 1 , 24. Sprenger, El-Masudi's Hist. Encyclopedia, p. 412; Pellat, Les Prairies a"or, 1:164; Khvol'son, commentary to Izvestiia, pp. 163-4; Istoriia Tatarii, p. 19. Al-Mas'udi in Book of Warnings, as discussed by Khvol'son, in Izvestiia, p. 164. Khvol'son, Izvestiia, p. 19, and in his commentary, pp. 185-6. Krachkovskii, Puteshestvie Ibn Fadlana, p. 71, 74. Ianin, Denezhno-vesovye sistemy, p. 102; L. A. Golubeva, " Beloozero i Volzhskie Bulgary," in Drevnosti vostochnoi Evropy, Materialy i issledovaniia po arkheologii SSSR, vol. 169 (Moscow: Nauka, 1969), p. 42 (series is cited hereafter as MIA). For an alternate interpretation of the Bulgar-Ves' route, see Golubeva, " Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki Vesi na Belom ozere," Sovetskaia arkheologiia (1962), pp. 59-61. V. V. Pimenov, Vepsy. Ocherk etnicheskoi istorii i genezisa kul'tury (Moscow and Leningrad: Nauka, 1965), p. 67; L. A. Golubeva, Ves' i Slaviane na Belom ozere, X-XIIIvv. (Moscow: Nauka, 1973), pp. 179, 182; Golubeva, "Beloozero," p. 42. Pimenov, Vepsy, pp. 71-3, 76-7; Golubeva, " Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki," P. 55. For information on Samanid coins in the Vychegda-Vym' area, see Ianin, Denezhno-vesovye sistemy, p. 120 and E. A. Savel'eva, Perm' Vychegodskaia. K voprosu 0 proiskhozhdenii naroda Komi (Moscow: Nauka, 1971), pp. 36-7. On 175

Notes to pages 9 - 1 0

25 26 27 28

29 30

31

32

the import of western coins in the eleventh century, see V. L. Ianin, "Den'gi i denezhnye sistemy" in Ocherki russkoi kul'tury XII1-XV vekov, ed. by A. V. Artsikhovskii, 2 vols. (Moscow: MGU, 1969) 1:319; on the transfer of western coins to the Vychegda region, see Golubeva, Ves' i Slaviane, p. 178. Gwyn Jones, A History of the Vikings (London, New York, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1968), p. 258. Khvol'son, Izvestiia, p. 35. For discussions of Viking settlements in Ireland and Iceland, see, for example, Jones, Vikings, pp. 204-8, and P. H. Sawyer, Kings and Vikings: Scandinavia and Europe AD 700-1100 (London and New York: Methuen, 1982), pp. iooff. Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei, 35 vols. (St. Petersburg, Moscow and Leningrad: Arkheograficheskaia komissiia, Vostochnaia literatura, Nauka, 1846-1980) 1 (Lavrent'evskaia letopis'): 19-21 (hereafter cited as PSRL); Samuel Hazzard Cross and Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor, trans, and ed., The Russian Primary Chronicle: Laurentian Text (Cambridge, Mass.: The Medieval Academy of America, 1953), pp. 59-60. Constantine Porphyrogenitus De Administrando Imperio, Greek text ed. Gy. Moravcsik with English trans, by R. J. H. Jenkins, new rev. ed. (Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, 1967), p. 63. History of Russia, ed. Paul Miliukov, Charles Seignobos, and L. Eisenmann and trans, by Charles Lam Markmann, 3 vols. (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1968-9), 1:66; PSRL 1:24,42, and 26 (Vologodsko-permskaia letopis'): 17; The Primary Chronicle, p. 61. PSRL 1:10-11; The Primary Chronicle, p. 55; Miliukov, History, 1:66. According to the Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, ed. with intro. by K. N. Serbina (Moscow and Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1950), p. 21, and PSRL 26: 17, both the Drevliane and the Severiane were obliged to pay black marten in tribute; the Laurentian redaction refers only to a "light" tribute on the Severiane (PSRL 1:24). For discussions on the location and identity of the Arsa, see Novosertsev, "Vostochnye istochniki," pp. 4 1 7 - 1 8 ; A. L. Mongait in his commentary to Abu Khamid al-Garnati, Puteshestvie Abu Khamida al-Garnati v vostochnuiu i tsentral'nuiu Evropu (1131-1153 gg.), trans, with introduction by 0. G. Bol'shakov (Moscow: Vostochnaia literatura, 1971), p. 102; £. Bennigsen, "Contribution a l'etude du commerce des fourrures russes," Cahiers du monde russe et sovietique 19 (1978):393; and Lewicki, "'Arisu," pp. 97-8. Most of these scholars discount the assertion that the Arsa were a group of Rus', and consider them to be ancestors of the Udmurt, dwelling northeast of Bulgar. Abu Hamid al-Gharnafl (Muhammad b. 'Abd al Rahman b. Sulayman al-Mazini al-Kaysi) was the author of a detailed description of the fur trade through Bulgar in the mid-twelfth century. A native of Granada, Abu Hamid traveled extensively before settling for twenty years in Saksin, where he apparently was a teacher, missionary, and perhaps a jurist. In 113 5-6 he made a journey up the Volga river to Bulgar; in 1150 he again visited there before embarking on another trip that took him through southern Russia and Hungary. The two works for which he is known in the modern era are the Gifts to Minds and a Selection of Marvels (Tuhfat al-Albab wa-Nukhbat al-A'djab) and A Clear Exposition of Some Wonders of Maghrib {Al-Mu'rib an ba'd 'AdjcCib al-Maghrib). Collections of marvels or wonders, they reflect a developing trend in Islamic literature, a tendency to disregard scientifically accurate data and logical presentations in favor of creative fantasy, which became the dominant 176

Notes to pages IO-I i form of cosmographic literature in the late middle ages. Because of the character of his presentation, Abu Hamid's testimony concerning Bulgar and its trade with the northern peoples for fur, as well as his observations on the Slav lands, have generally been regarded with scepticism. The Tuhfat, written in 1162, was until recently the sole composition for which Abu Hamid was known in modern times. Some twenty-six copies of it have been preserved, and the text has been published: Gabriel Ferrand, "Le Tuhfat al-albab, de Abu Hamid al-Andalusi al-Garnati," Journal Asiatique 207 (1925): 1-148, 193-304. The Mu'rib, considered to be an original work with little reference to earlier geographic literature, was composed before the Tuhfat in Bagdad, but it was not published until 1953, after a partial manuscript of it was discovered in Madrid and translated into Spanish: Cesar E. Dubler, Abu Hamid el Granadino y su relation de viaje por tierras eurasidticas (Madrid:

33 34 35 36 37 38

X 953)- A second manuscript, located at Gothae, appears to be a copy of a later portion of the same work; the beginning of the Gothae manuscript overlaps with the end of the Madrid copy. The Gothae manuscript has been published with a Russian translation, with excerpts from the Madrid copy and from the Tuhfat also translated into Russian: Puteshestvie Abu Khamida (cited above). For information about Abu Hamid, see El 1:122; Bol'shakov, introduction to Puteshestvie Abu Khamida, pp. 6 - 2 1 ; A. L. Mongait, "Abu Khamid al-Garnati i ego puteshestvie v russkie zemli 1150-1153 gg.,M Istorua SSSR, no. 1 (1959): 169-81. Novosel'tsev, "Vostochnye istochniki," p. 412; Ibn Hauqal, Configuration, p. 388. Khvol'son, hvestiia, p. 23. Ibid., pp. 35-6. Ibn Hauqal, Configuration, p. 382; see also Novosel'tsev, "Vostochnye istochniki," pp. 403-4 and Istoriia Tatarii, p. 19. Krachkovskii, Puteshestvie Ibn Fadlana, p. 80; an English translation of this passage appears in Jones, Vikings, pp. 164-5. Thomas S. Noonan makes the point that dirhams had reached the eastern Baltic before the Rus' arrived and that it was the silver that drew the Rus' eastward. See his "Ninth-Century Dirham Hoards from European Russia: a

Preliminary Analysis," Viking-Age Coinage in the Northern Lands. The Sixth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History, ed. by M. A. S. Blackburn

39 40 41 42

and D. M. Metcalf, part 1, BAR International Series, No. 122 (1), (Oxford: 1981), p. 52. For an analysis of the early penetration of silver dirhams into the eastern Baltic area, see Noonan, "When and How Dirhams First Reached Russia," Cahiers du monde russe et sovietique 21 (1980): 401-69. In contrast, Sawyer argues that the Scandinavians were drawn to eastern Europe in their quest for more northern products to satisfy a growing European demand. See Sawyer, Kings and Vikings, pp. 75, 117. Khvol'son, hvestiia, pp. 25, 36. Krachkovskii, Puteshestvie Ibn Fadlana, p. 80. Ibid., pp. 78-9. No deposits of Oriental coins dated after 1014-15 have been located on Russian territory. Most researchers relate this decline in the import of Oriental silver to a "silver crisis" in the Muslim East, during which production of silver coins was rare. For information on the crisis and theories regarding its causes, see A. Markov, Topograflia kladov vostochnykh monet (St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia Akademiia Nauk, 1910), pp. 2 - 3 ; Grekov and Kalinin, 177

Notes to page 11 "Bulgarskoe gosudarstvo," p. 134; and M. N. Fedorov, "K voprosu o 'serebrianom krizise' i nekotorykh osobennostiakh denezhnogo obrashcheniia v gosudarstve 'velikikh Sel'dzhukov,'" Sovetskaia arkheologiia (1971), p. 245. Bearing in mind the warning issued by Thomas S. Noonan on interpreting the locations of coin hoards (deposited over long periods of time) as points along trade routes, it is nevertheless reasonable to consider them as indicators of where and when coins circulated in medieval Rus'. Consistency of circulation patterns does then provide evidence for the existence of a trade route. Some of the earliest hoards were buried between the end of the eighth century and 833 near Bulgar, on the upper Volga near Iaroslavl', and at the northern end of Lake Il'men and the southern end of Lake Ladoga. Hoards dated between 833 and 900, have been located on the Mologa river, at the headwaters of the Volga, at Novgorod and at Staraia Ladoga. The regularity of their location suggests a route along the upper Volga river connecting Bulgar and Staraia Ladoga. An additional hoard on the Sheksna river in the second period suggests that the branch of this route leading toward Beloozero may have been in use at that time. Similarly, in the period 900-70, a cluster of hoards in the Bulgar area, another along the upper Volga at Rzhev, one near the headwaters of both the Volga and the Msta rivers in the Valdai district, and one each at Novgorod and other points on the northern end of Lake Il'men, and at Staraia Ladoga on the southern end of Lake Ladoga, imply continued circulation of coins along the upper Volga. In the late tenth century several hoards were also deposited, for the first time, along the southern and eastern shores of the Gulf of Finland. If it is accepted that the hoards' locations demarcate trade routes, their sites may represent points at which travelers, proceeding by boat, disembarked to rest or cross over to different rivers. That the travelers went by boat at this time is indicated by the Oriental sources, which speak of the Rus' making their journeys to Bulgar in boats, and is substantiated by the general fact that water transport through these unsettled lands was cheaper than land transport. After 833 there were fewer deposits along this route, but they each contained more coins. In contrast to the largest deposit buried before 833 (of all the deposits in the Rus' lands), which contained 300 coins, a single deposit in the later period, located near the headwaters of the Volga, contained 1,100 coins. The decrease in the number of deposits does not, therefore, indicate a decline in the volume or value of the trade along this route but may, on the contrary, reflect increased safety along it. Thomas S. Noonan, "Monetary Circulation in Early Medieval Rus': a Study of Volga Bulgar Dirham Finds," Russian History/Histoire russe 7, pt. 3 (1980): 300; Ianin, Denezhno-vesovye sistemy, pp. 86, 102, 120, 131; V.V. Kropotkin, "Torgovye sviazi Volzhskoi Bolgarii X v. po numizmaticheskim dannym," Drevnie Slaviane i ikh sosedU MIA, vol. 176 (19 70): 149-50; Michael Postan, " The Trade in Medieval Europe: the North " in Trade and Industry in the Middle Ages, ed. M. Postan and E. E. Rich, vol. 2 of Cambridge Economic History of Europe (Cambridge: University Press, 1952), p. 148. For information on the Kiev-Bulgar route, see Ianin, Denezhno-vesovye sistemy, pp. 102, 105, 120, 131; V. K. Kuzakov, Ocherki razvitiia estestvennonauchnykh i tekhnicheskikh predstavleniia na Rusi v X-XVII vv. (Moscow: Nauka, 1976), p. 224; Kropotkin, "Torgovye sviazi," pp. 146-50. 43 Krachkovskii, Puteshestvie Ibn Fadlana, p. 78; Khvol'son, Izvestiia, p. 24: Omeljan Pritsak, "An Arabic Text on the Trade Route of the Corporation of 178

Notes to page 12

44 45

46 47

48 49 50

51

the ar-Rus in the Second Half of the Ninth Century," Folia Orientalia 12 (1970)1251; Vadim B. Vilinbakhov, " Rannesrednevekovyi put' iz Baltiki v Kaspii," Slavia Antiqua 21 (1974):98. Pellat, Prairies d'or, 1:163; Sprenger, El-Masudi's Hist. Encyclopedia, p. 4 1 1 ; Khvol'son, Commentary to Izvestiia, p. 163; Krachkovskii, Puteshestvie Ibn Fadlana, p. 79. Pellat, Prairies a"or, 1:164; Sprenger, El-Masudis Hist. Encyclopedia, p. 4 1 3 ; Ibn Hauqal, Configuration, p. 382-3; al-Mukadassi, Mas'udi and al-Balkhi in Khvol'son, commentary to Izvestiia, pp. 164-5, 169, 180; Istoriia Tatarii, p. 19; Novosel'tsev, "Vostochnye istochniki," pp. 385, 403. Pellat, Prairies d}or, 1:164; Sprenger, El-Masudi's Hist. Encyclopedia, p. 4 1 3 ; Istoriia Tatarii, p. 19. W. Barthold, Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion, trans, by author and E. J. W. Gibb, E. J. W. Gibb Memorial Series, new series, vol. 5 (London: Luzac, 1928, 2nd ed.), p. 235. Al-Mukadassi (al-Maqdisi; Shams al-Din Abu 'Abd Allah Muhammad b. Ahmad) was a geographer, also associated with the Classical School. A native of Jerusalem and a traveler himself, al-Mukadassi wrote his treatise in about 985, and produced a second edition about three years later. Al-Mukadassi added a great deal of original material relating to human culture and customs as well as specific information on routes and distances to the corpus of geographical lore accumulated in the volumes compiled by his predecessors. Modern scholars, appreciating his committment to recording observed data rather than speculation, have praised him variously as one of the greatest geographers of all time and as the most original of the Arab geographers. His text, Ahsan al-takasim fi ma'rifat al-akalim, has survived in several manuscripts, two of which were used as the basis for its publication by M. J. de Goeje, BGA, vol. 3: Kitab ahsan al-taqasim or Descriptio imperil moslemici, by al-Moqadassi. Barthold has included translated excerpts in Turkestan, cited above. For information about al-Mukadassi, see El 2:582, and Krachkovskii, Arabskaia literatura, pp. 210-18. Khvol'son, commentary to Izvestiia, p. 169. Kovalevskii, in his commentaries on Kniga Akhmeda Ibn-Fadlana, pp. 4, 6, 23. Some scholars, in fact, doubt that the land route between Bulgar and Urgench was in general use during the tenth century and regard Ibn Fadlan's experience as an anomaly; see, for example, B. N. Zakhoder, Kaspiiskii svod svedenii0 vostochnoi Evrope, 2 vols. (Moscow: Vostochnaia literatura, 1962-7) 2:157. Bartol'd, however, considered the route through Central Asia a major communications avenue; "Arabskie izvestiia," pp. 26, 46. Krachkovskii, Puteshestvie Ibn Fadlana, pp. 61, 65. The Bulgar prince, who considered this an important route, tried to keep it open by strengthening his ties with the Oghuz, which he did by marrying the daughter or sister of the Oghuz military leader Etrek. From their end of the route the Samanids and their subordinates, the rulers of Khwarezm, similarly protected the routes and commercial traffic across the steppe. For information on the relations between the Khwarezm-shahs and the nomadic Turks of the steppe, see Krachkovskii, Puteshestvie Ibn Fadlana, p. 65; Kovalevskii, Kniga Akhmeda Ibn-Fadlana, p. 25; Barthold, Turkestan, p. 237; C. E. Bosworth, "The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World" in The Saljuq and Mongol Period, ed. J. A. Boyle, vol. 5 of Cambridge History of Iran (Cambridge: University Press, 1968), p. 10. 179

Notes to pages 1 2 - 1 5 52 Ibn Hauqal, Configuration, p. 389; A. P. Novosel'tsev and V. T. Pashuto, "Vneshniaia torgovlia drevnei Rusi do serediny XIII v.," Istoriia SSSR, no. 3 (1967), p. 106; Bartord, "Otchet o poezdke v Sredniuiu Aziiu s nauchnoiu tsel'm v 1893-1894 gg.," Zapiski imperatorskoi akademii naukpo istoriko-filologicheskomuotdeleniiu, series 8, 1 ( i 8 9 7 ) : i 2 i ; Khvol'son, Izvestiia, pp. 19-21. 53 Steven Runciman, "Byzantine Trade and Industry" in Trade and Industry in the Middle Ages, p. 92; Artamonov, Istoriia Khazar, pp. 402-3. 54 Sprenger, El-MasudiJs Hist. Encyclopedia, pp. 406-10; Ibn Hauqal, Configuration, p. 380; Artamonov, Istoriia Khazar, pp. 403-4. 55 Ibn Rusta, for example, specifically referred to "Muslim merchant boats" that went to Bulgar, but were clearly not of Bulgar origin; Khvol'son, Izvestiia, pp. 24, 160. 56 Grekov, " Volzhskie Bolgary," p. 8; Kovalevskii, introduction to Kniga Akhmeda Ibn-Fadlana, p. 29. Al-Mas'udi and Ibn Hawkal indirectly confirm this conclusion by failing to mention Bulgars in their description of IuT and its inhabitants, among whom were noted Slavs, Rusi, and Muslims; Pellat, Prairies d'or, 1:161-2; Sprenger, El-Masudi's Hist. Encyclopedia, pp. 407-9; Ibn Hauqal, Configuration, p. 380. 57 Ibn Hauqal, Configuration, pp. 378, 385; Khvol'son, commentary to Izvestiia, p. 168; Caspian trade with Itil\ which probably began in the seventh century, was also noted by Ibn Khurradadhbih in the ninth century; see Zakhoder, Kaspiiskii svod, 1:22. 58 Al-Mas'udi, in his Book of Warnings as presented by Khvol'son in his commentaries to Izvestiia, p. 164. 59 Zakhoder, Kaspiiskii svod, 1:22-3, 2:162; Novosel'tsev and Pashuto, "Vneshniaia torgovlia," p. 106; Sprenger, El-Masudi's Hist. Encyclopedia, p. 4 2 1 ; Pellat, Prairies d'or, 1:167-8. 60 For examples see PSRL 1:19, 24. 61 The quotation is taken from the English translation of this passage that appears in Dunlop, Jewish Khazars, p. 246. The passage is also in Ibn Hauqal, Configuration, p. 388; for another version, see Harkavy, Skazaniia, p. 218. Although Dunlop conjectured that it was the Rus' with whom the surviving Khazars hoped to make a pact, the implication of the text is that it was with the Shirwan-shah. Contradictory information also exists on the date of the campaign. The Russian Primary Chronicle places the Rus' campaign against the Khazars in 965; PSRL 1:65. Ibn Hawkal, however, recorded 968-9 as its date. Scholarly consensus prefers 965. See, for example, Dunlop, Jewish Khazars, pp. 241-4, Bartol'd, " Arabskie izvestiia," pp. 34-6, and Artamonov, Istoriia Khazar, pp. 426-8. 62 PSRL 1:84; The Primary Chronicle, p. 96. 63 PSRL 1:121; The Primary Chronicle, p. 119. 64 Smirnov, Volzhskie Bolgary, pp. 31,44; V. N. Tatishchev, Istoriia Rossiiskaia, 7 vols. (Moscow: Moskovskii universitet, 1768-1848; Moscow: AN SSSR, 1962-8)3:212. 65 Tatishchev, Istoriia Rossiiskaia, 2:69; this passage is quoted by M. Berezhkov, 0 torgovle Rusi s ganzoi do kontsa XV v. (St. Petersburg: V. Bezobrazov, 1879), pp. 37-8 and A. P. Smirnov, Ocherki drevnei i srednevekovoi istorii narodov srednego Povolzh'ia i Prikam'ia, MIA, vol. 2 8 (Moscow: AN SSSR, 1 9 5 2 ) ^ . 2 2 6 ; it is also discussed by M. Martynov in his article "Dogovor Vladimira s Volzhskimi Bolgarami 1006 goda," Istorik-Marksist (1941), pp. 116-17. 180

Notes to page 16 66 Puteshestvie Abu Khamida, p. 3 7. See also Mongait, commentary on Puteshestvie Abu Khamida, pp. 119-20. 67 For Abu Hamid's route, see Mongait, "Abu Khamid al-Garnati," p. 174; Mongait, commentary on Puteshestvie Abu Khamida, p. 108. For the cited passage, see Puteshestvie Abu Khamida, p. 35. Mongait suggests that "water sable" is otter; sables were not native to this region nor are they water animals. Abu Hamid was familiar with beaver, the only other likely possibility, and could have identified them by name. Mongait, commentary on Puteshestvie Abu Khamida, p. 108. 68 V. A. Kuchkin, " 0 marshrutakh pokhodov drevnerusskikh kniazei na gosudarstvo Volzhskikh Bulgar v XH-pervoi treti XIII v.," in Istoricheskaia geograflia Rossii (Moscow: Nauka, 1975), pp. 34-5, 37-8. 69 Based on his study of Bulgar dirhams found in the Rus' lands, Thomas Noonan has questioned whether silver dirhams were exported to southern Rus' from Bulgar. See his "Monetary Circulation," pp. 302-4. 70 Golubeva, "Beloozero," p. 42; M. V. Fekhner, "Nekotorye svedeniia arkheologii po istorii russko-vostochnykh ekonomicheskikh sviazei do serediny XIII v.," Mezhdunarodnye sviazi Rossii do XVII v.: sbornik statei (Moscow: AN SSSR,

1961), pp. 49-53 (book cited hereafter as Mezhdunarodnye sviazi). 71 Bosworth, "Political and Dynastic History," pp. 5-7; Istoriia Uzbekskoi SSR, ed. R. Kh. Aminova, 4 vols. (Tashkent: Fan, 1967-8), 1:352-7. 72 Unlike the Khazars, the Shirwan-shah was unable to prevent Rus' raiders from entering the Caspian Sea. For their raids, see Minorsky, Sharvan and Darband, pp. 45, 114-15. Bayhaki (Abu'1-Fadl Muhammad b. Husayn), an eleventhcentury bureaucrat in the Ghaznevid court and an historian, also noted their presence on the sea. This observation appeared in the surviving portion of Bayhaki's thirty-volume history. Bayhaki worked as a chancellery secretary in the Ghaznevid court and was responsible for composing and translating diplomatic documents and correspondence from'i 021. Around 1056 he began to write his history, which, in sharp contrast to standard Persian chronicles that presented facts in a dry, unembellished form, was more in the style of a personal memoir, in which Bayhaki recounted events he had witnessed and described personages with whom he was acquainted. Bayhaki did not have access to official documents at the time he wrote, but relied upon his vast experience, memory of events and associations with other witnesses, whom he quoted. In conjunction with this approach, the work, known under both the title Ta'rikh-i Mas'udi and Ta'rikh-i Bayhaki is mainly concerned with the Ghaznevid court, the bureaucracy, and rivalries and intrigues conducted in those circles. Only a small portion of the history, concerning the reign of Masud, has survived. Manuscripts of this portion are located in Iran, Turkey, Egypt, India, and various European centers. The first published text was taken from a sixteenth-century copy, now located in the British Museum: The Tarikh-i Baihaki Containing the Life of Masud, Son of Sultan Mahmud of Ghaznin,

ed. by W. N. Moreley, Bibliotheca Indica, vol. 32 (Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1862). Several other Persian editions have since appeared. The full text has also been translated into Russian: Abu-1-fazl Baikhaki (Bayhaki), Istoriia Masuda, trans, by A. K. Arends (Moscow: Nauka, 1969, 2nd ed.). For the observation referred to above, see p. 568; for comments by Arends, see p. 868. For Bayhaki, see El 1:1130-1.

181

Notes to pages 17-19

73 74

75 76

77 78 79

80

For the role of the Shirwan-shah and Bulgar in protecting the route, see Bartol'd, "Arabskie izvestiia," p. 36. Aminova, Istoriia Uzbekskoi SSR, 1:294-5. Economic disruption was severe in Khorasan and the southern Caspian provinces, where Ghaznevid taxation was particularly onerous. For examples of Ghaznevid policy in these areas, see Baikhaki, Istoriia Masuda, pp. 509-11, 545~7» 560-8. See also A. Iakubovskii, " Sel'dzhukskoe dvizhenie i Turkmeny v XI v.," Izvestiia AN SSSR. Otdelenie obshchestvennykh nauk (1937), pp. 924, 933; Bosworth "Political and Dynastic History," pp. 13-14 and B. N. Zakhoder, "Khorasan i obrazovanie gosudarstva Sel'dzhukov," Voprosy istorii (1945), p. 128. Continued warfare between the Ghaznevids and the Qara-Khanids also contributed to both political and economic disturbances. See Bosworth, "Political and Dynastic History," p. 8; Barthold, Turkestan, pp. 272, 279,282, 293-303; Aminova, Istoriia Uzbekskoi SSR, 1:360-1, 365-6. Barthold, Turkestan, p. 272. Gardizi (Abu Said 'Abd al-Hayy b. Dahhak b. Mahmud) was a Persian historian and geographer. Writing in the mid-eleventh century, he was a contemporary of Bayhaki and also associated with the Ghaznevid court. It was for the court that he wrote his major work, Adornment of Narratives (Zayn al-akhbar) in Persian in about 1050. Although Gardizi relied on and repeated some archaic information, as in his discussion of the Rus', which follows the tradition of Ibn Rusta, he presented much more accurate information on the history of the caliphs and of Khorasan, for which his contribution is considered a major historical source, and on fur consumption which is particularly valuable to this study. Adornment of Narratives has survived in two late manuscript copies, held in the collections at Oxford and Cambridge Universities. A significant portion of the text was translated into Russian by V. Bartol'd and is included on pp. 103-26 in his "Otchet o poezdke;" this article has been republished in his Sochineniia 4 (i966):2i~9i and 8 (i973):23~62. Bartol'd (Barthold) also published the cited excerpt in English translation in his Turkestan, pp. 283-4; comments on this meeting are also in Aminova, Istoriia Uzbekskoi SSR 1:361. For information about Gardizi, see El 2:978; Barthold, Turkestan, pp. 2 0 - 1 ; Novosel'tsev, "Vostochnye istochniki," p. 380. Aminova, Istoriia Uzbekskoi SSR, 1:361. Baikhaki, Istoriia Masuda, pp. 509-10. The fur noted in the cited excerpt was probably sable or marten; Arends, commentary on Baikhaki, p. 861. See also Iakubovskii, " Sel'dzhukskoe dvizhenie," p. 924. For the tribute demanded by Masud, see Baikhaki, Istoriia Masuda, p. 565. For Bayhaki's description of the dress uniforms worn in a parade before the caliph's ambassador in 1031, see ibid., p. 382; see also Arends' commentary, p. 861. PSRL 1:121; The Primary Chronicle, p. 119; for a discussion of early Rus' dominance there, see A. N. Nasonov, tlRusskaia zemlia" i obrazovanie territorii drevnerusskogo gosudartsva (Moscow: AN SSSR, 1951), p. 174. See also Omeljan Pritsak, who argued that a ninth-century Rus' kaganate was located near Rostov; The Origin ofRus', vol. 1: Old Scandinavian Sources Other than the Sagas (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, 1981), pp. 26, 28, 182, and Norman Golb and Omeljan Pritsak, Khazarian Hebrew Documents of the Tenth Century (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 182

Notes to pages 19-20

81

82

83 84

85 86

87

1982), pp. 64-5. For a discussion of archeological evidence interpreted to dispute views such as Pritsak's, see I. V. Dubov, Severo-vostochnaia Rus' v epokhu rannego srednevekov'ia (Leningrad: Leningradskii universitet, 1982), pp. 46-57. Prince or posadnik, the ruler of Novgorod was an appointee of the Kievan prince through the eleventh century. See Nasonov, Russkaia zemlia, p. 175; V. L. Ianin, Novgorodskie posadniki (Moscow: MGU, 1962), pp. 4 7 - 5 1 . For illustrations of the relationship of the Novgorod ruler to Rostov-Suzdal', see PSRL 1:147, 175-6, 236-40; The Primary Chronicle, pp. 134-5, 144, 151, 154; George Vernadsky, Kievan Russia (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1948), p. 88. On these Bulgar exports, see Golubeva, "Beloozero," pp. 4 0 - 3 : Fekhner, "Nekotoryesvedeniia," pp. 49, 52, 53; A. F. Medvedev, " Blizhnevostochnaia i zolotoordynskaia polivnaia keramika iz raskopok v Novgorode," in Novye metody v arkheologii, MIA, vol. 117 (Moscow: AN SSSR, 1963), pp. 2 7 0 - 1 ; Michael Thompson, Novgorod the Great (New York and Washington: Praeger, 1967), pp. 8, 94. PSRL 1:147; The Primary Chronicle, p. 135; Grekov and Kalinin, "Bulgarskoe gosudarstvo," p. 137; Smirnov, Volzhskie Bolgary, pp. 36-7. On silks, see Vernadsky, Kievan Russia, p. 304; for evidence of a spice trade, see Pamiatniki russkogoprava, 8 vols. (Moscow: Gosiurizdat, 1952-61) 2:176 (hereafter PRP); Iu. A. Limonov, "Iz istorii vostochnoi torgovli Vladimirosuzdal'skogo kniazhestva," Mezhdunarodnye sviazi, p. 60; Thomas S. Noonan, "Suzdalia's Eastern Trade in the Century before the Mongol Conquest," Cahiers du monde russe et sovietique 19 (i978):379. PSRL 1:175; The Primary Chronicle, pp. 150-1. For discussions of Rostov's expansion, see Nasonov, Russkaia zemlia, pp. 178-80, and V. A. Kuchkin, " Rostovo-suzdal'skaia zemlia v X - pervoi treti XIII vekov (tsentry i granitsy)," Istoriia SSSR, no. 2 '(1969), pp. 65, 70, 73. For different views on the time of incorporation of Beloozero, see Nasonov, Russkaia zemlia, p. 178 and T. I. Os'minskii, Ocherki po istorii nashego kraia (Vologda: Vologodskoe knizhnoe izdatel'stvo, i960), pp. 32, 34. The former argues that Beloozero entered the Rostov-Suzdal' realm as early as the first half of the eleventh century; the latter places the date in the late eleventh or early twelfth century. Slav settlement of Beloozero, Sheksna and the upper Volga is discussed by Golubeva, Ves' i Slaviane, pp. 24-5. For the migration of the Ves' toward Kargopol', see Pimenov, Vepsy, p. 258; Golubeva, Ves' i Slaviane, p. 12; Narody Mira 2:365. For their appearance on the lower Vychegda and Sukhona rivers, see L. P. Lashuk, Formirovanie narodnosti Komi (Moscow: MGU, 1972), p. 38. Archeological evidence illustrates through evolving agricultural methods, burial customs, and patterns used in ceramics that the main body of the Ves' population remained in their homeland, the region between the lakes Ladoga, Onega, and Beloe, and adapted to Slav colonization and cultural influence. For information on Ves' adoption of Slav agricultural techniques in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, see Pimenov, Vepsy, pp. 73-4. For changes in burial practices, see Golubeva, Ves' i Slaviane, pp. 21-9; Golubeva, " Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki," pp. 68ff, and Pimenov, Vepsy, pp. 58, 59, 64, 103-4. F°r a discussion of Slav influences on Ves' ceramics, see Golubeva, "Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki," pp. 66, 67, and Pimenov, Vepsy, p. 104. But ethnological studies indicate that the Ves' who did migrate and

183

Notes to pages 20-1 occupied the eastern extremes of their territory mixed with the peoples further east to form the Komi population that occupied the Vychegda-Vym' region. Anthropologists have generally observed that the Komi-Zyriane population, inhabiting the Vychegda-Vym'-Sysola region, may be divided on the basis of physical characteristics into two major groups. One group dwells near the headwaters of the Kama, and on the Sysola and the upper Vychegda. The second group inhabits the lower Vychegda, the Vym', upper Mezen' and Pechora. The latter physically resemble northern Karelians and the Vepsy, the descendants of the Ves'. The lower Vychegda-Vym' Komi have also incorporated a number of Karelo-Vepsy words into their vocabulary, whereas this cultural affiliation is absent among the Komi of the upper Vychegda and Sysola region. The physical appearance and language of the second group suggest a close association between their ancestors and the Ves' who migrated to the Dvina in the eleventh century. See N. N. Cheboksarov, "Etnogenez Komi po dannym antropologii," Sovetskaia etnograflia (1946): 34-5, 54-5; L. P. Lashuk, Proiskhozhdenie naroda Komi (Syktyvkar: Komi knizhnoe izdatel'stvo, 1961), p. 26; Lashuk, Formirovanie, pp. 35-6, 38, 56. The term "Perm'," used by the Russians to designate the inhabitants of the Vychegda-Vym' region, also points to the proximity of the Ves' and that population in the eleventh century. "Perm'," according to Lashuk, was adapted from the Ves' phrase "peria maa" meaning "the land lying beyond the border." For the Ves' of the Dvina, the phrase would have referred to the Vychegda-Vym' region. The Russians, who had not yet become directly acquainted with the Vychegda-Vym' population in the eleventh century, probably learned of them through the Ves', who during the tenth and eleventh centuries had had exclusive access to them through the Sukhona route to the Vychegda; the Russians then adopted and distorted the Ves' term, changing it to Perm'. (Perm' initially was used in Russian documents to refer to the Vychegda-Vym' population, also known as the Vychegda Perm', Zyriane, or Komi-Zyriane; only later was it also applied to the Kama river population, Perm' Velikaia.) See Lashuk, Proiskhozhdenie, p. 28; Lashuk, Formirovanie, p. 3788 PSRL 1:229, 257; The Primary Chronicle, pp. 180-1, 185-8, 278-80, 282, 297; Vernadsky, Kievan Russia, p. 87-90; Nasonov, Russkaia zemlia, pp. 180-1; Kuchkin, "Rostovo-suzdal'skaia zemlia," pp. 70-3. 89 Abu Reikhan Biruni, Izbrannyeproizvedeniia, 6 vols. in 7 parts (Tashkent: Fan, 1957-76), vol. 3: Geodeziia, trans, by P.G.Bulgakov (1966), 3:156. Abu '1-Rayfran Muhammad b. Ahmad or al-Biruni was a Persian scholar and scientist, who was born in 973 in Khwarezm; he died in Ghazna in the middle of the eleventh century. As a young man, he was associated with the court of the Khwarezm-shah, but the political intrigues and wars that surrounded this court during the final years of the Samanid Empire forced him to leave Khwarezm in about 998 and spend several years in Djurdjan on the southern Caspian coast and in Rey. Between 1008 and 1010 he returned to Khwarezm, but when the Ghaznevid sultan Mahmud conquered that region he was sent to Ghazna and attached to the court. Al-Biruni's most important works are scholarly treatises on mathematics, astronomy, and the physical and natural sciences, written in Arabic. He was not, as were the authors of many of the tenth-century works cited earlier, a traveler or a geographer. Nevertheless, in a relatively minor work, Geodesy, which he wrote in Ghazna in 1025, he discussed the geographical zones of the Earth, their characteristics, and the 184

Notes to pages 21-2

90

91

92 93 94

peoples dwelling in them. There he introduced information about those northern populations known from other types of sources to have been primary fur suppliers. It is in this work that the first reference to the Iugra appears in the known Islamic literature. It is also here that Biruni attempted to locate precisely the previously vaguely known Ves' or Visu population. Several scholars, including his translator P. G. Bulgakov, have concluded that al-Biruni obtained his information on the Ves' and Iugra from al-Djayhani. But al-Biruni testified that although he used al-Djayhani as a model for geographical methodology, he obtained his own data from travelers who had actually visited and observed the towns and peoples under discussion; al-Biruni then verified each account by comparing it with others. I have elected to consider the information provided by this careful and critical scholar as reliable, particularly since his discussion confirms developments among the fur-supplying populations implied by Russian sources and ethnographic studies. Only one manuscript of Geodesy has survived. It is preserved in Istanbul, and has been published in Arabic. A Russian translation of it has been published in volume 3 (pp. 81-269) of the collection of selected works by Biruni cited above. For information about Biruni, see El 1:1236-8; Krachkovskii, Arabskaia literatura, pp. 2 4 4 - 5 1 ; Bulgakov, introduction to Geodeziia, PP- 9-36. See also Minorsky, commentary to Marvazi, p. 112. Krachkovskii, Puteshestvie Ibn Fadlana, p. 74; for a discussion of this interpretation of Ibn Fadlan's time estimate, see Pimenov, Vepsy, p. 31. On the impossibility of traveling between Beloozero and the Iugra in twelve days, see Minorsky, commentary on Marvazi, p. 113; S. A. Tokarev, Etnograflia narodov SSSR (Moscow: MGU, 1958), pp. 4 7 2 - 3 ; and S. V. Bakhrushin, "Ostiatskie i vogul'skie kniazhestva v XVI-XVII vv.," Nauchnye trudy, 4 vols. in 5 parts (Moscow: AN SSSR, 1952-9) 3, pt. 2:86-7. B. A. Rybakov, discussing a possible land route between Bulgar and Kiev, estimated that the distance that could be covered in one day was between twenty-two and thirty miles. B. A. Rybakov, "Put' iz Bulgara v Kiev," in Drevnosti vostochnoi Evropy, p. 190. His estimate, however, was for a caravan, probably made up of carts or pack animals, which could not proceed as rapidly as sleds over icy ground. The estimate of thirty to thirty-five miles per day does not therefore seem improbable. Puteshestvie Abu Khamida, p. 30. Ibid., pp. 31-4. Because of these seeming inconsistencies and omissions, some scholars have viewed Abu Hamid's account as inaccurate for the twelfth century and merely a variation of the tales that circulated in the Arabo-Persian literature of the tenth century. See, for example, Grekov, "Volzhskie Bolgary," p. 9; Grekov and Kalinin, "Bulgarskoe gosudarstvo," p. 132; Khvol'son, commentary to Izvestiia, pp. 183, 187. There are elements in his account, however, that clearly reflect post-tenth-century developments. For example, Abu Hamid makes no mention of silver coins at Bulgar or among the merchants; yet this element appeared in all the tenth-century discussions, including that of Ibn Facjlan, who alone discussed the Ves' role in Bulgar's fur supply system. This omission accurately corresponds to the disappearance of Oriental coins in Bulgar during the eleventh century. Similarly, his information on Bulgar's tributary on the Oka river, the Burtas or Mordva, corresponds to Russian chronicle information that places Russian efforts to subordinate the Mordva

185

Notes to page 23

95

96

97 98

99 100

in the late twelfth century; the tenth-century tales reflect the Burtas' earlier subordination to Khazaria. If Abu Hamid used the earlier texts, he evidently brought them up to date, using contemporary information; so, it may be considered, did he with his description of Bulgar's fur trade. It should not be overlooked that Novgorod may have participated in Bulgar's new system of fur acquisition. Novgorod merchants, using the Sukhona river, were able to bring fur from the Onega and Vaga regions to the upper Dvina, while the Dvina itself could have been used to transport fur from its northern segments. This system, nevertheless, was apparently still dominated by the Ves' in the early twelfth century. Bukhara and Samarkand became parts of a state created by Buritagin Ibrahim, who conducted a civil war against the Qara-Khanid authorities for decades and separated those centers from their empire; they were subsequently attached to the Seljuk Empire in 1089; but only in 1130 was Seljuk authority firmly established in Samarkand. Barthold, Turkestan, pp. 313-22; Aminova, Istoriia Uzbekskoi SSR 1:372. Mongait, commentary on Puteshestvie Abu Khamida, p. 95. The exact location of Saksin is unknown; Mongait placed it at the mouth of the Volga, but Khvol'son and others set it on the Ural river, Mongait, commentary on Puteshestvie Abu Khamida, p. 97; Khvol'son, commentary to Izvestiia, p. 64; G. A. Fedorov-Davydov, "Gorod i oblast' Saksin v XII-XIV vv.," in Drevnosti vostochnoi Evropy, pp. 253-61. Political control of this city, also uncertain, has been accorded to both the Bulgars and the Oghuz Turks; Novosel'tsev and Pashuto, "Vneshniaia torgovlia," p. 106; Puteshestvie Abu Khamida, p. 27 and Mongait's comments, pp. 95, 97. For information on the Polovtsy and Oghuz, see S. G. Agadzhanov, Ocherki istorii Oguzov i Turkmen Srednei Azii IX-XIII vv. (Ashkabad: Ylym, 1969), chapter 3, passim and Vernadsky, Kievan Russia, pp. 224-5. Puteshestvie Abu Khamida, p. 27. Berezhkov, 0 torgovle Rusi s ganzoi, p. 17. Zakariyya' b. Muhammad b. Mahmud Abu Yahya al-Kazwini was a thirteenth-century cosmographer and geographer. His Arabic works, although not particularly original, dealt with a variety of subjects, including astronomy, botany, and zoology, as well as geography and ethnography. Krachkovskii likens him to al-Mas'udi and Biruni, but with the qualification that Kazwini did not share their skills in independent research nor their "analytical depth." Kazwini is characterized rather as a "typical compiler," who offered no new information. Nevertheless, his skill at synthesis and literary style was regarded as excellent. His works became very popular, and it is consequently through them that some commentaries pertaining to the fur trade network have reached us. For information on Kazwini, see Krachkovskii, Arabskaia literatura, pp. 358-9, 835; Khvol'son, Izvestiia, pp. 186-7; and El 4:865-7. Excerpts from his works have been translated in several sources used for this study, including Berezhkov's work, cited above, Istoriia Tatarii, pp. 2 0 - 1 , and Pogodin, Issledovaniia, 3:274. Limonov, "Iz istorii vostochnoi torgovli," p. 58; Novosertsev and Pashuto, "Vneshniaia torgovlia," p. 106; Mongait, commentary on Puteshestvie Abu Khamida, p. 96. Novosel'tsev and Pashuto, "Vneshniaia torgovlia," p. 106, Abu Hamid personally used this route; Mongait, commentary on Puteshestvie Abu Khamida, 186

Notes to pages 23-3

101

102 103 104 105

106

107 108

PP- 85-95. m the twelfth century commercial relations between Bulgar and Saksin on the one hand and the Muslim East on the other also developed with the Caucasus and Transcaucasia, where Georgia was fashioned into a unified kingdom, spanning the isthmus between the Black Sea and the Caspian. Despite religious differences and traditional hostilities, the Georgian rulers forged working relationships with the Muslim coastal rulers in Shirwan and Derbent as well as with the Polovtsy to the north. These provided links with the Volga route to Bulgar, and were used for the transport of a variety of goods, including the Russian linen cloth that became well known in Transcaucasia in the twelfth century. See W. E. D. Allen, A History of the Georgian People, (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1932), pp. 95-108; Limonov, "Iz istorii vostochnoi torgovli," p. 56. Limonov, "Iz istorii vostochnoi torgovli," p. 58; Novosel'tsev and Pashuto, " Vneshniaia torgovlia," p. 105-7; Mongait, commentary on Puteshestvie Abu Khamida, p. 96; Aminova, Istoriia Uzbekskoi SSR, pp. 294-5. S. G. Agadzhanov says that caravans carrying squirrel, sable, ermine, and slaves traveled from Bulgar to Khwarezm at this time. From Khwarezm such goods could be transported to other portions of the Seljuk Empire, which from 1043 controlled not only that province but also the Amu Darya, which connected Khorasan and Urgench. Abu Hamid confirmed the use of the Bulgar route to Khwarezm in his discussion of export of mammoth bones and of the wondrous sights along the road between Saksin and Khwarezm. S. G. Agadzhanov, Sel'dzhukidy i Turkmeniia v XI-XII vv. (Ashkabad: Ylym, 1973), p. 46; Barthold, Turkestan, p. 304; Puteshestvie Abu Khamida, pp. 30, 46-7. Puteshestvie Abu Khamida, p. 13. Aminova, Istoriia Uzbekskoi SSR 1:385-6; Barthold, Turkestan, pp. 326-7. Aminova, Istoriia Uzbekskoi SSR 1:386-8; Barthold, Turkestan, pp. 326, 329, 332; Agadzhanov, Sel'dzhukidy, p. 113. Khwarezm began its efforts to develop its independent'status during the second quarter of the twelfth century, when Atsyz, officially the Seijuk governor in Khwarezm, began to expand his province's territory and conduct an independent foreign policy. Sanjar, however, responded to these efforts by occupying Khwarezm in 1138. After the Qara-Khitay defeated Sanjar in 1141, Atsyz took advantage of the situation and plundered Merv; he was approaching Nishapur before the Seljuks contained him. It was then not until late in the century that the Khwarezm-shah Tekesh (1172-1200), taking advantage of renewed disorders in Khorasan, was able to incorporate Nishapur (1187), Rey (1192), Merv (1193), and then all of eastern Iran (after 1194). Tekesh's successor Muhammad (1200-20) continued the process of expansion, transferring Bukhara from Qara-Khitay rule to his own control (1207) and accepting the khan of Samarkand as his vassal in 1211. Aminova, Istoriia Uzbekskoi SSR 1:385, 387, 389, 391-2; Barthold, Turkestan, pp. 307, 324, 327-29. 33i> 342, 343, 345, 347In a letter to the vizir of the caliph written after Sanjar's death (c. 1156), the Khwarezm-shah stated that only Sultan Muhammad, the ruler of Iran and Sanjar's successor as head of the Seljuk dynasty, could rid Khorasan of its highway robbers. The sultan, however, never addressed himself to the problem. Barthold, Turkestan, p. 332. Ibid., pp. 335, 336; Aminova, Istoriia Uzbekskoi SSR 1:388. A. Iakubovskii, Feodalizm na vostoke: stolitsa Zolotoi Ordy - Sarai Berke (Lenin-

187

Notes to page 25 grad: GAIMK, 1932), pp. 6-7; George Vernadsky, The Mongols and Russia (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1953), pp. 39-40; Barthold, Turkestan, pp. 322-80. 109 Most scholars have associated Sudak's increased commercial importance with the appearance of Italian merchants in the Black Sea. The general understanding has been that in the mid-twelfth century Genoese merchants acquired privileges from Byzantium, allowing them to operate in the Black Sea, specifically to trade duty free in all ports except Rossia and Matracha (Tmutorokan') and to trade with only a 4 percent duty at Constantinople. See Steven Runciman, Byzantine Civilization (New York and Cleveland: Meridian Books, 1965; original ed., London: E.Arnold, 1933), p. 135; Runciman, "Byzantine Trade and Industry," in Trade and Industry in the Middle Ages, pp. 98-9, 101; Novosel'tsev and Pashuto, " Vneshniaia torgovlia," p. 83, Claude Cahen, "Le commerce anatolien au debut du XIIP siecle," in Melanges d'histoire du moyen age dedies a la memoire de Louis Halphen (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1951), pp. 94, 97. Gerald W. Day, however, has raised objections to the previously accepted conception of Black Sea trade, in which he insists the Italians did not participate during the twelfth century. For his arguments, see his "Manuel and the Genoese: A Reappraisal of Byzantine Commercial Policy in the Late Twelfth Century," The Journal of Economic History 37/2 (1977): 299 (especially note 49). If Day's position is correct, Sudak's increasing activity may be construed to have been associated with its role as a commercial center, where northern merchants (both Bulgar and Rus') could meet southern trading partners, for whom Constantinople was neither an attractive nor an available alternative. This interpretation corresponds with the pattern outlined by Day, in which he observed that in the late twelfth century, particularly after the Third Crusade, Constantinople's ability to attract merchants and thereby maintain its position as the world's foremost commercial entrepot was waning. See Donald E. Queller and Gerald W. Day, "Some Arguments in Defense of the Venetians on the Fourth Crusade," The American Historical Review 81 (1976): 730-4, and Gerald W. Day, "The Impact of the Third Crusade upon Trade with the Levant," The International History Review 3 (1981): 162-3. On Sudak as a twelfth-century commercial port, see A. L. Iakobson, Srednevekovyi Krym: Ocherki istorii i istorii material'noi kul'tury (Moscow and Leningrad: Nauka, 1964), pp. 78-80; A. Iakubovskii, "Rasskaz Ibn-al-Bibi o pokhode maloaziiskikh Turok na Sudak, Polovtsev i Russkikh v nachale XIII v.," Vizantiiskii vremennik 25 (1928):63, 65; M. V. Levchenko, Ocherki po istorii russko-vizantiiskikh otnoshenii (Moscow: AN SSSR, 1956), p. 436. 110 V. G. Tiesenhausen (Tisengauzen), Sbornik materialov, otnosiashchikhsia k istorii Zolotoi Ordy, 2 vols. (St. Petersburg: n.p., 1884; 2nd ed., Moscow: AN SSSR, 1941) 1:26; also quoted by V. E. Syroechkovskii, Gosti-surozhane, Izvestiia gosudarstvennoi akademii istorii materiarnoi kul'tury im. N. la. Marra, vol. 127 (Moscow and Leningrad: Sotsekgiz, 1935), p. 12; B. Grekov and A. Iakubovskii, La Horde a"Or et la Russie: la domination tatare aux XIIF et XIVe siecles de la Merjaune a la Mer noire, trans. Francois Thuret (Paris; Payot, 1939; reprint, Paris: Payot, 1961), p. 34. Ibn al-Athir ('Izz ad-Din Abu'l Husayn 'Ali b. Muhammad) was born in 1160 in Mesopotamia; he settled in Mosul and remained there until his death 188

Notes to pages 23-8 in 1233. From that town he assembled eyewitness accounts of events occurring in lands west of Iran. Combining these reports with material drawn from a number of literary sources, he produced his chronicle al-Kdmil written in Arabic in about 1231; among other events it recounts the arrival of the Mongols in Persia and southern Russia. Within the chronicle format he used his sources critically, and where he found discrepancies among them, he carefully related the conflicting viewpoints. The result was a product presenting events from the sixth to the thirteenth century, which has been described as the "highpoint in Muslim history" and which Bartol'd has deemed a "remarkable work" of supreme importance to students of the Muslim East. Ibn al-Athir's chronicle was published in the nineteenth century: Ibn al-Athiri chronicon quod perfectissimum inscribitur, ed. by C. J. Tornberg (Uppsala:

1851-53 and Lugduni Batavorum: 1867-76). Large portions of it were also translated into French by Constantin Mouradgea d* Ohsson and incorporated into his Histoire des Mongols, 4 vols., 2nd ed. (The Hague and Amsterdam: Les freres Van Cleef and Frederick Muller, 1834-52). Excerpts have been translated and published in a variety of Russian sources. In addition to those cited above, see also Istoriia Tatarii, pp. 41-2. For information about Ibn al-Athir, see Mouradgea d'Ohsson, Histoire, 1: x-xii; Tiesenhausen, Sbornik, 1:1; Krachkovskii, Arabskaia literatura, p. 316; Barthold, Turkestan, pp. 2, 14, 38; El 3:724-5. i n Tiesenhausen, Sbornik, 1:28. 112 William of Rubruck in Principal Navigations, Voyages, Trafflques and Discoveries of the English Nation, 12 vols., ed. by Richard Hakluyt (Glasgow: James MacLehose and Sons and New York: Macmillan, 1903; reprint, E. P. Dutton, 1927) 1:253 (1903). 113 A. Vasiliev,'' Economic Relations between Byzantium and Old Russia,'' Journal of Economic and Business History 4 (i932):328; Levchenko, Ocherki, pp.

434-5114 Iakubovskii, " Rasskaz Ibn-al-Bibi, "pp. 5 5-8. Ibn Bibi (al-Husayn b. Muhammad b. ' Ali al-Dja'fari al-Rughadi) served as head of a state chancellery for the Seljuk sultan Keikobad (1219-36) as well as for his successor. He also composed al-Awamir al-'Ala'iyya fl 'l-umur al-AlcCiyya, a history, written in

Persian, of the Seljuks in Asia Minor from 1192 to 1280. A manuscript of the complete original text is in Istanbul, and a facsimile has been published. A. Iakubovskii in his "Rasskaz Ibn-al-Bibi" paraphrased in Russian the section devoted to the Seljuk attack on Sudak that occurred early in the thirteenth century. Other publications of Ibn Bibi's work are based on Turkish translations or abbreviated versions of the text. See also Barthold, Turkestan, p. 29, and El 3:737-8. 115 Iakubovskii, "Rasskaz Ibn-al-Bibi," pp. 66, 67, 74. 116 Vernadsky, Mongols, p. 50; Kh. G. Gimadi, "Narody srednego Povolzh'ia v period gospodstva Zolotoi Ordy," in Materialy po istorii Tatarii, pp. 200, 203, 204.

117 Carpini in Hakluyt, Principal Navigations, 1:159 (1903). 118 Little is known of the nature or size of tribute payments made by Bulgar to the Golden Horde, but they are generally considered to have been comparable to the Russian payments. Gimadi, "Narody srednego povolzh'ia," p. 197. 119 Rubruck in Hakluyt, Principal Navigations, 1:242-3 (1903). 189

Notes to pages

28-9

120 Tiesenhausen, Sbornik, 1:74; Ibn Wasil, it must be noted, favored the Il-Khans and his description of the Golden Horde Tatars may be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to demean their image. 121 Minorsky, Marvazi, p. 34. Russian translations of this passage are in Mongait, footnote to Puteshestvie Abu Khamida, p. 105, no. 77 and Zakhoder, Kaspiiskii svod 2 : 6 1 , 63. Sharaf az-zaman Tahir al-Marwazi was a native of Marv who served as the Seljuk court physician. Like Biruni, he was primarily a scientist, and his book, The Natural Properties of Animals (Tabai al-hayawan), whose date of composition has been judged variously as the end of the eleventh century, the beginning of the twelfth, and around 1120, is basically a zoological survey. It includes, however, discussion of peoples in various geographic zones. Marwazi's comments on the Slavs and the Rus' are clearly variants of Ibn Rusta's and Gardizi's and, therefore, have little independent interest for this study. His remarks on the northern peoples associated with Bulgar, however, contain some otherwise unmentioned elements that are of particular interest in reconstructing Bulgar's fur supply system of the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries. Like earlier Oriental authors, Marwazi did not cite the sources of the material he incorporated into his text. His information, for instance, on ski and sleigh travel may have been extracted from Biruni's work. But Biruni stated that Bulgar travelers went to the Ves', not to the Iugra, and Biruni did not discuss trade among these peoples. The additions and adaptations of the material Marwazi borrowed are original and may be considered accurate for his time. The text of Marwazi's work has been translated into English by V. Minorsky and published under the title, Sharaf al-Zaman Tahir Marvazi on China, the Turks and India. For information on Marwazi, see Minorsky's introduction to Marvazi, pp. 2 - 1 1 ; Novosel'tsev, "Vostochnye istochniki," p. 380; and Krachkovskii, Arabskaia literatura, p. 270. 122 'Aufi in Smirnov, Ocherki, p. 2 3 1 ; N. I. Ul'ianov, Ocherki istorii naroda Komi-zyrian (Moscow and Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1932), p. 40. For the date of his work and his dependence on Marwazi, see Krachkovskii. Arabskaia literatura, pp. 270, 328, and Minorsky, introduction to Marvazi, p. 6. For further information about 'Aufi and his literary achievements, see Krachkovskii, Arabskaia literatura, pp. 326-329. 123 Ibn Battuta, The Travels of Ibn Battuta, trans, with revisions and notes by H. A. R. Gibb, 3 vols., Works issued by the Hakluyt Society, vols. 110, 117, 141 (Cambridge: University Press, 1958, 1962, 1971) 2 ( i i 7 ) : 4 9 i - 2 . A native of Tangier, Ibn Battuta (Shams al-Din Abu 'Abd Allah Muhammad b. 'Abd Allah b. Muhammad b, Ibrahim b. Muhammad b. Ibrahim b. Yusuf al-Lawati al Tandji) was a fourteenth-century traveler who, like Abu Hamid, visited Bulgar. An account of his travels, Tuhfat al-nuzzar fi gharaib al-amsar wa-adha'ib al-asfar, was recorded in Arabic at his dictation by Ibn Djuzayy, who may be considered responsible for adding some of the more fantastic, exaggerated, or mythical details, which were a mark of the literary style of his day. Some other elements in this travel account are clearly not original, and doubts about its accuracy have accordingly been raised. Ibn Battuta's description of travel by dog-sled, for example, although more elaborate, recalls that of Marwazi (and 'Aufi) while his tale of the mute trade in the land of darkness may have been derived from Abu Hamid, Marwazi, or Kazwini. It is important to note, however, that the possible sources of these statements 190

Notes to pages 29-30

124

125

126 127

are all twelfth-century accounts, and the information they conveyed and Ibn Battuta (or Ibn Djuzayy) repeated therefore pertains to Bulgar's revised fur supply system, which was the basis for the system Bulgar developed under Mongol influence. Thus, the appearance of repeated information in Ibn Battuta's text does not necessarily detract from its accuracy about Bulgar and its trade in the fourteenth century. On the contrary, I have considered it a reliable indicator of the existence and nature of that trade. Several manuscripts of Ibn Battuta's account have survived. The standard published edition was produced by C. Defremery and B. R. Sanguinetti, who worked from five manuscripts and also translated their reconstructed version of the text into French: Voyages d'lbn Batoutah, ed. with French trans, by C. Defremery and B. R. Sanguinetti, 4 vols. (Paris: Societe Asiatique, 1853-8). Gibb's translation into English is based on their text. An earlier English translation was made by Samuel Lee and published under the title, The Travels of Ibn Batuta, (London: Oriental Translatin Fund, 1829). The quoted passage appears on pp. 78-9 of Lee's edition. Information about Ibn Battuta may be found in El 3:735-46; Gibb, in his foreword to vol. 1 ( n o ) of The Travels of Ibn Battuta, pp. ix-xvi: Lee, Introduction to Ibn Batuta, pp. 10-13; Defremery and Sanguinetti, Introduction to Ibn Batoutah, 1:1-25. Tiesenhausen, Sbornik, 1:240; Istoriia Tatarii, p. 53. Al-'Umari (Shihab al-Din Abu VAbbas Ahmad b. Yahya ibn Fadl Allah al-Kurashi al-' Adawi al-'Umari) was born in Damascus in 1301, but was raised and educated in Cairo, where he subsequently assisted his father who was a state secretary serving the sultan. Al-'Umari's career was interrupted when he offended the sultan and was obliged to spend a couple of years in prison. Upon his release, he held a position as head of a chancellery in Damascus (1339-42), but was once again dismissed. During the last decade of his life (he died in 1349), he wrote his encyclopedia entitled Masdlik al-absdr fl mamdlik al-amsdr, in which he synthesized data on the history, physical geography, and political organization of the known world as well as the customs of its inhabitants. He drew his material from official state archives as well as from first-hand reports of travelers and merchants, whose tales, he claimed, he checked and doublechecked for accuracy. In contrast to Ibn Battuta's work, there is little imaginative creativity or fabulous tenor in his sober report of the accounts of numerous informants, whom he frequently identified. Excerpts from his encyclopedia have been translated into Russian by Tiesenhausen, Sbornik, 1:235-41, and also appear in Istoriia Tatarii, pp. 53-4. For information about al-'Umari, see El 3:758-9; A. N. Poliak, "Novye arabskie materialy pozdnego srednevekov'ia o vostochnoi i tsentral'noi Evrope," in Vostochnye istochniki po istorii narodov iugo-vostochnoi i tsentral'noi Evropy (Moscow: Nauka, 1964), p. 33; Krachkovskii, Arabskaia literatura, pp. 405-16. For the first option, see Istoriia Tatarii, p. 5 3, note 42; for the others, see Poliak, "Novye arabskie materialy," p. 36. His theory states that Chulyman or Golman was a variation of the Scandinavian name for Novgorod - Holmgard and thus referred, if not to Novgorod proper, then Kholmogory. S. M. Shpilevskii, Drevnie goroda i drugie Bulgarsko-tatarskie pamiatniki v Kazanskoi gubernii (Kazan': n.p., 1877), p. 144: Kuchkin, " 0 marshrutakh pokhodov," p. 41. Smirnov, Volzhskie Bolgary, p. 54; Grekov and Kalinin. "Bulgarskoe gosudarstvo," p. 105. This interpretation is also supported by the report that 191

Notes to page 30 in 1218, when the Bulgars were fighting for Ustiug, but were also opening this alternate route, they "having gathered armed forces, went up the Kama against the Iugra" with whom they engaged in a bitter battle. Tatishchev, Istoriia rossiiskaia, 3:207. 128 Tokarev, Etnograflia narodov, pp. 4 7 2 - 3 ; Lashuk, Proiskhozhdenie, p. 35; Bakhrushin, "Ostiatskie i vogul'skie kniazhestva," p. 96; Istoriia Sibiri s drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei, ed. A. P. Okladnikov and V. I. Shunkov, 5 vols. (Leningrad: Nauka, 1968-9) i:353129 Tokarev, Etnograflia narodov, p. 472; Bakhrushin, "Ostiatskie i vogul'skie kniazhestva/' p. 8 6 - 7 ; Istoriia Sibiri 1:353. Some Voguly were also living east of the Ural mountains at this time. 130 Paulus Jovius, after visiting Muscovy on two occasions, wrote in 1525 that "the best kynde of sables...are brought by the Permians and Pecerrians, whiche they themselues also receyue at the handes of other that inhabite the regions neyre vnto the North Ocean." Herberstein, who also visited Muscovy twice in the first quarter of the sixteenth century, similarly reported sables " are found...more often and of a finer sort about Petchora." Finally Guagnini wrote in the late sixteenth century that in the Pechora "grow cedar trees, around which are found the blackest sable " It is also interesting that Guagnini, describing the lands near the confluence of the Vishera and Kama rivers, the very land where the Voguly had lived in the early fourteenth century, noted that travelers there "make their way along the snow on sleighs, which dogs usually pull " Paulus Jovius, "The History, written in the Latin tongue by Paulus Jouius, By shop of Nuceria in Italie, of the Legation of Ambassade of Great BasiHus of Moscouia, to Pope Clement the VII," Works issued by the Haklyut Society, vol. 12: Notes upon Russia (London: n.p., 1852; reprint ed., New York: Burt Franklin, n.d.), pp. 242-3; Sigismund von Herberstein, Notes upon Russia, vols. 10 and 12 of Works issued by the Hakluyt Society (London: The Hakluyt Society, 1851-2), 10:114; "Nash sever v opisanii inostrantsa XVI veka," Izvestiia ArkhangeTskago obshchestva izucheniia russkago severa, no. 1 (1911): 4. 131 Another possible route between Bulgar and the Voguly could have followed the Viatka river. But this route was blocked by a group of Russians, centered at Khlynov, who arrived there in the twelfth century according to some, the fourteenth according to others. Smirnov, Volzhskie Bolgary, p. 56; S. F. Platonov and A. I. Andreev, "Novgorodskaia kolonizatsiia severa," 0cherki po istorii kolonizatsii severa, 2 vols. (Petrograd: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo, 1922) 1:31. The fourteenth-century sources do not discuss the nature of the merchandise exchanged by Bulgar merchants for fur; the items mentioned are taken from trade patterns indicated by the twelfth-century authors, Abu Hamid and Marwazi. 132 Other goods sold to the Tatars included grain, timber, honey, wax, slaves and European cloth, silver, and metal products obtained through the Russians. In exchange Oriental silks, spices, gems and more mundane products like salt were shipped north. Grain had long been a product of Bulgar, which, at least in times of distress, had exported it to the Russian principalities and probably also to Sarai, which was grain-deficient. Iakubovskii, Feodalizm na vostoke, p. 2 1 ; Tiesenhausen, Sbornik, 1:230. For Bulgar's exports to the Russians, see PSRL 1:147; Smirnov, Volzhskie Bolgary, pp. 36-7; Grekov and Kalinin, "Bulgarskoe

192

Notes to pages

31-2

gosudarstvo," p. 137. For the grain-producing character of Bulgar, see Smirnov, Volzhskie Bolgary, pp. 17, 30. Salt, on the other hand, was one of the most important items produced and exported by the Golden Horde. Rubruck, traveling eastward through the lands north of the Black Sea, commented: "Towards the borders of the sayd province there be many great lakes: upon the bankes whereof are salt pits or fountaines, the water of which so soone as it entereth into the lake, becometh hard salte like unto ice. And out of those salte pittes Baatu and Sartach have great revenues: for they repayre thither out of all Russia for salte: and for each carte loade they give two webbes of cotton amounting to the value of half an yperpera. Rubruck in Hakluyt, Principal Navigations, 1:233-4 (1903). 133 The Travels oflbn Battuta, 2 (117): 515-16. 134 Tiesenhausen, Sbornik, 1:264. 135 Vernadsky, Mongols, p. 170; John Meyendorff, Byzantium and the Rise of Russia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), pp. 49-50. 136 M. Balard, Genes et Youtre-mer. I: Les Actes de Caffa du notaire Lamberto di Sambuceto, 1289-1290 (Paris and The Hague: Mouton, 1973), nos. 53, 132, 357 on pp. 77, 92, 134; Elspeth M. Veale, The English Fur Trade in the Later Middle Ages (London: Oxford University Press, 1966), pp. 30, 228. 137 Robert-Henri Bautier, "Les Relations economiques des occidentaux avec les pays d'Orient au moyen age. Points de vue et documents," Societes et compagnies de commerce en orient et dans I'ocean indien. Actes du Huitieme Colloque International d'Histoire Maritime: Beirut: 5-10 September, 1966 (Paris: SEVPEN, 1970), pp. 315-16. 138 Francesco Balducci Pegolotti, "Notices of the Land Route to Cathay and of Asiatic Trade in the First Half of the Fourteenth Century," in Cathay and the Way Thither, Works issued by the Hakluyt Society, vols. 36 and 37 (London: Printed for the Hakluyt Society, 1866) 37:297, 306". For an alternate edition, see "La Practica della mercatura," by Francesco Balducci Pegolotti in Delia decima e delle altre gravezze imposte dal comune di Firenze, 2 vols. ( 1 7 6 5 - 6 : reprint, Bologna: Forni, 1967). 139 The Travels oflbn Battuta 2 (117) 1492. 140 For the route, see Travels oflbn Battuta, 2 (117): 517; al-'Umari in Tiesenhausen, Sbornik, 1:242. For the market at Urgench, see Pegolotti, "La Practica della mercatura," 1:1. 141 Iakubovskii, Feodalizm na vostoke, p. 11. 142 Vernadsky, Mongols, pp. 245-6; Aminova, Istoriia Uzbekskoi SSR 1:443. 143 PSRL 10 (PatriarshaiailiNikonovskaialetopis / ):233; 15 (Letopisets Rogozhskii and Tverskoi sbornik): 70; J.Martin, "Les Uskujniki de Novgorod: marchands ou pirates?" Cahiers du monde russe et sovietique 16 (1975):8; Vernadsky, Mongols, p. 246; Smirnov, Volzhskie Bolgary, p. 60; M. D. Poluboiarinova, Russkie liudi v Zolotoi Orde (Moscow: Nauka, 1978), pp. 43-4. Zhukotin in particular was becoming transformed at this time from one Bulgar center into an autonomous political unit. 144 The attacks on Bulgar and Nizhnii Novgorod occurred in 1366, 1374, 1375 and 1409. See Martin, "Les Uskujniki," pp. 9, 12, 13, 14, 16; PSRL 8 (Prodolzhenie letopisi po Voskresenskomu spisku): 14, 21, 23-4, 8 4 - 5 : 11 (Patriarshaia ill Nikonovskaia letopis'):6, 20, 23-4, 2 1 1 : 15:81, 83, 1 1 3 - 1 4 ; Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis' starshego i mladshego izvodov, ed. by

193

Notes to pages 33-4

145 146

147

148

149 150

151

A. N. Nasonov (Moscow and Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1950; reprint ed., The Hague and Paris: Europe Printing, 1969), p. 369 (hereafter NPL). Other attacks were directed against Zhukotin, for example, in 1360; Martin, "Les Uskujniki," p. 10; PSRL 10:232; 15:69. In 1374 and 1391 Viatka was also a target; PSRL 8:61; 11:126; 15:160; Martin, "Les Uskujniki," p. 15. For the northeastern Russian response, see PSRL 11:25, 27-8; Martin, 'Les Uskujniki," pp. 7-8, 15. PSRL 11:23-4; 15:113-14; 8:23-4; Martin, "Les Uskujniki," p. 14. Tokhtamysh took Sarai in 1379, then defeated Mamai in 1381, thereby establishing his rule over all of Juchi's ulus. Shortly thereafter he seized Russian merchants in Bulgar and attacked Moscow, which had demonstrated independent tendencies following the revolt in Nizhnii Novgorod against Mamai's Tatars in 1374 and during the period 13 78-1380 had defeated Mamai. PSRL 11:20, 69, 71-81; Vernadsky, Mongols, pp. 250, 255-6, 259, 263, 264. Sharaf ad-Din Jezdi, quoted by Zakhoder, Kaspiiskii svod 2:168; archeological evidence confirms that the city was burned about this time. Vernadsky, Mongols, pp. 273-5, 2 77~9I Aminova, Istoriia Uzbekskoi SSR 1:445; B. D. Grekov and A. Iakubovskii, Zolotaia Orda i ee padenie (Moscow and Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1950), pp. 372-3. On the diversion of the trade, see Vernadsky, Mongols, p. 246; on the commercial decline of Urgench, see M. V. Fekhner, Torgovlia russkogo gosudarstva so stranami vostoka v XVI veke. Trudy gosudarstvennogo istoricheskogo muzeia, no. 31 (Moscow: GIM, 1956), p. 36, and Zakhoder, Kaspiiskii svod 2:169. For the disintegration of the Golden Horde, see Vernadsky, Mongols, pp. 292-4, 302; V. V. Veriaminov-Zernov, Issledovaniia 0 Kasimovskikh tsariakh i tsarevichakh, 4 vols. (St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia Akademiia Nauk, 1863-7) i : 3 - 5 . 7. Aminova, Istoriia Uzbekskoi SSR 1:443; Verriadsky, Mongols, pp. 282, 290-2. Barbaro, in Josafa Barbaro and Ambrogio Contarini, Travels to Tana and Persia, Works issued by the Hakluyt Society, vol. 49, trans, by W. Thomas and S.A.Roy (London: Hakluyt Society, 1873; reprint ed., New York, Burt Franklin, n.d.), p. 31. Commerce along the Volga did not disappear entirely, and Sarai in the first half of the fifteenth century remained a relatively prosperous center on that river route. At just about the same time Barbaro was observing the ruin of Astrakhan', a merchant from Shiraz was transporting pearls, ambergris, aloe, sandalwood, pepper, ginger, nutmeg, cloves, ebony and Brazil wood, and indigo through Abarkuh, Yezd, Herat, and Urgench to Sarai, where he sold his goods for a profit of about 50 percent. In Sarai he purchased raw silk, silk kamka, satin, Russian linen and European cloth, which he then took to Herat and sold at a considerably higher profit, in the region of 300 percent. The differences in prices at Sarai and Urgench sharply contrasted with the relative prices described almost a century earlier by al-'Umari, who reported they were almost the same in both cities. As Zakhoder has concluded, the market at Sarai offered a greater abundance of goods, which kept the prices down. Unlike Urgench, which, like Astrakhan' and Tana, owed its former prosperity primarily to the Horde's east-west commercial traffic, Sarai had participated in both east-west and north-south commerce. Although the east-west traffic had faded, Sarai was evidently continuing to participate in the north-south trade, which brought Russian and European cloth from 194

Notes to pages 35-6 the Russian lands in the north down the Volga to its market. There the trade was connected, through the activities of such personages as the Shiraz merchant, with Central Asia and northern Iran. There is no indication, however, that during the first half of the fifteenth century this avenue was either used extensively or that northern luxury fur was conveyed along it. Zakhoder, Kaspiiskii svod 2:166-7, 169. Kamka is silk fabric in which gold or silver threads were used in the woof; Fekhner, Torgovlia, p. 68. Al-'Umarf wrote that the route from Sarai to Khwarezm passed through Khiva and Kutlukant, that it took one and one-half months, and that prices in both locations were almost the same; Tiesenhausen, Sbornik, 1.242. 2. The Rus' 1 The Primary Chronicle identifies the Rus'with Varangians, the Scandinavians who were allegedly the founders of the Riurik dynasty. But the term "Rus'," the people to whom it refers, and the role they played in early Russian history remain topics of scholary debate. For a recent summary of the issues and positions in the debate, see Pritsak, Origins of Rus', 1:3-7. Pritsak's own theory is that the Rus' were initially members of a trading company from Rodez. As part of their involvement in the slave trade, they established themselves at, among other places, Bjorko (Birka). By the end of the eighth century, they, as Vikings, were pressing into eastern Europe, where they settled in the Iaroslavl' and then the Rostov areas. Another branch of this group based itself around Aldeigjuborg, Beloozero, and Izborsk, and placed itself under the rule of a Danish king, identified with Riurik. The Rostov settlement, meanwhile, granted refuge to a rebel Khazar kagan and evolved into a Rus' kaganate (by 839). Almost a century later Igor of that kaganate conquered Kiev, and eventually (by the second half of the eleventh century) the term Rus' also came to be applied to southern Russia. See Pritsak, Origins of Rus', 1:26-31. For more conventional syntheses of the evidence of Scandinavians or Rus' in eastern Europe, see Jones, Vikings, pp. 24iff, and Sawyer, Kings and Vikings, pp. H3ff. See also Bartol'd, "Arabskie izvestiia," p. 19. 2 PSRL 1:19-21; The Primary Chronicle, pp. 59-60. See also Golb and Pritsak, Khazarian Documents, pp. 60-9. 3 For some discussions about its origin and the insertion of the Varangian legend into the Primary Chronicle, see A. G. Kuz'min, "K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii variazhskoi legendy," Novoe 0 proshlom nashei strany. Pamiati akademika M. N. Tikhomirova (Moscow: Nauka, 1967), pp. 42-53; D. S. Likhachev, Russkie letopisi i ikh kul'turno-istoricheskoe znachenie (Moscow and Leningrad: ANSSSR, 194 7; reprinted., The Hague-.Europe Printing, 1966),pp. 157-60. 4 Ibn Khurradadhbih (Ibn Khordadbeh; Abu '1-Kasim 'Ubayd Allah b. 'Abd Allah b. Khordadbeh), author of the earliest extant Arabic text relating to the subject under study, The Book of Itineraries and Kingdoms {Kitab al-Masalik wal mamalik), was a forerunner of the tenth-century geographers cited and discussed earlier. Born in 820 or 82 5 and raised in Bagdad, Ibn Khurradadhbih served the caliphate as Director of Posts and Intelligence first in the province of Djibal in northwestern Iran and later in Bagdad, where he became a figure at court and friend of the caliph. Ibn Khurradadhbih wrote at least nine works, but The Book of Itineraries and Kingdoms has become the basis of his reputation among modern scholars. He evidently based it on material he gathered in his 195

Notes to page 3 6 official capacity as a collector of information on communication routes and highways; he also used state archives and information supplied by travelers, merchants, and other contemporary informants. According to his own testimony, the book, now lost, of Muslim ibn Abu-Muslim al-Djarmi, an Arab who had been captured by the Byzantines and who, upon his release in 845, wrote of the Byzantine Empire, its provinces, rulers, and neighbors, was also among his sources. But Ibn Khurradadhbih's discussion of Rus' merchants, the passage that most concerns this study, was an interpolation into a portion of the text on Jewish merchants and their trade routes. Its origin remains unknown. Omeljan Pritsak has suggested that an official in the caliph's chancellery associated the activities of the Rus' merchants in the second half of the ninth century with those of their eighth-century Jewish predecessors. He correspondingly added reports about the former to those on the latter. Ibn Khurradadhbih found them combined in the state records. The pattern of trade described by Ibn Khurradadhbih apparently persisted into the tenth century. The precise date of the composition of Ibn Khurradadhbih's work has also been debated. Although some scholars, including M. J. de Goeje, have concluded that he wrote two editions, thefirstdated 846 and the second 885, Pritsak, following P. G. Bulgakov, considers that there was only one version, produced around 885. In the tenth century Ibn Khurradadhbih's work received wide circulation and influenced the subsequent works, among others, of Ibn Rusta and Gardizi (see above), possibly through the intermediate work composed by al-Djayhani, the Samanid vizir of Central Asia and Khorasan, which has not survived. Only two manuscripts of Ibn Khurradadhbih's text remain in existence. The Arabic text has been published by M. J. de Goeje, BGA, vol. 6: Kitab al-masalik wa'l-mamalik, by Abu'l-Kasim Obaidallah ibn Abdallah ibn Khordadbeh (1889) and in French translation by C. Barbier de Meynard, "Le Livre des routes et des provinces," Journal Asiatique, series 6, 5(1865): 5-127. Pritsak published a reconstruction of the interpolation into the text with a translation into English in his "Arabic Text," pp. 254-7. Excerpts in Russian translation have appeared in Harkavy, Skazaniia, pp. 44-58, and in Novosel'tsev, " Vostochnye istochniki," pp. 384-5; the latter is based on a translation made by V. Rozen, which appeared in A. Kunik and V. Rozen, Izvestiia al-Bekri i drugikh avtorov 0 Rusi i Slavianakh, 2 vols. (St.

Petersburg: n.p., 1878,1903). For information about Ibn Khurradadhbih, see El 3:839-40, 2:580; Pritsak, "Arabic Text," pp. 241, 243-4, 247-8; Harkavy, Skazaniia, pp. 44-7; Novosel'tsev, "Vostochnye istochniki," pp. 374ff; Bartol'd, " Arabskie izvestiia," p. 20; Krachkovskii, Arabskaia literatura, p. 147-50. Ibn al-Fakih (Abu Bakr Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Ishak ibn al-Fakih al-Hamadhani) was a Persian, who popularized scientific geographical literature. His major work, the five-volume Book of Countries (Kitab al-Baldan), was

written in Arabic in about 903. It contained information on the Rus' trade routes that is strikingly similar to that offered by Ibn Khurradadhbih. Ibn al-Fakih indicated that he obtained his information on the Rus' trade route from a pamphlet written by Muhammad b. Ishak. Pritsak has theorized that Ibn al-Fakih was the son of the same Muhammad b. Ishak, who maintained "an open house for discussions" on literary and other scholarly topics in Hamadhan. Pritsak further conjectured that Ibn Khurradadhbih was a 196

Notes to pages 3 6-7

5 6 7 8 9 10

11

12 13

frequenter of this salon while he served in the province of Djibal and shared his information with his host. The latter's son then entered the information into his own text. Other scholars, such as Bartol'd and Krachkovskii, assert that Ibn al-Fakih borrowed directly from Ibn Khurradadhbih, while Novosel'tsev considers that the two shared a common source, probably al-Djarmi. Ibn al-Fakih's text became known to his contemporaries as well as to later tenth-century geographers. The most complete manuscript of his work was discovered in Mashhad (Iran) in the 1920s, but texts of it have been published and excerpts translated on the basis of earlier, fragmentary manuscripts. The standard edition was published by M. J. de Goeje, BGA, vol. 5: Compendium libri Kitab al-boldan, by Ibn al-Faqih al-Hamadhani Ahmad ibn Muhammad (1885). Excerpts translated into Russian are in Novosel'tsev, "Vostochnye istochniki," p. 385, and in English in Vasiliev, "Byzantium and Old Russia," pp. 318-19. For information about Ibn al-Fakih, see El 3:761-2, 2: 580; Pritsak, "Arabic Text," pp. 245-8; Bartol'd, "Arabskie izvestiia," pp. 22-3; and Novosel'tsev, "Vostochnye istochniki," p. 383-7. For discussions of the route, see also Novosel'tsev, "Vostochnye istochniki," p. 386, and Vasiliev, "Byzantium and Old Russia," pp. 319-20. Sprenger, El-Masudi's Hist. Encyclopedia, p. 412; Pellat, Prairies d'or, 1: 164. Sprenger, El-Masudi's Hist. Encyclopedia, pp. 416-17; Pellat, Prairies d'or, 1: 165-6; see Bartol'd, "Arabskie izvestiia," p. 44, footnote 18 on this route. Sprenger, El-Masudi's Hist. Encyclopedia, p. 4 0 9 ; Pellat, Prairies d'or, 1:162. Ibn al-Fakih in Novosel'tsev, "Vostochnye istochniki," p. 3 8 5 . Dunlop, Jewish Khazars, p. 240; Berezhkov, 0 torgovle Rusi s ganzoi, pp. 20-1. On the Caspian raids, see T. D. Kendrick, History of the Vikings (London: Methuen, 1930), p. 162; Vernadsky, Kievan Russia, pp. 24, 3 3 - 5 ; Pellat, Prairies d'or, 1:166-7; Sprenger, El-Masudi's Hist. Encyclopedia, pp. 417-20; Bartol'd, "Arabskie izvestiia," pp. 24-5, 31-33; Dunlop, Jewish Khazars, pp. 210-12. The notion that the Rus' purpose was to force coastal populations to enter into regular trade relations corresponds to Pritsak's interpretation of the Rus' attacks on Byzantium at the same time; see Pritsak, Origin of Rus\ 1:19. Merchants of Cherson may also have obtained Rus' goods from Kiev through Pecheneg intermediaries and/or by going to Kiev themselves. Emperor Constantine, describing the seventh "barrage" on the Dnepr river, identified it as the spot "where the Chersonites cross over from Russia and the Pechenegs to Cherson." Iakobson, Srednevekovyi Krym, pp. 57-8; Iakobson, " 0 chislennosti naseleniia srednevekovogo Khersonesa," Vizantiiskii vremennik 19(1961): 155,161;Iakobson,''Kistoriirussko-korsunskikhsviazei(XI-XIV vv.)," Vizantiiskii vremennik 14 (1958): 116-17; Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, pp. 61, 287; Vasiliev, "Byzantium and Old Russia," p. 326; Runciman, "Byzantine Trade and Industry," p. 92. Ibn Khurradadhbih in Novosel'tsev, "Vostochnye istochniki," p. 384. PSRL 1:29-32; The Primary Chronicle, pp. 64-5. For a challenge to the notion that Oleg was operating from Kiev, see Golb and Pritsak, Khazarian Documents, pp. 61-6; conflicting views on the accuracy of the legendary account of the 907 campaign are discussed by A. N. Sakharov, "Pokhod Rusi na Konstantinopl' v 907 godu," Istoriia SSSR, no. 6 (1977): 72-8; Pritsak has provided a textual analysis and reconstruction of the chronicle accounts in Origins of Rusf, pp. 143-9.

197

Notes to pages

37-41

14 PSRL 1:45-54; Vasiliev, "Byzantium and Old Russia," p. 324. 15 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, pp. 57, 59, 61, 63. See Levchenko, Ocherki, pp. 2O2ff. for a discussion of this passage. 16 The Pechenegs also found it to their advantage to keep the peace. They not only valued their trade with Kiev for its own sake, but also traded goods they received from the Russians at Cherson, where they received money as well as silks, purple cloth, ribbons, gold brocade, pepper, red Parthian leather, and other goods. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, pp. 49, 51, 53, 287; Iakobson, Srednevekovyi Krym, p. 58; Levchenko, Ocherki, p. 200; Berezhkov, 0 torgovle Rusi s ganzol p. 26; Vasiliev, "Byzantium and Old Russia," pp. 325-6. 17 PSRL 1:54; The Primary Chronicle, p. 77. 18 PSRL 1132; Thompson, Novgorod, p. 92; Khovl'son, commentary to Izvestiia, p. 161; Vernadsky, Kievan Russia, pp. 116-18; Dimitri Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Europe, 500-145 3 (New York, Washington: Praeger, 1971), p. 186. For information on Byzantine coins imported into the Rus' lands, see Thomas S. Noonan, "Medieval Islamic Copper Coins from European Russia and Surrounding Regions," Journal of the American Oriental Society 94 (1974): 4 5 0 - 1 ; Noonan, "The Circulation of Byzantine Coins in Kievan Rus'," Byzantine Studies/Etudes byzantines 7 (1980): 148: Ianin, Denezhno-vesovye sistemy, p. 192; Sawyer, Kings and Vikings, pp. 122-3. 19 The Primary Chronicle, p. 5 3 ; PSRL 1:7; Jones, Vikings, p. 1 6 3 . 20 Snorri Sturluson, The Heimskringla or The Sagas of the Norse Kings from the Icelandic of Snorre Sturlason, trans. Samuel Laing, revised with notes by R. B. Anderson, 4 vols. (London: J. C. Nimmo, 1889, 2nd ed.) 2: 77-80 and 3:200, 216, 366-7. 21 Ibid., 3:292, 294; Berezhkov, O torgovle Rusi s ganzoi, p. 46. 22 Adam of Bremen, History of the Archbishops, p. 195. 23 Sturluson, Heimskringla, 2:148. 24 Ibid., 2:305. 25 V. M. Potin, Drevniaia Rus' i evropeiskie gosudarstva v X-XIII vv. (Leningrad: Sovetskii khudozhnik, 1968), pp. 63, 64, 69; Novosel'tsev and Pashuto, "Vneshniaia torgovlia," p. 99. Sawyer, it must be noted, attributes the presence of these hoards to piracy, plunder, and tribute, rather than to commerce; see his Kings and Vikings, pp. 113, 124-6. For arguments supporting trade as the cause for the accumulation of Islamic coins, see V. M. Potin, "Russko-skandinavskie sviazi po numismaticheskim dannym," Istoricheskie sviazi Skandinavii i Rossii, ed. by N. E. Nosov and I. P. Shaskol'skii (Leningrad:Nauka, 1970), pp. 72, 79-80. For a summary of his views in English, see N. J. Dejevsky, "The Varangians in Soviet Archaeology Today," Medieval Scandinavia 10 (1977): 26-7. See also Jones, Vikings, pp. 171-4; Vilinbakhov, "Rannesrednevekovyi put'," p. 89. 26 Adam of Bremen, History of the Archbishops, p. 67: for information on Hedeby, see Jones, Vikings, pp. 174-81. 27 Potin, Drevniaia Rusf, pp. 61-2, 67-8. 28 Jones, Vikings, pp. 7, 168, 173-4; H. R. Ellis Davidson, The Viking Road to Byzantium (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1976), pp. 69-70. For an interpretation that excludes commercial causes, see Sawyer, Kings and Vikings, p. 130. 29 Adam of Bremen, History of the Archbishops, pp. 66-7; Novosel'tsev and Pashuto, "Vneshniaia torgovlia," p. 88. 198

Notes to pages 4 1 - 4 30 Berezhkov, O torgovle Rusi s ganzoi, pp. 47, 54-5; Ingvar Andersson, A History of Sweden, trans. Carolyn Hannay (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1956), p. 6 3 ; Novosel'tsev and Pashuto, "Vneshniaia torgovlia," p. 9 1 ; A.I. Nikitskii, Istoriia ekonomicheskogo byta velikogo Novgoroda (Moscow: Universitetskaia tipografiia, 1893; reprint, The Hague: Europe Printing, 1967), pp. 2 6 - 7 : Ianin, Denezhno-vesovye sistemy, p. 130: Jones, Vikings, pp. 174. 242, 265. Sawyer considers Gotland's wealth to have been the result of piracy, not trade; Kings and Vikings, p. 130. 31 Pashuto and Novosel'tsev, "Vneshniaia torgovlia," p. 87; Jones, Vikings, pp. 168,180: Thompson, Novgorod, p. 97; Vernadsky, Kievan Russia, pp. 118-19; Nikitskii, Istoriia, p. 29; Postan, "Trade in Medieval Europe." p. 129. 32 Jones, Vikings, p. 162. 33 Octher in Hakluyt, Principal Navigations, 1:11-13 (1903); Jones, Vikings, pp. 158-9, 162; Sawyer, Kings and Vikings, p. 71. Jones interpreted ' ' i s cases of Martens" as fifteen marten skins. 34 Sturluson, Heimskringla, 2:58-9. Laing suggested that since wolves were not found in Iceland, the "gray-skins" were probably fox or seal. 35 Ibid., 3:92; see also K. Tiander, Poezdki skandinavov v Beloe more (St. Petersburg: n.p., 1906), pp. 117-18, and Ul'ianov, Ocherki, p. 13. 36 Biarmia, the land named in Icelandic sagas, has been variously located by scholars at Kholmogory, on the shore of the White Sea east of the mouth of the North Dvina river, on the Kola peninsula, on the western coast of the White Sea, in the territory of the Perm' or ancestors of the Komi-Zyriane, and in the territory of the Perm' Velikaia. None of the theories has been substantiated. See, for example, Davidson, Viking Road, p. 34; Sawyer, Kings and Vikings, p. 121; Ul'ianov, Ocherki, pp. 148"; A. A. Kizevetter (Kiesewetter), Russkii sever (Volgoda, n.p., 1919), pp. 6-7; Platonov and Andreev, "Novgorodskaia kolonizatsiia," p. 32; and Aleksandr Krupenin. "Kratkii istoricheskii ocherk zaseleniia i tsivilizatsii Permskago kraia," in Permskii sbornik, 2 vols. (Moscow: Tipografiia Lazarevskago instituta vostochnykh iazykov, 1859-60)1:2-3. 37 Sturluson, Heimskringla, 2:328-9. 38 A portion of Novgorod's tribute from the populace of the northeast was designated as the "Pechora tribute" and given to the Kievan grand prince in 1113; George B. Lantzeff, "Russian Eastward Expansion before the Mongol Invasion," American Slavic and East European Review 6 (1947): 2. 39 Berezhkov, 0 torgovle Rusi s ganzoi, pp. 25; 26; Novosel'tsev and Pashuto, " Vneshniaia torgovlia," p. 85; Iu. L. Shchapova, "Drevnerusskie stekliannye izdeliia kak istochnik dlia istorii russko-vizantiiskikh otnoshenii v XI-XII vv.," Vizantiiskii vremennik 19 (1961): 61-3, 6 6 - 7 ; Thompson, Novgorod, pp. 92-3. Trade relations between the two cities were of such a proportion as to warrant the formation of a Novgorodian trading settlement, centered around the church of Mikhail, in Kiev. PSRL 1:318; M. N. Tikhomirov, The Towns of Ancient Rus', trans. Y. Sdobnikov (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1959), p. 128. 40 PSRL 1:154; G. G. Litvarin and A. P. Kazhdan, "Ekonomicheskie i politicheskie otnosheniia drevnei Rusi i Vizantii," Proceedings of the Xlllth International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Oxford, 5-10 September 1966, ed. J. M. Hussey, D. Obolensky and S. Runciman (London, New York, and Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1967), p. 72; V. G. Vasil'evskii, provides a detailed version of this tale in Trudy, 4 vols. in 5 parts (St. Petersburg: Impera199

Notes to pages 44-6 torskaia Akademiia Nauk, 1908-; reprint, The Hague: Europe Printing, 1968) 1:307-8. See also Berezhkov, 0 torgovle Rusi s ganzoi, p. 25; Levchenko, Ocherki, p. 429; and B. A. Rybakov, "Torgovlia i torgovye puti," in Istoriia kul'tury drevnei Rusi, ed. B. D. Grekov and M. I. Artamonov, 2 vols. (Moscow and Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1948-51) 1:338. 41 PSRL 1:173; Levchenko, Ocherki, p. 429; Novosel'tsev and Pashuto, " Vneshniaia torgovlia," p. 84. 42 Vernadsky, Kievan Russia, p. 219; Rybakov, "Torgovlia," p. 339. On the diplomatic meeting preceding the 1166 expedition, see Litvarin and Kazhdan, "Ekonomicheskie i politicheskie otnosheniia," p. 79. 43 Benjamin Tudela in Contemporaries of Marco Polo, ed. by Manuel Komroff (New York: Liveright, 1928), p. 264; also quoted in Runciman, "Byzantine Trade," p. 100 and Vasiliev, "Byzantium and Old Russia," p. 327. 44 Tikhomirov, Towns, pp. 130-2; Levchenko, Ocherki, pp. 433-4; Litvarin and Kazhdan, "Ekonomicheskie i politicheskie otnosheniia," p. 73; Novosel'tsev and Pashuto, "Vneshniaia torgovlia, p. 84; Vasil'evskii, Trudy, 1:307-8. 45 Komroff, Contemporaries, pp. 321-2; Litvarin and Kazhdan, "Ekonomicheskie i politicheskie otnosheniia," p. 73. 46 Novosel'tsev and Pashuto, "Vneshniaia torgovlia," p. 84; V. G. Vasil'evskii, "Drevniaia torgovlia Kieva s Regensburgom," Zhurnal ministerstva narodnago prosveshcheniia 258 (1888): 150; Litvarin and Kazhdan, "Ekonomicheskie i politicheskie otnosheniia," p. 73. For the Greek reference, see Michael Akominatou tou Choniatou ta sozomena, 2 vols., ed. by S. Lampros (Athens: 1879-80)2:356. 47 Litvarin and Kazhdan, "Ekonomicheskie i politicheskie otnosheniia," pp. 72-4; Novosel'tsev and Pashuto, "Vneshniaia torgovlia," p. 85; Vasiliev, "Byzantium and Old Russia," p. 325; Obolensky, Byzantine Commonwealth, p. 224. On gold Byzantine coins in Kievan Rus', see Noonan, "Circulation of Byzantine Coins," pp. 150-1. 48 On the distribution of Byzantine goods in the lands of Rus', see Shepard, "Russian Steppe-Frontier," pp. 226-9, a n d M. V. Fekhner, Izdeliia shelkotkatskikh masterskikh Vizantii v drevnei Rusi," Sovetskaia arkheologiia (1977): 131, 139, 140, 142. On Byzantine merchants in Kiev, see Litvarin and Kazhdan, "Ekonomicheskie i politicheskie otnosheniia," pp. 72-3, 79. At the time of the assassination of Andrei Bogoliubskii, Greek merchants were in Vladimir; PSRL 2 (Ipat'evskaia letopis'): 591; see also Limonov, "Iz istorii vostochnoi torgovli," p. 60. The presence of Greek merchants in Kiev may have paralleled that of Greek craftsmen, who formed a colony there in the late tenth century and arrived in even greater numbers in the 1030s and 1040s in response to a general invitation by Iaroslav for craftsmen, specialists and artists to come to his capital. The Greek colony survived until the second half of the twelfth century, but appears to have declined after Andrei Bogoliubskii sacked Kiev in 1169. See Shchapova, "Stekliannye izdeliia," pp. 68-70. 49 Runciman, Byzantine Civilization, p. 135; Runciman, "Byzantine Trade and Industry," p. 100; Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol. 3: The Kingdom of Acre and the Later Crusades (New York and Evanston: Harper and Row, Harper Torchbacks, 1967), p. 354; Day, "Impact of the Third Crusade," pp. 161-2. 50 Queller and Day, "Some Arguments," p. 734. 51 Vasiliev, "Byzantium and Old Russia," p. 324. On Cherson in the late tenth century and its decline, see Levchenko, Ocherki, pp. 359-60; Litvarin and 2OO

Notes to pages 46-8 Kazhdan, "Ekonomicheskie i politicheskie otnosheniia," p. 70; Iakobson, Srednevekovyi Krym, pp. 76-7; Iakabson, " Russko-korsunskie sviazi," pp. 117-19; Shepard, "Russian Steppe-Frontier," pp. 221-2. Iakobson attributes Cherson's decline to reduced Byzantine political authority in the area, the successful development of Tmutorokan' as a rival of Cherson, the disruption of Pecheneg-Cherson trade resulting from the migration of the Pechenegs, forced westward by the advent of the Turks (Oghuz) and the Polovtsy, and the increased dangers on the sea routes to Asia Minor due to Sinop pirate activity. Shepard places more emphasis on the role of Cherson as a Pecheneg market and on the notion that the Byzantines, having accepted the Rus' as trading partners, allowed their trade with the Pechenegs, hence Cherson, to decline. Merchants from Cherson, nevertheless, were occasionally observed in the Russian lands, even as far north as Novgorod; see Levchenko, Ocherki, p. 436; Vasiliev, "Byzantium and Old Russia," p. 327; Novosertsev and Pashuto, "Vneshniaia torgovlia," p. 85. 52 Bartol'd, "Arabskie izvestiia," p. 44. 53 Al-Idrisi, the twelfth-century geographer, as quoted in ibid., pp. 77-8; Idrisi's description was based on earlier sources. 54 For information on Tmutorokan', see Iakobson, Srednevekovyi Krym, p. 78; Levchenko, Ocherki, p. 432. Runciman discusses the trade route across Asia Minor, as it was used in the eighth to tenth centuries, in "Byzantine Trade and Industry," p. 92. 55 The Byzantines acquired Tmutorokan' in either 1094 or 1115. Litvarin and Kazhdan, "Ekonomicheskie i politicheskie otnosheniia," p. 77; Iakobson, Srednevekovyi Krym, p. 78. 56 Russian merchants were also traveling along the Dnepr or zaloznyi route in 1170, while Russian princes were fighting the Polovtsy. PSRL 2:635; Iakobson, Srednevekovyi Krym, p. 79; Levchenko, Ocherki, pp. 431-42; Iakubovskii, "Rasskaz Ibn-al-Bibi," p. 67; Vernadsky, Kievan Russia, pp. r i 8 , 124. 57 Iakubovskii, "Rasskaz Ibn-al-Bibi," p. 365. 58 Rubruck in Hakluyt, Principal Navigations, 1:230 (1903). 59 Ibid., 1:232. 60 Vasil'evskii, "Torgovlia Kieva s Regensburgom," pp. 128-34, I 4 I : L Brutzkus, "Trade with Eastern Europe, 800-1200," Economic History Review 13 (1943): 32, 34; Novosertsev and Pashuto, " Vneshniaia torgovlia," pp. 85-6; Rybakov, "Torgovlia," p. 342. 61 Brutzkus, "Trade," pp. 34-5; Rybakov, "Torgovlia," p. 342. 62 For specific cases of merchant and/or diplomatic caravans, see Vasirevskii, "Torgovlia Kieva s Regensburgom," p. 137; Rybakov, "Torgovlia," p. 343; Novosel'tsev and Pashuto, "Vneshniaia torgovlia," p. 92; Puteshestvie Abu Khamida, pp. 37-8. On the merchants who used the routes, see Brutzkus, "Trade," pp. 33-5; Vasirevskii, "Torgovlia Kieva s Regensburgom," pp. 141-5; Rybakov, "Torgovlia," p. 343; Novosel'tsev and Pashuto, "Vneshniaia torgovlia," pp. 89, 93. On the manner in which the merchants traveled, see Brutzkus, "Trade," pp. 37-8; Novosel'tsev and Pashuto, "Vneshniaia torgovlia," p. 93. 63 Brutzkus, "Trade," p. 36; Runciman, "Byzantine Trade and Industry," p. 100. On permanent European communities in Kiev, see Vasil'evskii, "Torgovlia Kieva s Regensburgom," pp. 139-41; Rybakov, "Torgovlia," p. 343; Novosel'tsev and Pashuto, "Vneshniaia torgovlia," p. 93. On Turkic visitors in Kiev, see Puteshestvie Abu Khamida, p. 37. 2OI

Notes to pages 64 65 66 67 68

69 70 71

72 73 74

75 76

77 78

48-50

Brutzkus, "Trade," p. 39. Brutzkus identified this point as Tmutorokan'; "Trade," pp. 39-40. Ibid.; Novosel'tsev and Pashuto, "Vneshniaia torgovlia," p. 89. Novosel'tsev and Pashuto, "Vneshniaia torgovlia," p. 86; Brutzkus, "Trade," P. 35On Bishop Meinwerk, see Novosel'tsev and Pashuto, " Vneshniaia torgovlia," p. 92; central Europeans at this time were normally exchanging cloth, silver and other goods mainly for slaves, wax, and horses; see Vasil'evskii, "Torgovlia Kieva s Regensburgom," p. 125; Brutzkus, "Trade," pp. 32-3. Vasil'evskii, "Torgovlia Kieva s Regensburgom," pp. 135-6; Rybakov, "Torgovlia, " pp. 342-3; Novosel'tsev and Pashuto, "Vneshniaia torgovlia," p. 93. Novosel'tsev and Pashuto, "Vneshniaia torgovlia," p. 86; Vasirevskii, "Torgovlia Kieva s Regensburgom," pp. 148-9. There may also have been direct relations between Friesiand and Novgorod. Potin's studies indicate that a larger proportion of silver coins, originating in Friesiand, appeared in deposits discovered on Russian territory than in similar deposits located along trade routes passing through intermediary lands. Potin, Drevniaia Rus', p. 63; Ianin, Denezhno-vesovye sistemy, pp. 156-7; Novosel'tsev and Pashuto, "Vneshniaia torgovlia," p. 99. Andersson, Sweden, pp. 63-4. Schleswig was ruined by the Danes in 1157, and Sigtuna in Sweden was plundered by the Karelians in 1187; Berezhkov, 0 torgovle Rusi s ganzoi, p. 55Phillippe Dollinger, The German Hansa, trans, by D. S. Ault and S. H. Steinburg (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1970), p. 19; Dollinger dates the fire in 1138. On Westphalians Visby, see Berezhkov, O torgovle Rusi s ganzoi, p. 56; on Westphalians in Lubeck, see Nikitskii, Istoriia, p. 30; Postan, "The Trade in Medieval Europe," pp. 184-8. Dollinger, Hansa, pp. 20, 22, 2 4 - 5 ; Nikitskii, Istoriia, pp. 30, ^2: Berezhkov, 0 torgovle Rusi s ganzoi, pp. 55, 56, 59. E. A. Rybina, Arkheologicheskie ocherki istorii Novgorodskoi torgovli (Moscow: Moskovskii universitet, 1978), pp. 121-30; Berezhkov, 0 torgovle Rusi s ganzoi, pp. 5 6 - 6 1 ; Andersson, Sweden, p. 64. Others place the foundation of the German kontor or dvor in Novgorod in the early thirteenth century; see Dollinger, Hansa, p. 26; Nikitskii, Istoriia, p. 30; Lawrence Langer, "The Russian Medieval Town," (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1972), p. 410. Nikitskii, Istoriia, pp. 30, 1 1 1 ; Berezhkov, 0 torgovle Rusi s ganzoi, pp. 58, 6 1 ; Rybina, Arkheologicheskie ocherki, pp. 123-8. One factor on which the dating is based is a record of a fire at the church in 1152; NPL, p. 215. See NPL, pp. 26, 206-8, 212, 229; Gramoty Velikogo Novgoroda i Pskova, ed. by S. N. Valk (Moscow and Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1949; reprint ed.. Diisseldorf: Briicken-Verlag and Vaduz: Europe Printing, 1970), no, 28, p. 55 (hereafter GVNP); Nikitskii, Istoriia, p. 32; Berezhkov, 0 torgovle Rusi s ganzoi, pp. 77-8; Novosel'tsev and Pashuto, "Vneshniaia torgovlia," pp. 91, 94; V. Potin, "Prichiny prekrashcheniia pritoka zapadnoevropeiskikh monet na Rus' v XII v." in Mezhdunarodnye sviazi, pp. 84-5. Indications of Russian merchant travel to Lubeck appear not only in the decree of Henry the Lion, listing Russian merchants, but also in a grant issued by Emperor Frederick I, in which he gave privileges to the city and named Russians first among the merchants who were accustomed to visit it from the east; Berezhkov, 0 torgovle Rusi s ganzoi, p. 78. 202

Notes to pages

50-2

79 NPL, pp. 30, 217, 247; Berezhkov, 0 torgovle Rusi s ganzoi, p. 7 1 ; Tikhomirov, Towns, p. 126. This association was probably fashioned on the model of the wax merchants' organization, which was centered around the church of St. John the Baptist and had probably formed when that church was constructed, between 112 7 and 1130. Akty istoricheskie. Dopolneniia (DAI), 12 vols. (St. Petersburg: Arkheograficheskaia komissiia, 1846-72) vol. 1, no. 4 3 ; Nikitskii, Istoriia, pp. 17-20; Berezhkov, 0 torgovle Rusi s ganzoi, pp. 73-6; Tikhomirov, Towns, pp. 119-23. A. A. Zimin concluded that the charter governing this organization was a fourteenth-century forgery and that the organization did not originate in the twelfth century at all. Zimin, in PRP 2:1 74; Tikhomirov Towns, p. 120. Berezhkov, however, considered the association of foreign merchants to have been an offshoot of the wax merchants' association. He claimed further that by the second half of the thirteenth century this group had exclusive rights to conduct trade between the upper Novgorodian lands and Gotland and demanded one silver mark from any German who wished to participate in this trade. Berezhkov, 0 torgovle Rusi s ganzoi, pp. 71, 76. 80 PRP 2:163, 167, 175; DAI 1:3; Nikitskii, Istoriia, pp. 19-20. 81 Nikitskii, Istoriia, pp. 26-7; Pogodin, Issledovaniia, 3:271; Novosel'tsev and Pashuto, Vneshniaia torgovlia," p. 94. 82 NPL, p. 230, Novosel'tsev and Pashuto, ''Vneshniaia torgovlia," p. 94; Berezhkov, 0 torgovle Rusi s ganzoi, p. 78. 83 GVNP, no. 28, pp. 55-6; Novosel'tsev and Pashuto, "Vneshniaia torgovlia," pp. 95-6. 84 PRP 2:176. Zimin commented that this passage, taken from Vsevolod's testament (rukopisane), substantiates his theory that the document originated not in the twelfth but in the fourteenth century, when the trade in Flemish cloth flourished. Henri Pirenne, however, not only considered the sale of Ypres cloth to Novgorod in the twelfth century plausible, -but judged this evidence of Flemish-Novgorod trade to be in conformity with other indicators of a significant export of cloth from Flanders to Italy as well as northern Europe as early as the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries. See PRP 2:180 and Pirenne's " Draps d'Ypres a Novgorod au commencement du XIP siecle," Revue beige de philologie et d'histoire 9 (1930): 564-5. 85 Potin, Drevniaia Rus', pp. 63, 155, 167-8; Ianin, Denezhno-vesovye sistemy, pp. 156-7. According to Ianin's data, western European silver coins began to appear in deposits on Russian territory in the late tenth century; from 1020 to the end of the eleventh century the proportion increased until they regularly made up 90 to 100 percent of the contents of the deposits. Of the European coins, those of German origin appeared in 95 percent of the Russian deposits and constituted 91.5 percent of all the coins found in those deposits; Potin, Tables 2 and 3, pp. 67-8. Of the German coins, about one-third originated in Friesland. See Ianin, Table 2, and Potin, Table 22, p. 164. 86 Potin, "Prichiny," p. 114; Ianin, Denezhno-vesovye sistemy, p. 182. Both Potin (p. 107) and Ianin (pp. 182-3) point out that silver in the form of bars served a different function from coin; the latter was used for petty trade, whereas the former was used in exchanges of much higher value. The silver, imported in the form of coin or, after 1120, bars, served not only as circulating currency among the Russians, but also as the standard weights on which Russian monetary units were based. See Ianin, Denezhnovesovye sistemy, pp. 4 0 - 1 , 46-7, 100, 147, 156-61, 187, 192-3, 204. 203

Notes to pages 52-3 8 7 The tunic was also known as cote, doublet, and kirtle; the outer garment as supertunic, supercote, cote-hardie, houppelande. Veale, English Fur Trade, p. 2.

88 Veale, English Fur Trade, pp. 2-4, 14,17; Paul Chrisler Phillips, The Fur Trade, 2 vols. (Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1961) 1:3, 5. 89 Veale, English Fur Trade, pp. 14, 18; Phillips, Fur Trade, 1:3. 90 It is known, for example, that Henry II purchased sable and northern squirrel pelts for his robes; Richard I preferred ermine and sable, while John had his bedspread lined or trimmed with sable pelts. The French were also known to have a penchant for sable. Veale, English Fur Trade, pp. 17-18,6 2; Novosel'tsev and Pashuto, "Vneshniaia torgovlia," p. 97; Phillips, Fur Trade, 1:5. 91 Veale, English Fur Trade, pp. 4 - 5 ; J. C. Sachs, Furs and the Fur Trade (London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, 1922), p. 8; Novosel'tsev and Pashuto, "Vneshniaia torgovlia," p. 97. 92 According to D. S. Likhachev, this passage was composed by Prince Mstislav in 1118, at the time the third revision of PVL was made. The narrator, supposedly Mstislav himself, heard the tale in 1114, probably when he was in Staraia Ladoga; Likhachev, Russkie letopisi, pp. 178-9. This translation of the passage is in Primary Chronicle, p. 184; the Russian text is in PSRL 1:234-6. I. Muromtsev thought Novgorod's first campaign against the Iugra occurred as early as 1030; "Istoriia. Snoshenie Russkikh s Sibiriu do Ermaka," Pribavlenie k ArkhangeYskim gubernskim vedomostiam, 24 January 1845. 93 The term "Iugra" first enters the literature in the eleventh century, when it was mentioned by Biruni, representing the Islamic sources, as well as in the quoted passage in the Russian sources. The term has posed a problem for scholars, who have debated the location of the Iugra and, secondarily, whether the term referred to a land or a people. Because sources for the period before the fourteenth century are vague; interpretations range from locating the Iugra land on the Ob' river to considering its location to have changed from a position west of the Urals during the tenth to fourteenth centuries to one east of the Urals after the fourteenth century. Smirnov offered the unique suggestion that there was a confusion in the sources between two peoples, both called Iugra. One, he claimed, lived on the Mezen' river; the other, actually the Voguly, lived east of the mid-Kama-Vychegda area. If the term "Iugra" is considered to refer to a tribe, then the notion of a shift in geographical location becomes more plausible. As will become clear through the following chapters, the theory that corresponds most closely to all other data is that the "Iugra" were a people dwelling west of the Urals until the fourteenth century, but at that time migrated from the northeast corner of Europe across the Urals to the Ob' river. See Smirnov, Ocherki, p. 2 3 1 ; Tokarev, Etnograflia narodov, pp. 4 7 2 - 3 ; Bakhrushin, "Ostiatskie i vogul'skie kniazhestva," p. 86; Grigorii Novitskii, Kratkoe opisanie 0 narode Ostiatskom 1715 (Novosibirsk: Novosibgiz, 1941), p. 39; A. Oksenov, "Snosheniia Novgoroda Velikogo s Iugorskoi zemlei," in Literaturnyi sbornik (St. Petersburg: Vostochnoe Obozrenie, 1885), p. 429. 94 PSRL 2:277; Nasonov, Russkaia zemlia, p. 80; Lantzeff, "Russian Eastward Expansion," p. 2; A. Oksenov, "Slukhi i vesti o Sibiri do Ermaka," Sibirskii sbornik (1887), p. 109. 95 Lantzeff, "Russian Eastward Expansion," p. 2. 96 Nasonov, Russkaia zemlia, pp. 79-80; cf. Iu. S. Vasil'ev, "Ob istoriko204

Notes to page 54 geograficheskom poniatii ' Zavoloch'e'" in Problemy istorii feodal'noi Rossii. Sbornik statei k 60-letiiu

prof. V. V. Mavrodina

(Leningrad: Leningradskii

universitet, 1971), p. 10; Golubeva, Ves'i slaviane, p. 25. 97 Nasonov, Russkaia zemlia, p. 74; Os'minskii, Ocherki, p. 40; for a discussion on pogosts, their origins, and their functions in the Rus' lands, see Daniel H. Kaiser, The Growth of Law in Medieval Russia (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1980), pp. 181-3. 98 The dan' became, according to L. V. Cherepnin, a basic form of tax collected by Novgorod from its outlying areas and subordinate, non-Russian populations; Cherepnin, Novgorodskie berestianye gramoty kak istoricheskii istochnik

(Moscow: Nauka, 1969), p. 203. 99 For a definition of the term "Chud'," see Vasil'ev, " Zavoloch'e," pp. 107-8; Os'minskii, Ocherki, p. 18; A. A. Dmitriev, Permskaia stahna, 7 vols. (Perm': Tipografiia P. F. Kamenskago, 1889-97) 1:8; V. M. Podorov, Ocherki po istorii Komi (Zyrian i Permiakov) (Syktyvkar: n.p., 1933), pp. 70-81. Zavoloch'e is a vague term, meaning "lands beyond the portage" and generally is understood to refer to the territory extending eastward from lakes Onega and Beloe to the North Dvina basin. Vasil'ev has attempted to unravel the confusion surrounding this term, suggesting that in the eleventh to thirteenth centuries it referred to Novgorod's possessions on the Vaga river, and only later in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was its meaning expanded to include the lower North Dvina as well. By the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries it was used interchangeably with the term "Dvina" and referred to both the Dvina and Vaga lands. Vasil'ev, "Zavoloch'e," pp. 108-9; Lantzeff, "Russian Eastward Expansion," p. 2; Robert J. Kerner, The Urge to the Sea (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1946), p. 26. 100 V. P. Shliapin, "Iz istorii zaseleniia nashego kraia," Zapiski severo-dvinskogo obshchestva izucheniia mestnogo kraia 5 (1928): 30; Shliapin, " Izistoriia goroda Velikogo-Ustiuga," Zapiski severo-dvinskogo

obshchestva izucheniia

mestnogo

kraia 1 (1925): 30. This legend and variations of it became part of the oral history of the people of the former Vologodskaia guberniia and Ural mountains; it was often cited as an explanation for pits found in these regions. 101 PSRL 1:199 and 26:44; NPL, p. 2 0 1 ; Os'minskii, Ocherki, p. 30; Lantzeff. "Russian Eastward Expansion," p. 2. 102 The formation of these pogosts may have been the first stage in the construction of the administrative system, described centuries later by the compiler of the Dvina chronicle, who wrote: From the beginning people of the Dvina along with their tribute and taxes were a possession of the citizens of Novgorod, the military commanders {tysiashchniki) and mayors (posadniki). And for those collections and for the administration Novgorodian boyars sent their military commanders and mayors, and they lived in Ukhto-Ostrov and in Matigory and in other volosts as governors (namestniki), and orders {oberezhene) were written to them from the Novgorodian archbishops and in the mayor's charters to the Ukhto-Ostrov and Matigory boyars. N. I. Novikov, "Letopisets Dvinskoi," Drevniaia Rossiiskaia vivliofika, 20 vols. (Moscow: Tipografiia Kompanii tipograficheskoi, 1788-91; reprint, The Hague: Mouton, 1970) 1 8 : 3 ; Lantzeff, "Russian Eastward Expansion," p. 3. 103 PRP 2:117. Other tribute-paying districts, including Em' and a "pogost on the sea," are listed, but they did not pay in "forties." The dar was a tax 205

Notes to pages 55-7 collected for the prince or, later, a landlord. A "sorochek" was a unit of forty, commonly referring to a batch of forty fur pelts, probably squirrel pelts. PRP 2:119, 392. On dar, see A. V. Artsikhovskii and M. N. Tikhomirov, Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste, vol. 1 (Moscow: AN SSSR, 1953), p. 19. 104 PRP 2:120-1; Nasonov, Russkaia zemlia, p. 100. 105 PRP 2:120, 121; Nasonov, Russkaia zemila, map between pp. 96 and 97. The editors of PRP place Chiudin 120 km. from Vologda on the Sukhona river, whereas Nasonov identifies it with Shenkursk, located where the Shenga river enters the Vaga. PRP places Poma at the headwaters of the Sysola. Toshma has been identified either as Tot'ma or Shozhma, located on a tributary of the Mosha also called the Shozhma: Nasonov, Russkaia zemlia, pp. 100-1. The editors of PRP do not identify Borka or Otmin; Ligui is considered to be Lidul, but not located. 106 See Nikitskii, Istoriia, p. 90. For a description of the routes determined independently, but coinciding with those linking the pogosts and cited above, see also Platonov and Andreev, " Novgorodskaia kolonizatsiia." p. 27; Platonov, Proshloe russkogo severa (Berlin: Obelisk. 1924; reprint, The Hague: Europe Printing, 1966), p. 18.

107 PRP 2:121.

108 There is no indication that the Novgorodians knew of or were in contact with the Vychegda Perm' in the eleventh century. A. Martiushev concluded that the Perm' were not originally mentioned along with other Finnic tribes in the eleventh-century Russian sources, but that their name was added at a later date. If so, it is highly doubtful that the Novgorodians were using the Sukhona-Vychegda route to reach the Pechora and the Iugra at this time. With the exception of the chronicle listing of Rus' tributaries, the first mention of the Perm' occurs in a charter dated 1263 o r 1264. It should be noted, however, that other scholars place Russian control of this route much earlier; Os'minskii, for example, has postulated that Rostov controlled a portion of it in the eleventh century. A. Martiushev. "Komi narod v pervyi period istoricheskoi ego izvestnosti," Komi mu 2-3 (1928) 37-8; GVNP, no. 1, p. 9; Os'minskii, Ocherki, pp. 35, 37-8. While Novgorodian contact with the Vychegda Perm' is doubtful, Ves' trade with them in this period is reflected by archeological evidence. The European coins excavated at the burial ground of Kichilko in the Vym' river area, for example, were recovered along with fibulae of Baltic or Scandinavian character. Of Finnic origin, these finds give weight to the suggestion that Ves', rather than Russians, were trading with the Perm'. Furthermore, other items found in the graves - cone-shaped, noise-making pendants, pearshaped bells, and headbands - were characteristic of other Finnic peoples, including those living near Iaroslavl' and Kostroma, on the upper Volga, but particularly of the Ves' of Beloozero and the lands east of Lake Ladoga; Savel'eva, Perm' Vychegodskaia, pp. 36, 61-2. The adaptation of the Russian term "Perm"' from the Ves' "peria maa," designating their neighbors, also points to a Ves'-Perm' association preceding direct Novgorod-Perm' relations. See above, Ch. 1. 109 Pamiatnaia knizhka Vologodskoi gubernii na 1893 god (Volodga: n.p., 1893), PP3, 12; A. E. Mertsalov, Vologodskaia starina. Matehaly dlia istorii severnoi Rossii (St. Petersburg: L. F. Panteleev, 1889), p. 34. n o PRP 2:118. The people of these pogosts, including Ves' residents, who were primary suppliers of fur to both Novgorod and Bulgar, were involved in trade 206

Notes to pages 57-62

in

112 113 114 115 116 117

118

119

and therefore had access to cash. This is reflected by the presence of western European silver coins from the eleventh century in burial mounds bearing Ves' characteristics in this region. The lively trade activity between Novgorod and this region is further indicated by the existence in the thirteenth century of a Novgorodian merchant group, known as the Obonezhskie kuptsy, who evidently specialized in trade with this region. Nikitskii, Istohia, p. 90; NPL, PP- 95» 325» 337- F°r information indicating the location of the Ves\ see Golubeva, Ves' i Slaviane, pp. 27-9; Pimenov, Vepsy, pp. 62-8. PRP 2:119. The editors of PRP point out the ''belei" or "belok,'' which made up the units of "sorochki" were not only squirrel pelts, but also monetary units. It is evident, however, from the fact that they were collected here in blocks of forty rather than in simple units of belei that fur pelts rather than money units were being collected. Cherepnin, Novgorodskie berestianye gramoty, no. 336, pp. 204-5. Ibid. Cherepnin pointed out that A. V. Artsikhovskii considered this document a statement of debts owed to a creditor. L. P. Lashuk, Ocherk etnicheskoi istorii Pechorskogo kraia (Syktyvkar: Komi knizhnoe izdatel'stvo, 1958), p. 65. PSRL 4 (Novgorodskaia chetvertaia letopis') : 174; Dmitriev, Permskaia starina, 1:35; NPL (pp. 38, 229) identifies the victims as Pechora and Iugra tribute-collectors; see also Lashuk, Pechorskii krai, p. 65. NPL, pp. 4 0 - 1 ; Muromtsev, "Istoriia," p. 20: Martiushev, "Komi narod," pp. 38-9. See the Novgorodian treaties with Tver' and Muscovite princes for the years I 2 6 9 t o i 4 7 i i n GVNP, pp. 9-47. Krupenin considers these treaties to be the first evidence that the Perm' were subordinated to Novgorod; Krupenin, "Kratkii istoricheskii ocherk," p. 7. The circumstances of Gleden's foundation are uncertain. Dmitriev attributed it to Novgorodians in the mid-twelfth century; Parrfiatnaia knizhka Vologodskoi gubernii, p. 40. Other sources have credited its creation to Prince Vsevolod, citing 1178 as the year of its foundation; e.g., " Vychegodsko-vymskaia letopis'," ed. by P. Doronin in "Dokumenty po istorii Komi," Istorikofllologicheskii sbornik Komiflliala AN SSR (Syktyvkar) 4 (1958): 257. According to the Vychegda-Vym' chronicle: in 1212 "the Rostov prince Konstantin Vsevolodich founded the fortified town Ustiug Velikii four stadii from Gleden " (p. 257) One of the Ustiug chronicles claims that the monk Kiprian built a church on the site of Ustiug in 1212, thus establishing the town; "Ustiuzhskii letopisets," Pribavleniia k Vologodskim eparkhial'nym vedomostiam, 15 Sept. 1873, p. 626. The early history of the city is also discussed by Shliapin in "Velikii Ustiug," pp. 5-6, 23. 3. Novgorod: the squirrel fur trade

1 Although Novgorod was not invaded, it was subordinated along with the rest of the northern Russian lands to the Golden Horde and shared their economic depression. This was reflected in Novgorod by the cessation of the construction of stone buildings between 1240 and the 1290s. M. Karger, Novgorod: Architectural Monuments iith-iyth Centuries (Leningrad: Aurora Art Publishers, 1975), pp. 11-12. 2 Dollinger, Hansa, pp. 28-31, 33-4; Eric Christiansen, The Northern Crusades: the Baltic and the Catholic Frontier, 1100-1525 (Minneapolis: University of 207

Notes to pages 62-3

3 4 5 6

7

8

9

10

Minnesota Press, 1980), pp. 89-109; Robert S.Lopez, The Commercial Revolution of the Middle Ages, 950-1350 (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1971), pp. 115, 117; Meyendorff, Byzantium, pp. 53-5; NLP, pp. 295-7. GVNP, nos. 29, 31, pp. 57-9. Dollinger, Hansa, pp. 39-42; Veale, English Fur Trade, p. 66. Dollinger, Hansa, pp. 24, 31-2; Lopez, Commercial Revolution, p. 115. Dollinger, Hansa, pp. 43, 99-100; Lopez, Commercial Revolution, p. 117; N. A. Kazakova, " b istorii snoshenii Novgoroda s ganzoi vXVv.," Istoricheskie zapiski 28 (1949): 117; Kazakova, "Iz istorii torgovoi politiki russkogo tsentralizovannogo gosudarstva XV veka," Istoricheskie zapiski 47 (1954): 284; Rybina, Arkheologicheskie ocherki, pp. 128-9. Gotland's trading role did not cease though. In 1368 at least twenty-nine ships, and possibly thirty-six, arrived in Liibeck from Gotland. Of these, however, only eleven carried fur, and these were relatively small quantities; Gotland's contacts with Novgorod, although not its commerce in general, had declined. See Georg Lechner, Die Hansischen Pfundzollisten des jahres 1368. Quellen und darstellungen zur hansischen geschichte, vol. 10 (Liibeck:Hansischen geschictsvereins, 1935), PP- 95-6, 152-4, 209-11. In 1410 some fur was still arriving through Gotland. Hildebrand Veckinchusen, a merchant in Bruges, recorded on July 10 of that year that he "received from two barrels, which had remained in Gotland, three thousand lushwerke... [and] three thousand schoenewerke — " M. P. Lesnikov, "Torgovaia kniga ganzeiskogo kuptsa nachala XV veka," Istoricheskii arkhiv no. 2 (1958): 153. The documentary evidence relates scattered episodes of Novgorodians in the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries conducting their goods abroad to Gotland and to Livonian towns. The regularity and exact nature of these episodes remains unknown. See, for examples, GVNP, nos. 36, 43, 44, 47, 49, pp. 65, 77-9, 83-4, 87-8; Russkaia istoricheskaia biblioteka, 39 vols. (St. Petersburg, Petrograd, Leningrad: "Arkheograficheskaia komissiia, 1872-1917 and AN SSSR, i9i7?-27), vol. 15, no. 3. Dollinger, Hansa, p. 100; in 1346 Livonian towns became the sole and official starting points for the commercial expeditions to Novgorod. Artur Attman, The Russian and Polish Markets in International Trade, 15 00-1650, trans. Eva and Allen Green, Publications of the Institute of Economic History of Gothenburg University, vol. 26 (Gothenburg: Kungsbacka, 1973), pp. 32-3. The land routes may have been opened as early as the beginning of the thirteenth century. Reval in particular became an assembly point for German merchants traveling to Novgorod by both land and sea. The routes from Reval went by land or sea to Narva, where, if the sea route had been used, goods were reloaded. Merchants could then cross over to lam, then follow the Luga river upstream to Novgorod or follow the Narova river upstream to Pskov, then go east to the Shelon' river, Lake Il'men, and Novgorod. Dollinger, Hansa, pp. 27-9; Attman, Russian and Polish Markets, p. 33; Nikitskii, Istoriia, pp. 107-8. In response to Swedish dangers Novgorod guaranteed three land routes in 1301 in contrast to the two it had guaranteed in 1269, and discussed the contingency of a Swedish closure of the Neva with the Germans. GVNP, nos. 32-4, pp. 62-3. In Novgorod's peace treaty with the Swedes the safety of the Neva for all foreign merchants was guaranteed; GVNP, no. 38, p. 68 (1323). See also E. Lonneroth, "The Baltic Countries" in Economic Organization and 208

Notes to page 63 Policies in the Middle Ages, ed. M. M. Postan and E. E. Rich, vol. 3 of Cambridge Economic History of Europe (Cambridge: University Press, 1963), p. 388; Attman, Russian and Polish Markets, p. 32. According to Nikitskii, rising shipping costs were a contributing factor to the popularity of land travel to Novgorod. Nikitskii, Istoriia, p. 142; Langer, "Russian Medieval Town," p. 412.

11 M. P. Lesnikov, "Torgovye otnosheniia velikogo Novgoroda s tevtonskim ordenom v kontse XIV i nachale XV veka,'' Istoricheskie zapiski 3 9 ( i 9 5 2 ) : 2 6 i . 12 GVNP, nos. 29, 31, pp. 57, 59-60; Dollinger, Hansa, p. 27; Attman, Russian and Polish Markets, pp. 32-3; Kazakova, " . . . snoshenii Novgoroda s ganzoi," p. 116; Kazakova, "...torgovoi politiki," p. 264; P. P. Mel'gunov, Ocherkipo istorii russkoi torgovli IX-XVII vv. (Moscow: Sotrudnik shkol, 1905). P. 7713 I. E. Andreevskii, " Novgorodskiia skry " in 0 dogovore Novgoroda s nemetskimi gorodami i Gotlandom zakliuchennom v 1270 godu (St. Petersburg: Tipografiia Iakova Treia, 1855), p. 56; Kazakova, "...torgovoi politiki," p. 266. For information on the variety of business arrangements engaged in outside Novgorod, as illustrated by the activities of Hildebrand Veckinchusen of Bruges, see Lesnikov, "Torgovaia kniga," passim; Lesnikov, "Niderlandy i vostochnaia Baltika v nachale XV veka. Iz istorii torgovykh snoshenii," Izvestiia AN SSSR, seriia istorii i filosofii 8 (1951): 455-7; Lesnikov, "Ganzeiskaia torgovlia pushninoi v nachale XV v.," Uchenye zapiski Moskovskogo gorodskogo pedagogicheskogo instituta imeni V. P. Potemkina 8 (1948): 67, 69, 75; see also Dollinger, Hansa, pp. 166-8, 200. On the character of the thirteenth-century German merchantry, see Dollinger, Hansa, p. 163. 14 For the treaties in which such privileges and protection were provided, see GVNP, nos. 29, 31, 32, 34, pp. 57-9, 6 2 - 3 ; see also Kazakova, "...torgovoi politiki," p. 282; Kazakova, "...snoshenii Novgoroda s ganzoi," p. 114; Nikitskii, Istoriia, p. 135. 15 Dollinger, Hansa, p. 101; specifically in 1336-7, there were 160 Germans in the Novgorod kontor, and in 1424 there were 150; only forty-nine were present in the dvor when it was shut in 1494; Kazakova, "...snoshenii Novgoroda s ganzoi," p. 26; Kazakova, "...torgovoi politiki," p. 284; Dollinger, Hansa, pp. 55, 182, 294. 16 Dollinger, Hansa, pp. 99, 183; Mel'gunov, Ocherki, p. 78; Rybina, Arkheologicheskie ocherki, p. 124. 17 These regulations are published in Russian translation in Appendix 1 to Andreevskii, 0 dogovore, pp. 42-94. For discussions of the schra, see Kazakova, "...torgovoi politiki," p. 263; Kazakova, "...snoshenii Novgoroda s ganzoi," p. 114; Dollinger, Hansa, p. 26; Nikitskii, Istoriia, p. 30. For comments on the date of its composition, see Andreevskii, 0 dogovore, pp. 39, 4 1 ; Dollinger, Hansa, pp. 26-7, 99; Mel'gunov, Ocherki, p. 79. 18 GVNP, no. 31, p. 60. 19 Dollinger, Hansa, pp. 100-1; Kazakova, "...snoshenii Novgoroda s ganzoi," p. 117; Kazakova, "...torgovoi politiki," p. 284; self-rule within the Hansa courtyard was curtailed just when the merchants began to stay at their home bases and send their representatives to Novgorod. 20 Dollinger, Hansa, pp. 182-3. Less is known of the organization of the Novgorodian merchants who participated in the sale of Novgorodian fur. Within Novgorod trade with foreigners was the prerogative of Novgorod merchants, but it is not clear whether or not this was a privilege exercised by 209

Notes to pages 64s an elite or by any person in the merchant profession. This prerogative was not always in effect; in the thirteenth century, according to the treaties of 1262-3 and 1270, Germans and Gotlanders were able to travel beyond Novgorod to Karelia, and in thefifteenthcentury peasants were able to trade directly with the Germans; GVNP, nos. 29, 31, pp. 57, 59. Petty sales, probably made by peasants, are known to have been made to German merchants in the fifteenth century; but it is not clear when this practice

21 22 23 24

originated. A. L. Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia velikogo Novgoroda s Pribaltikoi i zapadnoi Evropoi v XIV-XV vekakh (Moscow: AN SSSR, 1963), p. 69; see also GVNP, no. 42, p. 76; Kazakova, " .. .torgovoi politiki," p. 264. Veale, English Fur Trade, pp. 19-20, 28, 140. The squirrels' backs were gray, their bellies, throats and forepaws were white. Veale, English Fur Trade, p. 30. Veale, English Fur Trade, pp. 10, 19. Veale, English Fur Trade, pp. 4 - 5 , 9, 12, 13, 133; Phillips, Fur Trade, 1:4; Edward L. Cutts, Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages (London: Virtue,

1886), p. 525; Sachs, Furs, p. 8. The legislation of 1362 restricted the use of northern squirrel to knights with incomes of at least 266 pounds a year. Knights with smaller incomes were permitted to wear only hoods with ermine and lettice (snow weasel) facings. Merchants, burghers, and craftsmen with incomes over 1,000 pounds a year were placed in the same category as landed gentry (esquires) below the rank of knight with incomes of 200 pounds a year and were allowed to wear northern squirrel or minever facings on their hoods, while those with an income of 500 pounds per year, considered in the same class as esquires with income of 100 pounds, could wear only budge. Classes lower than these were permitted to wear only domestic furs - lamb, fox and cat. 25 Only one transaction in Novgorod is actually recorded and preserved; it is an account of an exchange made by Veckinchusen of Ypres cloth for a type of squirrel pelt known as schoenewerke. In another case Veckinchusen received a letter from Reval, in which his agent indicated specifically that he had purchased fur from Novgorod. Lesnikov, ''Torgovlia pushninoi," pp. 66, 72; Lesnikov, "Niderlandy," p. 154. 26 Disputes often related to accusations of dishonest trading practices. The Germans regularly accused the Novgorodians of disguising inferior fur and selling it at the price of higher quality pelts. Novgorod countered with complaints that the Germans were demanding too great a bonus for the fur they brought and were cutting off excessively large pieces of wax as samples. Complaints of this sort were registered at a conference at Dorpat in 1402, and were repeated in 1424 and 1436. Nikitskii, Istoriia, pp. 174-7; Kazakova, "...snoshenii Novgoroda s ganzoi," pp. 117, 129-30. Khoroshkevich notes that complaints about the quality of fur coincide with the appearance of klezemes, or squirrel originating in central Russia (Kliaz'ma squirrel), on the Novgorod market; Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia, pp. 81, 99-103, 12off. 27 Lesnikov, "Torgovlia pushninoi," pp. 61-72, 81; Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia, pp. 73-84; Veale, English Fur Trade, pp. 223-9. Fur from Smolensk, Sweden, Poland, Hungary, or other non-Russian locations was frequently identified in the documents. It is possible that all other specific terms, lacking a geographical designation, were assumed to be forms of northern gray squirrel from Novgorod. See Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia, pp. 110-12; Karl Kunze, 2IO

Notes to pages 63-7

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

42 43 44

Hanseakten aus England 1275 bis 1412. Hansische Geschichtsquellen, vol. 6 (Halle: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1891), pp. 241-55. Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia, pp. 109-10. Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia, p. 101; Dollinger, Hansa, p. 27. Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia, pp. 97, 99-100. Kazakova, "...torgovoi politiki," p. 263; Kazakova, "...snoshenii Novgoroda s ganzoi," p. 115. Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia, pp. 7 0 - 1 , 107-8; Dollinger, Hansa, pp. 234-5; Lesnikov, "Torgovlia pushninoi," pp. 79, 81, 83. Lesnikov, "Niderlandy," p. 456; Lesnikov, "Torgovlia pushninoi," p. 76. Lesnikov, "Niderlandy,"p.457;Lesnikov,"Torgovliapushninoi,"pp. 73, 76, 77, 79Lesnikov, "Torgovaia kniga," p. 151. M. P. Lesnikov, "Liibeck als Handelsplatz fur Osteuropawaren im 14 Jahrhundert," in Hansische Studien (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1961), p. 287; Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia, p. 108. Lechner, Die Hansischen Pfundzollisten, p. 84; Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia, p. 109. Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia, p. n o . Hanserecesse. Die Recesse und andere Akten der Hansetage von 1236-1430, 27 vols. (Leipzig: Duncker and Humblot, 1870-), pt. 1, vol. 8. no. 960, p. 628 (hereafter HR); Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia, p. 111. Kunze,Hanseakten, no. 326,pp. 241-56;HR, pt. 1, vol. 5, no. 442, pp. 347-50; Lesnikov, "Niderlandy," p. 456; Dollinger, Hansa, p. 235. Lechner, Die Hansischen Pfundzollisten, pp. 83-4, 337; Attman, Russian and Polish Markets, pp. 71-72; A. L. Khoroshkevich, "Znachenie ekonomicheskikh sviazei s Pribaltikoi dlia razvitiia severo-zapadnykh russkikh gorodov v kontse XV-nachale XVI v.," in Ekonomicheskie sviazi Pribaltiki s Rossiei, ed. A. K. Biron (Riga: Zinatne, 1968), p. 15. Livonian merchants did not, however, necessarily place all their goods on one ship. Engelbrecht Witte, for example, had wax on one of the three ships attacked by the English in 1404, wax and fur on another of the three, and fur on yet another ship that arrived safely in Bruges. Consequently, although cargo lists for isolated ships suggest the importance of fur and wax in Livonian export, they cannot be used as a basis for more precise calculation of the proportion each of them or any other product held in the export of individual or groups of Livonian merchants. See Kunze, Hanseakten, pp. 243, 251; Lesnikov, "Niderlandy," p. 456. HR, pt. 1, vol. 3, no. 438, p. 451; to Johann Kalle, for example, belonged " 10,000 Nouwardesch werkes under 1 quartir," to Johan Stocker - "2000 Nouwardesch werkes " Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia, pp. 70, 109-ro. Lesnikov, "Torgovlia pushninoi," pp. 74, 81, 83. These books, published by Sattler and studied by Lesnikov, contain records of transactions in Konigsberg for 1400, 1405, 1411-23, in Marienberg, X 399» 1404. 1410-18, 1417, and in Flanders 1391-9, 1419-34, 1423-34; the operations dealing with Livonia and Novgorod appear in the Konigsberg book; C. Sattler, Die Handelsrechnungen des Deutshchen Ordens (Leipzig: Duncker and Humblot, 1887), pp. 107-11, 117, 153-63, 225, 258, 260-1; see also Lesnikov, "Torgovye otnosheniia," passim. In 1398-9 all three of the Order's agents were in Novgorod; in 1399-1400 Demeker and Heyde

211

Notes to pages 67-8

45 46

47 48

49

50 51 52

made the trip; in 1400-1 Demeker went alone; in the next two years Heyde went alone. Lesnikov, "Torgovye otnosheniia," p. 261. Lesnikov, "Torgovye otnosheniia," pp. 261-2, 2 6 4 - 5 ; Lesnikov, "Niderlandy, M p. 455Veckinchusen sent the highest quality Flemish cloth - Ypres cloth - as well as the next level - St. Omer cloth - to Livonia, presumably for sale in Novgorod; Lesnikov, "Niderlandy," p. 4 5 4 - 5 ; Lesnikov, "Torgovaia kniga," pp. 148-50; Kazakova, "...torgovoi politiki," p. 264; Kazakova, "...snoshenii Novgorod s ganzoi," p. 155; Dollinger, Hansa, p. 213; Khoroshkevich, "Znachenie," p. 16; Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia, pp. 213-69 on salt; Attman, Russian and Polish Markets, p. 35. Lesnikov, "Torgovye otnosheniia," pp. 262-3. For example Johann Wittenborg exchanged silver for fur in the 1350s; Lesnikov, "Lubeck....im 14 Jahrhundert," pp. 176, 185, 1918"; see A. L. Khoroshkevich, " Iz istorii ganzeiskoi torgovli (Vvoz v Novgorod blagorodnykh metallov v XIV-XV vv.)," Srednie veka. Sbornik, no. 20 (Moscow: AN SSSR, 1961), pp. 102-14, a n d Attman, Russian and Polish Markets, p. 1048". on Novgorod's import of silver. Khoroshkevich, "Iz istorii," pp. 108-9; I. E. Kleinenberg, "Serebro vmesto soli: elementy rannego merkantilizma vo vneshnetorgovoi politike russkogo gosudarstva kontsa XV-nachala XVI veka," Istoriia SSSR, no. 2 (1977), p. 120; Attman, Russian and Polish Markets, pp. 105-7. Khoroshkevich attributed the Hansa restrictions on silver export to reduced supplies of silver in Europe at the time; "Iz istorii," pp. 106, 108. On the Order's trade, see Khoroshkevich, "Iz istorii," pp. 109-10. Kazakova, "...snoshenii Novgoroda s ganzoi," p. 129; Attman, Russian and Polish Markets, p. 107; Khoroshkevich, "Iz istorii," p. 111. Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia, pp. 111, 115. Because figures are lacking for earlier periods, comparisons with the later fourteenth century are impossible. But between July 1 and Michaelmas 1384, England imported 396,087 fur pelts; of these 382,982 were from the eastern Baltic and 377,200 were varieties of squirrel. From March 1 to November 30, 1390, of the 324,984 pelts imported, 310,035 were from the eastern Baltic, and of those 306,960 were northern squirrel. From Michaelmas 1390 to Michaelmas 1391,350,960 squirrel skins were imported. Hansa merchants brought in 83 percent of that fur in 1384, 92 percent i n i 3 9 O , a n d 9 6 percent of that imported by foreigners in 1390-91. Veale, English Fur Trade, pp. 69-70, 76, 134. On the drop in prices, see ibid., 138-9, 1 6 0 - 1 ; Hildebrand Veckinchusen, Briefwechsel eines deutschen Kaufmanns im 15 Jahrhundert, ed.

by W. Stieda (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1921), nos. 20, 26, pp. 20-9, 34-5. 53 GVNP, no. 279, pp. 279-80; A. A. Savich, "Glavneishie momenty monastyrskoi kolonizatsii russkogo severa XIV-XVII vv.," Sbornik obshchestva istoricheskikh,

fllosofskikh

i

sotsial'nykh

nauk pri

Permskom

universitete

3

(1929): 63-4; Os'minskii, Ocherki, p. 46; L. V. Danilova, Ocherki po istorii zemlevladeniia i khoziaistva v Novgorodskoi zemle v XIV-XV vv. (Moscow: AN

SSSR, 195 5), p. 229; L. A. Zarubin, " Vazhskaia zemlia v XIV-XV vv.," Istoriia SSSR, no. 1 (1970), p. 183. For discussion of the text of this document and its convoy, see V. L. Ianin, Novgorodskaia feodal'naia

votchina

(Moscow:

Nauka, 1981), pp. 58-63, 84-5. 54 GVNP, no. 279, pp. 279-80; Platonov and Andreev, "Novgorodskaia kolonizatsiia," p. 34. 212

Notes to pages 68-71 55 GVNP, no. 284, p. 285; V. N. Bernadskii, Novgorod i Novgorodskaia zemlia v XV veke (Moscow and Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1961), p. 53. 56 Evidence of boyar ownership of northern estates is contained in Pistsovye knigi Obonezhskoi piatiny 1496 i 1563 gg., ed. M. N. Pokrovskii (Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1930), passim (hereafter PKOP); A. Kopanev, "K voprosu o strukture zemlevladeniia na Dvine v XV-XVI vekakh," Voprosy agrarnoi istorii 1 (1968): 52-7, 68, 69; GVNP, nos. 90, 127, 130, 145-50, 179, 186, 189, 191,

194,196, 197, 199, 253, 268, 320; Akty, sobrannye v bibliotekakh i arkhivakh Rossiiskoi Imperii arkheograflcheskoiu ekspeditsieiu imperatorskoi akademii nauk,

4 vols. (St. Petersburg: Tipografiia II otdeleniia Sobstvennoi E. I. V. Kantseliarii, 1836), vol. 1, no. 94 (hereafter AAE); Akty sotsial'no-ekonomicheskoi istorii severo-vostochnoi Rusi, 3 vols. (Moscow: AN SSSR, 1952-64)

3:31-3, nos. 15-16 (hereafter ASEI). For discussions of their holdings, see A. P. Shurygina, "Novgorodskaia boiarskaia kolonizatsiia, Uchenye zapiski.

Leningradskii gosudarstvennyi pedogogicheskii institut im. A. I. Gertsena 78 (1948), passim; A. L. Shapiro, et al., Agrarnaia istoriia severo-zapada Rossii,

3 vols. (Leningrad: Nauka, 1971, 1974, 1978) 1: 283-4; Danilova, Ocherki, pp. 235, 244, 249, 252-3; Bernadskii, Novgorod, pp. 52-8. 57 GVNP, no. 279, p. 280. 58 In the sixteenth century both Guagnini and Herberstein noted that black fox was the one prized fur that came from the Vaga river area; "Nash sever," p. 4; Herberstein, Notes upon Russia, 12:35. 59 GVNP, nos. 286-7, PP- 288-9; N. S. Chaev, "Severnye gramoty XV v.,"

Letopis' zaniatii postoiannoi istoriko-arkheograflcheskoi komissii (LZAK) 35

60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70

71 72 73

(1927-8): nos. 13-16, pp. 135-6; Danilova, Ocherki, p. 253. Chaev, "Severnye gramoty," no. 13. Ibid., nos. 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 40, 42. GVNP, no. 96, pp. 152-3. GVNP, no. 90, p. 147; Danilova, Ocherki, p. 249. GVNP, no. 264, p. 270. On the familial relationships, see Ianin, Novgorodskaia feodal'naia votchina, pp. 91-2. GVNP, no. n o , pp. 166-8; Bernadskii, Novgorod, p. 57. Bernadskii, Novgorod, pp. 57-8; AAE 1:73-4; ASEI 3:32-3. GVNP, nos. 280, 281, 282, pp. 280-3. GVNP, no. 280, pp. 280-1. Examples of such transfers among peasants are in GVNP, nos. 145-7, 149, *77> I79» 181-3, 187, 188, 197, 199, 269, 273, 275; the accumulation of these lands by St. Nikola is reflected in GVNP, nos. 135, 148, 153, 167, 170, 174, 175; the same documents also appear in Robert Lawrence Baker, "The Dvina Documents of the Fifteenth Century," (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1962), nos. 6, 13, 16, 29, 32, 36, 37. See also Danilova, Ocherki, pp. 235,243-4, a n d Shurygina, "Novgorodskaia boiarskaia kolonizatsiia," pp. 56-7, on large landowners in the Dvina land. Artsikhovskii and Tikhomirov, Novgorodskie gramoty, 1:16-20. This cadastre is published in PKOP. For example, on Marfa Boretskaia's Vytegorskii estate, the fur rent of 1,389 squirrel pelts was replaced by or equated with 9 rubles, making each squirrel pelt worth about 1.4 dengas. Using this value for the fur collected on Ivan Ofanasii Patrekeev's estate, which was valued in total at 1 ruble, 6 grivnas, the cash constituted 8 percent, the fur 60 percent, and the grain 32 percent 213

Notes to pages 7 1 - 5

74 75 76

JJ 78

79

80

81

82

83

84 85

of the rent. Similar calculations provide the grain values and corresponding percentages for other estates. This supposition is based on the general consistency observed in the rent mix on estates in the pogosts of Obonezhskaia piatina. Kopanev, "K voprosu," pp. 4 5 3 - 6 1 . The Emtsa sotnaia is a portion of the tax books compiled by I. Zabolotskii in 1552-3; see A. Kopanev, Krest'ianstvo russkogo severa v XVI v. (Leningrad: Nauka, 1978), p. 33. A. Kopanev, " 0 gosudarstvennykh nalogakh chernososhnykh krest'ian serediny XVI v.," Problemy istorii feodal'noi RossiU p. 127; Kopanev Krest'ianstvo russkogo severa, pp. 33-4; S. V. Rozhdestvenskii, "Dvinskie boiare i dvinskoe khoziaistvo," hvestiia ANSSSR. Otdeleniegwnanitarnykh nauk, series 7 (1929): 131. I. L. Perel'man, "Novgorodskaia derevnia v XV-XVI vv.," Istoricheskie zapiski 26 (1948): 138; Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia, pp. 59-60; Bernadskii, Novgorod, p. 68. Pelushskii and Khotslavl'skii pogosts were primarily agricultural. Because other agricultural products, for which prices are unavailable, supplemented edible grains in these pogosts, the percentages of the rents attributed to agricultural products are rough estimates. Danilova, Ocherki, pp. 211-12. The combination of grain and squirrel pelts collected on this estate was equated to 13.5 rubles, 15 dengas. Using the figure 1.4 dengas per pelt, determined from Boretskaia's estate in Vytegorskii pogost, fur constituted 3 5 percent of the rent, grain 65 percent. This emphasis is reflected also in population density figures; in Shungskii pogost there were 1.6 adult males per obzha, a higher density than in any other pogost except Oshtinskii; Venitskii had 1.5, and all the others for which there is information, 1.3. These figures are derived from PKOP, 1496. Since agriculture requires more laborers per land unit than hunting, these figures reinforce the implication of the rent information that agriculture was the predominant occupation in Shungskii pogost. The six Shungskii landowners in question are N. Babkina, M. Berdenev, L. Fedorov, F. Glukhov, and V. and L. Esipov. See PKOP, 1496 and 1563, pp. 1, 6-8, 163, 165; GVNP, nos. 286, 287, 292; Ianin, Novgorodskaiafeodal'naia votchina, p. 126; Shurygina, "Novgorodskaia boiarskaia kolonizatsiia," pp. 33> 36. Only a few boyars and monasteries owned estates there, challenging peasant hegemony, until the second half of the fifteenth century. Then large parcels in this region were transferred by Novgorod to the Muscovite grand prince. ASEI 3:30; Shapiro, Agrarnaia istoriia, 1; 281-2; for boyar holdings, see ASEI 3:3O~3» Bernadskii, Novgorod, p. 58; Kopanev, Krest'ianstvo russkogo severa, pp. 3 4 - 5 ; and Shurygina, "Novgorodskaia boiarskaia kolonizatsiia," pp. 49, 56, 57Only in the sixteenth century does the formula in the documents change, reflecting the fact that formal ownership was retained by the grand prince, while the peasants had the right to use that land. See A. Kopanev, "Kresfianskoe zemlevladenie Podvin'ia v XVI v.," Problemy krest'ianskogo zemlevladeniia i vnutrennei politiki Rossii (Leningrad: Nauka, 1972), pp. 106-7. GVNP, no. 89, p. 146; Ianin, Novgorodskaia feodal'naia votchina, pp. 189-90. One book, compiled by Iakov Saburov and Ivan Kutuzov in 15 5 5-6, has been published under the title "Platezhnaia kniga Kargopol'skogo uezda Materially po istorii evropeiskogo severa SSSR. Severnyi arkheo214

Notes to pages 75-9 graflcheskii sbornik (Vologda) 2 (1972)1253-90. Another, containing a 1 5 5 2 - 3 survey conducted by I. Zabolotskii and a 1559 survey prepared by V. Gagin, is preserved under the title "Platezhnye Knigi" in Tsentral'nyi gosudarstvennyi arkhiv drevnikh aktov (TsGADA; Central State Archive for Ancient Documents), fond 137, Klin. no. 2,11.130-92 (Moscow). A summary entitled "Platezhnaia kniga Dvinskogo uezda 1560 g.," has been published by A. Kopanev in Agrarnaia istoriia evropeiskogo severa (Vologda: AN SSSR, Institut istorii, 1970), pp. 519-36. 86 It should be noted that A. Kopanev has concluded that prior to 1552-3, the belka was not paid by all peasants of the Dvina area, but only by those on "obrochnye zemli," lands that had previously belonged to Novgorodian boyars. See his comments in Shapiro, Agrarnaia istoriia, 3:14, 31. 8 7 The iam was introduced at the end of the fifteenth century; the pishchal'nye den'gi in the 1530s. The obezhnaia dan' was introduced by Ivan III after the annexation of Novgorod; the poraVskaia belka and (za)morskoi obrok were introduced with the Zabolotskii book; Kopanev in Shapiro, Agrarnaia istoriia, 3:29-31. Other scholars have suggested that the poral'skaia belka and zamorskoi obrok were older taxes, retained by the Muscovite authorities; see, for example, Rozhdestvenskii, "Dvinskie boiare," p. 138. For a discussion of the iam and the postal relay system it supported, see Gustave Alef, "The Origin and Early Development of the Muscovite Postal Service," Jahrbucher fur Geschichte Osteuropas, neue Folge 15 (1967): 1-15, reprinted in Gustave Alef, Rulers and Nobles in Fifteenth-Century Muscovy (London: Variorum reprints, 1983). See also Marc Zlotnik "Immunity Charters and the Centralization of the Muscovite State" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1976), pp. 235. 244, 255, 282. 88 This is suggested by the Zabolotskii book; but the information contained in that book is less precise since the assessments for the belka and the gornostal were combined with several other taxes; only the iam and the grain assessments are listed individually. The iam, though, amounts to about 25 percent of the total cash tax and thus corresponds to the distribution of taxes in the Kargopol' district. This similarity suggests that the belka and the gornostal assessed by Zabolotskii followed the same pattern as those in the Kargopor region - about 56 percent of the cash tax for the belka and ro percent for the gornostal. 89 Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia, p. 6 1 ; compare also ibid., p. 68 and Bernadskii, Novgorod, pp. 83, 88. See also Shapiro, Agrarnaia istoriia, 1:275. 90 This information is taken from PKOP, 1496, passim. 91 The rent on the Ontov estate amounted to 2 rubles, 14 grivnas, 11 dengas, and twenty mer of butter or oilfromseventy-one obzhas; like Berdenev's estate, the rent per obzha amounted to 9 or 10 dengas. PKOP, pp. 36-7: Bernadskii, Novgorod, pp. 85-6. 92 As above, these calculations are based on one squirrel pelt valued at 1.4 dengas. 93 For a discussion of the annexations, see Bernadskii, Novgorod, p. 3i4ff. 94 Kopanev, "K voprosu," p. 456. 95 Ibid., passim; Kopanev, "Platezhnaia kniga kargopol'skogo uezda," passim; Zabolotskii's "Platezhnaia kniga," passim. 96 Monasteries outside Novgorodian lands did collect fur from their tenants, but generally for their local princes. The Kirillo-Belozerskii monastery, for example, in 1451 was directed to pay ten squirrels per year on behalf of certain starozhiltsy in the Novoselo village to Prince Mikhail Andreevich of Vereia and 215

Notes to pages

97 98 99

100 101 102 103 104 105 106

107 108 109 no in

112 113 114 115

80-3

Beloozero. Similarly, around 1473-86 the Voskresenskii monastery collected 100 squirrels for the princes from its villages. And the Mozhaisk prince Andrei Dmitrievich was to receive ten squirrel pelts per village from three villages he ceded to the Kirillo-Belozerskii monastery between 1428 and 1432. Prince Mikhail Andreevich noted that the abbot gave to his treasury an annual rent of twenty squirrel pelts per village from all his villages, amounting to 600 pelts. ASEI, vol. 2, nos. 51, 140, 156; Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia, p. 64. L. A. Zarubin, "Vazhskaia zemlia," p. 184. On the relations of Novgorodian merchants with peasants, see Danilova, Ocherki, p. 42. Nikitskii, Istoriia, p. 90; PSRL 4:65. This group constructed a church in Novgorod in 1364. For information on the two incidents, see "Ustiuzhskii letopisets," 1 October 1873, P- 648; Vasilii Ardashev, compiler "Letopis' semisotletniago sushchestvovaniia goroda Ustiuga-velikogo," Vologodskie gubernskie vedomosti, 28 September 1857, p. 275; Syroechkovskii, Gostisurozhane, p. 11. The text may be found in D. N. Anuchin, "K istorii oznakomleniia s Sibiriu do Ermaka," Drevnosti. Trudy Moskovskogo arkheologicheskogo obshchestva 14 (1890). For instance Oksenov, "Slukhi i vesti," pp. 112-14. Anuchin, "K istorii," p. 288. Anuchin has interpreted these descriptions in great detail, demonstrated the veracity of this text, and shown the subjects to be real, not mythical Siberian peoples (ibid., passim). It became known to foreign travelers, including Herberstein, who incorporated an abbreviated and varied form of it in his travel account. Herberstein, Notes upon Russia, 12:40-1. Anuchin, "K istorii," pp. 233, 284. For the disputes, see Dollinger, Hansa, pp. 77, 182, 2 9 4 - 5 ; Nikitskii, Istoriia, pp. 256-7; Kazakova, " ...torgovoi politiki," pp. 265, 267, 269, 284; Kazakova. " . . .snoshenii Novgoroda s ganzoi," pp. 117-28; Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia, pp. 31-2, 97, 99-103, I2off. Peterhof was closed in the 1440s and from 1469 to 1472. Dollinger, Hansa, p. 295; N. A. Kazakova, Russko-livonskie i russko-ganzeiskie otnosheniia (Leningrad: Nauka, 1975), pp. 120-3, 125-6. Khoroshkevich, "Iz istorii," pp. 106-10. Veale, English Fur Trade, pp. 77, 134-9, 1 6 0 - 1 ; Veckinchusen, Briefwechsel, nos. 20, 26, pp. 25-9, 34-5. Some luxury fur may have been exported from Novgorod at this time; see Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia, pp. 88, 9 0 - 1 , 105. Khoroshkevich has suggested that the tendency among Novgorodian boyars to convert their rents to cash payments was motivated by the disappearance of northern squirrel; Bernadskii and Danilova explain the phenomenon in terms of an expanding cash economy. Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia, p. 68; Bernadskii, Novgorod, pp. 83, 88; Danilova, Ocherki, p. 199. ASEI 3: 31, 33-4, nos. 15, 17. ASEI 3: 3 0 - 1 ; Shapiro, Agrarnaia istoriia, 1:282; Kopanev, Krest'ianstvo russkogo severa, pp. 30-2. Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia, pp. 88, 9 0 - 1 , 105. E. A. Savel'eva, "'Istoriia severnykh narodov' Olausa Magnusa i ee izvestiia 216

Notes to pages 84-3

116 117

118

119

120 121 122 123

o Rossii," Avtoreferat dissertatsii na soiskanie uchenoi stepeni kandidata istoricheskikh nauk (Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1974), p. 11; Savel'eva, "Kniga Olausa Magnusa 'Istoriia severnykh narodov' i ee izvestiia o Rossii" in Istoricheskie sviazi Skandinavii i Rossii IX-XX vv. (Leningrad: Nauka, 1970), P. 337Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia, p. 33; Dollinger, Hansa, p. 100; Kazakova, "...snoshenii Novgoroda s ganzoi," p. 117; Veale, English Fur Trade. p. 161-4. Kazakova, Russko-livonskie, pp. 118-20; Kazakova, "...torgovoi politiki," pp. 267, 284: Dollinger, Hansa, pp. 77, 194; Khoroshkevich, "Znachenie," pp. 16-17; Attman, Russian and Polish Markets, p. 34; Paul Bushkovitch, The Merchants of Moscow, 1580-1650 (Cambridge, London, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1980), p. 72; I. P. Shaskol'skii, Stolbovskii mir 1617 g. i torgovye otnosheniia Rossii so Shvedskim gosudarstvom (Moscow and Leningrad: Nauka, 1964), pp. 16-20. Only at the end of the fourteenth century do indications appear that Novgorodians were once again undertaking journeys abroad. Hansisches Urkundenbuch, 10 vols., ed. Konstantin Hdhlbaum and Karl Kunze (Halle: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses and Leipzig: Duncker and Humblot, 1867-1907) 5:199, 6:234-5 (HUB); Liv~ Est- und Kurlandisches Urkundenbuch, 12 vols., ed. Friedrich Georg von Bunge (Reval: Druck von H. Laakman, 1853-9; Riga a n d Moscow: N. Kymmel and J. Dubner, 1867- ) 4:1407, 6:110, 7:256, 7:317, 8:957; 9:793. Kazakova, "... snoshenii Novgoroda s ganzoi," pp. 124-5 5 Kazakova, ".. .torgovoi politiki," pp. 267, 274, 278, 284; Nikitskii, Istoriia, p. 142. Khoroshkevich, "Znachenie," p. 18. For suggested reasons for the closure, see Kazakova, "... torgovoi politiki," pp. 260-3, 2 &6; Dollinger, Hansa, p. 312; Kleinenberg, "Serebro vmesto soli," p. 117; N. Kostomarov, Ocherk torgovli Moskovskago gosudarstva v XVI i XVII stoletiiakh (St. Petersburg: N. Tiblen, 1862), p. 35. On Pskov's role in the Russian-northern European trade, see Khoroshkevich, "Znachenie," p. 16-19; GVNP, no. 78, pp. 133-6; Kazakova, "...torgovoi politiki," p. 284; Kazakova, "...snoshenii Novgoroda s ganzoi," p. 122; Nikitskii, Istoriia, pp. 256-7; Attman, Russian and Polish Markets, p. 33. Attman, Russian and V-lhh Markets, p. 107; for the salt-silver issue, see Kleinenberg, "Serebro M^zzio soli," passim. For a discussion of Novgorod's commercial vitality in the sixteenth century, see A. P. Pronshtein, Velikii Novgorod v XVI veke (Khar'kov: Khar'kovskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 1957), pp. 109-17. Attman, Russian and Polish Markets, pp. 25, 35-6, 108-9. Elers' account book has been studied by V. Doroshenko in "Torgovlia krupnogo Tallinskogo kuptsa v XVI veke," Izvestiia akademii nauk Estonskoi SSR. Obshchestvennye nauki 18(1969):332-45, and "Russkie sviazi Tallinskogo kuptsa v 30-kh godakh XVI v." in Ekonomicheskie sviazi Pribaltiki s RossieU

pp. 47-58. See also Khoroshkevich, "Znachenie," pp. 15-16, and Attman,

Russian and Polish Markets, pp. 35-6. 124 Lloyd E. Barry and Robert 0. Crummey, eds., Rude and Barbarous Kingdom (Madison, Milwaukee, and London: University of Wisconsin Press, 1968), pp.

30-1.

125 John Hasse, "The Coines, Weights, and Measures Used in Russia," in Hakluyt, Principal Navigations 2:276-7 (1903). 126 See, for example, RIB 15:85-6, no. 48; AAE 1:322, 329. 217

Notes to pages 87-90 4. Moscow and Kazan: the luxury fur trade 1 A. N. Nasonov, Mongoly i Rus' (Moscow and Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1949; reprint ed., The Hague: Mouton 1969), pp. 34-6; Vernadsky, Mongols, p. 51; PSRL 9 (Patriarshaia ili Nikonovskaia letopis'): 106-8. 2 John of Pian de Carpine, "The Journey of Friar John of Pian de Carpine, as narrated by Himself," in Works issued by the Hakluyt Society, series 2, vol. 4 : The Journey of William of Rubruck to the Eastern Parts of the World, trans,

with an intro. by William Rockhill (London: Printed for the Hakluyt Society, 1900; reprint, Nendeln/Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint, 1967), p. 94. 3 PSRL 7 (Voskresenskaia letopis'): 139; on the taking of censuses and collection of tribute elsewhere in the Russian lands, see NPL, p. 212; Vernadsky, Mongols, pp. 150-1. 4 Nasonov, Mongoly, pp. 36, 58. The towns of the Rostov principality are identified by A. O. Ekzempliarskii, Velikie i udel'nye kniaz'ia severnoi Rusi v

5 6 7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17 18

Tatarskiiperiod, 2 vols. (St. Petersburg: 1.1. Tolstoi, 1889-91; reprint ed., The Hague: Europe Printing, 1966). Nasonov, Mongoly, p. 18; Vernadsky, Mongols, p. 220. Nasonov, Mongoly, pp. 26, 58; "Ustiuzhskiiletopisets," 15 September 1873, p. 628; Ardashev, "Letopis'," p. 274. See Michel Roublev, "The Mongol Tribute according to the Wills and Agreements of the Russian Princes," in The Structure of Russian History, ed. Michael Cherniavsky (New York: Random House, 1970), pp. 29-31, 56; Vernadsky, Mongols, pp. 228-32. "Ustiuzhskiiletopisets," 15 September 1873, p. 628; Ardashev, "Letopis'," p. 274; Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, p. 49; Ekzempliarskii, Velikie i udel'nye kniaz'ia, 2:26. Beloozero had been repossessed temporarily by a Rostov prince in 1279; Ekzempliarskii, Velikie i udel'nye kniaz'ia, 2:160. "Ustiuzhskiiletopisets," 15 September 1873, p. 628. Ibid.; Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, p. 49; Ardashev, "Letopis'," p. 274: Ekzempliarskii, Velikie i udel'nye kniaz'ia, 2:28. Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 257. "Ustiuzhskii letopisets," 1 October 1873, p. 648; see also Ardashev, "Letopis'," p. 275 and Syroechkovskii, Gosti-surozhane, p. 11. PSRL 9:189; NPL, p. 227. Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 257. Ardashev, "Letopis'," p. 275; John Fennell, The Emergence of Moscow, 1304-1359 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1968), p. 177; Ekzempliarskii, Velikie i udel'nye kniaz'ia, 2:47-8. Ustiug's role in providing the tribute was crucial through the first half of the fourteenth century, when the Muscovite princes were not yet in a position to levy special taxes, intended to be contributions to the tribute, on appanage princes and their principalities. Michel Roublev has demonstrated that such taxes were assessed at least from 1389; "Mongol Tribute," pp. 32-59. Such a practice would explain the observation made by an Egyptian ambassador to Berke's court in 1264 that Russian boats were sailing the Volga river; Tiesenhausen, Sbornik, 1:63. When these goods were transported in the company of official caravans, the Russians made the full journey to the Horde themselves. But by the fourteenth century Bulgar had regained control over access to the lower Volga. While it evidently allowed Russians to travel to Sarai, where there was 218

Notes to pages 9 0 - 1

19

20

21

22

23

a Russian quarter, it did not allow Russian ships to sail beyond Bulgar. The only reference to Russian boats on the Volga is the one cited above, referring to 1264, before the Bulgars regained control. Ships observed traveling between Sarai and the Russian or Slav lands in the fourteenth century are unidentified. Tiesenhausen, Sbornik, 1:63, 2 4 1 ; Poluboiarinova, Russkie liudi, p. 45. The passage of all ships, regardless of origin, was evidently restricted by the Bulgars, who tried to recreate their former role as intermediaries between the Russians and southerners. One of al-'Umari's informants testified to this effect when he noted that Oriental merchants traveled northward to Bulgar, but no further. Tiesenhausen, Sbornik, 1:240. Bulgar may also have blocked the passage of Russian merchants down the Volga. Syroechkovskii concluded that the latter traveled only as far as Bulgar until sometime in the fourteenth century, and only after the decline of Bulgar did they extend their commercial expeditions further; Gosti-surozhane, p. 16. Bulgar's control of the mid-Volga is clearly reflected in the challenge presented to it during the second half of the fourteenth century by the Novgorodian ushkuinniki trying to force their way down the river. Martin, "Les Uskujniki," passim. It is perhaps significant that Donskoi made his refusal to pay the full tribute shortly after the Hanseatic League took measures to curtail its merchants' sales of silver to Novgorod in the mid-13 70s. The refusal led, of course, to the military confrontation between Donskoi and Mamai in 1380, followed by those led by Tokhtamysh in 1382 and Edigey in 1408. For the Hansa's restrictions, see Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia, p. 280; Khoroshkevich, "Iz istorii," pp. 108-10; for references to Dmitrii's refusal, see PSRL 11:50; Vernadsky. Mongols, p. 259. On the importance of Sarai, see Syroechkovskii, Gosti-surozhane, pp. 16, 18; Syroechkovskii, "Puti i usloviia snoshenii Moskvy s Krymom na rubezhe XVI veka," Izvestiia AN SSSR. Otdelenie obshchestvennykh nauk. Series 7 (1932): 194-6. Moscow became active on the Volga after Novgorodian ushkuinniki successfully sailed down the river and sold their goods or booty at Astrakhan'; Moscow then attacked Bulgar and placed its own customs officials there. See Martin, "Les Uskujniki," pp. 14-15. The fact that gosti-surozhane, who arrived in Moscow in 1356, were in the company of an ambassador from the Horde illustrates that their route and their commerce were linked with Sarai. PSRL 10:228; Syroechkovskii, Gosti-surozhane, pp. 17-18; Syroechkovskii, "Puti," p. 196. Examples include the arrival of gosti-surozhane in Moscow in 1356 and the participation of gosti-surozhane as guides in Donskoi's campaign against Mamai. PSRL 10:228, 11:54; Syroechkovskii, Gosti-surozhane, pp. 17-18; Syroechkovskii, "Puti," p. 196. It appears, however, that Novgorod continued to dominate these northern lands until the late fourteenth century; it claimed them for an even longer time, until its own annexation by Moscow. For Ivan Danilovich's rights in the Pechora, see GVNP, no 84, p. 142 and no. 85, pp. 142-3; Lashuk, Pechorskii krai, p. 66. For the grant of the Pechora to Andrei Friazin, see GVNP. no. 87, pp. 143-4 o r AAE1: 3; Syroechkovskii, Gosti-surozhane, p. 27. For the claims of the Vychegda-Vym' chronicle, see Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 257, and for Novgorod's opposing claims, GVNP, pp. 9-47. 219

Notes to pages 9 1 - 2 24 Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 257. 25 Ibid., p. 258; M. Mikhailov, "Ust'vym'," Vologodskie gubernskie vedomosti, 7 January 1850, p. 3. 26 Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 259. 27 Ibid. 28 The appointment of princes was undertaken only in the fifteenth century when Grand Prince Vasilii Vasirevich named the native family of Ermolai to rule Vychegda Perm'. The Muscovite princes similarly assumed the right to approve the rulers in Perm' Velikaia and among the Iugra and Voguly as they subordinated them. For example, in 1472 Prince Mikhail of Cherdyn' was taken prisoner and brought to Moscow, where Ivan Vasirevich accepted his oath of allegiance, named him prince of Perm' Velikaia and returned him to Cherdyn'. Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 2 6 1 ; V. Golubtsov, "Kniaz'ia velikopermskie, permskie i vymskie," Trudy Permskoi uchenoi arkhivnoi komissi, 12 vols. (Perm': n.p., 1892-1915) 1:76-7. 29 The army used in a campaign against the Iugra in 1465 included contingents from Vychegda and Vym', while the campaign against Perm' Velikaia in 1472 similarly involved Vychezhane. After the subordination of Perm' Velikaia, contingents from Cherdyn' also appeared in the armies of the grand prince, as in the case of the expedition to Sibir' and the Ob' river in 1483. Those forces also participated in campaigns against Novgorod in 1472, against Viatka in 1489, and against the Voguly and Iugra in 1499. Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, p. 86; Doronin, "Dokumenty," pp. 262-4. 30 In Vychegda the grand prince reportedly assigned commercial taxes and tolls to the bishopric for its sustenance, but required the population to pay an additional tribute to his tax collectors. This report corresponds to another chronicle entry under the year 13 86. At that time a famine rendered the Perm' incapable of paying their taxes, and they fled to the forests and appealed to Stefan to protect them from the grand prince's tribute collectors. Another later description referring to Perm' in Stefan's time also noted that the population owed taxes to the grand prince. According to it, Vychegda Perm' was a vast country, forested and poorly populated, but rich in every kind of natural product, and especially abundant in expensive fur animals, the pelts of which were used in Perm' as money until the fifteenth century; they provided the means to pay their taxes to the state and also supplied all the materials for construction of churches and their appropriate decoration.

31 32

33 34

Mikhailov, "Ust'vym'," 11, 18 February and 11 March 1850, pp. 53, 64, 94-5Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 260; Mikhailov, "Ust'vym'," 4 February 1850, P. 43Led by Pan-sotnik the dissidents fought Stefan, but as a result of their uprising in 1384, were forced to flee. In 1389 they attacked a monastery in Perm', and in 1392, joined by Voguly forces, staged an attack on Ust'vym' and its environs, but were defeated by forces from Ustiug sent to defend the bishop's seat. Doronin, "Dokumenty," pp. 258-60; Mikhailov, "Ust'vym'," 4 February-11 March 1850, pp. 4 1 , 43, 62, 73, 82-84, 95. Novitskii, Kratkoe opisanie, pp. 6-7, 38-9; G. F. Miller (Miiller), Istoriia Sibiri (Moscow and Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1937), p. 188; Bakhrushin, "Ostiatskie i vogul'skie kniazhestva," p. 86; Tokarev, Etnograflia narodov, p. 482. Veriaminov-Zernov, Issledovaniia, 1:3-25; Edward L. Keenan, Jr. "Muscovy 220

Notes to pages 92-4

35 36 37 38 39

40 41

42

43

and Kazan: Some Introductory Remarks on the Patterns of Steppe Diplomacy,'' Slavic Review 26 (1967): 554; K. V. Bazilevich, Vneshniaia politika russkogo tsentralizovannogo gosudarstva; vtoraia polovina XV veka (Moscow: MGU, 1952), pp. 51, 55ff. The date of the founding of the Kazan' khanate is controversial. Although one view places its establishment in 143 7, Veriaminov-Zernov has traced the migration of the Horde under Ulu Muhammed to Belev in 143 7, when it came into conflict with Muscovy, to Nizhnii Novgorod in 1444, Murom 1445, and only later in that year to the mid-Volga, where Mahmutek, who had murdered his father Ulu Muhammed, settled and founded the khanate. VeriaminovZernov, Issledovaniia, 1:3-7; Vernadsky, Mongols, pp. 302, 316-17. Barbaro in Travels, p. 33; Fekhner, Torgovlia, p. 44. Herberstein, Notes upon Russia, 12:67-8; Fekhner, Torgovlia, p. 44. Herberstein, Notes upon Russia, 12:73; Fekhner, Torgovlia, pp. 26, 43; Contarini, in Barbaro and Contarini, Travels, pp. 150-1. Fekhner, Torgovlia, p. 44. IstoriiaSibiri 1:363, 364; Z.Ia.BoiarshinovaandN. N. Stepanov, "Zapadnaia Sibir' v XIV-XV vv.,M Materialy po drevnei istorii Sibiri: Drevniaia Sibir' (Ulan-Ude: AN SSSR, 1964), pp. 478-98. The link between Tiumen' and the Golden Horde is illustrated by the fact that after Tokhtamysh, who had become the ruler of both the Golden and the White Hordes, was defeated by Timur and then by Edigey, he sought refuge in the Tiumen' khanate, where he briefly ruled, tried to rally support against Edigey, and even sought an alliance with Timur against that foe. He died before realizing his ambitions for revenge. Istoriia Sibiri 1:363-4; Vernadsky, Mongols, p. 282. Istoriia Sibiri 1:364; Miller, Istoriia Sibiri, pp. 192-5; Boiarshinova and Stepanov, "Zapadnaia Sibir'," pp. 498-503. For Ibak's position in the succession struggle, see Sbornik imperatorskago russkago istoricheskago obshchestva, 148 vols. (St. Petersburg: Imperatorskoe russkoe istoricheskoe obshchestvo, 1867-1916) 41:81-2 (hereafter SIRIO) and Z. la. Boiarshinova, Naselenie zapadnoi Sibiri do nachala russkoi kolonizatsii (Tomsk: Tomskii universitet, 1961), p. 108. For Mamuk's and Agalak's adventures, see Istoriia Sibiri 1:364; Veriaminov-Zernov, Issledovaniia, 1:190; PSRL 26:290. In 1481 Tiumen' Tatars, including merchants, were found on the Kama river by a Russian force, which plundered them. Serbina, Ustiuzhskh letopisnyi svod, p. 94. In 1475 Kazan' forces executed a group of merchants from Ustiug, bound for Tiumen', whom they found traveling along the Kama river. PSRL 12:158. There is some question concerning the nature of relations between the Voguly and Ostiaki on the Ob' with the khanate of Tiumen'. While Bakhrushin has concluded that they were tributaries of the khanate, other scholars have rejected this view, claiming that the great distance between the Tura-Tavda rivers and the lower Ob' precluded effective control. See Boiarshinova and Stepanov, "Zapadnaia Sibir', p. 485. But great distances had not prevented the same tribes from paying tribute to Novgorod in earlier times and would not prevent the establishment of a similar relationship with Muscovy although neither Russian overlord maintained permanent outposts among these tributaries. See S. V. Bakhrushin, "Osnovye linii istorii obskikh ugorov," Uchenye zapiski LGU (1948), p. 260; Istoriia Sibiri 1:358, 364ft; Miller, Istoriia Sibiri, p. 198. 221

Notes to pages 94-6 44 Indeed some Voguly and Ostiaki, dwelling closer to the Tatars, were assimilated by them. Boiarshinova and Stepanov. "Zapadnaia Sibir'," pp. 477, 485. 45 One such trading post was Voikarskii, where Russian merchants providing axes, iron kettles, and clothing in exchange for the sable fur, also came. Boiarshinova and Stepanov, "Zapadnaia Sibir'," p. 485; Bakhrushin, "Ostiatskie i vogul'skie kniazhestva," p. 94. 46 Mikhailov, "Ust'vym'," 29 July 1850, p. 331; E. Budrin, "Ocherk istorii Permskoi eparkhii," Permskie eparkhial'nye vedomosti, 12 June 1868, p. 404. Perm' Velikaia was the term applied to the lands on the upper Kama river, centering around Cherdyn' and including the land along the Vishera and Kolva rivers. Lashuk, Proiskhozhdenie, p. 31. 47 Doronin, "Dokumenty, "pp. 261-2; Mikhailov, "Ust'vym'," 12 August 1850, pp. 364-7; Lashuk, Proiskhozhdenie, p. 35; Budrin, "Ocherk," 12 June 1868, pp. 407-9. 48 Golubtsov, "Kniaz'ia," p. 76, Krupenin, "Kratkii istoricheskii ocherk," p. 8; Mikhailov, "Ust'vym'," 26 August 1850, p. 390, Ul'ianov, Ocherki, p. 68; Doronin, "Dokumenty," pp. 261-2; Budrin, "Ocherk," 12 and 26 June 1868, pp. 408-9, 448-50. 49 Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 262; see also Mikhailov, "Ust'vym'," 2 September 1850, p. 4 0 3 ; Serbina Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, p. 90; PSRL 26:244; Krupenin, "Kratkii istoricheskii ocherk," p. 10-11; Ul'ianov, Ocherki, pp. 41, 69; Narody mira 2:446; Golubtsov, "Kniaz'ia," pp. 76, 78; Budrin, "Ocherk," 26 June and 30 October 1868, pp. 450, 732. 50 Mikhailov, "Ust'vym', 2 September 1850, p. 403. 51 Ul'ianov, Ocherki, p. 68. 52 Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, p. 86; Mikhailov, "Ust'vym'." 26 August and 7 October 1850, pp. 391, 462; Istoriia Sibiri 1:368. 53 Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 262. 54 Ibid.; Krupenin, "Kratkii istoricheskii ocherk." p. 37; Mikhailov, "Usf vym'," 7 October 1850, p. 462. 55 Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 263; slightly different versions appear in PSRL 26:275-6; Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, p. 94; "Ustiuzhskii letopisets," 1 November 1873, p. 693. This campaign is discussed by Oksenov, "Slukhi i vesti," pp. 109-10; Krupenin, "Kratkii istoricheskii ocherk," p. 38; Istoriia Sibiri 1:368; Mikhailov, "Ust'vym'." 7 October 1850, pp. 463-4; and Budrin, "Ocherk," 13 November 1868, p. 750. 56 Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 263; PSRL 2 6 : 2 7 6 - 7 ; Mikhailov "Ust'vym'," 7 October 1850, p. 464; Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, p. 95; Budrin, "Ocherk," 13 November 1868, p. 750. 57 Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 264; other, shorter versions appear in PSRL 2 6 : 2 9 1 ; Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, p. 100. The latter says that the army traveled on skis the entire winter. See also Mikhailov "Ust'vym'," pp. 514-15; Oksenov, "Slukhi i vesti, " p . 111; and Istoriia Sibiri 1:368. 58 For example in 1531 the Voguly from the Pelym river attacked Perm' Velikaia; Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 265. 59 The fate of the Pechora tribe is not clear. Although it was the first of the northeastern tribes to pay tribute to Novgorod and continued to be claimed by Novgorod through 14 71, the chronicles do not discuss that population's subordination to Moscow. It has been suggested that the Pechora tribe was gradually assimilated by the Nentsy, one of the Samoed groups, during the period between the eleventh and fifteenth centuries, and had disappeared as 222

Notes to pages 97-100

60

61 62 63 64

65 66 67 68 69 70

71 72 73 74 75

76 77

a distinct people by the time Moscow asserted its authority over the northern lands. Lashuk, Pechorskii krai, pp. 58-63; Lashuk, Proiskhozhdenie, p. 35. Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 262 and also pp. 243-7. Copies of the decree to Pevgei dated 1557-8, are preserved in TsGADA, f. 199: G. F. Miller, portfolio 127, no. 11 and f. 197: A. F. Malinovskii, portfolio 3, d. 46. The document was published in Sobranie gosudarstvennykh gramot i dogovorov, 5 vols. (Moscow: Tip. N. S. Vsevolozhskago, 1813-94) 2 : 5 1 , no. 40 (hereafter SGGD); Bakhrushin refers to it in "Osnovye linii," p. 260. M. A. Gukovskii, "SoobshchenieoRossiimoskovskogoposlav Milan (i486)," Voprosy istoriografli i istochnikovedeniia istorii SSSR:Sbornik statei (Moscow and Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1963), pp. 653-4. Istoria Sibiri 1:369; Berberini in M. P. Alekseev, Sibir' v izvestiiakh zapadnoevropeiskikh puteshestvennikov i pisatelei, 2nd ed. (Irkutsk: Ogiz, Irkutskoe oblastnoe izd.t 1932), p. 134. Herberstein, Notes upon Russia, 12:47. For a more detailed discussion of Ustiug's role in Muscovy's northeastern expansion and the importance of the Cherdyn' route, see Janet Martin, "Muscovy's Northeastern Expansion: the Context and a Cause," Cahiers du monde russe et sovietique 24(1983):463-7. Bakhrushin, "Puti v Sibir' v XVI-XVII vv." in Nauchnye trudy 3(part 1): 94, 95Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 264; Bakhrushin, "Puti v Sibir'," p. 72: Lashuk, Pechorskii krai, pp. 66-7. Bakhrushin, "Puti v Sibir'," pp. 94-5. Paulus Jovius. "History," in Notes upon Russia, 12:242. PSRL 12:158. Anika Stroganov moved to Sol'vychegodsk in the first quarter of the sixteenth century and established a salt business there, but his family enterprises also included trade in fur. Legends about the family say that Anika was so intrigued by the unfamiliar non-Russian tribesmen who brought fur to SolVychegodsk that he sent some of his men back with them to their native land; his men learned the route to the Ob' river and subsequently began traveling there to obtain sable, fox, and other fine fur from the Iugra. Andrei Vvedenskii, " Proiskhozhdenie Stroganovykh," Sever (1923), p. 83; Vvedenskii, Dom Stroganovykh v XVI-XVII vekakh (Moscow: Sotsial'noekonomicheskaia literatura, 1962), p. 3 1 ; A. von Shtok, "Istoriia o rodoslovii i bogatstve i otechestvennykh zaslugakh znamenitoi familii Strogonovykh," Permskiia gubernskiia vedomosti, 8 November 1880. For the early period of the Stroganovs in Ustiug, see Vvedenskii, "Proiskhozhdenie," p 80. Hasse, "The Coines," in Principal Navigations 2:276-7. Berry and Crummey, Rude and Barbarous Kingdom, p. 52. Martin, "Muscovy's Northeastern Expansion," pp. 464-7. SIRIO 4 1 : 3 1 2 - 1 3 ; Syroechkovskii, Gosti-surozhane, p. 40; George Vernadsky, Russia at the Dawn of the Modern Age (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1959), p. 90. The Italian interest in Russia's northern products may be inferred from the grant of the Pechora issued by Dmitrii Donskoi to Andrei Friazin, an Italian. GVNP, no. 87, pp. 143-4; Syroechkovskii, Gosti-surozhane, p. 27; Platonov. Proshloe, p. 33; AAE 1:2, nos. 1-3. Syroechkovskii, "Puti," pp. 196-7; Syroechkovskii, Gosti-surozhane, p. 39. Vernadsky, Mongols, pp. 292-4; Aleksei Malinovskii, "Istoricheskoe i diplo223

Notes to pages 101-3

78

79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86

87 88 89 90 91 92

maticheskoe sobranie del proiskhodivshikh mezhdu Rossiiskimi Velikimi Kniaz'iami i byvshimi v Kryme Tatarskimi tsariami s 1462 po 1533 god," Zapiski Odesskogo obshchestva istorii i drevnostei 5 (1863): 182. Use of the Don is indicated by the fact that in 1491 Mengli-Girey urged Ivan III to dispatch Khozia Mahmet with gerfalcons, sables and walrus tusks via the Don river to Azov. But it was not uncommon for Ivan III to have to remind Mengli-Girey to guarantee safe passage on that route leading to Azov. SIRIO 41:79, 99, 124, 138, 201, 210, 328; Syroechkovskii, "Puti," p, 201; Syroechkovskii, Gosti-surozhane, p. 41; Fekhner, Torgavlia, pp. 11-13. The route through Lithuania was similarly precarious, but attempts to use it were made. In 1479 Ivan III informed Mengli-Girey that passage through Lithuania was impossible. This judgment appears to have been confirmed in i486 when Crimean Tatar ambassadors, traveling through Lithuania to Moscow, were seized by the Lithuanian king; when in 1489 a Muscovite ambassador and a merchant caravan were plundered as they returned from the Crimea via the Tavan-Dnepr crossing to Moscow; and in 1499 when a Muscovite ambassador, again returning from the Crimean khanate to Moscow, was instructed to use the steppe route. Nevertheless, in 1498 the Muscovite ambassador returning to Moscow with an Ottoman diplomat was instructed to travel through Lithuania. SIRIO 35:26-32,174, 175, 178-82; Syroechkovskii, "Puti," pp. 200-1. The western route went southeast from Putivl', skirting southeastern Lithuania, then cut back southwest to Perekop. Fekhner, Torgovlia, pp. 15-16; Syroechkovskii, "Puti," pp. 225-6. Bazilevich, Vneshniaia politika, p. 53; Vernadsky, Dawn, p. 73; John Fennell, Ivan the Great of Moscow (London: Macmillan, and New York: St. Martin's Press, 1961), p. 67. The largest documented Russian caravan included 120 merchants; SIRIO 35:30. SIRIO 41:405-6. Laetus in Alekseev, Sibir', pp. 66-7, 69. For examples, see SIRIO 35:36-41, 41:409. Russian merchants reached Bursa, Sinope, Tokat and Istanbul; SIRIO 41:235-6, 296, 299, 409-10; Syroechkovskii, "Puti," p. 197. SIRIO41:129; Syroechkovskii, Gosti-surozhane, pp. 59-60; Bazilevich, Vneshniaia politika, pp. 183-4. One source of provocation for Crimean hostility toward Muscovy in the early sixteenth century was the" stinginess " of Vasilii III, who was reluctant to send extravagant pominki to the Crimean Tatars. Vernadsky, Dawn, p. 153. SIRIO 41:54, 371-2. SIRIO 41:28, 107, 123-4; Syroechkovskii, Gosti-surozhane, p. 68. On one such occasion Mengli-Girey requested sable with the paws and tail still attached (1498). SIRIO 41:231-6, 241-9; Syroechkovskii, "Puti," p. 201; Fennell, Ivan, p. 186; Vernadsky, Dawn, p. 91. SIRIO 95:27-8, 41:226; Syroechkovskii, Gosti-surozhane, pp. 41, 65. Malinovskii, "Istoricheskoe i diplomaticheskoe sobranie," p. 184; SIRIO 95:28. By the early sixteenth century several events had taken place that made these journeys a practical possibility. Moscow and Istanbul had opened diplomatic 224

Notes to pages 103-4

93 94 95 96 97

98 99 100 101 102 103

104

relations, and were no longer dependent upon the Crimean khan as an intermediary. The Ottomans had also enhanced their position on the west coast of the Black Sea by conquering Kilia and Akkerman in 1484, and, when not at war with Poland-Lithuania, they exercised great influence over those countries. Furthermore, as a result of its wars with Lithuania, Moscow acquired control over the northern segment of the western route connecting central Russia and the Black Sea. As a consequence of these factors, it became practical for Ottoman agents to travel northward along the route through Lithuania to Putivl', while on the contrary, it became increasingly dangerous for Muscovites to make the trip south. See Mihnea Berindei, "Contribution a l'etude du commerce ottoman des fourrures moscovites; la route moldavopolonaise, 1453-1700," Cahiers du monde russe et sovietique 12 (1971): 398; Syroechkovskii, "Puti," pp. 127, 232, 236; Fekhner, Torgovlia, p. 19. SIRIO 95:227-8; Janet Martin, "Muscovite Relations with the Khanates of Kazan' and the Crimea (1460s to 1521)," Canadian-American Slavic Studies 17 (1983): 450-1. Fekhner, Torgovlia, p. 10. This practice may have begun during the region of Mehmed II. Ignatius Mouradgea d'Ohsson, Tableau general de Vempire, 7 vols. (Paris: Firmin Didot Pere et Fils, 1824) 7:199; Brxindei, "Contribution," p. 397. Mouradgea d'Ohsson, Tableau general 7:197-201. Fekhner, Torgovlia, p. 85; Berindei, "Contribution," p. 400; Alexandre Bennigsen and Chantal Lerr ..der-Quelquejay, "Les Marchands de la cour ottomane et le commerce des fourrures moscovites dans la seconde moitie du XVI siecle," Cahiers du monde russe et sovietique 11 (1970): 370. SIRIO 95:27-8. SIRIO 41:109. Fekhner, Torgovlia, p. 6; PSRL 12:259. Herberstein, Notes upon Russia, 12:58. Barbaro, in Travels, p. 33. Such trade in fur is also implied in a diplomatic message sent by Mahmed Amin of Kazan' to Ivan III of Moscow in 1490; see SIRIO 41:92. The market for sable and other luxury fur was nevertheless limited in comparison with the squirrel market. In 1557 the dire ;tors of the Muscovy Company advised their agents in Russia that "As ' Sables and other rich Furres, they bee not every mans money: therefore >^a may send the fewer...." Three years later they wrote, "The Sables which you have sent this yeere be very base, among them all we could not make one principall timber [a bundle of forty]: we have alwayes written unto you send them that bee good or else none As for the Ermines, they cost more there with you, then we can sell them for here. Therefore buy no more of them " Hakluyt, Principal Navigations 2:382, 402-3 (1903). Veale notes that during the sixteenth century the English appetite for fur waned; English Fur Trade, p. 171. Veale, English Fur Trade, pp. 134-7; Privy Purse Expenses of Elizabeth of York; Wardrobe Accounts of Edward the Fourth, ed. N.H.Nicolas (London: W.Pickering, 1830), pp. 120-1, 129, 134; A. Abram, English Life and Manners in the Later Middle Ages (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1913), pp. 158,165. An act of 1532 attempted to confine the use of sable to the English royal family. Paulus Jovius, "History," in Notes upon Russia, 12:242-3.

225

Notes to pages 1 0 4 - 7 105 Contarini in Barbaro and Contarini, Travels, p. 162. 106 Gukovskii, " Soobshchenie," p. 654. The tendency noted by Percamota was apparently moderated in the sixteenth century after the reopening of the Hanseatic dvor in Novgorod. Merchants like Olric Elers conducted trade at Novgorod's market, and Herberstein reported that Germans, Livonians and Swedes were in his time required to conduct their trade in Novgorod and forbidden to enter Moscow. Herberstein, Notes upon Russia, 10:111. 12:24. 107 Barbaro in Travels, p. 33. 108 Herberstein, Notes upon Russia, 10:114-15. 109 Ibid., 10:114. n o Ibid., 10:113-14. i n SIRIO 35:23, 56. 112 In the diplomatic correspondence these merchants were called "traders of the grand prince." The incident is discussed in SIRIO 35:42, 44, 45. 113 Attman, Russian and Polish Markets, pp. 2 0 - 1 , 58-9, 94, 97-9. Both Contarini and Herberstein used the route that went from Moscow via Viaz'maSmolensk-Warsaw to Frankfurt. Contarini, in Barbaro and Contarini, Travels, pp. 165-9; Herberstein, Notes upon Russia, 12:152-3. Tedaldi reported the detour through Toropets and Polotsk; E. Shmurlo, "Izvestiia Dzhiovanni Tedal'di 0 Rossii vremen Ioanna groznago," Zhurnal ministerstva narodnago prosveshcheniia 275 ( i 8 9 i ) : i 2 8 . 114 Herberstein, Notes upon Russia, 10:115. 115 Tedaldi also noted the route from Moscow to Livonia through Pskov; Shmurlo, "Izvestiia," p. 129. For treaties governing Pskov-Livonian trade, see GVNP, no. 78, pp. 133-6; Khoroshkevich, "Znachenie," p. 17; for trade in Livonia with the non-Hanseats, see Kazakova, "...torgovoi politiki," p. 267. 116 Attman, Russian and Polish Markets, p. 59; Doroshenko, "Russkie sviazi," p. 47; Doroshenko, "Torgovlia Tallinskogo kuptsa," pp. 37-8. 117 Kleinenberg, "Serebro vmesto soli," pp. 120-24. 118 Doroshenko, "Russkie sviazi," p. 57. 119 The tendency for the Muscovite court to send the best sable as diplomatic gifts to European courts as well as to the Ottomans may account for Herberstein's claim that he never saw them on the open market. 120 Contarini, in Barbaro and Contarini, Travels, p. 164. 121 Gukovskii. "Soobshchenie," p. 653. 122 Pamiatniki diplomaticheskikh snoshenii drevnei Rossii s derzhavami inostrannymi, 10 vols. (St. Petersburg: Il-oe otdelenie Sobstvennoi E. I. V. Kantseliarii, 1851-71) 1:169, 171; Syroechkovskii, Gosti-surozhane, p. 161; Francesco Tiepolo, "Discorso delle cose di Moscovia (1557)/' Storia documenta di Venezia di S. Romanin, 10 vols. (Venice: Pietro Naratovich, 1853-61) 6:505. 123 Paulus Jovius, "History," in Notes upon Russia, 12:232. 124 This exchange caused something of an international scandal. The Pole, having received the fur in exchange for his "gift horse," considered the pelts to be of inferior value and stomped upon them, provoking Ivan to kill the horse. Ivan then paid the Pole for his horse. His behavior, however, caused such astonishment in foreign courts that when Possevino consulted the Florentine Tedaldi (who had made ten to twelve trips to Muscovy between 15 51 and 1565 and was considered an authority on the country) before he went to Russia to negotiate a conclusion to the Livonian War, he inquired about the "real" story behind this incident. Shmurlo, "Izvestiia," pp. 121, 123-4, T 2 ^ . 125 Hakluyt, Principal Navigations 3:98 (1903). 226

Notes to page 107 126 Trade along the Volga was complicated by political relations among the Tatar hordes, who shared control over the lower segment of that river. The Great Horde and later the Nogai and the Astrakhan' khanate all pastured their herds on lands along the Volga and exercised control over portions of it. It is noteworthy that among the powerful clans that wielded considerable influence within these hordes, the Mangyt were prominent not only in Kazan', but in the Great Horde and among the Nogai until the 1480s; Bazilevich, Vneshniaia politika, p. 181. This political configuration may have contributed to the exercise of cooperation necessary for successful passage of travelers and northern products down the Volga. In the 1480s, however, Nur-Saltan. daughter of a Mangyt chief of the Great Horde and widow of the Kazan' khan, married Mengli-Girey of the Crimean khanate and thereby cemented an alliance between the Kazan' khanate, in which her sons were prominent leaders, and the Crimean khanate. This alliance was sustained not only by the Mangyt clan, whose leaders in the Great Horde transferred their allegiance to the Crimean khan, but also by Moscow, which aided Nur-Saltan's sons in their efforts to obtain the Kazan' throne. It is possible that under these circumstances the Great Horde may have impeded Kazan' and Muscovite use of the lower Volga. The disappearance of references to diplomatic and commercial travel down the Volga from that time, as well as Kazan's tendency to export its goods to Moscow and even to accept a political dependency on Muscovy, may also be related to this shift in the political balance among the Tatars. 127 Contarini, traveling along the Volga in 1475-6, testified to the lack of water and game along the route; his own experience of being obliged to disguise himself as a physician and conceal his identity as a Venetian diplomat as well as having to ransom his confiscated property at Astrakhan' bears witness to the insecure conditions at the southern end of the route. In a similar fashion Afanasii Nikitin, descending the Volga ten years earlier, had his belongings stolen while some of his companions, shipwrecked off the northwest Caspian coast, were taken captive. Contarini, in Barbaro and Contarini, Travels, pp. 149-50, 158; Nikitin in Medieval Russia s Epics, Chronicles, and Tales, ed. and trans. Serge A. Zenkovsky, revised and enlarged ed. (New York: E. P. Dutton, A Dutton Paperback, 1974), p. 336. A number of diplomats also used this route: the Shirwan ambassador to Moscow, Ferruh-Esar (1465); Vasilii Papin, the Muscovite ambassador to Shirwan, who had departed on his journey just before Nikitin in 1466; Hasan Beg, the ambassador of the Shirwan-Shah, whom Nikitin did accompany south; and Mark Rosso, the Muscovite ambassador to Ussun Kassan of northern Iran, with whom Contarini traveled on his return from Tabriz (1475-6). That other embassies also used the Volga is indicated by Contarini's observation of camels and horses, evidently abandoned by previous travelers, along the river. Nikitin in Zenkovsky, pp. 335-7; Contarini, in Barbaro and Contarini, Travels, pp. 145-50, 157; Fekhner, Torgovlia, pp. 19, 34. Although Nikitin's voyage, which took him by ship down the Volga from Tver' to Astrakhan', whence he went on to Derbent, Baku, Iran and India, was perhaps unique in that a single traveler traversed so many segments of the route, it nevertheless illustrates how the Volga at this time served as a link between northeastern Russian and Kazan' in the north with all these southern regions. Nikitin in Zenkovsky, Medieval Russia s Epics, pp. 335-8. 128 Contarini, in Barbaro and Contarini, Travels, pp. 150, 154. 227

Notes to pages 1 0 7 - 1 3 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137

138

139

140 141 142 143

Ibid., 147. Paulus Jovius, "History," in Notes upon Russia, 12:246. Herberstein, Notes upon Russia, 12:73. Fekhner, Torgovlia, pp. 44, 75. Ibid., pp. 75, 83. Hakluyt, Principal Navigations 2:449-69 for actual route; for proposed route, p. 459 (1903). Richard Johnson in Hakluyt, Principal Navigations 2:480-1 (1903); Fekhner, Torgovlia, p. 38. Ibid., p. 39. Alexandre Bennigsen and Gilles Veinstein, "La Grande Horde Nogay et le commerce des steppes pontiques (fin XV e -i56o)," article manuscript, p. 4. Kazan'-Nogai trade is indicated by the fact that immediately after the Muscovite conquest of Kazan', Muscovite envoys were sent to the Nogai to encourage them to resume their trade at Kazan'; ibid., p. 30. The bulk of the Nogai livestock consisted of horses, as demonstrated by Bennigsen and Veinstein, "La Grande Horde Nogay," pp. 4-6. In exchange for them, on occasion, the Nogai received slaves from Kazan'; one such instance occurred in 1505 when Khan Mahmed Amin arrested a Muscovite ambassador and Russian merchants, confiscated their property, and sent them to the Nogai; PSRL 12:259. In 1558 Jenkinson remarked of the Nogai, "Use of money they have none, but doe barter their cattell for apparell and other necessaries." Hakluyt, Principal Navigations 2:453 (1903). It is likely that the nature of their trade with Kazan' had been similar. See Alexandre Bennigsen and Chantal Lemercier-Quelquejay, "La Grande Horde Nogay et le probleme des communications entre 1'empire ottoman et l'Asiecentrale en 15 52-1556," Turcica 8 (1976): 215, 218, on Nogai requests for fur from Moscow. Contarini, in Barbaro and Contarini, Travels, p. 151. PSRL 26:264, 12:156. Bennigsen and Veinstein, "La Grande Horde Nogay," pp. 4-7. Ibid., pp. 7-8; Bennigsen and Lemercier-Quelquejay, "La Grande Horde Nogay," p. 205; SIRIO 95:13. 5. The political significance of the fur trade

1 Primary Chronicle, p. 60; PSRL 1:20-1. 0. Pritsak's translation indicates that the brothers' descendants "are living [here] and pay tribute to their [Kii, Shchek, and Khoriv's] kin, [that is] to the Khazars;" Golb and Pritsak, Khazarian Documents, p. 50. 2 PSRL 1:24; Primary Chronicle, pp. 6 0 - 1 ; Berezhkov, 0 torgovle Rusi s ganzoi, p. 2 1 ; Bartol'd, "Arabskie izvestiia," p. 23. 3 PSRL 1:65; Primary Chronicle, p. 84. 4 Ibid. 5 Kendrick, Vikings, p. 62; Vernadsky, Kievan Russia, pp. 24, 33. 6 Sprenger, El-Masudifs Hist. Encyclopedia, pp. 417-20; Pellat, Prairies d'or, 1:166-7; s e e a l s o Bartol'd "Arabskie izvestiia," pp. 24-5, for his discussion of Mas'udi's account and that of Zahir-ud-din Marashi, a fifteenth-century historian from Tabaristan (the region along the southern shore of the Caspian), who also described this incident: 228

Notes to pages 113-14 Crowds of Rus' arrived on ships at Tabaristan, disembarked there, and created great devastation. The Samanids employed all their forces to annihilate them and were completely successful in destroying this enemy.

7 8

9

10 11

12 13 14

It is probable that both the Samanids in the south (despite the fact that they lost their position in Tabaristan) and the Larisians or Muslims of Khazaria were desirous of maintaining their control over Caspian shipping and trade and therefore opposed the Rus' raiders with force. Bartol'd, " Arabskie izvestiia," pp. 3 1 - 3 ; Kendrick, Vikings, p. 162; Vernadsky, Kievan Russia, pp. 34-5. Primary Chronicle, p. 84; PSRL 1:65. Another version of this passage says that Sviatoslav took "the town of the Khazars and Bela Vezha;" see Minorsky, Sharvan and Darband, p. 113. The Iasi and Kasogi are the Ossetians and Cherkess, Caucasian peoples that had been subject to the Khazars; Cross, Notes to Primary Chronicle, p. 240. The fortress of Bela Vezha or Sarkel was constructed by the Byzantines for the Khazars in the second quarter of the ninth century. Located on the left bank of the Don near Stanitsa Tsimlianskaia, it served as a defense post and customs collection point for the Khazars. Berezhkov considers Sviatoslav's attack on this outpost to have been intended to guarantee Rus' access to the Caspian. Artamonov, Istoriia Khazar, pp. 298-9; Bartol'd, "Arabskie izvestiia," p. 23, Berezhkov, 0 torgovle Rusi s ganzoi, p. 17; Runciman, "Byzantine Trade and Industry," p. 92; Dunlop, Jewish Khazars, p. 186; Cross, Notes to Primary Chronicle, p. 240. Bartol'd, "Arabskie izvestiia," pp. 3 4 - 6 ; Ibn Hauqal, Configuration, pp. 382, 384; Kendrick, Vikings, p. 162. See Bartol'd on Bulgar as the chief beneficiary from the demise of the Khazar Empire; Bartol'd "Arabskie izvestiia," p. 36. It may have been at this time that the lower Volga was opened to Bulgar merchants; in the post-Khazar period Bulgar merchants used the lower Volga extensively and by the mid-twelfth century had formed a colony in Saksin. Puteshestvie Abu Khamida, p. 27. Minorsky, Sharvan and Darband, pp. 31-2, 45, 47, and notes to text, pp. 114-15. Minorsky identified the home base of these Rus' as Tmutorokan'. Baikhaki, Istoriia Masuda, p. 568 and Arends in his Notes to the text, p. 868. Within a century the Rus' also lost Tmutorokan' to the Byzantines, who began to display interest in it shortly after the Polovtsy entered the steppe. In 1066 a Byzantine official murdered Prince Rostislav who had seized Tmutorokan' from Gleb Sviatoslavich two years before. Somewhat later, in 1079, the Byzantines again interfered when some Khazar residents of the area (a Khazar population dwelled in the Crimea and on the east coast of the Sea of Azov and Black Sea) took Oleg Sviatoslavich prisoner and turned him over to the Byzantine emperor; Oleg was held at Rhodes for four years. He returned to Tmutorokan' in 1083, having probably concluded an agreement with the emperor to cede his principality to Byzantium. Almost immediately after Oleg gained Chernigov in 1094, Emperor Alexius made some acquisitions on the Taman peninsula. After this date the Russian chronicles made no further mention of Tmutorokan', indicating that it had probably passed out of Russian control. The transfer to Byzantium evidently occurred during the reign of Emperor Alexius, between 1094 and 1118. For a complete discussion of this point, see G. G. Litvarin, "A propos de Tmutorokan," Byzantion 35 (1965); passim. See also Primary Chronicle, pp. 144-5, 168; Litvarin and

229

Notes to pages 115-17

15 16

17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Kazhdan, " Ekonomicheskie i politicheskie otnosheniia," p. 77: Iakobson, Srednevekovyi Krym, pp. 77-8. Reference to the city appears again in the twelfth century, when the Byzantine emperor allegedly granted Genoese merchants special privileges to trade in all his ports with the exception of Rossia and Matracha, which has been identified as Tmutorokan'. Levchenko, Ocherki, p. 436; Novosel'tsev and Pashuto, "Vneshniaia torgovlia," p. 83; Litvarin and Kazhdan, "Ekonomicheskie i politicheskie otnosheniia," p. 78; Runciman, "Byzantine Trade and Industry," pp. 98-9. By the twelfth century part of the former Tmutorokan' principality had fallen under the control of the Georgian Abkhaz dynasty. Novosel'tsev and Pashuto, "Vneshniaia torgovlia," p. 107; Allen, Georgian People, p. 96. Primary Chronicle, p. 60; PSRL 1:21-2. See also I. Sorlin, "Les Traites de Byzance avec la Russie au Xe siecle," Cahiers du monde russe et sovietique 2 (1961): 319-22. Primary Chronicle, p. 6 1 ; PSRL 1:23-4. O. Pritsak has suggested that Oleg did not in fact conquer Kiev, but had his base in Ellipater, Rostov and Liubech. He contends that Kiev was conquered only by Igor. Golb and Pritsak, Khazarian Documents, pp. 6 5 - 7 1 . PSRL 1:29-30. Primary Chronicle, pp. 6 4 - 5 ; PSRL 1:31. For a discussion of the two treaties, their contents, and their relationship to one another, see Sorlin, "Les Traites," pp. 329-60. PSRL 1:44-54; Vernadsky, Kievan Russia, pp. 34-6; Sorlin, "Les Traites," pp. 4 4 7 - 6 5 ; Vailiev, "Byzantium and Old Russia," p. 324. Shepard, "Russian Steppe-Frontier," pp. 221-2. A. L. Iakobson has interpreted Prince Vladimir's seizure of Cherson as an attempt to break a Byzantine monopoly and regain Rus' access to the Black Sea, which he concluded had been lost after a conflict in 970. Srednevekovyi Krym, p. 59. For the marriage incident, see Levchenko, Ocherki, pp. 359-60; Litvarin and Kazhdan, "Ekonomicheskie i politicheskie otnosheniia," p. 70; for the capture of Cherson and its return, see PSRL 1:109-12; Primary Chronicle, pp. 111-12, J 16; for the 970-71 conflict, see PSRL 1:69-73; Sorlin, "Les Traites," pp. 46S-72. J. Shepard, "Some Problems of Russo-Byzantine Relations c. 860-c. 1050," The Slavonic and East European Review 52 (1974); 10, 19-20, 27, PSRL 1:42. No conflicts are reported in the Primary Chronicle. PSRL 1:65-7, 74» 122-3, 127-9, 141-2; Vernadsky, Kievan Russia, pp. 33, 45Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, pp. 49, 51. 53. Vasiliev, "Byzantium and Old Russia," p. 326. In 1068 the Polovtsy were heading for the Dnepr when the Rus' princes engaged them in battle on the Alta river, a confluent of the Trubezh, which enters the Dnepr below Kiev. In 10 71, they raided the towns of Rastovets and Neiatin, located south of Kiev and west of Iur'ev on a tributary of the Ros' river, which enters the Dnepr at Kanev. Their campaign of 1079 was aimed at Voin', a town on the Dnepr south of Pereiaslavl'. In 1092 they captured three towns near Pereiaslavl', all located in the vicinity of the Sula river, an eastern tributary of the Dnepr. The following year on May 26, a major battle took place between the Polovtsy and three Russian princes - Sviatoslav, Vladimir, and Rostislav - on the Stugna river near Trepol', which was located at the mouth of the Stugna, about thirty miles downstream from Kiev on the 230

Notes to pages 118-21

28 29 30 31

32 33 34 35

36

37

38 39 40

Dnepr. Two years later the Polovtsy besieged Iur'ev on the Ros' river; the next year they attacked Kiev twice and also attacked Pereiaslavl' and its environs, including Ust'e, located west of Pereiaslavl' where the Trubezh river joins the Dnepr; the burning of the Ust'e occurred on May 24. See Primary Chronicle, pp. 146, 149, 150, 167, 174, 176, 181-3. For example in 1116 and 1120; see PSRL 1:291-2. Tatishchev, Istoriia Rossiiskaia, 2:95-6. This passage is quoted by Smirnov in Volzhskie Bolgary, p. 44. An abbreviated account of the attack is also contained in PSRL 2:199: "In the same year the Bulgars took Murom." PSRL 1:229; Primary Chronicle, pp. 174, 180, 181; Kuchkin, "Rostovosuzdal'skaia zemlia," pp. 70-4; Nasonov, Russkaia zemlia, pp. 178, 1 8 0 - r ; Vernadsky, Kievan Russia, pp. 87-8, 90. In 1096 Oleg Sviatoslavich seized Murom and killed Vladimir's son Iziaslav. He then went on to invade Rostov-Suzdal', but was thwarted by Mstislav, who returned from Novgorod to expel him from Rostov-Suzdal' and Murom as well. Despite the military outcome of this confrontation, the conference of Rus' princes in 1097 granted Murom to Oleg's brother, Iaroslav, who ruled it until 1123. PSRL 1:236-40: Primary Chronicle, pp. 185-6, 280. 282, 297; Vernadsky, Kievan Russia, p. 89; Kuchkin, "Rostovo-suzdal'skaia zemlia," pp. 73-4Nasonov, Russkaia zemlia, pp. 182-3; Kuchkin, " 0 marshrutakh pokhodov," p. 32; Kuchkin, "Rostovo-suzdal'skaia zemlia," p. 74. PSRL 1:292, 9 : 1 5 1 ; 14:74; Smirnov, Volzhskie Bolgary, p. 44; Kuchkin, " 0 marshrutakh pokhodov," p. 35; Kuchkin, " Rostovo-suzdal'skaia zemlia. p. 75; Grekov, "Volzhskie Bolgary," p. 16. Kuchkin, " 0 marshrutakh pokhodov," p. 36: Kuchkin, "Rostovosuzdal'skaia zemlia," p. 86; Nasonov, Russkaia zemlia, pp. 193-4. A. E. Presniakov, The Formation of the Great Russian State, trans. A. E. Moorhouse (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1970), p. 47. John Fennell. The Crisis of Medieval Russia, 1200-1304 (London and New York: Longman, 1983), pp. 18-19. After 1137, Fennell has noted, Novgorod accepted princes from three competing princely families, based in Smolensk, Chernigov, and Suzdal'. During the remainder of the first half of the twelfth century, it received two of Iurii's sons as its princes: Iaroslav in 1138 and Rostislav in 1141. All three families supplied princes later in the century. NPL, pp. 23, 208, 214; PSRL 1:302; Kuchkin "Rostovo-suzdal'skaiazemlia,' p. 79. The chronicles give little background for the 1134 episode, but the Novgorod version does indicate that the initial foray had been conducted so that Vsevolod, evidently displeased with Iurii's conduct as the new prince in Rostov-Suzdal', could seat his own brother in Suzdal'. NPL, pp. 28, 214; PSRL 1:320, 26:50; Lantzeff, "Russian Eastward Expansion," p. 4; S. M. Solov'ev, Istoriia Rossii s drevneishikh vremen, 29 vols. in 15 parts (St. Petersburg: Obshchestvennaia polza, 1894-5?: reprint ed.. Moscow: Sotsial'no-ekonomicheskaia literatura, 1959-66) 1:412-13; Os'minskii, Ocherki, p. 33; Kuchkin, "Rostovo-suzdal'skaia zemlia," p. 80. PSRL 2:367; Presniakov, Formation, p. 47; see also Syroechkovskii, Gostisurozhane, p. 10; and NPL, pp. 28, 214. Nasonov, Russkaia zemlia, p. 178; see also, for example, Os'minskii, Ocherki, PP. 32, 34Primary Chronicle, pp. 144, 151, 154- See also Kuchkin, "Rostovo-suzdal'skaia zemlia," pp. 69-70. 231

Notes to pages 121-4 41 42 43 44

Os'minskii, Ocherki, p. 31; PRP 2:116-18. PSRL 2:591, 9:244-50; Limonov, "Iz istorii vostochnoi torgovli," p. 60. PRP 2:176; Limonov, "Iz istorii vostochnoi torgovli," p. 60. In 1215, for example, Prince Iaroslav Vsevolodich arrested 150 Novgorodian merchants in Pereiaslavl' Zalesskii; Limonov, "Iz istorii vostochnoi torgovli," p. 60. On "Christians" in Bulgar, see ibid., and Berezhkov, 0 torgovle Rusi s ganzoi, p. 30. 45 See Noonan, " Suzdalia's Eastern Trade," for his discussion on Suzdal's control of commercial traffic through its territory; pp. 378-9. There was nevertheless a decline in the volume of some of Bulgar's exports along this route, for example ceramics and stone and glass beads, during the twelfth century; see Golubeva, "Beloozero," p. 42, and Fekhner, "Nekotorye svedeniia," pp. 49, 52, 53. For a discussion of Rostov's fortifications along the upper Volga, see Kuchkin, " Rostovo-suzdal'skaia zemlia," pp. 80-1. 46 PSRL 1:352, 9:230; Kuchkin, " 0 marshrutakh pokhodov," pp. 36-7; Kuchkin, " Rostovo-suzdal'skaia zemlia," p. 86. 47 Kuchkin has determined the route taken by the Russian armies; "0 marshrutakh pokhodov," p. 37. 48 PSRL 1:364, 2:564-5, 9:247; Kuchkin, "O marshrutakh pokhodov," pp. 37-9. 49 Puteshestvie Abu Khamida, pp. 35-7. 50 PSRL 9:247; Kuchkin, " 0 marshrutakh pokhodov," p. 38; Kuchkin "Rostovo-suzdal'skaia zemlia," p. 87; Smirnov, Volzhskie Bolgary, p. 45. 51 PSRL 1:389-90, 2:625-6, 26:56; Kuchkin, "0 marshrutakh pokhodov," PP- 39-4H Kuchkin, " Rostovo-suzdal'skaia zemlia," p. 89; Smirnov, Volzhskie Bolgary, p. 45. 52 PSRL 1:400; Kuchkin, "O marshrutakh pokhodov," p. 41; Smirnov, Volzhskie Bolgary, p. 46. 53 PSRL 10:50; Kuchkin, "0 marshrutakh pokhodov," p. 41; Smirnov, Volzhskie Bolgary, p. 46. 54 During the second and third decades of the thirteenth century Rostov-Suzdal' and Bulgar engaged in a contest for the allegiance of the Mordva (Burtas), the long-time associates, sometimes enemies, and regular trading partners of Bulgar. This rivalry, which resulted in a split among the Mordva into pro-Suzdal' and pro-Bulgar groups, had not yet been resolved when the Mongols invaded and assumed dominance over the entire area. PSRL 1:449-51,459; Kuchkin, " 0 marshrutakh pokhodov," pp. 44-5; Kuchkin, "Rostovo-suzdal'skaia zemlia," p. 93; Smirnov, Volzhskie Bolgary, p. 48. 55 PSRL 1:502, 10:81; Ardashev, "Letopis'," p. 73; Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, p. 45; "Ustiuzhskii letopisets," 15 September 1873, p. 627. According to Tatishchev, in 1218 "the Bolgars [Bulgars] assembled an army [and] went up the Kama against the Iugra. And there was a bitter battle between them and the Iugra were barely held back. The Bolgars then turning, took their fort Unzha;" Tatishchev, Istoriia Rossiiskaia, 3:307. See also Kuchkin, "Rostovo-suzdal'skaia zemlia," pp. 89-90; Fennell, Crisis, pp. 50-1. 56 Kuchkin, "0 marshrutakh pokhodov," p. 42; Lantzeff. "Russian Eastward Expansion," p. 9; Smirnov, Volzhskie Bolgary, p. 46; Fennell, Crisis, p. 51. 5 7 Ustiug, of course, also dominated the Sukhona-Vychegda traffic. That route would have been significant to Bulgar only if its merchants used it to reach 232

Notes to pages 126-9 the Ves' and Novgorod. Some scholars, Golubeva, for example, have posited its use for inter-Finnic commerce between the Kama river and Lake Ladoga. Nevertheless, archeological discoveries of Bulgar artifacts as well as Bulgar's persistent concern with the upper Volga have demonstrated that it was this river, not the Kama-Vychegda-Sukhona, that Bulgar had relied upon before Rostov's interference to contact the Ves' and northwestern Russians. Golubeva, " Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki," pp. 59-61. 58 PSRL 1:444-5; Kuchkin, " 0 marshrutakh pokhodov," pp. 42, 44; Kuchkin, "Rostovo-suzdal'skaia zemlia," p. 9 3 ; Smirnov, Volzhskie Bolgary, p. 47. The ominous nature of Russian expansion, so evident during the reigns of Andrei and Vsevolod, may have eased under Konstantin, who had quarreled with his father and had gained Novgorod as an ally. But if so, when Konstantin died and was succeeded by his brother and rival Iurii, Russian control of the mouth of the lug again became threatening, provoking Bulgar's response in

1218.

59 PSRL 2:367; Syroechkovskii, Gosti-surozhane, p. 10; Presniakov, Formation, p. 47. 60 NPL, pp. 28, 215; PSRL 4:152 and 9:183. Kuchkin has concluded that the cited confrontation occurred not in Zavoloch'e, but on Rostov's western border; "Rostovo-suzdal'skaia zemlia," pp. 85-6. 61 PSRL 2:509; Lantzeff, "Russian Eastward Expansion," pp. 5-6. 62 NPL, pp. 31, 218; Lantzeff, "Russian Eastward Expansion," p. 5. 63 PSRL 1:353. 64 NPL, pp. 219-20. 65 Presniakov, Formation, p. 4 7 ; Lantzeff, "Russian Eastward Expansion," p. 5. 66 NPL, p. 221. According to the Nikon chronicle (PSRL 9:241), this event occurred not in 1169, but 1171: Danslav Lazutich went from Novgorod to the Dvina for the tribute according to Novgorod custom, and with him were 500 men; at Beloozero they met [a force of) seven thousand three hundred Suzdalians and Riazantsy; a battle ensued, and one thousand three hundred Suzdalians fell, but only 15 Novgorodians and they took the Zavoloch'e tribute and another from the Suzdalians and Riazantsy.

67 68 69 70

71

On this episode, see also Syroechkovskii, Gosti-surozhane, p. 10; Lantzeff, "Russian Eastward Expansion," p. 5; Os'minskii, Ocherki, p. 32. NPL, pp. 221-2; PSRL 9:241-4. NPL, pp. 222-4; Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, p. 44: Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 25 7; Kuchkin," Rostovo-suzdal'skaia zemlia, pp. 8 7-8; Pamiatnaia knizhka Vologodskoi gubernii na 1893 9°d, p. 40. NPL, pp. 225-7; Kuchkin, " Rostovo-suzdal'skaia zemlia," pp. 9 0 - 1 . Fennell, Crisis, pp. 4 5 - 9 ; Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 257. The distinction between the founders of Gleden and Ustiug perhaps explains the mystery in the literature regarding the northeastern Russian foundation of Ustiug so close to and so shortly after the establishment of Gleden. One popular explanation is that the river flooded the Gleden site and forced the population to relocate; but Shliapin has pointed out quite aptly that Gleden not only did not disappear, but had good defenses against both natural threats, such as floods, and human attacks, from which it safely emerged when Ustiug was severely harmed. Shliapin, "Iz istorii goroda," pp. 23-4. Ekzempliarskii, Velikie i udeYnye kniaz'ia, 2 : 1 5 ; Fennell, Crisis, p. 50.

233

Notes to pages 129-34 72 Ibid., 2:15-24; A. Kopanev, Istoriia zemlevladeniia Belozerskogo kraia XV-XVI v. (Moscow: AN SSSR, 1951), p. 14; Os'minskii, Ocherki, p. 43. 73 "Opisanie Spasokamennago, chto na Kubenskom ozere, monastyria," Pribavleniia k Vologodskim eparkhial'nym vedomostiam, 1 January 18 71; V. V. Danilov, " Kadnikovskii uezd Vologodskoi gubernii. Ocherk istorii, geografii, promyshlennosti i byta naseleniia," Sever (1923), pp. 2T6-19; Ekzempliarskii, Velikie i udel'nye kniaz'ia, 2:157. 74 "Opisanie Spasokamennago monastyria," 1 April 1871: Kopanev, Istoriia zemlevladeniia, p. 20; Os'minskii, Ocherki, p. 43. 75 Ekzempliarskii, Velikie i udel'nye kniaz'ia, 2:163-6, Os'minskii, Ocherki, pp. 44, 51; Kopanev, Istoriia zemlevladeniia, pp. 7, 37, 44. 76 Ekzempliarskii, Velikie i udel'nye kniaz'ia, 2:101-2, 104, i n , 113; Platonov, Proshloe, pp. 35, 36, 4 1 ; Platonov, "Nizovskaia kolonizatsiia na severe," in Ocherki po istorii kolonizatsii severa, pp. 5 0 - 3 ; Rozhdestvenskii, "Dvinskie boiare," p. 52. 77 Mikhailov "Ust'vym'," 14 and 21 January 1850, pp. 15, 20; P. K-v, " Rasprostranenie i utverzhdenie Khristianstva v drevnei Permii," Permskie eparkhial'nye vedomosti, 7 February 1868; Ul'ianov, Ocherki, pp. 35-6. 78 Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 257. 79 GVNP, nos. 15, 19, 22, 26, pp. 29, 35, 40, 47; it should be noted, however, that these claims continue through the treaty of 1471, long after the Vychegda Perm' had been transferred to Muscovy. 80 Ekzempliarskii, Velikie i udel'nye kniaz'ia, 2:36-42; Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 257; Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, p. 53; V. L. Ianin, "Bor'ba Novgoroda i Moskvy za Dvinskie zemii v 5o-7okh godakh XV v.," Istoricheskie zapiski 108 (1982): 192-3. His loyalty was demonstrated, among other displays, by contributing troops for Moscow's military campaigns, for instance in 1380 against the Tatars and in 1386 against Novgorod. See Os'minskii, Ocherki, pp. 45, 48, 49 and Ekzempliarskii, Velikie i udel'nye kniaz'ia, 2:40-1, 50.

81 Doronin, "Dokumenty," pp. 257-8. 82 In 1364 Novgorod still had access to and wielded some authority in the Iugra, from which it mounted an expedition to the Ob' region. See PSRL 4 : 2 9 1 ; Oksenov, "Slukhi i vesti," p. 109; Martiushev, "Komi narod," p. 34. 83 Mikhailov, "Ust'vym'," 14 and 28 January 1850, pp. 12-13; Ui'ianov, Ocherki, p. 64. 84 Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 259. 85 Mikhailov, "Ust'vym'," n February 1850, p. 53 86 Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 260. 87 Ibid. According to several chronicles, in 1385-6 Grand Prince Dmitrii launched a punitive expedition against Novgorod. Some relate this campaign to a raid conducted by the Novgorodian Prokopii in 1375 against Iaroslavl' and Kolomna. But it may well have been a response to the more immediate offense perpetrated by Novgorod and cited above. PSRL 26:153-5 and Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, p. 63. NPL does not suggest a motivation for Dmitrii's attack, although it does record the event; pp. 380-1. 88 Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 260; Mikhailov, "Ust'vym'," r8 February 1850, p. 63. 89 Mikhailov, "Ust'vym'," 4 and 18 February 1850. pp. 43, 60. 90 NPL, p. 389; for the charter, see GVNP, no. 88, pp. 144-6 or Medieval Russian Laws, trans. George Vernadsky (New York: Columbia University Press, 1947;

234

Notes to pages 134-5

91 92 93 94 95

96 97 98

99

paperback ed. New York: W. W. Norton, 1969), pp. 57-60. Variations in the report of the 1397 incident appear in Novikov, "Letopisets Dvinskoi," p. 4; PSRL 26:165-6; and Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, p. 66. The reasons for the attempt are not clearly defined in either the chronicles or historical literature. Presniakov, following the implications of the Vologda-Perm' chronicle, considered it related to Lithuanian-Muscovite affairs and their relations with the Teutonic Order. Just before Vasilii's move into the Dvina, Vitovt and Vasilii had jointly requested that Novgorod break its peace with the Germans and adhere to their policy of hostility toward them. Novgorod refused, and Presniakov interpreted Moscow's subsequent action to be part of a Muscovite-Lithuanian plan to divide Novgorod's realm; Presniakov, Formation, pp. 281-2. A very late Ustiug chronicle offers the explanation that "Grand Prince Vasilii Dmitrievich, wishing to pacify the belligerent Novgorodians " seized the Dvina land and Zavoloch'e and thereby deprived Novgorod of the opportunity of receiving "first-hand the product of Sibir', of the Dvina land and of Zavoloch'e... the most valuable goods for trade abroad...; ' Ardashev, "LetopisV p. 276. While this version is compatible with Presniakov's interpretation and appealing in that it provides a basis for Moscow's effort to take away Novgorod's source of supplies intended for trade with the Germans, it is somewhat contradicted by the information presented in the Ustiug chronicles that after Moscow's attack, Novgorod turned to Vitovt of Lithuania for aid. See Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, p. 66; PSRL 26:165-6. NPL, pp. 391-2; Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, p. 66; Rozhdestvenskii. "Dvinskie boiare," pp. 49-50. NPL, p. 392. Ibid., pp. 392-3; Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, pp. 66-7; Rozhdestvenskii, "Dvinskie boiare," p. 50. NPL, p. 393; Rozhdestvenskii, "Dvinskie boiare," p. 50. Os'minskii, Ocherki, pp. 52, 53, 57. Subsequent possession of Vologda is not entirely clear. The region may have been divided between Novgorod and Moscow in the late fourteenth century. It appears to have belonged to the grand prince during the reign of Vasilii Vasil'evich and became an issue in his conflicts with his cousins. But between 1447 and 1459 Novgorod issued to the Troitse-Sergiev monastery grants of trading privileges that demonstrate its possession of Vologda; it ceased to claim the area in treaties after 1456. Mertsalov, Vologodskaia starina, pp. 3 4 - 5 ; Ekzempliarskii. Velikie i udel'nye kniaz'ia, 2:368-9; GVNP, nos. 95, 101, pp. 150-1, 155-6; compare nos. 22 and 26, pp. 39-41, 45-8. NPL, p. 396. Ibid., pp. 396-7. Ibid., pp. 4 0 7 - 8 ; PSRL 26:180; Novikov, "Letopisets Dvinskoi," pp. 6-7; Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, p. 71, more explicitly places initiative for this invasion with Grand Prince Vasilii; Rozhdestvenskii, "Dvinskie boiare," p. 51. According to a late version of the Ustiug chronicle, the people of Ustiug were obliged to pay the Dvina population 8,000 squirrels and 80 sables for damage; "Ustiuzhskii letopisets," 15 October 1873, p. 658. NPL, p. 415; Ardashev, "Letopis'," p. 282; according to the version in Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, the ransom was 50,000 squirrels and fifty-two sorok; p. 73.

235

Notes to pages 1 3 6 - 9 100 Platonov, Russkh sever, p. 36; Platonov, "Nizovskaia kolonizatsiia," p. 50. 101 Rozhdestvenskii placed Rostov ownership of this area in the mid-fourteenth century; "Dvinskie boiare," p. 52. Platonov estimated that Rostov appanage princes held these lands by the early fifteenth century; "Nizovskaia kolonizatsiia," p. 49. Judicial suits for the recovery of these lands are listed in a document dated 1471 and published in AAE 1:73-4 and ASEI 3 : 3 2 - 3 ; no. 16. The princes mentioned in these suits are identified by Ekzempliarskii, Velikie i udel'nye kniaz'ia, 2:54-6. See also lanin, "Bor'ba," p. 196. 102 GVNP, no. 279, p. 180; Zarubin, "Vazhskaia zemlia," pp. 182-3. During the contest for the Dvina land the Vaga region was loyal to Novgorod. 103 GVNP, nos. n o , i n , pp. 1 6 6 - 7 1 ; Zarubin, "Vazhskaia zemlia," pp. 185-6. 104 Vernadsky, Mongols, pp. 299-300; Keenan, "Muscovy and Kazan," pp. 554-5105 PSRL 2 6 : 1 9 1 ; Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, p. 76. 106 Kerner, Urge, pp. 119-20: Several routes went from the Volga along the Kostroma river through Kostroma to the Sukhona river and then to the Dvina; they differed only in the tributaries of the Kostroma and Sukhona they followed and the portages they used to transfer from one river basin to the other. 107 PSRL 26:181-92; Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, pp. 76-8. 108 PSRL 26:205; Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, pp. 8 0 - 1 ; Vernadsky, Mongols, pp. 322-3; Gustave Alef, "The Battle of Suzdal', in 1445. An Episode in the Muscovite War of Succession," Forschungen zur osteuropaischen Geschichte 25 (1978), reprinted in Rulers and Nobles in Fifteenth-Century Muscovy, pp. 18-19; Keenan, "Muscovy and Kazan," p. 555. 109 Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 2 6 1 ; PSRL 26:209; Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, p. 82. n o Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 261. i n In 1445, during Moscow's weakest moments just before Vasilii was held captive by the Kazan' Tatars, Novgorod also sent an unsuccessful expedition to the Iugra, attempting to reimpose tribute payments on that people. NPL, p. 425; Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia, p. 52; C. R. Beazley, "The Russian Expansion towards Asia and the Arctic in the Middle Ages (to 1500)," The American Historical Review 13 (1908): 737. 112 Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 2 6 1 ; PSRL 26:212; Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, pp. 82-3. 113 GVNP, no. 23, p. 42; AAE 1:43-4, no. 58; lanin has concluded that the "Rostov lands," ceded in accordance with this treaty consisted only of Emskaia gora; lanin, "Bor'ba," pp. 193-6. 114 Although Dmitrii Shemiakha gave Vologda to Vasilii Vasil'evich in 1447, Novgorod, as noted above, continued to claim it as late as the Treaty of Iazhelbitsy. 115 AAE 1:73-4; ASEI 3:30-3, nos. 14-16; Shapiro, Agrarnaia istoriia, 1:282-3. 116 ASEI 3:31, no. 15; AAE 1:74-5, no. 94-iii; lanin, "Bor'ba," pp. 197-9. 117 ASEI 3:33-4, no. 17; Shapiro, Agrarnaia istoriia, 1:282; PSRL 26:239-40; lanin, "Bor'ba," p. 199. 118 AAE 1:73-4, no. 94; ASEI 3:32-3, no. 16; Shapiro, Agrarnaia istoriia, 1:283; lanin, "Bor'ba," pp. 200-2. 119 This territory included: Nenoksa, Una, Kniazh Ostrov, Konev Ostrov, Solombala, Terpilov, Velikaia Kuria, and part of Liseostrov near the mouth of the Dvina; one-half of Nal Ostrov, one-half of Kurostrov, one-half of Chukhenema,

236

Notes to pages 139-42 one-half of Ukhtostrov, and Lukii bereg in the Kholmogory region; some tracts south of Kholmogory at the mouth of the Pinega and on the Emtsa, Mekhrenga and Vaimuga; some others above the mouth of the Vaga on the Dvina; lands along the Iumysh, Kodima, Iksa, the upper Toima and on the Pinega. AAE 1:73, no. 94; ASEI 3:30, no. 14; Shapiro, Agrarnaia istoriia,

1:282.

120 "Platezhnye knigi," in TsGADA, f. 137, no. 2, 11. 216-31. The tax rate for monetary fees in the Mezen' region was 101 dengas per obzha; the Pinega rate varied between 60 and 87 dengas per obzha. 121 For instance, Novgorod fought a war against the knights in the mid-1440s and endured a five-year boycott imposed by the Hansa until 1450. NPL, pp. 4 2 3 - 5 ; Dollinger, Hansa, p. 295; Kazakova, " .. .snoshenii Novgoroda s ganzoi," p. 130. 122 Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia, p. 68; Bernadskii, Novgorod, pp. 83, 86, 88; and Danilova, Ocherki, pp. 199-201 noted the same phenomenon, but attributed it to different causes. The reorganization of estates to produce grain may also have been motivated by a ten-year famine in Novgorod ending in 1445. NPL, p. 4 2 5 ; Danilova, Ocherki, p. 20. 123 The conduct of such trade is confirmed by a complaint registered by Vasilii Vasirevich of Moscow to Novgorod charging that Novgorodian merchants had robbed Ivashko Onogorov and Maksimko Gorbatyi of Ustiug of sable and other fur. Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia, pp. 92-3. 124 Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, p. 85. 125 Ibid., pp. 8 4 - 5 ; PSRL 12:112, 26:217; Martin, "Muscovy's Northeastern Expansion," p. 464. 126 Mikhailov, "Ust'vym'," 26 August 1850, p. 390; Budrin, "Ocherk," p. 449; Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 262; Martin, "Muscovy's Northeastern Expansion," p. 464. 127 Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, p. 86; Os'minskii, Ocherki, p. 55. The Vychegda-Vym' chronicle specifies that the tribute was to be paid in sable pelts; Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 262; Martin, "Muscovy's Northeastern Expansion," p. 464. 128 Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, p. 86. Forces from Viatka and Perm' also attacked the Voguly and captured their leader, Asyka. A. Oksenov, "Politicheskiia otnosheniia Moskovskago gosudarstva k lugorskoi zemle (1455-1499)," Zhurnal ministerstva narodnago prosveshcheniia 273(1891): 252; Bakhrushin, "Osnovye linii," p. 258; Martin, "Muscovy's Northeastern Expansion," pp. 4 6 4 - 5 . 129 PSRL 12:121, 26:224. 130 PSRL 26:226; Vernadsky, Mongols, p. 100. 131 PSRL 26:224; Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, p. 87. 132 Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 262. 133 Ibid.; Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, pp. 89-90; PSRL 26:244; Martin, "Muscovy's Northeastern Expansion," p. 465. 134 PSRL 12:189 and 26:257; Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, p. 92; Martin, "Muscovy's Northeastern Expansion," p. 465. 135 PSRL 1 2 : 1 5 8 ; L. V. Cherepnin, Obrazovanie russkogo tsentralizovannogo gosudarstva v XIV-XV vekakh (Moscow: Sotsial'no-ekonomicheskaia literatura, i960), p. 379. 136 Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 262; Martin, "Muscovy's Northeastern Expansion," pp. 465-6.

237

Notes to pages 1 4 2 - 9 137 Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 262; Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, p. 94. 138 PSRL 26:275-6; Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 263; Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, p. 94; Bakhrushin, "Osnovye linii," p. 259; Martin, "Muscovy's Northeastern Expansion," p. 466. 139 PSRL 26:276-7; Bakhrushin, "Osnovye linii," pp. 259-60. Not all the Koda princes subscribed to the settlement; Liaba, for example, was one who neither participated in the alliance nor recognized Moldan's leadership. 140 Doronin, "Dokumenty," pp. 243-7. 141 Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, p. 95; Doronin, "Dokumenty, ' p. 263. 142 Vernadsky, Dawn, p. 81. 143 PSRL 12:219, 26:278. 144 Barbaro in Travels, p. 33. 145 Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, p. 97; PSRL 26:279; Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 263. 146 PSRL 12:242-3, 249-50, 2 6 : 2 9 0 - 9 1 ; Novikov, "LetopisetsDvinskoi," p. 9; Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, p. 100; Bazilevich, Vneshniaia politika, pp. 397-402; Doronin, "Dokumenty," p. 264; Miller, Istoriia Sibiri, pp. 202-3; Bakhrushin, "Osnovye linii," p. 259; Martin "Muscovite Relations," p. 445; Martin, "Muscovy's Northeastern Expansion," p. 467. 147 Veriaminov-Zernov, Issledovaniia, 1:193; PSRL 1 3:2-6, 26:297-8. 148 Serbina, Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod, p. 102; Doronin, "Dokumenty, ' p. 264. 149 Ibid.; Krupenin, "Kratkii istoricheskii ocherk," p. 16. 150 For a discussion of this rivalry, see Martin, "Muscovite Relations," pp. 447-53151 Miller, Istoriia Sibiri, p. 209; Istoriia Sibiri, 1:371; Krupenin, "Kratkii istoricheskii ocherk," p. 16; P. N. Pavlov, Pushnoi promysel v Sibiri XVII v (Krasnoiarsk: Krasnoiarskii gosudarstvennyi pedagogicheskii institut, 1972), p. 57; Vvedenskii, Dom Stroganovykh, p. 75; PSRL 13:248. The tribute sent in 1555 was smaller than normal because Sibir' was suffering from Shaibanid attacks, but under pressure it sent the full amount. 152 SIRIO 41:155-6, 161-3; Berindei, "Contribution," p. 399; Fennell. Ivan, p. 187. The losses claimed by the Ottomans as a result of the ban on trade amounted to 160,000 Ottoman altins; SIRIO 41 155-6. Fennell calculated that this was equal to 20,000 rubles; but according to the 1580 exchange rate of 5 altin to 4 rubles, it was 128,000 rubles. Fennell, Ivan. p. 187; Berindei, "Contribution," p. 400; Fekhner, Torgovlia, p. 85. 153 Fekhner, Torgovlia, p. 15; Berindei, "Contribution," p. 398; Bennigsen and Lemercier-Quelquejay, "Les Marchands," pp. 273-5. 154 For discussions of the 1492-4 war and political issues involved, see Fennell, Ivan, pp. 132-53, and Bazilevich, Vneshniaia politika, pp. 298-337. 155 Vernadsky, Dawn, p. 91. 156 SIRIO 41:231-6, 241-9; Syroechkovskii. "Puti, ' p. 201. 157 SIRIO 35:220-2, 224. 158 Berindei, "Contribution," p. 398. 159 SIRIO 35:42, 44-5> 64-5. 160 SIRIO 95:227-8. 161 Fekhner, Torgovlia, p. 10.

238

Notes to pages 151-6 6. The economic significance of the fur trade 1 The Liibeck toll book lists ships and cargoes that entered Liibeck in the year 1368; but this was a year in which trade with Novgorod was banned, and only two ships bearing fur from Reval arrived in the spring, when the purchases from the winter fur trading season in Novgorod would normally be arriving. See Lechner, Die Hansischen Pfundzollisten, pp. 84-6. 2 According to the cadastres and the payment books, the obzha was the unit used as the rent base by both Novgorod and Muscovite officials. If, however, the rent is calculated on the basis of adult males, then each male paid an average of 6.34 squirrel pelts or an equivalent in cash to his landlord. (Sixteen hundred and fifty-five males paid 6,616 pelts plus a cash substitute of 5,430 d. for 3,789 squirrel pelts; see Table 4). Although Fefilatov's estate in Pelushkii pogost produced thirty squirrel pelts, this amount was relatively so insignificant that his estate is not considered to be fur-producing and his ninety-five obzhas are not counted in the total of 700. If the thirty pelts supplied from his estate are correspondingly ignored, the figure of 6,616 is reduced to 6,586. 3 As noted above, this figure is drawn from the equivalency of 1,389 squirrel pelts to 9 rubles or 1,944 dengas, given in the cadastre. One Novgorodian ruble was equal to 216 dengas. 4 PKOP, p. iii. 5 The peasants on the Glukhov estate in Shungskii pogost paid 66 percent of their rent in agricultural products; those in Khoigushskii paid approximately 33 percent, Khotslavrskii, approximately 25 percent, and Pelushskii, 47 percent. In Oshtinskii pogost only 5 percent was paid in grain; Vytegorskii, 13 percent; and Venitskii, 18 percent. 6 Data corresponding to some found in Table 5 are cited in other studies; see for example, Shapiro, Agrarnaia istoriia, 2:243, Table 109; M. V. Vitov, Istohko-geograflcheskie ocherki Zaonezh'ia XVI-XVII vekov (Moscow: MGU,

1962), pp. 104,105. Some of thefigurespresented elsewhere, however, differ from those in Table 5. Thosefiguresseem to include data for populations on estates, for which there are no figures for the Novgorodian period. Because the data in Table 5 are being used for purposes of establishing a base for estimating Obonezh'e rents in the fifteenth century, only 1563 population data pertaining to those estates that are known to have participated in the fur supply system are included. The decrease in obzhas corresponds to that noted in Shapiro's study (7-33 percent); Shapiro, Agrarnaia istoriia, 2:245. 7 In making this assumption it is important to note that only in Shungskii, the more heavily agricultural pogost, did the population and number of obzhas increase between 1496 and 1563. Where other forms of economic activity predominated, these factors declined. It is safe to assume that most of the eighty-one pogosts resembled the non-agricultural or less agricultural pogosts more closely than they resembled Shungskii. 8 At least one dozen Novgorodian boyar and four local boyar families are known to have owned populated estates in the Emtsa region. In the Kargopol' district, 101 obzhas are similarly identified as formerly belonging to boyars. 9 The number of obzhas used here is derived from the total number of tax-paying obzhas (919), excluding thirty-seven that were attached to ecclesiastical institutions and not subject to the belka, but adding 180 more that, at the time the book was compiled, were temporarily excluded from taxation. 239

Notes to pages

156-62

10 It is not clear just when the tax in squirrel was converted to cash payments. If this occurred during the Novgorodian period, the peasants on these lands, as those who lived on private boyar estates, were nevertheless supplying almost the same number of pelts to the market to obtain cash as they would otherwise have been supplying to the treasury. 11 The number of obzhas includes all those for which the group of taxes stated in the text was assessed; it excludes obzhas attached to ecclesiastical institutions, which did not pay the belka tax. 12 For examples of dispositions of boyar holdings, see GVNP, nos. 90, 292, 298, 299, pp. 147, 242, 296. The tax payment books show that while the monastery lands were subjected to the gornostal they did not pay the belka; this sixteenth-century practice probably stemmed from earlier custom. 13 NPL, p. 415 14 AAE 1:75, no. 94. 15 Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia, p. i n ; HR, part 1, vol. 8, no. 960, p. 628. 16 Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia, p. 112; Kunze, Hanseakten, pp. 249-55; HR, part 1, vol. 5, no. 442, pp. 347-50. 17 Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia, p. 112; LECUB 4:717, no. 1834. 18 Veale, English Fur Trade, pp. 69-70, 76, 134, 158-9. 19 Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia, p. 114; LECUB 9:512, no. 724. 20 Khoroshkevich estimated that 500,000 pelts were sold in Novgorod annually; Torgovlia, p. 52 21 Prices in Novgorod are found in Lesnikov, "Torgovye otnosheniia," p. 276. 22 Lesnikov also determined that 1 R. = 1 Flemish livre; "Torgovlia pushninoi," p. 86. From Sattler's data on the Order's transactions it is clear that one Flemish livre was at this time equal to 3.5 Prussian marks; see Sattler, Die Handelsrechnungen, p. 261, where 210 Flemish shillings or 10.5 livre = 37 Pr.M. and 165 shillings or 8.25 livre = 28.87 Pr.M. 23 Lesnikov also calculated prices in Novgorod for klezemes, but this type of squirrel came from the Kliaz'ma region not from Novgorodian estates; the "estate" value in that region is unknown and the profit cannot be determined in the same manner employed for the Novgorodian types of squirrel. 24 If it is assumed that Novgorod prices in 1406 were similar to those of 1403, it is possible to calculate the profits made in Novgorod on the fur traded by Hildebrand Veckinchusen in 1406. That year he sold 42,741 fur pelts in Bruges. Of those 31,450 were probably purchased in Novgorod. The markup on the sale of this fur ranged from 18 to 49 percent and averaged 39 percent. These figures are taken from Lesnikov, "Torgovaia kniga," pp. 151-2. The assumption on the similarity of prices is based on price information taken from ibid., pp. 146-51; Lesnikov, "Torgovye otnosheniia," pp. 274-5; Sattler, Die Handelsrechnungen, pp. 258-61. It is important to note while making these comparisons that the price differences in various western European cities were very small, in some cases negligible. See Lesnikov, "Torgovye otnosheniia," pp. 276-8; Lesnikov, "Ltibeck als Handelsplatz fur Osteuropaische Waren im 15 Jahrhundert," Hansische Geschichtsbldtter 78 (i960): 76-80, 86. Profits were evidently hidden in exchange rates and varying standards of weights and measures. See I. E. Kleinenberg, "Tseny, ves i pribyl' v posrednicheskoi torgovle tovarami russkogo eksporta v XlV-nachale XV v.," in Ekonomicheskie sviazi Pribaltiki s Rossiei, pp. 32-46. 25 The profitability on the sale of fur increases when one considers that the rent or estate value of the pelts already included a profit for the estate owner. 240

Notes to pages 1 6 3 - 4 26 Roublev, "Mongol Tribute/' pp. 31, 56; Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia, p. 297. Roublev's calculations pertain to the vykhod, which he considered an annual tribute to the Horde. While Novgorod's income from the sale of squirrel fur is substantial compared to Roublev's estimate of the vykhod, that income becomes even more important if it is assumed, as it has been by many other scholars, that the vykhod was an occasional, not an annual, payment to the Horde. 27 NPL, pp. 98, 341, 459; Khoroshkevich, Torgovlia, p. 296. 28 Throughout this discussion treasury income derived from participation in trade has been considered exclusively. It is important to note, however, that the Novgorod treasury also benefited indirectly through transit fees and taxes on trade transactions. In Vytegorskii pogost, it is known that peasants paid a special tax for the right to monopolize transport of goods across a certain portage; in 1496 this tax of 2 rubles was paid to the grand prince, but it was probably paid to Novgorod in previous years; PKOP, p. 17. Novgorod normally collected a number of fees on the transport of goods as well. These are reflected in an immunity charter granted in the mid-fifteenth century to the TroitseSergiev monastery; the charter exempted the monastery's traders traveling by cart or boat from payments at Vologda on the Dvina, at Kholmogory, and at Nenoksa of the gostinaia (or gostinoe, a levy assessed on merchants for their use of the marketplace) and of a variety of other poshliny or fees. See GVNP, no. 95, pp. 1 5 0 - 1 ; the charter was modified in 1476-7; GVNP, no. 101, pp. 155-6. Other merchants did have to pay these fees. Although it is impossible to determine the income derived from them or the portion that might be attributed to the transport and trade of fur, it is important to bear in mind that the Novgorodian treasury received income from these indirect taxes on the fur trade. On these fees see Zlotnik, "Immunity Charters," pp. 191, 196. 30 Vvedenskii, Dom Stroganovykh, pp. 75-6; Pavlov, Pushnoi promysel, p. 57; Istoriia Sibiri 1:371; Miller, Istoriia Sibiri, p. 209. 31 This was the rate applied to the Sorykad Iugra in 15 5 7; TsGADA, f. 199, prtf, 127, no. 11 and f. 197, prtf. 3, d. 46; the document is mentioned by Pavlov, Pushnoi promysel p. 57, and Bakhrushkin, "Osnovye linii," p. 260. 32 A few extraordinary payments are known. For example, the population of Perm' Velikaia paid an additional 640 sable pelts in 1472, and when Ermak conquered Sibir', he seized 2,000 sable, fifty beaver, and twenty fox. But corresponding figures for the normal tribute are unknown. Mikhailov, "Ust'vym'," 2 September 1850, p. 4 0 3 ; Pavlov, Pushnoi promysel p. 55. 33 In 1490, for example, a group of Tver' merchants traveling in Lithuania lost one-half of their goods. The diplomatic records itemize the merchandise, which included 29,000 Ustiug and Chuvash squirrel pelts, 4,000 other squirrel pelts, nine sorok sable, nineteen good sable, 3,000 fox and various other types of fur and products. But the value of all these goods is stated in total, in this case 995 Moscow rubles. SIRIO 35:44-5. 34 Herberstein, Notes upon Russia, 10:109, 114. 35 V. M. Potin, "Maloizvestnyi inostrannyi istochnik o monetakh, tsenakh, i merakh v Rossii nachala XVI veka," Proshloe nashei rodiny v pamiatnikakh numizmatiki - sbornik statei (Leningrad: Avrora, 1977), p. 206. 36 Fekhner, Torgovlia, p. 61 37 A. Vvedenskii, Torgovyi dom XVI-XV1I vv. Sbornik dokumentov (Leningrad:

Put' k znaniiu, 1924), pp. 92-4.

241

Notes to pages 1 6 5 - 6 38 Fekhner, Torgovlia, p. 85. 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid.; Berindei, "Contribution," p. 400; Bennigsen andLemercier-Quelquejay, "Les Marchands," p. 370. 41 A. G. Man'kov, Tseny i ikh dvizhenie v russkom gosudarstve XVI veka (Moscow and Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1951), pp. 99-100. The wholesale price of squirrel rose from 1.4 dengas per pelt to 3 dengas per pelt between the time of the staroepis'mo recorded in the 1496 PKOP and the 15 50s. Ermine similarly rose from 2.7 dengas per pelt to between 5 and 7 dengas per pelt. These figures are taken from the cadastre for 1496; the payment books; Sattler, Die Handelsrechnungen, p. 391; Fekhner, Torgovlia, p. 61; and Potin " Maloizvestnyi istochnik", p. 206. 42 The relatively low rate of profit on sales in Moscow may have been a factor contributing to the decision of Muscovite merchants to travel abroad to sell their sable, ermine, marten and other fur in the last quarter of the fifteenth and first quarter of the sixteenth centuries. 43 The belka tax from Kargopol' was 148 R., and from Turchesov, 274 R. The calculated belka tax from the two divisions of the Dvina land was 260 to 300 R. for the first division, and 163 to 183 R. for the second. To these figures have been added the monetary equivalent of the squirrels paid from Obonezhskaia piatina; calculations presented above show that 22,550 to 23,750 pelts were collected from nineteen pogosts; at 3 dengas per pelt, they were worth 338.25 to 356.25 rubles for nineteen pogosts or 1,470 to 1,549 R- f°r the entire piatina.

242

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Archival Materials Moscow, USSR. Tsentral'nyi gosudarstvennyi arkhiv drevnykh aktov. Fond 137. Boiarskie i gorodovye knigi. Fond 197. A. F. Malinovskii. Fond 199. G.F. Miller. Leningrad, USSR. Akademiia Nauk SSSR. Leningradskoe otdelenie instituta istorii. Kollektsiia 174. Akty do 1613 g. Fond 77. Kurostrovskaia volostnaia zemskaia izba. Published Materials Abram, A. English Life and Manners in the Later Middle Ages. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1913. Abu Khamid al-Garnati. Puteshestvie Abu Khamida al-Garnati v vostochnuiu i tsentral'nuiu Evropu (1131-1153 gg.). Translated with introduction by 0. G. Bol'shakov and with commentary by A. L. Mongait. Moscow: Vostochnaia literatura, 19 71. Adam of Bremen. History of the Archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen. Translated by Francis J. Tschan. New York: Columbia University Press, 1959. Adelung, Friedrich von. Kritiko-literaturnoe obozrenie puteshestvennikov po Rossii do 1700 g.i ikh sochinenii, 2 Vols. in 1. Moscow: Imperatorskoe obshchestvo istorii i drevnostei rossiiskikh pri Moskovskom universitete, 1864. Agadzhanov, S. G. Ocherki istorii Oguzov i Turkmen Srednei Azii IX-XII1 vv. Ashkabad: Ylym, 1969. Seldzhukidy i Turkmeniia v XI-XII vv. Ashkabad: Ylym, 1973. Akty feodal'nogo zemlevladeniia i khoziaistva XIV-XVI vekov, 3 Vols. Moscow: Akademia Nauk SSSR, 1951. Akty istoricheskie, 5 Vols. St. Petersburg: Arkheograficheskaia komissiia, 1841-2. Akty istoricheskie. Dopolneniia, 12 Vols. St. Petersburg: Arkheograficheskaia komissiia, 1846-72. Akty, sobrannye v bibliotekakh i arkhivakh Rossiiskoi Imperii arkheograflcheskoiu ekspeditsieiu imperatorskoi akademii nauk, 4 Vols. St. Petersburg: Tipografiia II otdeleniia Sobstvennoi E. I. V. Kantseliarii, 1836. Akty sotsiaVno-ekonomicheskoi istorii severo-vostochnoi Rusi, 3 Vols. Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR and Nauka, 1952-64. Alef, Gustave. "The Battle of Suzdal' in 1445. An Episode in the Muscovite War of Succession." Forschungen zur osteuropdischen Geschichte 25 (1978): 11-20. Reprinted as section 2 of Rulers and Nobles in Fifteenth-Century Muscovy. London: Variorum Reprints, 1983.

243

Bibliography "The Origin and Early Development of the Muscovite Postal Service." Jahrbucher fixr Geschichte Osteuropas, neue Folge 15 (1967): 1-15. Reprinted as section 8 of Rulers and Nobles in Fifteenth-Century Muscovy. Alekseev, M. P. Sibir' v izvestiiakh zapadnoevropeiskikh puteshestvennikov

i pisatelei,

2nd ed. Irkutsk: Ogiz. Irkutskoe oblastnoe izdatel'stvo, 1932. Allen, W. E. D. A History of the Georgian People. London: Kegan Paul, Trench Trubner, 1932. Aminova, R. Kh., ed. Istoriia Uzbekskoi SSR, 4 Vols. Tashkent: Fan, 1967-8. Andersson, Ingvar. A History of Sweden. Translated by Carolyn Hannay. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1956. Andreevskii, I. E. 0 dogovore Novgoroda s nemetskimi gorodami i Gotlandom, zakliu-

chennom v 1270 godu. St. Petersburg: Tipografiia Iakova Treia, 1855. Anuchin, D. N. "K istorii oznakomleniia s Sibiriu do Ermaka." Drevnosti. Trudy Moskovskogo arkheologicheskogo obshchestva, 1 4 ( 1 8 9 0 ) : 2 2 7 - 3 1 3 •

Ardashev, Vasilii, compiler. "Letopis' semisotletniago sushchestvovaniia goroda Ustiuga-velikogo." Vologodskie gubernskie vedomosti, 30 M a r c h - 19 October 1857. Arsenev, F. A. Zyriane i ikh okhotnichi promysly. Moscow: N. A. Dmitriev and M. N. Vladykin, 1873. Artamonov, M. I. Istoriia Khazar. Leningrad: Gosudarstvennyi Ermitazh. rg62. Artsikhovskii, A. V. and Tikhomirov, M. N. Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste. Vol. 1. Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1953. Ashtor, E. A Social and Economic History of the Near East in the Middle Ages. Berkeley.

Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1976. Atlas okhotnich'ikh i promyslovykh ptits i zverei SSSR, 2 Vols. Edited by B. S. Vino-

gradov, G. A. Novikov and L. A. Portenko. Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, I953-

Attman, Arthur. The Russian and Polsih Markets in International Trade, 1 5 0 0 - 1 6 5 0 .

Publications of the Institute of Economic History of Gothenburg University, 26. Translated by Eva and Allen Green. Gothenburg: Kungsbacka, 1973. Baikhaki, Abu-1-fazl (Bayhaki). Istoriia Masuda. Translated by A. K. Arends. 2nd ed. Moscow: Nauka, 1969. Baker, Robert Lawrence. "The Dvina Documents of the Fifteenth Century." Ph.D dissertation, University of Michigan, 1962. Bakhrushin, S. V. " Istoricheskie izuchenie narodov severa." In Nauchnye trudy, Vol. 3, part 2, pp. 225-35. Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1955. Ocherki po istorii kolonizatsii Sibiri v XVI-XVII vv. Moscow: M. and S. Sabashni-

kov, 1928. "Osnovye linii istorii obskikh ugorov." Uchenye zapiski LGU, 105 (1948): 257-87. "Ostiatskie i vogul'skie kniazhestva v XVI-XVII vv." In Nauchnye trudy, Vol. 3, part 2, pp. 86-152. Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1955. "Puti v Sibir' v XVI-XVII vv." In Nauchnye trudy, Vol. 3, part 1, pp. 72-136. Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1955. Balard, M. Genes et Voutre-mer. I: Les Actes de Caffa du notaire Lamberto di Sambuceto,

1289-1290. Paris and The Hague: Mouton, 1973. Barbier de Maynard, C. "Le Livre des routes et des provinces." Journal Asiatique Vol. 5, series 6 (1865): 5-127. Barbier de Maynard, C. and Pa vet de Courteille, translators, Les Prairies d'or, by Macoudi (al-Mas'udi). 9 Vols. Paris: Imprimerie imperiale, 1861-1917. 244

Bibliography Barbaro, Josafa and Contarini, Ambrogio. Travels to Tana and Persia, Works issued by the Hakluyt Society, Vol. 49. Translated by William Thomas and S. A. Roy. London: Printed for the Hakluyt Society, 1873; reprint ed.. New York: Burt Franklin, n.d. Barthold, V. V. (V. V. Bartol'd). "A History of the Turkman People (An Outline)." In Four Studies on the History of Central Asia, 3: 75-170. Translated by V. and T. Minorsky. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1962. Barthold, W. (V. V. Bartol'd). Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion. Translation by author and E. J. W. Gibb. E. J. W. Gibb Memorial Series, new series, Vol. 5. 2nd ed. London: Luzac, 1928. Bartol'd, V. V. "Arabskie izvestiia o Rusakh." Sovetskoe vostokovedenie 1 (1940): 15-50. Istoriia izucheniia vostoka v Evrope i Rossii. 2nd ed., Leningrad: n.p., 1925. "Novoe musurmanskoe izvestie o Russkikh." Zapiski vostochnogo otdeleniia imperatorskogo russkogo arkheograflcheskogo obshchestva 9 (1896): 262-7. '' Otchet o poezdke v Sredniuiu Aziiu s nauchnoiu tsel'iu v 18 9 3-18 94 gg.'' Zapiski imperatorskoi akademii naukpo istoriko-fllologicheskomu otdeleniiu Vol. 1, series 8(1897): 1-151. Sochineniia, 9 Vols. in 10 parts. Moscow: Vostochnaia literatura, 1963-77. Bautier, Robert-Henri. "Les Relations economiques des occidentaux avec les pays d'Orient au moyen age. Points de vue et documents." Societes et compagnies de commerce en orient et dans Yocean Indien. Actes de Huitieme Colloque International d'Histoire Maritime. Beirut: 5-10 September, 1966. Paris: SEVPEN, 1970. Bazilevich, K. V. Vneshniaia politika russkogo tsentralizovannogo gosudarstva; vtoraia polovina XV veka. Moscow: Akademia Nauk SSSR, 1952. Beazley, C. Raymond. "The Russian Expansion towards Asia and the Arctic in the Middle Ages (to 1500).'' The American Historical Review 13 (1908): 731-41. ed. The Texts and Versions of John de Piano Carpini and William de Rubruquis, as printed for the first time by Hakluyt in 1598. London: Printed for the Hakluyt Society, 1903. Bennigsen, Alexandre and Lemercier-Quelquejay, Chantal. "La Grande Horde Nogay et le probleme des communications entre 1'empire ottoman et l'Asie centrale en 1552-1556." Turcica 8 (1976): 203-36. "Le Khanat de Crimee au debut du XVI siecle de la tradition mongole a la suzerainete ottomane." Cahiers du monde russe et sovietique 13 (1972): 321-37. "Les Marchands de la cour ottomane et le commerce des fourrures moscovites dans la seconde moitie du XVI siecle." Cahiers du monde russe et sovietique 11 (1970): 363-90. Bennigsen, Alexandre and Veinstein, Gilles. "La Grande Horde Nogay et le commerce des steppes pontiques (fin XV e -is6o)." (Duplicated manuscript.) Bennigsen, Elisabeth. "Contribution a l'etude du commerce des fourrures russes. La route de la Volga avant l'invasion mongole et le royaume des Bulghars." Cahiers du monde russe et sovietique 19 (1978): 385-400. Berezhkov, M. 0 torgovle Rusisganzoido kontsa XV v. St. Petersburg: V. Bezobrazov, 1879. Berindei, Mihnea. "Contribution a l'etude du commerce ottoman des fourrures moscovites: la route moldavo-polonaise, 1453-1700." Cahiers du monde russe et sovietique 12 (1971): 393-409.

245

Bibliography Berindei, Mihnea and Veinstein, Gilles. "La Tana-Azaq, de la presence italienne a l'emprise ottomane (fin Xllleme-milieu XVIeme siecle)." Turcica 8 (1976): 110-203.

Bernadskii, V. N. Novgorod i Novgorodskaia zemlia v XV veke. Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1961. Berry, Lloyd E. and Crummey, Robert O., editors. Rude and Barbarous Kingdom. Madison, Milwaukee, and London: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1968. Birnbaum, Henrik. Lord Novgorod the Great. Essays in the History and Culture of a Medieval City-State. Part I: Historical Background. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers, 1981. Biruni, Abu Reikhan. Izbrannye proizvedeniia, 6 Vols. in 7 parts. Tashkent: Fan, !957-76. Vol. 3: Geodeziia. Translated by P. G. Bulgakov. Bochkarev, V. N. Moskovskoe gosudarstvo XV-XVII vv. po skazaniiam sovremennikovinostrantsev. St. Petersburg: Energiia, 1914. Boiarshinova, Z. la. Naselenie zapadnoi Sibiri do nachala russkoi kolonizatsii. Tomsk: Tomskii universitet, 1961. Boiarshinova, Z. la. and Stepanov, N. N. "Zapadnaia Sibir' v XIV-XV vv." In Materialy po drevnei istorii SibirL Drevniaia Sibir', pp. 475-503. Ulan-Ude: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1964. Bosworth, C. E. "The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World." In The Saljuq and Mongol Periods. Vol. 5 of Cambridge History of Iran, pp. 1-202. Edited by J. A. Boyle. Cambridge: University Press, 1968. Bratianu, Georges. "La Mer noire des origines a la conqueste ottomane.' Acta Historica 9 (1969). Bronsted, Johannes. The Vikings. Translated by Kaile Skov. Baltimore, Md.: Penguin Books, 1965. Browne, Edward G. A Literary History of Persia, 4 Vols. Cambridge: University Press, 1929. Bruns, Friedrich. "Die Liibeckischen Pfundzollbiicher von 1492-1496." Hansische Geschichtsbldtter 11 (1905): 107-31 and 14 (1908): 357-407. Brutzkus,}. "Trade with Eastern Europe, 800-1200." Economic History Review 13 (1943): 31-41Budrin, E. "Ocherk istorii Permskoi eparkhii." Permskie eparkhial'nye vedomosti, 1 May-13 November, 1868. Bulkin, V. A. "The Classification and Interpretation of Archeological Material from the Gnezdovo Cemetery." Norwegian Archeological Review 6 (1973): 10-13. Bushkovitch, Paul. The Merchants of Moscow, 1580-1650. London, New York, New Rochelle, Melbourne, Sydney: Cambridge University Press, 1980. "Taxation, Tax Farming, and Merchants in Sixteenth Century Russia." Slavic Review 37 (1978): 381-98. Cahen, Claude, "Le commerce anatolien au debut du XIIP siecle." In Melanges d'histoire du moyen age dedies a la memoire de Louis Halphen, pp. 91-101. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1951. Canard, M. "Le relation du voyage d'lbn Fadlan chez les Bulgares de la Volga." Annales de Ylnstitut a"Etudes Orientales 16 (1958): 41-145. Chadwick, N. K. The Beginnings of Russian History: An Enquiry into Sources. Cambridge: University Press, 1946; reprinted 1966. Chaev, N. S. "Dvinskaia ustavnaia tamozhenaia otkupnaia gramota i 5 6 o g . " Letopisf zaniatii postoiannoi istoriko-arkheograficheskoi komissii 34 (1927): 199-203. 246

Bibliography "Severnye gramoty XVv." Letopis' zaniatii postoiannoi istoriko-arkheograficheskoi komissii 35 (1927-8): 121-65. Cheboksarov, N. N. "Etnogenez Komi po dannym antropologii." Sovetskaia etnograflia 2 (1946): 51-80. "Etnogenez Komi v svete antropologicheskikh dannykh." Kratkie soobshcheniia 0 dokladakh i polevykh issledovanniiakh instituta istorii materialnoi kuVtury 9

(1941): 54-8.

Cherepnin, L. V. Novgorodskie berestianye gramoty kak istoricheskii istochnik. Moscow: Nauka 1969. Obrazovanie russkogo tsentralizovannogo gosudarstva v XIV-XV vekakh. Moscow: Sotsial'no-ekonomicheskaia literatura, i 9 6 0 . Chernetsov, V. N. "Ocherk etnogeneza Obskikh Iugrov." Kratkie soobshcheniia 0 dokladakh ipolevykh issledovaniiakh instituta istorii material' noi kul'tury 9(1941):

18-28.

Christiansen, Eric. The Northern Crusades: The Baltic and the Catholic Frontier, 1100-1525. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1980. Constantine Porphyrogenitus. De Administrando Iniperio. Greek text edited by Gy. Moravcsik with English translation by R. J. H. Jenkins. New, revised edition. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, 1967. Cross, Samuel Hazzard and Sherbowitz-Wetzor, Olgerd P., trans, and ed. The Russian Primary Chronicle, Laurentian Text. Cambridge, Mass.: The Medieval Academy of America, 1953. Cutts, Edward L. Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages. London: Virtue, 1886. Danilov, V. V. " Kadnikovskii uezd Vologodskoi gubernii. Ocherk istorii, geografii, promyshlennosti i byta naseleniia." Sever (1923): 215-62. Danilova, L. V. Ocherki po istorii zemlevladeniia i khoziaistva v Novgorodskoi zemle v XIV-XV vv. Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1955. Davidson, H.R.Ellis. The Viking Road to Byzantium. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1976. Day, Gerald W. "The Impact of the Third Crusade upon Trade with the Levant." The International History Review 3 (1981): 159-68. "Manuel and the Genoese: A Reappraisal of Byzantine Commercial Policy in the Late Twelfth Century." Journal of Economic History 37 (1977): 289-301. Defremery, C. and Sanguinetti, B. R., translators. Voyages d'lbn Batoutah, 4 Vols. Paris: Societe Asiatique, 1853-8. Dejevsky, N. J. "The Varangians in Soviet Archeology Today." Medieval Scandinavia 10 (1977): 7-34. Delort, Robert. Le Commerce des fourrures en Occident a la fin du moyen age, 2 Vols. Palais Farnese: Ecole Francaise de Rome, 1978. Dmitriev, A. A. "K voprosu o vzaimnom otnoshenii eparkhii Permskoi i Velikopermskoi." Permskiia eparkhial'nye vedomosti, 16 April 1889. Ocherki iz istorii gubernskago goroda Permi s osnovaniia poseleniia do 184s goda, s phlozheniem letopisigoroda Permi s 184s do 1890 goda. Perm': Tipografiia P. F. Kamenskago, 1889. Permskaia starina, 7 Vols. Perm': Tipografiia P. F. Kamenskago, 1889-97. "Sledy russkikh poselenii v Permi Velikoi do poiavleniia Stroganovykh." In Trudy Permskoi gubernskoi uchenoi arkhivnoi komissii, 4: 71-7. 12 Vols. Perm': n.p., 1892-1915. "Zhitie sv. Trifona Viatskago, kak istochnik svedenii o Permi Velikoi XVI veka." In Trudy Permskoi gubernskoi uchenoi arkhivnoi komissii, 2: 20-40. 12 Vols.

Perm': n.p., 1892-1915.

247

Bibliography Dollinger, Phillippe, The German Hansa. Trans, by D. S. Ault and S. H. Steinberg. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1970. Doronin, P. "Dokumenty po istorii Komi." Istoriko-fllologicheskii sbornik Komiflliala ANSSSR. (Syktyvkar) 4 (1958): 241-71. Doroshenko, V. "Ganza i Iivoniia. Problemy torgovli XIII-XVI vv." hvestiia akademii nauk Latviiskoi SSR, No. 10, 1965, pp. 143-7. "Russkie sviazi Tailinskogo kuptsa v 30-kh godakh XVI v." In Ekonomicheskie sviazi Pribaltiki s Rossiei, pp. 47-58. Riga: Zinatne, 1968. "Torgovlia krupnogo Tailinskogo kuptsa v XVI veke." hvestiia akademii nauk Estonskoi SSR. Obshchestvennye nauki 18 (1969)' 322-45. Dubler, Cesar E. Abu Hamid el Granadino y su relacion de viaje por tierras eurasidticas. Madrid: Editorial Maestre, 1953. Dubov, I. V. Severo-vostochnaia Rus' v epokhu rannego srednevekov'ia. Leningrad: Leningradskii universitet, 1982. Dunlop, D. M. The History of the Jewish Khazars. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954. Edemskii, M. B. " 0 starykh torgovykh putiakh na severe." Zapiski otdeleniia russkoi i slavianskoi arkheologii 9 (1913): 39-62. Ekzempliarskii, A. 0. Velikie i udeYnye kniaz'ia severnoi Rusi v Tatarskii period, 2 Vols. St. Petersburg: 1.1. Tolstoi, 1889-91; reprinted, The Hague: Europe Printing, 1966. Encyclopedia of Islam, new edition, 5 volumes with supplements. Leiden: E. J. Brill and London: Luzac 1960-86. Epifanii. Zhitie sv. Stefana episkopa Permskogo. Reprint ed. The Hague: Mouton, 1959Fedorov, G. B. "Unifikatsiia russkoi monetnoi sistemy i ukaz 1535 g." hvestiia AN SSSR: seriia istorii ifllosofli 7 (1950): 547-8. Fedorov, M. N. "K voprosu o 'serebrianom krizise' i nekotorykh osobennostiakh denezhnogo obrashcheniia v gosudarstve 'velikikh Sel'dzhukov.'" Sovetskaia arkheologiia, No. 1, 19 71, pp. 244-9. Fedorov-Davydov, G. A. "Gorod i oblast' Saksin v XII-XIV w . " In Drevnosti vostochnoi Evropy, pp. 253-61. Materialy i issledovaniia po arkheologii SSSR, Vol. 169. Moscow: Nauka, 1969. Fekhner, M. V. "Izdeliia shelkotkatskikh masterskikh Vizantii v drevnei Rusi." Sovetskaia arkheologiia, No. 3, 1977, pp. 130-42. "Nekotorye svedeniia arkheologii po istorii russko-vostochnykh ekonomicheskikh sviazei do serediny XIII v." In Mezhdunarodnye sviazi Rossii do XVII v: sbornik statei, pp. 46-54. Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1961. Torgovlia russkogo gosudarstva so stranami vostoka v XVI veke. Trudy gosudarstvennogo istoricheskogo muzeia, 31. Moscow: Gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii muzei, 1956. Fennell, John. The Crisis of Medieval Russia, 1200-1304. London and New York: Longman, 1983. The Emergence of Moscow, 13 04-135 9. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1968. Ivan the Great of Moscow. London: Macmillan: New York: St. Martin's Press, 1961. Ferrand, Gabriel, "Le Tuhfat al-albab, de Abu Hamid al-Andalusi al-Garnati." Journal Asiatique 207 (1925): 1-148, 193-304. Fisher, Alan. " Les Rapports entre l'empire ottoman et ia Crimee: l'aspect financier." Cahiers du monde russe et sovietique 13 (1972): 368-81. 248

Bibliography Fisher, Raymond Henry. The Russian Fur Trade, 1550-1700. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1943. Florovskii, A. V. " Cheshko-russkie torgovye otnosheniia X-XII vv." In Mezhdunarodnye sviazi Rossii do XVII v: sbornik statei, pp. 64-83. Moscow: Akademiia NaukSSSR, 1961. Gibb, H. A. R. Arabic Literature, An Introduction. 2nd ed. London and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963. Gimadi, Kh. G. "Narody srednego Povolzh'ia vperiod gospodstva Zolotoi Ordy." In Materialypo istorii Tatarii, pp. 185-225. Kazan': Tatgosizdat, 1948. Goeje, Michael Jan de, ed. Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum, 8 Vols. Lugduni Batavorum: E. J. Brill, 1870-1939; 3rd ed., 1967Goetz, Leop. Karl. Deutsch-Russische Handelsgeschichte des Mittelalters. Hansische Geschichtsquellen, Vol. 5. Liibeck: Otto Waelde, 1922. Deutsch-Russische Handelsvertrdge des Mittelalters. Hamburg: L. Friederichsen, 1916. Golb, Norman and Pritsak, Omeljan. Khazarian Hebrew Documents of the Tenth Century. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press: 1982. Golubeva, L. A. " Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki Vesi na Belom ozere." Sovetskaia arkheologiia, No. 3, 1962, pp. 53-77. "Beloozero i Volzhskie Bulgary." In Drevnosti vostochnoi Evropy, pp. 4 0 - 3 . Materialy i issledovaniia po arkheologii SSSR, Vol. 169. Moscow: Nauka, 1969. "Slavianskie pamiatniki na Belom ozere." In Sbornik po arkheologii Vologodskoi oblasti, pp. 25-46. Vologda: Vologodskoe knizhnoe izdatel'stvo, 1961. Vesf i Slaviane na Belom ozere X-XIII vv. Moscow: Nauka, 1973. Golubtsov, V. "Kniaz'ia velikopermskie, permskie i vymskie." In Trudy Permskoi uchenoi arkhivnoi komissii, 1:75-80. 12 Vols. Perm': n.p., 1892-1915. Gonzalez de Clavijo, Ruy. Embassy to Tamerlane, 1403-1406. Translated by Guy le Strange. London: George Routledge, 1928. Gramoty Velikogo Novgoroda i Pskova. Edited by S. N. Valk. Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1949; reprint ed., Diisseldorf: Briicken-verlag and Vaduz: Europe Printing, 1970. Grekov, B. D. "Volzhskie Bolgary IX-X vv." Istoricheskie zapiski 14 (1945) 3-37. Grekov, B. and Iakubovskii, A. La Horde d'or et la Russie; la domination tatare aux XIIF et XIVe siecles de la merjaune a la mer Noire. Translated by Francois Thuret. Paris: Payot, 1939; reprinted, Paris: Payot, 1961. Grekov, B. D. and Iakubovskii, A. Iu. Zolotaia Orda i ee padenie. Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1950. Grekov, B. D. and Kalinin, N. F. "Bulgarskoe gosudarstvo do Mongol'skogo zavoevaniia." In Materialy po istorii TatariU pp. 97-184. Kazan': Tatgosizdat, 1948. Grekov, I. B. "Strany vostochnoi Evropy i Zolotaia Orda na rubezhe XIV-XV vv." Avtoreferat dissertatsii na soiskanie uchenoi stepeni doktora istoricheskikh nauk. Moscow: 1971. Vostochnaia Evropa i upadokZolotoi Ordy (na rubezhe Xlt^-Xl^ vv). Moscow: Nauka, 1975. Grigor'ev, V. V. "Bulgary volzhskie." In Rossiia i Aziia, pp. 83-9. St. Petersburg: n.p., 1876. Gukovskii, M. A. "Soobshchenie o Rossii moskovskogo posla v Milan (i486)." In Voprosy Istoriografli i istochnikovedeniia istorii SSSR: Sbornik statei, pp. 648-55. Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1963. 249

Bibliography Hakluyt, Richard. Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques and Discoveries of the

English Nation, 12 Vols. Glasgow: James MacLehose and Sons, and New York: Macmillan, 1903; reprinted by E. P. Dutton, 1927. Hanserecesse, die Recesse und andere Akten der Hansetage von 1256-1430,

2 7 Vols.

Leipzig: Duncker and Humblot, 1870Hansisches Urkundenbuch, 10 Vols. Edited by Konstantin Hohlbaum and Karl Kunze. Halle: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses and Leipzig: Duncker and Humblot, 1867-1907. Harkavy (Garkavi), A. E. Skazaniia musul'manskikh pisatelei 0 slavianakh i russkikh (spoloviny VII veka do kontsa X veka po R. Kh.). St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia

Akademiia Nauk, 1870; reprint ed., The Hague: Mouton, 1969. Hendy, M. F. "Byzantium, 1081-1204: an Economic Reappraisal." Transactions of the Royal Historical Society Vol. 20, series 5 (1970): 31-52. Herberstein, Sigismund von. Notes upon Russia. Works issued by the Hakluyt Society, Vols. 10 and 12. Translated by R. H. Major. London: n.p., 1851; reprint ed., New York: Burt Franklin, n.d. Heyd, W. Histoire du commerce du levant au moyen-dge, 2 Vols. Leipzig: La societe

de l'Orient Latin par Furcy Raynaud, 1886. Iakobson, A. L. "K istorii russko-korsunskikh sviazei (XI-XIV vv)." Vizantiisku vremennik 14 (1958): 116-28. Krym v srednie veka. Moscow: Nauka, 1973. " 0 chislennosti naseleniia srednevekovogo Khersonesa." Vizantiisku vremennik 19 (1961): I54-65Srednevekovyi Krym: Ocherki istorii i istorii materialnoi

kul'tury. Moscow and

Leningrad: Nauka, 1964. Iakubovskii, A. Feodalizm na vostoke: stolitsa Zolotoi Ordy-Sarai Berke. Leningrad:

GAIMK, 1932. "Rasskaz Ibn-al-Bibi o pokhode maloaziiskikh Turok na Sudak, Polovtsev i Russkikh v nachale XIII v." Vizantiisku vremennik 25 (1928): 53-76. " Sel'dzhukskoe dvizhenie i Turkmeny v XI v." Izvestiia AN SSSR. Otdelenie obshchestvennykh nauk. No. 4, 1937, pp. 921-46. Ianin, V. L. "Bor'ba Novgoroda i Moskvy za Dvinskie zemli v 50-70 kh godakh XV v." Istoricheskie zapiski 108 (1982): 189-214. Denezho-vesovye sistemy russkogo srednevekov'ia: domongol'skii period. Moscow:

Moskovskii universitet, 1956. "Den'gi i denezhnye sistemy." In Ocherki russkoi kul'tury XIII-XV vekov,

1:317-47. Edited by V. A. Artsikhovskii. Moscow: Moskovskii universitet, 1969. Novgorodskaia feodaYnaia votchina. Moscow: Nauka, 1 9 8 1 .

Novgorodskie posadniki. Moscow: Moskovskii universitet, 1962. Ianina, S. A. "Nerevskii klad kuficheskikh monet X veka." In Trudy Novgorodskoi arkheologicheskoi ekspeditsii, pp. 180-207. Materialy i issledovaniia po arkheologii SSSR, Vol. 55. Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1956. Ibn Battuta. The Travels oflbn Battuta, 3 Vols. Works issued by the Hakluyt Society, second series, Vols. n o , 117, 141. Translated by Sir Hamilton Gibb. Cambridge: University Press, 1956, 1959, 1971. Ibn Hauqal. Configuration de la terre. Translated by J. H. Kramers and G. Wiet. Paris and Beirut: Maisonneuve and Larose, 1964. Ikosov. "Istoriia o rodosloviia i otechestvennykh zaslugakh imenitoi familii Stroganovykh." Permskie gubernskie vedomosti. 1 8 8 0 , No. 8 0 . Innis, Harold A. The Fur Trade in Canada: An Introduction to Canadian Economic

History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1930. 250

Bibliography " Istoricheskaia letopis'." Vologodskie gubernskie vedomosti, 12-26 January 1857. Istoriia Sibiri s drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei, 5 Vols. Edited by A. P. Okladnikov and V. I. Shunkov. Leningrad: Nauka, 1968-9. Istoriia Tatarii v materialakh i dokumentakh. Moscow: n.p. 1937. Jenkinson, Anthony and other Englishmen. Early Voyages and Travels to Russia and Persia. Edited by E. Delmar Morgan and C. H. Coote. Works issued by the Hakluyt Society, Vols. 72-3. London: 1886; reprint, New York: Burt Franklin, n.d. John of Pian de Carpine. "The Journey of Friar John of Pian de Carpine, as Narrated by Himself." In Works issued by the Hakluyt Society, Series 2, Vol. 4: The Journey of William of Rubruck to the Eastern Parts of the World, pp. 1-32. Translated with an introduction by William Rockhill. London: Printed for the Hakluyt Society, 1900; reprint, Nendeln/Liechtenstein Kraus Reprint Limited, 1967. Jones, Gwyn. A History of the Vikings. London, New York, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1968. K-v, P. " Rasprostranenie i utverzhdenie Khristianstva v drevnei Permii." Permskie eparkhial'nye vedomosti, 7 February-13 March, 1868. Kafengauz, B. B. Drevnii Pskov: Ocherki po istorii feodal'noi respubliki. Moscow: Nauka, 1969. Kaiser, Daniel H. The Growth of Law in Medieval Russia. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1980. Kamentseva, E. I. and Ustiugov, N. V. Russkaia metrologiia. Moscow: Vysshaia shkola, 1965. Centuries. LeninKarger, Mikhail. Novgorod: Architectural Monuments, uth-iyth grad: Aurora Art Publishers, 1975. Kazakova, N. A. "Bor'ba Rusi s agressiei Livonskogo ordena v pervoi polovine XV veka.'' Uchenye zapiski Leningradskogo universiteta, No. 2 70. Seriia istoricheskikh nauk. 32 (1959): 3-33"Iz istorii snoshenii Novgoroda s ganzoi v XV v." Istoricheskie zapiski 28 (1949): 111-31.

"Iz istorii torgovoi politiki russkogo tsentralizovannogo gosudarstva XV veka." Istoricheskie zapiski 47 (1954): 259-90. "Rus' i Livoniia 6okh-nachala 9okh godov XV v." In Mezhdunarodnye sviazi Rossii do XVII veka, pp. 306-38. Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1961. Russko-livonskie i russko-ganzeiskie otnosheniia. Leningrad: Nauka, 1975. "Snosheniia Novgoroda s Livoniei i ganzoi v XIV- pervoi polovine XV v." Vestnik Leningradskogo universiteta (1947), pp. 147-50. Kazhdan, Alexander in collaboration with Franklin Simon. Studies on Byzantine Literature of the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press and Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l'homme, 1984. Keenan, Edward L., Jr. "Muscovy and Kazan: Some Introductory Remarks on the Patterns of Steppe Diplomacy." Slavic Review 26 (1967): 548-58. Kendrick, T. D. A History of the Vikings. London: Methuen, 1930. Kerner, Robert J. The Urge to the Sea. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1946. Khoroshkevich, A. L. "Inostrannoe svidetel'stvo 1399 g. o Novgorodskoi denezhnoi sisteme." In Istohko-arkheologicheskii sbornik, pp. 302-7. Edited by D. A. Avdusin and V. L. Ianin. Moscow: Moskovskii universitet, 1962. "Iz istorii ganzeiskoi torgovli (Vvoz v Novgorod blagorodnykh metallov v XIVXV vv.)." In Srednie veka. Sbornik, no. 20, pp. 98-120. Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1961. 251

Bibliography " Kredit v russkoi vnutrennei i russko-ganzeiskoi torgovle XIV-XV vekov." Istoriia SSSR, No. 2, 1977, pp. 125-40. Russkoe gosudarstvo v sisteme mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii kontsa XIV - nachala XVI v. Moscow: Nauka, 1980. "Torgovlia inostrannymi tkaniami v Novgorode v XIV-XV vv." Istoricheskie zapiski 63 (1958): 206-43. Torgovlia velikogo Novgoroda s Pribaltikoi i zapadnoi Evropoi v XIV-XV vekakh. Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1963. "Vyvoz voska iz velikogo Novgoroda v XIV-XV vv." In Mezhdunarodnye sviazi Rossii do XVII v., pp. 278-305. Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1961. " Znachenie ekonomicheskikh sviazei s Pribaltikoi dlia razvitiia severo-zapadnykh russkikh gorodov v kontse XV-nachale XVI v." In Ekonomicheskie sviazi Pribaltiki s Rossiei, pp. 13-31. Riga: Zinatne, 1968. Khudiakov, M. Ocherki po istorii Kazanskogo khanstva. Kazan': Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo, 1923. Khvol'son, D. A. Izvestiia 0 khozarakh, burtasakh, bolgarakh, madi'arakh, slavianakh i russakh Abu-ali Akhmeda ben Omar ibn-Dasta. St. Petersburg, n.p. 1869. Kirchner, Walther, Commercial relations between Russia and Europe, 1400-1800. Russian and East European Series, Vol. 33. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Publications, 1966. Kiuner, N. V. "Kitaiskie istoricheskie dannye o narodakh severa." Uchenye zapiski LGU, Seriia vostokovedcheskikh nauk. No. 1, 1949, pp. 92-102. Kizevetter, A. A. (Kiesewetter). Russkii sever. Vologda: n.p., 1919. Kleinenberg, I.E. "Serebro vmesto soli: elementy rannego merkantilizma vo vneshnetorgovoi politike russkogo gosudarstva kontsa XV-nachala XVI veka." Istoriia SSSR, No. 2, 1977, pp. 115-24. "Tseny, ves i pribyl' v posrednicheskoi torgovle tovarami russkogo eksporta v XlV-nachale XV v." In Ekonomicheskie sviazi Pribaltiki s Rossiei, pp. 32-46. Riga: Zinatne, 1968. Kliuchevskii, V. 0. Drevnerusskie zhitiia sviatykh kak istoricheskii istochnik. Moscow: K. Soldatenkov, 1871; reprint ed., The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 1968. Kolotilova, S.I. "K voprosu o polozhenii Pskova v sostave Novgorodskoi feodarnoi respubliki." Istoriia SSSR, No. 2, 1975, pp. 145-52. Komi-Permiatskii natsionaYnyi okrug. Edited by A. A. Grigor'ev, V. F. Vasiutin, and M. I. Pomus. Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk, SSSR, 1948. Komroff, Manuel, ed. Contemporaries 0}Marco Polo. New York: Liveright, 1928. Kopanev, A. Istoriia zemlevladeniia Belozerskogo kraia XV-XVI v. Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1951. "Krest'ianskoe zemlevladenie Podvin'ia v XVI v." In Problemy krest'ianskogo zemlevladeniia i vnutrennei politiki Rossii, pp. 5-44. Leningrad: Nauka, 1972. Krest'ianstvo russkogo severa v XVI v. Leningrad: Nauka, 1978. "Kurostrovskie stolbtsy XVI v." Materialy po istorii evropeiskogo severa SSSR. Severnyi arkheograflcheskii sbornik (Vologda) 1 (1970): 398-431. "K voprosu o strukture zemlevladeniia na Dvine v XV-XVI vekakh." Voprosy agrarnoi istorii 1 (1968): 442-62. "Naselenie russkogo gosudarstva v XVI v." Istoricheskie zapiski 64 (1959): 233-54. " 0 gosudarstvennykh nalogakh chernososhnykh krest'ian serediny XVI v." In Problemy istorii feodal'noi Rossii: sbornik statei k 60-letiiu prof. V. V. Mavrodina, pp. 127-34. Leningrad: Leningradskii universitet, 1971. 252

Bibliography " 0 sootnoshenii gosudarstvennykh i volostnykh platezhnei chernososchnykh krest'ian 4okh godov XVI v." In Ezhegodnikpo agrarnoi istorh vostochnoi Evropy, pp. 40-6. Leningrad: Nauka, 1972. "Platezhnaia kniga Dvinskogo uezda 1560 g." In Agrarnaia istohia evropeiskogo severa, pp. 519-36. Vologda: 1970. "Ustavnaia zemskaia gramota krest'ianam trekh volosti Dvinskogo uezda 25 fevralia 1552 g." Istoricheskii arkhiv 8 (1953): 7-20. Korzukhina, G. F. " 0 pamiatnikakh 'korsunskogo dela' na Rusi." Vizantiiskii vremennik 14 (1958): 129-37. Kostomarov, N. Ocherk torgovli Moskovskago gosudarstva v XVI i XVII stoletiiakh. St. Petersburg: N. Tiblen, 1862. Severnorusskiia narodopravstva vo vremena udel'no-vechevago uklada. St. Petersburg: Obshchestvennaia polza, 1863. Kostrov, N. "Chulymskie inorodtsy." Tomskiia gubernskiia vedomosti, 17 February14 April 1867. "Narymskie ostiaki." Tomskiia gubernskiia vedomosti, 6-13 October 1867. "'Strana mrakov' arabskogo puteshestvennika Ibn-Batuty. Tomskiia gubernskiia vedomosti, 12 May 1867. "Tomskiie samoedy." Tomskiia gubernskiia vedomosti, 16-20 June 1867. Kovalevskii, A. P., ed. and translator. Kniga Akhmeda Ibn-Fadlana 0 ego puteshestvii na Volgu v 921-22 gg. Khar'kov: Khar'khovskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 1956. Krachkovskii, I. Iu. Arabskaia geograflcheskaia literatura. Vol. 4 of Izbrannye sochineniia. Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1957. ed. and translator. Puteshestvie Ibn Fadlana na Volgu. Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1939. Kropotkin, V. V. "Novye nakhodki vizantiiskikh monet na territorii SSSR." Vizantiiskii vremennik 26 (1965): 166-98. "Torgovye sviazi Volzhskoi Bolgarii X v. po numizmaticheskim dannym." In Drevnip Slaviane i ikh sosedi, pp. 146-150. Materialy i issledoveniia po arkheologii SSSR, Vol. 176. Moscow: Nauka, 1970. Krupenin, Aleksandr. "Kratkii istoricheskii ocherk zaseleniia i tsivilizatsii Permskago kraia." In Permskii sbornik, 1: 1-45. 2 vols. in 1. Moscow: Tipografiia Lazarevskago instituta vostochnykh iazykov, 1859-60. Kuchkin, V A. " 0 marshrutakh pokhodov drevnerusskikh kniazei na gosudarstvo Volzhskikh Bulgar v XII - pervoi treti XIII v." In Istoricheskaia geograflia Rossh, pp. 31-45. Moscow: Nauka, 1975. " Rostovo-suzdal'skaia zemlia v X-pervoi treti XIII vekov (tsentry i granitsy)." Istoriia SSSR, No. 2, 1969, pp. 62-94. Kulisher, I. N. Istoriia russkogo narodnogo khoziaistva, 2 Vols. Moscow: 1925. Ocherk istorii russkoi torgovli. Petersburg: Atenei, 1923. Kunik, A. and Rozen, V. Izvestiia al-Bekri i drugikh avtorov 0 Rusi i Slavianakh, 2 Vols. St Petersburg: n.p., 1878, 1903. Kunze, Karl. Hanseakten aus England 1275 bis 1412. Hansische Geschichtsquellen, Vol. 6. Halle: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1891. Kuza, A. V. "Novgorodskaia zemlia." In Drevnerusskie kniazhestva X-XIII vv., pp. 144-201. Moscow: Nauka, 1975. Kuzakov, V. K. Ocherki razvitiia estestvennonauchnykh i tekhnicheskikh predstavlenii na Rusi v X-XVII vv. Moscow: Nauka, 1976. Kuz'min, A. G. "K voprosu o proiskhozhdenii variazhskoi legendy." In Novoe 0 proshlom nashei strany. Pamiati akademika M. N. Tikhomirova, pp. 42-53. Moscow: Nauka, 1967. 253

Bibliography Kvalen, Elvind. The Early Norwegian Settlements on the Volga. Vienna: Adolf Holzhausens, Nfg., 1937. Lampros, S., ed. Michael Akominatou tou Choniatou ta sozomena, 2 Vols. Athens, n.p., 1879-80. Langer, Lawrence. "The Russian Medieval Town." Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago, 1972. Lantzeff, George B. "Russian Eastward Expansion before the Mongol Invasion." American Slavic and East European Review 6 (1947): 1-10. Lashuk, L. P. Formirovanie narodnosti Komi. Moscow: Moskovskii universitet, 1972. Ocherketnicheskoi istorii Pechorskogo kraia, Syktyvkar: Komi knizhnoe izdatel'stvo, 1958. Proiskhozhdenie naroda Komi. Syktyvkar: Komi knizhnoe izdatel'stvo, 1961. Lebedev, G. S. "Put' iz Variag v Greki." Vestnik Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta: istoriia, iazyk, literatura, No. 4, 1975, pp. 37-43. Lebeder, G. S. and V. A. Nazarenko, "The Connections between Russians and Scandinavians in the 9 t h - n t h Centuries." Norwegian Archaeological Review 6 (1973): 5-9Lebedev, M. "Perm' Velikaia." Zhurnal ministerstva narodnago prosveshcheniia 72 (1917): 112-62.

Lechner, Georg. Die Hansischen Pfundzollisten des Jahres 1368. Quellen und Darstellungen sur Hansischen Geschichte, Vol. 10. Liibeck: Hansischen Geschichtsvereins, 1935. Lee, Samuel, translator. The Travels of Ibn Batuta. London: Oriental Translation Fund, 1829. Lesnikov, M. P. "Ganzeiskaia torgovlia pushninoi v nachale XV v." Uchenye zapiski Moskovskogo gorodskogo pedagogicheskogo instituta imeni V.P. Potemkina 8 (1948): 61-93. "Der Hansische Pelzhandel zu Beginn des 15 Jahrhunderts." In Hansische Studien, pp. 219-72. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1961. "Die livlandische Kaufmannschaft und ihre Handelsbeziehungen zu Flandern am Anfang des XV Jahrhunderts." Zeitschrift fur Geschichtswissenschaft 6 (1958): 285-303. "Liibeck als Handelsplatz fur Osteuropawaren im 14 Jahrhundert." In Hansische Studien, pp. 273-92. Berlin: Akademie Variag, 1961. "Liibeck als Handelsplatz fur Osteuropaische Waren im 15 Jahrhundert." Hansische Geschichtsbldtter 78 (i960): 67-86. "Niderlandy i vostochnaia Baltika v nachale XV veka. Iz istorii torgovykh snoshenii." Izvestiia AN SSSRf Seriia istorii ifilosofii8 (1951): 451-9. "Torgovaia kniga ganzeiskogo kuptsa nachala XV veka." Istoricheskii arkhiv 2 (1958): 134-53. "Torgovye otnosheniia velikogo Novgoroda s tevtonskim ordenom v kontse XIV i nachale XV veka." Istoricheskie zapiski 39 (1952): 259-78. Letopis' goroda Vologdy 1147-1962. Compiled by P. K. Perepechenko. Vologda: Vologodskoe knizhnoe izdatel'stvo, 1963. Letopis' Velikoustiuzhskaia. Ed. by A. A. Titov. Moscow: A. K. Trapeznikov, 1888. Levchenko, M. V. Ocherki po istorii russko-vizantiiskikh otnoshenii. Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1956. Lewicki, Th. "'Arisu, un nom de tribu enigmatique cite dans la lettre du roi khazar Joseph (Xe siecle." Cahiers du monde russe et sovietique 3 (1962): 90-101.

"Sources Hebraiques de l'histoire de pays slaves." Cahiers du monde russe et sovietique 2 (1961): 228-41. 254

Bibliography Likhachev, D. S. Russkie letopisi i ikh kul'turno-istoricheskoe znachenie. Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1947; reprint ed., The Hague: Europe Printing, 1966. Limonov, Iu. A. " Iz istorii vostochnoi torgovli Vladimiro-suzdal'skogo kniazhestva.'' In Mezhdunarodnye sviazi Rossii do XVII, pp. 55-63. Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1961. Litvarin, G. G. "A propos de Tmutorokan." Byzantion 35 (1965): 221-34. Litvarin, G. G. and Kazhdan, A. P. "Ekonomicheskie i politicheskie otnosheniia drevnei Rusi i Vizantii." In Proceedings of the Xlllth International Congress of Byzantine Studies. Oxford 5-10 September 1966, pp. 69-81. Edited by J. M. Hussey, D. Obolensky, and S. Runciman. London, New York, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1967. Liubomirov, P. G "Torgovye sviazi drevnei Rusi s vostokom v VIII-IX vv." Uchenye zapiski Saratovskogo universiteta 1 (1923): 5-38. Liv- Est- und Kurlandisches Urkundenbuch, 12 Vols. Edited by Friedrich Georg von Bunge. Reval: Druck von H. Laakman, 1853-9; Riga and Moscow: N. Kymmel and J. Dubner, 1867-. Lonneroth, E. "The Baltic Countries." In Economic Organization and Policies in the Middle Ages, pp. 361-96. Vol. 3 of Cambridge Economic History of Europe. Edited by M. M. Postan and E. E. Rich. Cambridge: University Press. 1963. Lopez, Robert S. The Commercial Revolution of the Middle Ages, 950-1350. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 19 71. "The Trade of Medieval Europe: the South." In Trade and Industry in the Middle Ages, pp. 251-354. Vol. 2 of Cambridge Economic History of Europe. Edited by M. Postan and E. E. Rich. Cambridge: University Press, 1952. Lukina, G. N. "Nazvaniia mekhov v pamiatnikakh drevnerusskoi pis'mennosti XI-XIV vv." Drevnerusskii iazyk: leksikologiia i slovoobrazownie, pp. 56-68. Moscow: Nauka, 1975. Lur'e, la. S. Obshcherusskie letopisi XIV-XV vv. Leningrad: Nauka, 1976. Lytkin, G. S. " Piatisotletie Zyrianskago kraia." Zhurnal ministerstva narodnago prosveshcheniia 230 (1883): 275-326. Zyrianskii kraipri episkopakh Permskikh. St. Petersburg: n.p. 1889. Makovskii, D. P. Razvitie tovarno-denezhnykh otnosheniiv sel'skom khoziaistve russkogo gosudarstva v XVI veke. Smolensk: Smolenskii gosudarstvennyi pedagogicheskii institut im. Karla Marksa, 1963. Malinovskii, Aleksei, " Istoricheskoe i diplomaticheskoe sobranie del proiskhodivskikh mezhdu Rossiiskimi Velikimi Kniaz'iami i byvshimi v Kryme Tatarskimi tsariami s 1462 po 1533 god." Zapiski Odesskogo obshchestva istorii i drevnostei 5(1863): 178-319. Malowist, Marian. " Caffa-colonie genoise en Crimee et la question d'Orient 145 3-1475. Resume.'' Travaux de TInstitut d'Histoire de V Universite de Varsovia. Warsaw: n.p., 1947. " Les routes du commerce et les marchandises du levant dans la vie de la Pologne au bas moyen age et au debut de l'epoque moderne." In Mediterranee et Ocean Indien, pp. 157-75. Travaux du Sixieme colloque International d'Histoire Maritime. Venice, 20-24 September 1962. Paris: SEVPEN, 1970. Man'kov, A. G. Tseny i ikh dvizhenie v russkom gosudarstve XVI veka. Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1951. Markov, A. Topografiia kladov vostochnykh monet. St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia Akademiia Nauk, 1910.

255

Bibliography Martin, Janet. "Les Uskujniki de Novgorod: marchands ou pirates?" Cahiers du monde russe et sovietique 16 (1975): 5-18. "Muscovite Relations with the Khanates of Kazan' and the Crimea (1460s to 1521)." Canadian-American Slavic Studies 17 (1983): 435-53. "Muscovy's Northeastern Expansion: The Context and a Cause." Cahiers du monde russe et sovietique 24 (1983): 459-70. Martiushev, A." Komi narod v pervyi period istoricheskoi ego izvestnosti.'' Komi mu, Nos. 2 and 3, 1928, pp. 34-41 and 33-9. Martynov, M. "Dogovor Vladimira s Volzhskimi Bolgarami 1006 goda." IstorikMarksist, No. 2, 1941, pp. 116-17. Materialy

po drevnei istorii Sibiri. Drevniaia Sibirf. Ulan-Ude: Akademiia Nauk

SSSR, 1964. Medvedev, A. F. "Blizhnevostochnaia i zolotoordynskaia polivnaia keramika iz raskopok v Novgorode." In Novye metody v arkheologii, pp. 269-86. Materialy i issledovaniia po arkheologii SSSR, Vol. 117. Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1963. Mel'gunov, P. P. Ocherki po istorii russkoi torgovli 1X-XVII vv. Moscow: Sotrudnik

shkol, 1905.

Mertsalov, A. E. Vologodskaia starina.

Materialy

dlia istorii severnoi Rossii. St.

Petersburg: L. F. Panteleev, 1889. Meyendorff, John. Byzantium and the Rise of Russia: A Study of

Byzantino-Russian

Relations in the Fourteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Michell, Robert and Forbes, Nevill, translators. The Chronicle of Novgorod, 1016-1471. With an introduction by C. Raymond Beazley and an account of the text by A. A. Shakhmatov. Camden 3rd series, Vol. 35. London: Royal Historical Society, 1914. Mikhailov,M. "Ust'vym'." Vologodskiegubernskievedomosti, 7 January-30December 1850. Miliukov, Paul; Seignobos, Charles; and Eisenmann, L, editors. History of Russia, 3 Vols. Translated by Charles Lam Markmann. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1968-9. Miller, G. F. (Muller) Istoriia Sibiri. Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1937. Minorsky, V. A History ofShavan andDarband in the ioth-11

th Centuries. Cambridge:

W. Heffer and Sons, 1958. Translator. Hudud al-Alam. "The Regions of the World": A Persian Geography.

"E. J. W. Gibb Memorial" Publication, new series, Vol 11. London: n.p., 1937. Translator. Sharaf al-Zaman Tahir Marvazi on China, the Turks and India. James

G. Furlong Fund, Vol. 22. London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1942. Miuller, P. B. "Novgorodskaia obzha i izdol'e." In Ezhegodnik po agrarnoi istorii vostchnoi Evropy, 1968g., pp. 28-36. Leningrad: Nauka, 1972. Moeller, J. H., ed. Liber auctore scheicho Abu-Ishako el-Farisi vulgo el-Isstachri. Gothae:

n.p., 1889. Mongait, A. L. "Abu Khamid al-Garnati i ego puteshestvie v russkie zemli 1150-1153 gg." Istoriia SSSR, No. 1, 1959, pp. 169-81. Mordasova, I. V. "Natural'naia i denezhnaia renta v Novgorodskom feodarnom khoziaistve XIII-XV vekov (po materialam berestianykh gramot)." In Problemy istorii feodal'noi Rossii. Sbornik statei k 60-letiiu prof. V. V. Mavrodina, pp.

98-102. Leningrad: Leningradskii universitet, 1971. Mordtmann, Andreas David, ed. and trans. Das Buch der Lander, von Schech Ebu 256

Bibliography Ishak el Farsi el Isztachri. Hamburg: Druck und Lithographie des Rauchen Hauses in Horn, 1845. Moreley, W. N., editor. The Tarikh-i Baihaki Containing the Life ofMasud, Son of Sultan Mahmud of Ghaznin. Bibliotheca Indica, Vol. 32. Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1862. Mouradgea d'Ohsson, Constantin. Histoire des Mongols, 4 Vols. 2nd ed. The Hague and Amsterdam: Les freres Van cleef and Frederick Muller, 1834-52. Mouradgea d'Ohsson, Ignatius. Tableau general de Tempire othoman, 7 Vols. Paris: Firmin Didot Pere et Fils, 1788-1824. Muromtsev, I. "Istoriia, snoshenie Russkikh s Sibir'iu do Ermaka." Pribavlenie k ArkhangeYskim gubernskim vedomostiam, 24 January 1845. Narody mira. Etnograflcheskie ocherki. Narody Evropeiskoi chasti SSSR, 2 Vols. Edited by V. A. Aleksandrov and V. N. Belitser, et al. Moscow: Nauka, 1964. Narody Sibiri. Edited by M. G. Levin and L. P. Potapov. Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1956. Nash, E. Gee. The Hansa: Its History and Romance. London: John Lane, the Bodley Head; New York: Dodd, Mead: 1929. Nash sever v opisanii inostrantsa XVI veka." Izvestiia Arkhangel'skago obshchestva izucheniia russkago severa. No. 1, 1911, pp. 2-7. Nasonov, A. N. Mongoly i Rusf. Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1949; reprint ed., The Hague: Mouton, 1969. "Russkaia zemlia" i obrazovanie territorii drevnerusskogo gosudarstva. Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1951. Nicolas, N. H., ed. Privy Purse Expenses of Elizabeth of York; Wardrobe Accounts of Edward the Fourth. London: W. Pickering, 1830. Nikitin, Athanasius. "The Travels of Athanasius Nikitin, a Native of Tver." In India in the Fifteenth Century, pp. 3-32. Works issued by the Hakluyt Society, Vol. 22. Translated by Count Wielhorsky. Reprint ed., New York: Burt Franklin, n. d. Nikitin, A. V. " Arkheologicheskie issledovaniia v Vologodskoi oblasti." In Materially po istorii evropeiskogo severa SSSR. Severnyi arkheograflcheskii sbornik. (Vologda) 3 (1973): 439-41"Drevniaia Vologda po arkheologicheskim dannym." In Sbornik po arkheologii Vologodskoi oblasti, pp. 6-24. Vologda: Vologodskoe Knizhnoe izdatel'stvo, 1961. "Raskopi v Vologde v 1948 g." Kratkie soobshcheniia instituta istorii materialnoi kuYtury AN SSSR 52 (1963): 99-105. Nikitskii, A. I. Istoriia ekonomicheskogo byta velikogo Novgoroda. Moscow: Universitetskaia tipografiia, 1983; reprint ed., The Hague: Europe Printing, 1967. Ocherk vnutrennei istorii Pskova. St. Petersburg: Tipografiia K. Zamyslovskago, 1873. "Otnosheniia Novgorodskago vladyki k nemetskomu kupechestvu." Zhurnal ministerstva narodnagoprosveshcheniia 228 (1883): 1-15. Nikolaeva, A. T. "Otrazhenie v ustavnykh tamozhennykh gramotakh Moskovskogo gosudarstva XVI-XVII vv.: protsessa obrazovaniia vserossiiskogo rynka.'' Istoricheskie zapiski 31 (1950): 245-66. Nirrnheim, H., ed. Das handlungsbuch Vickos van Geldersen. Hamburg: n.p., 1885. Noonan, Thomas S. "The Circulation of Byzantine coins in Kievan Rus'." Byzantine Studies/Etudes byzantines 7 (1980): 143-81. "Medieval Islamic Copper Coins from European Russia and Surrounding Regions/' Journal of the American Oriental Society 94 (1974): 448-53.

257

Bibliography ''Monetary Circulation in Early Medieval Rus': A Study of Volga Bulgar Dirham Finds." Russian History/Histoire russe 7(1980): 294-311. "Ninth-Century Dirham Hoards from European Russia: A Preliminary Analysis. " In Viking-Age Coinage in the Northern Lands. The Sixth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History, ed. by M. A. S. Blackburn and D. M. Metcalf, part 1, pp. 47-117. BAR International Series, No. 122. Oxford. 1981. "Suzdalia's Eastern Trade in the Century before the Mongol Conquest." Cahiers du monde russe at sovietique 19 (1978): 371-84. "The 1958 Dirham Hoard from Tartu in Estonia." The American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 22 (1977): 135-59. "When and How Dirhams First Reached Russia. A Numismatic Critique of the Pirenne theory." Cahiers du monde russe et sovietique 21 (1980): 401-69. " Novaia istoricheskaia letopis'." Vologodskie gubernskie vedomosti, 9 February 1857. Novgorodskaia pervaia letopis' starshego i mladshego izvodov. Edited by A. N. Nasonov. Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1950; reprint ed., The Hague and Paris: Europe Printing, 1969. Novikov, N. I." Letopisets Dvinskoi." In Drevniaia Rossiiskaia vivliofika, 18:1-71,20 Vols. Moscow: Tipografiia Kompanii tipograficheskoi 1788-91; reprint ed., The Hague: Mouton, 1970. Novitskii, Grigorii. Kratkoe opisanie 0 narode Ostiatskom 1715. Novosibirsk: Novosibgiz: 1941. Novosertsev, A. P. " Vostochnye istochniki o vostochnykh Slavianakh i Rusi VI-IX vv." In Drevnerusskoe gosudarstvo i ego mezhdunarodnoe znachenie, pp. 3 5 5-419. Moscow: Nauka 1965. Novosel'tsev, A. P. and Pashuto, V. T. "Vneshniaia torgovlia drevnei Rusi do serediny XIII v." Istoriia SSSR, No. 3, 1967, pp. 81-108. "Novyi istochnik po istorii russkogo severa XVI v. (Genrikh Shtaden o Moskve Ivana groznogo)." Sever (1928), pp. 50-6. Obolensky, Dimitri. The Byzantine Commonwealth. Eastern Europe, 500-1453. New York and Washington: Praeger, 1971. Ocherki istorii Sibiri. Irkutsk: Irkutskii gosudarstvennyi pedagogicheskii institut, 1971. Ocherki obshchei etnografli. Evropeiskaia chast' SSSR. Edited by S. P. Tolstov, N. N. Cheboksarov, K. V. Chistov, Moscow: Nauka, 1968. Ocherki po istorii Komi ASSR, 2 Vols. Syktyvkar: 1955-62. Oksenov, A. " Politicheskiia otnosheniia Moskovskago gosudarstva k lugorskoi zemle (1455-1499)." Zhurnal ministerstva narodnago prosveshcheniia 273 (1891): 245-72. "Slukhi i vesti o Sibiri do Ermaka." Sibirskii sbornik, book 4, 1887, pp. 108-16. "Snosheniia Novgoroda velikago s lugorskoi zemlei (istoriko-geograficheskii ocherkpo drevneishei istorii Sibiri)." In Literaturnyi sbornik, pp. 425-45. Edited by N. M. Iadrintsev. St. Petersburg: Vostochnoe Obozrenie, 1885. "Svedeniia o neizdannykh Sibirskikh letopisiakh." In Literaturnyi sbornik, pp. 446-55. Edited by N. M. Iadrintsev. St. Petersburg: Vostochnoe Obozrenie, 1885. "Opisanie Spasokamennago, chtonaKubenskomozere, monastyria." Phbavleniia k Vologodskim eparkhiaVnym vedomostiam, 1 January-15 May 18 71. Osipov, A. M., Aleksandrov, V. A. and Goldberg, N. M. Afanasii Nikitin i ego vremia. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe pedagogicheskoe izdatel'stvo, 1951. Os'minskii, Taras Ivanovich, et al. Ocherki po istorii nashego kraia. Vologda: Vologodskoe knizhnoe izdatel'stvo, i960. 258

Bibliography Osokin, E. Vnutrenniia tamozhennyia poshliny v Rossii. Kazan': Gubernskaia tipografiia, 1850. Osokin, I. "K voprosu o missionerskoi deiatel'nosti prep. Trifona viatskago v Permskom krae." In Trudy Permskoi gubernskoi uchenoi arkhivnoi komissii, 7: 17-48. 12 Vols. Perm': n.p., 1892-1915. "Mesta podvigov prep. Trifona, viatskago chudotvortsa v Permskom krae." In Trudy Permskoi gubernskoi uchenoi arkhivnoi komissii, 5: 76-90. 12 vols. Perm':

n.p., 1892-1915.

Ouseley, William, trans. The Oriental Geography of Ebn-Haukal an Arabian Traveller of the Tenth Century. London: T. Cadell and W. Davies, 1800. Pamiatnaia knizhka Vologodskoi gubernii na 1893 9°d> Vologda: n.p., 1893. Pamiatniki diplomaticheskikh snoshenii drevnei Rossii s derzhavami inostrannymi, 10 Vols. St. Petersburg: Il-oe otdelenie Sobstvennoi E. I. V. Kantseliarii, 1 8 5 1 Pamiatniki istorii i kuVtury Permskoi oblasti, 2 Vols. Perm': Knizhnoe izdatel'stvo, 1971-6. Pamiatniki russkogo prava, 8 Vols. Moscow: Gosiurizdat, 1952-61. Paulus Jovius. "The History, written in the Latin tongue by Paulus Jouius, By shop of Nuceria in Italie, of the Legation or Ambassade of Great Basilius of Moscouia, to Pope Clement the VII." In Works issued by the Hakluyt Society, Vol. 12: Notes upon Russia, pp. 228-56. London: n.p., 1852: reprint ed., New York: Burt Franklin, n.d. Pavel Iovii Novokomskii. "Kniga o Moskovitskom posol'stve." In Zapiski 0 Moskovitskikh delakh, pp. 251-81. Trans, by A. I. Malein. St. Petersburg: A. S. Suvorin, 1908. Pavlov, P. N. Pushnoi promysel v Sibiri XVII v. Krasnoiarsk: Krasnoiarskii gosudarstvennyi pedagogicheskii institut, 1972. Pegolotti, Francesco Balducci. La Practica della mercatura. Vol. 3 of Delia decima e delle altre gravezze imposte dal comune di Firenze, 4 Vols. in 2 (1765-66). Reprint ed., Bologna: Forni, 1967. "Notices of the Land Route to Cathay and of Asiatic Trade in the First Half of the Fourteenth Century." In Works issued by the Hakluyt Society, Vols. 36 and 37: Cathay and the Way Thither, 37: 279-308. London: Printed for the Hakluyt Society, 1866. Pelenski, Jaroslaw. "Muscovite Imperial Claims to the Kazan Khanate." Slavic Review 26 (1967): 559-76. Russia and Kazan. Conquest and Imperial Ideology (143#-1560s). The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 1974. Pellat, Charles, editor and translator. Les Prairies d'or, by al-Mas'udi, 3 Vols. Paris: Societe Asiatique, Collection d'Ouvrages Orientaux, 1962-71. Perel'man, I. L. " Novgorodskaia derevnia v XV-XVI vv." Istoricheskie zapiski, 26 (1948): 128-97. Peretiatkovich, G. Povolzh'e v XV i XVI vekakh. Moscow: Tipografiia Gracheva, 1877. Permskii sbornik, 2 Vols. Edited by D. D. Smyshliaev. Moscow: Tipografiia Lazarevskago instituta vostochnykh iazykov, 1859-60. Phillips, Paul Chrisler. The Fur Trade, 2 Vols. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1961. Pigeonneau, Henri. Histoire du commerce de la France, 2 Vols. Paris: L. Cerf, 1885-9. Pimenov, V. V. "Poezdka k prionezhskim Vepsam." Sovetskaia etnograflia, No. 3, 1957. PP. 158-63. 259

Bibliography Vepsy. Ocherk etnicheskoi istorii i genezisa kul'tury. Moscow and Leningrad: Nauka, 1965. Pirenne, H. "Draps d'Ypres a Novgorod au commencement du XIP siecle." Revue beige de philologie et d'histoire, 9 (1930): 563-6. Pistsovye knigi Obonezhskoi piatiny 1496 i 1563 gg. Edited by M. N. Pokrovskii. Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1930. "Platezhnaia kniga Kargopol'skogo uezda 1555-1556." In Materialy po istorii evropeiskogo severa SSSR. Severnyi arkheograflcheskii sbornik. (Vologda) 2 (1972): 253-90. Platonov, S. F. "Nizovskaia kolonizatsiia na severe." In Ocherkipo istorii kolonizatsii severa, 1: 47-69. 2 Vols. Petrograd: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo, 1922. "Problemy russkogo severa v noveishei istoriografii." Letopis' zaniatii arkheograflcheskoi komissii 35 (1927-1928): 105-14. Proshloe russkogo severa. Berlin: Obelisk, 1924; reprint ed., The Hague: Europe Printing, 1966. Platonov, S. F. and Andreev, A. I. " Novgorodskaia kolonizatsiia severa." In Ocherki po istorii kolonizatsii severa, 1: 26-37. 2 Vols. Petrograd: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo, 1922. Podorov, V. M. Ocherki po istorii Komi (Zyrian i Permiakov). Syktyvkar: n.p., 1933. Pogodin, M. P. Issledovaniia, zamechaniia, i lektsii, 3 Vols. Moscow: Imperatorskoe obshchestvo istorii i drevnostei Rossiiskikh, 1846: reprint ed., The Hague: Mouton, 1970. Poliak, A. N. "Novye arabskie materialy pozdnego srednevekov'ia o vostochnoi i tsentrarnoi Evrope." In Vostochnye istochniki po istorii narodov iugo-vostochnoi i tsentral'noi Evropy, pp. 29-66. Moscow: Nauka. 1964. Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei, 35 Vols. St. Petersburg, Moscow and Leningrad: Arkheograficheskaia komissia, Vostochnaia literatura, Nauka, 1846-1980 Poluboiarinova, M. D. Russkie liudi v Zolotoi Orde. Moscow: Nauka, 1978. Postan, Michael. "The Trade in Medieval Europe: the North." In Trade and Industry in the Middle Ages, pp. 119-256. Vol. 2 of Cambridge Economic History of Europe. Edited by M. Postan and E. E. Rich. Cambridge: University Press, 1952. Potin, V. M. Drevniaia Rusf i evropeiskie gosudarstva v X-XIU vv. Leningrad: Sovetskii khudozhnik, 1968. " Frantsuzskie i italianskie monety iz kladov X-XI na territorii SSSR. ' Sovetskaia arkheologiia, No. 1, 1963, pp. 61-74. " Maloizvestnyi inostrannyi istochnik o monetakh, tsenakh, i merakh v Rossii nachala XVI veka." In Proshloe nashei rodiny v pamiatnikakh numizmatiki Sbornik statei, pp. 206-9. Leningrad: Avrora, 1977. "Prichiny prekrashcheniia pritoka zapadnoevropeiskikh monet na Rus' v XII v." In Mezhdunarodnye sviazi Rossii do XVII v., pp. 84-115. Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1961. " Russko-skandinavskie sviazi po numismaticheskim dannym." In Istoricheskie sviazi Skandinavii i Rossii, pp. 64-80. Edited by N. E. Nosov and I. P. Shaskol'skii. Leningrad: Nauka, 1970. Povest' vremennykh let. Vol. 1: Vvodnaia chast''. Tekst. Primechaniia. Introduction by A. A. Shakhmatov. Petrograd: Imperatorskaia arkheograficheskaia komissiia, 1916; reprint ed., The Hague: Mouton, 1969. Presniakov, A. E. The Formation of the Great Russian State. Trans, by A. E. Moorhouse. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1970. Pritsak, Omeljan. "An Arabic Text on the Trade Route of the Corporation of the 260

Bibliography ar-Rus in the Second Half of the Ninth Century." Folia Orientalia 12 (1970): 241-59. "Moscow, the Goldon Horde, and the Kazan Khanate from a Poly cultural Point of View." Slavic Review 26 (1967): 577-83. The Origin ofRus', Vol. 1: Old Scandinavian Sources other than the Sagas. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, 1981. Pronshtein, A. P. Velikii Novgorod v XVI veke. Khar'kov: Khar'kovskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 1957. Pskovskie letopisi, 2 Vols. Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1941-5 5. Pypin, Aleksandr Nikolaevich. Istoriia russkoi etnograflU 4 Vols. St. Petersburg: Tipografiia M. M. Stasiulevicha, 1892. Queller, Donald E. and Day, Gerald W. "Some Arguments in Defense of the Venetians on the Fourth Crusade." American Historical Review 81 (1976): 717-37. Rikhter, G. D., ed. Sever evropeiskoi chasti SSSR. Moscow: Nauka, 1966. Romanov, B. A. "Den'gi i denezhnoe obrashchenie." In Istoriia kul'tury drevnei Rusi, 1:3 70-96. Edited by B. D. Grekov and M. I. Artamonov. 2 Vols. Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1948-51. Roublev, Michel, "The Mongol Tribute according to the Wills and Agreements of the Russian Princes." In The Structure of Russian History, pp. 29-64. Edited by Michael Cherniavsky. New York: Random House, 1970. Rozhdestvenskii, S. V. "Dvinskie boiare i dvinskoe khoziaistvo XIV-XVI vekov." Izvestiia AN SSSR. Otdelenie gumanitarnykh nauk, Series 7. (1929): 49-70, 135-54. Runciman, Steven. Byzantine Civilization. Cleveland and New York: Meridian Books, 1965; original ed., London: E. Arnold, 1933. "Byzantine Trade and Industry." In Trade and Industry in the Middle Ages, pp. 86-118. Vol. 2 of Cambridge Economic History of Europe. Edited by M. Postan and E. E. Rich. Cambridge: University Press, 1952. A History of the Crusades. Vol. 3: The Kingdom of Acre and the Later Crusades. New York and Evanston: Harper and Row, Harper Torchbacks, 1967. Russkaia istoricheskaia biblioteka, 39 Vols. St. Petersburg, Petrograd, Leningrad: Arkheograficheskaia komissiia, 18 72-1917 and Akademiia Nauk SSSR, i9i7?-27. Rybakov, B. A. "Put' izBulgara vKiev." InDrevnosti vostochnoiEvropy, pp. 189-96. Materialy i issledovaniia po arkheologii SSSR. Vol. 169. Moscow: Nauka, 1969. "Torgovlia i torgovye puti." In Istoriia kuVtury drevnei Rusi, 1: 315-69. Edited by B. D. Grekov and M. I. Artamonov. 2 Vols. Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1948-51. Rybina, E. A. Arkheologicheskie ocherki istorii Novgorodskoi torgovli. Moscow: Moskovskii universitet, 1978. Sachs, J. C. Furs and the Fur Trade. London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, 1922. Sakharov, A. N. "Pokhod Rusi na Konstantinopl' v 907 godu." Istoriia SSSR, No. 6, 1977, pp. 72-103. Sartorius, G. C. " 0 torgovle nemetskikh kuptsov s Rossiei do kontsa XIV v." Zhurnal ministerstva narodnago prosveshcheniia 22 (1839): 144-72. Trans, by S. Stroev. " Pervonacharnoe obrazovanie i rasprostranenie nemetskogo dvora v Novgorode.'' Zhurnal ministerstva narodnago prosveshcheniia 17(1838):

564-627.

Sattler, C. Die Handelsrechnungen des Deutschen Ordens. Leipzig: Duncker and Humblot, 1887. 261

Bibliography Savel'ev, P. Arkheologicheskie i numizmaticheskie otryvki. St. Petersburg: Ekspeditsiia zagotovleniia gosudarstvennykh bumag, 1855. Klady s vostochnymi monetami nakhodimye v Rossii. St. Petersburg: n.p., 1842. Mukhammedanskaia numizmatika v otnoshenii k russkoi istorii. St. Petersburg: n.p., 1847. Savel'eva, E. A. "Istoriia severnykh narodov' Olausa Magnusa i ee izvestiia o Rossii." Avtoreferat dissertatsii na soiskanie uchenoi stepeni kandidata istoricheskikh nauk. Leningrad: 1974. "Kniga Olausa Magnusa Istoriia severnykh narodov' i ee izvestiia o Rossii." In Istoricheskie sviazi Skandinavii i Rossii IX-XX vv., pp. 3 31-4. Leningrad: Nauka, 1970. " 'Morskaia karta' Olausa Magnusa i ee znachenie dlia evropeiskoi kartografii." In Istoriia geograflcheskikh znanii i otkrytii na severe Evropy, pp. 59-87. Leningrad: Geograficheskoe obshchestvo SSSR, 1973. "Olaus Magnus o russkom severe." In XXIII Gertsenovskie chteniia. Istoricheskie naukU 1: 48-50. Leningrad: n.p. 1970. Perm' Vychegodskaia. K voprosu 0 proiskhozhdenii naroda Komi. Moscow: Nauka, 1971. "RossiianakarteOlausa Magnusa." In Skandinavskii sbornik 16 (1971): 205-12. "Tezisy k dokladu 'Rossiia na karte Olausa Magnusa.'" In Tezisy dokladov chetvertoi vsesoiuznoi konferentsii po istorii, ekonomike, iazyku, i literature skandinavskikh stran i Finliandii, pp. 138-41. Petrozavodsk: n.p., 1968. Savich, A. A. "Glavneishie momenty monastyrskoi kolonizatsii russkogo sever a XIV-XVII vv." In Sbornik obshchestva istoricheskikh,fllosofskikhi sotsialnykh naukpri Permskom universitete 3 (1929): 47-116. "Iz istorii monastyrskoi kolonizatsii i khoziaistva na Urale XVI-XVII v." Permskii kraevedcheskii sbornik 4 (1928): 144-76. " Monastyrskoe zemlevladenie na russkom severe XIV-XVII vv." Uchenye zapiski Permskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta 2 (1933): 153-229. Proshloe Urala. Perm': n.p., 1925. Solovetskaia votchina XV-XVII vv. Perm': Obshchestvo istoricheskikh, filosofskikh i sotsial'nykh nauk pri Permskom gosudarstvennom universitete, 1927. Sawyer, P. H. Kings and Vikings: Scandinavia and Europe AD 700-1100. London and New York: Methuen, 1982. Sbornik gramot kollegii ekonomii, 2 Vols. Petersburg: Rossiiskaia gosudarstvennaia akademicheskaia tipografiia, 1922 and Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk, 1929. Sbornik imperatorskago russkago istoricheskago obshchestva, 148 Vols. St. Petersburg: Imperatorskoe russkoe istoricheskoe obshchestvo, 1867-1916. Schier, Bruno. Archivfiir Pelzkunde, Vol. 1: Wege und Formen des dltesten Pelzhandels in Europa. Frankfurt am Main: Dr Paul Scops, 1951. Schiltberger, Johann. The Bondage and Travels of Johann Schiltberger. Works issued by the Hakluyt Society, Vol. 58. Translated by J. Buchan Telfer with notes by P. Bruun. New York: Burt Franklin, 1876. Serbina, K. N., "Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod." Istoricheskie zapiski 20 (1946): 239-70. ed. Ustiuzhskii letopisnyi svod. Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1950. Shaitan, M. E. " Germaniia i Kiev v XVI v." Letopis' zaniatii istoriko-arkheograflcheskoi komissii 1 (1927) 3-26. Shakhmatov, A. A. Obozrenie russkikh letopisnykh svodov, XIV-XVI vv. Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1938. 262

Bibliography Razyskaniia o drevneishikh russkikh letopisnykh svodakh. St. Petersburg: M. A. Alexandrov, 1908. Shapiro, A. L., et al. Agrarnaiaistoriiasevero-zapadaRossii, 3 Vols. Leningrad: Nauka, 1971. 74, 78. Shaskol'skii, I. P. Stolbovskii mir 1617 g. i torgovye otnosheniia Rossii so Shvedskim gosudarstvom. Moscow and Leningrad: Nauka, 1964. Shchapova, Iu. L. " Drevnerusskie stekliannye izdeliia kak istochnik dlia istorii russko-vizantiiskikh otnoshenii v XI-XII vv." Vizantiiskii vremennik 19(1961): 60-75. Shepard, J. "Some Problems of Russo-Byzantine Relations C.860-C.1050." The Slavonic and East European Review 52 (1974): 10-33. "The Russian Steppe-Frontier and the Black Sea Zone." Archeion Pontou 35 (1979): 218-37. Shevchenko (Sevcenko), Ihor, "Muscovy's Conquest of Kazan: Two Views Reconciled." Slavic Review 26 (1967): 541-7. "Russo-Byzantine Relations after the Eleventh Century." In Proceedings of the Xlllth International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Oxford. 5-10 September 1966, pp. 93-104. Ed. by J. M. Hussey, D. Obolensky, and S. Runciman. London, New York, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1967. Shishonko, V. N. Permskaia letopis'. Sbornik Permskago zemstva. Perm': n.p., 1881. Shliapin, V. P. "Iz istorii goroda Velikogo-Ustiuga." Zapiski severo-dvinskogo obschestva izucheniia mestnogo kraia 1 (1925): 5-35. " Iz istorii zaseleniia nashego kraia." Zapiski severo-dvinskogo obshchestva izucheniia mestnogo kraia 5 (1928): 30-52. Shmidt, S. 0. "K kharakteristike russko-krymskikh otnoshenii vtoroi chetverti XVI v." In Mezhdunarodnye sviazi Rossii do XVII v., pp. 366-75. Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1961. Shmurlo, E. "Izvestiia Dzhiovanni Tedal'di o Rossii vremen Ioanna Groznago." Zhurnal ministerstva narodnago prosveshcheniia 275 (1891): 121-46. Shpilevskii, S. M. Drevnie goroda i drugie Bulgarsko-tatarskie pamiatniki v Kazanskoi gubernii. Kazan': n.p., 1877. Shtaden, Genrikh. 0 moskve Ivana Groznogo. Trans, by 1.1. Poslin. Leningrad: n.p.. 1925. Shtida, L. Kh. "O razlichnykh naimenovaniiakh sortov mekha v ganzeiskoe vremia." Trudy IX arkheologicheskogo s"ezda. Moscow: n.p., 1897. Shtok, A. von. "Istoriia o rodoslovii i bogatstve i otechestvennykh zaslugakh znamenitoi familii Stroganovykh." Permskiia gubernskiia vedomosti, 1 November 1880-24 October 1881. Shurygina, A. P. "Novgorodskaia boiarskaia kolonizatsiia." Uchenye zapiski. Leningradskii gosudarstvennyi pedagogicheskii institut imeni A. I. Gertsena 78 (1948): 31-62. ''Sibirskie inorodtsy.'' Sibirskii sbornik (1887): 71-100. Sibirskiia letopisi. St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia arkheograficheskaia komissiia, 1907. Smirnov, A. P. "Drevniaia Rus' i Volzhskaia Bolgariia." In Slaviane i Rusf, pp. 167-72. Moscow: Nauka, 1968. "Nekotorye spornye voprosy istorii Volzhskikh Bolgar." In Istoriko-arkheologicheskii sbornik. Edited by D. A. AvdusinandV. L. Ianin. Moscow: Moskovskii universitet, 1962. Ocherki drevnei i srednevekovoi istorii narodov srednego Povolzh'ia i Prikam'ia. 263

Bibliography Materialy i issledovaniia po arkheologii SSSR, Vol. 28. Moscow: Akademiia NaukSSSR, 1952. Volzhskie Bolgary. Trudy gosudarstvennogo istoricheskogo muzeia, No. 19. Moscow: GIM, 1951. Smirnov, I.I. "Volzhski Bolgary." In Russkaia istohia v ocherkakh i stat'iakh, 1: 16-33. Edited by M. V. Dovnar-Zapolskii. 3 Vols. Moscow and Kiev: Moskovskoe uchebnoe kniazhestvo, N. la. Ogloblin, ? - i 9 i 2 . Smirnov, I.I. "Vostochnaia politika Vasiliia III." Istoricheskie zapiski 27 (1948) 18-66. Smirnov, V. D. Krymskoe khanstvo pod verkhovenstvom otomanskoi porty do nachala XVIU veka. St. Petersburg: n.p., 1887. Smith, John Masson, Jr. " Mongol and Nomadic Taxation." Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 30 (1970): 46-85. Sobranie gosudarstvennykh gramot i dogovorov, 5 Vols. Moscow: Tip. N. S. Vesevo-

lozhskago, 1813-94.

Solov'ev, S. M. Istoriia Rossii s drevneishikh vremen, 29 Vols. in 15 parts. St. Petersburg: Obshchestvennaia polza, i894?~5?: reprint ed., Moscow: Sotsiarno-ekonomicheskaia literatura, 1959-66. Sorlin, Irene, "Les traites de Byzance avec la Russie au Xe siecle." Cahiers du monde russe et sovietique 2 (1961): 313-60, 447-75. " Le temoignage de Constantin VII Porphyrogenete sur l'etat ethnique et politique de la Russie au debut du Xe siecle." Cahiers du monde russe et sovietique 6(1965): 147-88. Spasskii, I. G. "Iz istorii drevnerusskogo tovarovedeniia." Kratkie soobshcheniia instituta istorii material'noi kul'tury 62 (1956): 45-50. Sprenger, A., translator. El-Masudi's Historical Encyclopedia entitled "Meadows of Gold and Mines of Gems." London: Oriental Translation Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, 1841. Spufford, Peter and Wilkinson, Wendy. Interim Listing of the Exchange Rates of Medieval Europe. Keele: Peter Spufford, Department of History, The University, 1977. Startsev, Georgii. Ostiaki: sotsiaYno-etnograficheskii ocherk. Leningrad: n.p., 1928. Samoedy (Nencha). Istoriko-etnograflcheskoe issledovanie. Leningrad: Institut narodov sever a, 1930. Stieda, Wilhelm. Revaler Zollbiicher und Quittungen des 14 Jahrhunderts. Hansische Geschichtsquellen. Vol. 5. Halle: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1887. Sturluson, Snorri. The Heimskringla or the Sagas of the Norse Kings from the Icelandic of Snorre Sturlason, 4 Vols. Translated by Samuel Laing with notes by R. B. Anderson. 2nd, revised edition. London: J. C. Nimmo, 1889. The Heimskringla. The Olaf Sagas. Translated by Samuel Laing. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1915. Sykes, Percy. A History of Persia, 2 Vols., 3rd edition. London: Macmillan, 1930; reprint, 1963. Syroechkovskii, V. E. Gosti-surozhane. Izvestiia gosudarstvennoi akademii istorii materiarnoi kul'tury im. N. la. Marra, Vol. 127. Moscow and Leningrad: Sotsekgiz, 1935. " Mukhammed-Gerai i ego vassaly." Uchenye zapiski MGU 61 (1940): 3-71. "Puti i usloviia snoshenii Moskvy s Krymom na rubezhe XVI veka." Izvestiia AN SSSR. Otdelenie obshchestvennykh nauk, Series 7. (1932): 193-237 Talitskii, M.V. "K etnogenezu Komi." Kratkie soobshcheniia instituta istorii material'noi kul'tury 9 (1941): 47-53. 264

Bibliography Tatishchev, V. N. Istoriia Rossiiskaia, 7 Vols. Moscow: Moskovskii universitet, 1768-1848; Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1962-8. Thompson, Michael W. Novgorod the Great. New York and Washington: Praeger, 1967. Tiander, K. Poezdki skandinavov v Beloe more. St. Petersburg: n.p., 1906. Tiepolo, Francesco. "Discorso delle cose di Moscovia (1557)." Storia documenta di Venezia di S. Romanin, 6: 505-22. 10 Vols. Venice: Pietro Naratovich, 1853-61. Tiesenhausen (Tisengauzen), V. G. Sbornik materialov, otnosiashchikhsia k istorii Zolotoi Ordy, 2 Vols. St. Petersburg: n.p., 1884; 2nd ed., Moscow: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1941. Tikhomirov, M. N. The Towns of Ancient Rus'. Translated from the 2nd edition by Y. Sdobnikov. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1959. Tokarev, Sergei Aleksandrovich. Etnograflia narodov SSSR. Moscow: Moskovskii universitet, 1958. Tornberg, C. J., ed. Ibn al-Athiri chronicon, quod perfectissimum inscribitur. 15 vols. in 9. Lugduni Batavorum: E. J. Brill, 1851-76. Tyzhnova, I.I. "Obzor inostrannykh izvestii s Sibiri 2-i poloviny XVI veka." Sibirskii sbornik (1887): 101-47. UHanov, N. I. Ocherki istorii naroda Komi-zyrian. Moscow and Leningrad: Akademiia Nauk SSSR, 1932. "Ustiuzhskii letopisets." Pribavleniia k Vologodskim eparkhial'nym vedomostiam, 15 September-15 December 1873. Varovchikov, I. "Nabegi Novgorodtsev na Dvinskuiu stranu." Arkhangel'skie gubernskie vedomostU 9 May 1845. Vasil'ev, Iu. S. "Ob istoriko-geograficheskom poniatii 'Zavoloch'e.'" In Problemy istorii foedal'noi Rossii. Sbornik statei k 60-letiiu prof. V. V. Mavrodina,pp. 103-9. Leningrad: Leningradskii universitet, 1971. Vasil'ev, S. and Bekhterev, N. Istoriia Viatskago kraia s drevnikh vremen do nachala XIX stoletiia. Viakta: Skoropechatnia Anissmovykh, 1870. Vasirevskii, V. G., "Drevniaia torgovlia Kieva s Regensburgom." Zhurnal ministerstva narodnago prosveshcheniia 258 (1888): 121-50. Trudy. 4 Vols. in 5 parts. St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia Akademiia Nauk, 1908-; reprint ed., The Hague: Europe Printing, 1968. Vasiliev, Alexander. "Economic Relations between Byzantium and Old Russia." Journal of Economic and Business History 4 (1932): 314-34. The Russian Attack on Constantinople in 860. Cambridge, Mass.: The Medieval Academy of America, 1946. Veale, Elspeth M. The English Fur Trade in the Later Middle Ages. London: Oxford University Press, 1966. Veckinchusen, Hildebrand. Briefwechsel eines deutschen Kaufmanns im 15 Jahrhundert. Edited by Wilhelm Stieda. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1921. Veriaminov-Zernov, V. V. Issledovaniia 0 Kasimovskikh tsariakh i tsarevichakh, 4 Vols. St Petersburg: Imperatorskaia Akademiia Nauk, 1863-7. Vernadsky, George. Kievan Russia. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1948. The Mongols and Russia. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. 1953. Russia at the Dawn of the Modern Age. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1959. Trans. Medieval Russian Laws. New York: Columbia University Press, 1947; paperback ed., New York: W. W. Norton, 1969.

265

Bibliography Veshtomov, A. Istohia Viatchan so vremeni ikh poseleniia pri reke Viatke. Kazan': 1907. Vilinbakhov, Vadim B. " Rannesrednevekovyi put' iz Baltiki v Kaspii." Slavia Antiqua 21 (1974): 83-110. Virkov, V. E. and Kolchin, I. B. "Iz istorii torgovli drevnego Novgoroda." Sovetskaia arkheologiia 24 (1955): 93-7. Vitov, M. V. Istoriko-geograflcheskie ocherki Zaonezh'ia XVI-XVII vekov. Moscow:

Moskovskii universitet, 1962. "Vologodskii letopisets." Vologodskie gubernskie vedomosti, 13 February 1865. "Vologodskii letopisets." Pribavleniia k Vologodskim eparkhiarnym vedomostiam, 15

April-15 May 1873. Vvedenskii, Andrei. "Biblioteka i arkhiv u Stronganovykh v XVI-XVII v." Sever, 1923, books 3-4, pp. 60-115. Dom Stroganovykh v XVI-XVII vekakh. Moscow: Sotsiarno-ekonomicheskaia literatura, 1962. " Proiskhozhdenie Stroganovykh." Sever, 1923, book 2, pp. 63-84. Torgovyi dom XVI-XVII vv. Sbornik dokumentov. Leningrad: Put' k znaniiu, 1 9 2 4 . Wiet, Gaston, trans. Les Atoms precieux, par Ahmad ibn 'Umar ibn Rustah. Cairo:

Publications de la Societe de Geographie d'Egypte, 1955. William of Rubruck. The Journey of William of Rubruck to the Eastern Parts of the

World, 1253-55. Works issued by the Hakluyt Society, Series 2, Vol. 4. Translated with an introduction by William Rockhill. London: Printed for the Hakluyt Society, 1900; reprint, Nendeln/Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint Limited, 1967. Wittenborg, Hermann and Wittenborg, Johann. Handlungsbuch von Hermann und Johann Wittenborg. Edited by Carl Mollwo. Leipzig: Dyk, 1901. Worms, Emile. Histoire commerciale de la ligue hanseatique. Burt Franklin: Research

and Source Work Series, No. 218. New York: Burt Franklin, 1968. Zakhoder, B. N. Kaspiiskii svod svedenii 0 vostochnoi Evrope, 2 Vols. Moscow:

Vostochnaia literatura, 1962-7. "Khorasan i obrazovanie gosudarstva Sel'dzhukov." Voprosy istorii, Nos. 5-6, 1945, pp. 119-41. Zarubin, L. A. "Vazhskaia zemlia v XIV-XV vv." Istohia SSSR, No. 1, 1970, pp. 180-7. "Zavoevanie Sibirskago tsarstva." Permskie gubernskie vedomosti, 7-11 November 1881. Zenkovsky, Serge A., ed. and trans. Medieval Russia's Epics, Chronicles and Tales.

Revised and enlarged edition. New York: E. P. Dutton, A. Dutton Paperback, 1974. Zimin, A. A. "K istorii tamozhennoi reformy serediny XVI v." Istoricheskii arkhiv, No. 6, 1961, pp. 129-33. Rossiia na poroge novogo vremeni (Ocherki politicheskoi istorii Rossii pervoi treti XVI

v.). Moscow: Mysl\ 1972. Zimmern, Helen. The Hansa Towns. New York: G. P. Putnam, 1900. Zlotnik, Marc, "Immunity Charters and the Centralization of the Muscovite State." Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago, 1976.

266

INDEX

Abaskun (trade center), 13, 114 Abdyl-Letif (khan of Kazan'), 143 Abu Hamid, 176-7^ i8s-6n, 19cm; on Bulgar trade with Ves' and Iugra, 21-2; on fur supply from the Oka, 16, 123; on harpoons, 22; on Saksin, 23 Adam of Bremen (bishop), 52 Afanasii Nikitin, 107, 227n Agalak (of Tiumen'), 94, 143 Ahmad (of Great Horde), 108 Akkerman, 146, 22 5n Albert (bishop of Livonia), 61 Aldeigjuborg, see Staraia Ladoga Alexander Nevsky, 62 Ali-Khan (of Kazan'), 93 Almas (of Bulgar), 5, 8 Amol, 18, 23, 114 Amu Darya river, 12, 16 Andrei Bogoliubskii, 121, 122-3, 126-7, 2oon, 233n Andrei Dmitrievich (of Mozhaisk), 131, 2i6n Andrei Fedorovich (of Rostov), 132 Andrei Friazin, 91, 2i9n, 223n Anfal Mikitin, 135 Armenia, 17; merchant from, 92, 101, 107 armor, 6, 12, 102 Arsa, 10, 21 Askol'd and Dir, legend of, i n , 115 Astrakhan', khanate of, 227m commercial center, 33, 107, 108, I94n, 2i9n, 22 7n; foundation, 33, 92; relations with Muscovy, 108-9 Asyka (Vogul leader), 94-5, 96, 237n Atil, see Volga 'Aufi, Muhammad, 28 Azov (town), 31, 33, 100-1, 102, 146-7, I94n, 224m Russian merchants at, 100-2

Azov, Sea of, 5, 36; see also trade routes

Bagdad, 17, 18, 36-7, 45, 48, 112; fur consumption center, 12, 13, 14;

267

merchants from, 6 Baku, 13, 23, 112, 114, 227n al-Balkhi, 10, I72n, 174 Barbaro, Josafa, 33, I94n Bardaa, 17, 113; fur consumption center, 12, 13, 14; merchants from, 6 Bartol'd, V. V., I73n, i89n, I97n Bashkirs, 12 baskakU 8 8

Bayazit (Ottoman sultan), 103, 147 Bayhaki, 181 n, i82n Belev, 92, 22in Beloozero (Lake Beloe), 8, 20, 88, 96, 131; appanage of Andrei of Mozhaisk, 131; Muscovite control over, 131, 134, 136; Rostov control over, 119, 121, 129-30, i83n; Slav settlement, 20, i83n; territory of Ves', 7, 21-2, i83n Benjamin of Tudela (rabbi), 44-5 Berberini, Raphael, 97 Berezhkov, M., 203n Biarmia, 42, I99n Biliar, 5, 27, 30, 123-4 al-BIrunl, 20-1, 22, 184-5^ igon, 2O4n Bjorko, 40, I95n Black Sea, 5, 12, 26, i n , 146-7, 149, 164; Italian merchants in, 31, i88n. Bogdan Esipov (Novgorodian boyar), 71, 73T, 11, I53T Boris Dmitreev Zubarev (Novgorodian boyar), 72T, 74T, 1531 Bornholm, 40 Briansk, 105, 146 Brothers of the Sword, Order of, 61-2, 82; see also Teutonic Knights, Order of Bruges, see Flanders Bukhara, 12, 108, I72n. i86n; destruction by Mongols, 25; fur consumption center, 2 5; merchants from, 92, 107-8 Bulgar-on-the-Volga, 10, 14, 113, 17m, I72n; commercial center, 2, 6, 8-14, 16-17, 18, 23-4, 29, 32, 33-4, n o ,

Index Bulgar-on-the-Volga {cont.) 167, 19411; control over Kliaz'ma river, 16, 123; control over mid-Volga river, 11, 13, 19, 32, 2 i 8 - i 9 n ; control over Oka river, 15-16, 18-19, 123-4; foundation of, 5-6; fur supply to Golden Horde, 27-30, 87-8, i89n, 192m merchants of, 8-14, 19-20, 21-2, 2 7~3O» 98, 120, 121-2, 126; population of, 5-7, 8, 14, 15, 16; relations with Khazaria, 5, 12-14, 172m relations with Ves', 8, 14, 18, 19-23, 24, 28, 30, 59, I9on, 232-3n; trade with Voguly and Iugra, 21-2, 28, 29, i9O-2n; trade with Sudak, 25-7; see also Russo-Bulgar relations, trade routes Burtas (mythical figure), 6 Burtas (pop. group), 15, 113, 124, I72n, i85-6n, 232n; fur suppliers, 7, 13, 14; see also fur tributaries Byzantium, 18, 44, i n , 167, 229-3on; control over Tmutorokan', 229-3on; relation to Sudak, 25, i88n; tolls at Cherson, 36-7; trade with Kiev, 16, 19, 44-6, 115-16; wars of, 24, 44; see also Russo-Byzantine relations Caffa, 31, 33, 100-1, 146-7, 149; Genoese merchants at, 31; Russian merchants at, 100-2 Carpine, Friar Giovanni de Pian de (Piano Carpini), 27, 87 Caspian Sea, 18, 36-7, 107, i n , i73n, I74n; Rus' raids in, 36-7, 112-14, 116; see also trade routes Caucasus, 5, 33, 93, 108, 144, i87n; see also trade routes Central Asia, 13, 17-18, 24, 107; exports from, 16, 19, 23-4, 93; trade with Kazan', 107-8, 144; see also trade routes Chancellor, Richard, 85, 99 Cherdyn', 95, 96, 222n; see also trade routes Cheremis', 9, 140, I72n Cherepnin, L. V., 57 Chernigov, 20, 38, 115, 2 i 3 n Cherson, 36, 37, 46, 115-17, I97n, I98n, 2 0 m , 230n Chud', 9, 54 Chulyman, 29-30 Classical School of Muslim Geography, 9, 1 7 m , I74n Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, 39; on Pechenegs, 38-9, 117; on Rus' trading expeditions to Constantinople, 38; on

Rus' tribute collection, 9 Constantinople, 115-16; commercial center, 37-8, 43, 44-6, 47, 115-16 Contarini, Ambrogio, 104, 106-8, 226n, copper coins, 39 Crimean khanate, 109, 140; alliance with Lithuania, 101; ambassadors from, 22411; conflict with Great Horde, 101; foundation of, 33, 92, 101; see also Muscovite-Crimean Tatar relations Crimean peninsula, 12, 92; Italian merchant colonies, 90, 92, 100-1, 109, 146 Crusades: in Middle East, 24, 45-6, 49, 52, i88n; on Baltic Sea coast, 61-2 Danzig, 65, 66-7, 106 Day, Gerald W., 46, i88n Derbent, 23, 113, 114, i87n, 227n; fur consumption and trade center, 12, 13, 14, 107; merchants from, 6 dirhams, see silver al-Djayhani, i72n, I73n, I74n, i 8 s n Dmitrii Borisovich (of Rostov), 88 Dmitrii Gerasimov, 106 Dmitrii Ivanovich (Donskoi), 91, 131-2, 133, 2i9n, 223n, 234n Dmitrii Shemiakha, 137-8, 2 36n Dnepr river, 9, 112, 117-18, 2 3 0 - i n ; see also trade routes Don river, 1 o 1; see also trade routes Dorpat, 62, 66, 106, 159 Dvina land, 68, 70, 132, 137-40, 144, 152, 2O5n, 233n; merchants of, 134; Novgorod boyar estates in, 68, 70; Novgorod defense of, 133-6, 2 3 5 n; Orlets (fortress), 134; rents in, 79; taxes in, 75-6, 83, 135, 139, 155-7. 158T, 2O5-6n, 215n, 242n; see also North Dvina river dyes. 105, 107, 108 Ediger (of Sibir'), 145, 164 Edigey, 33, 2i9n, 2 2 m Egypt, 31-2, 44, 45-6, 102, 2i8n, Elers, Olrik, 84-5, 106, 226n Elizabeth (queen of England), 107 Emtsa district, 131, 135, 136, 138; ecclesiastical institutions in, 79; Novgorod boyar estates, 68, 71. 74, 239n; Rostov possessions in, 136; taxes in, 71, 74, 75, 156 England, 41, 62, 106; luxury fur consumption, 52, 104; merchants from, 85, 991 pirates from, 66; squirrel fur imports, 64-5, 68, 159

268

Index fabrics (clothing, textiles), 7, 17, 18, 25-6, 30, 39, 44, 45, 46, 106, 108; brocades, 6, 19, 39, 19811; cotton, 26, 107; damask, 104; linen, 93, i87n, 194m satins, 17, 102, 105; silks, 6, 19, 24, 26, 31, 37. 39. 40, 42-3. 45. 9O, 93. 102, 105, 107, 108, 167, I92n, I94~5n, 198m velvet, 104; woolen cloth, 41, 43, 64, 85, 93, 151, 167, I92n, I94n; Flemish wool, 51-2, 60, 67, 2O3n, 2ion, 2i2n falcons, see hunting birds Fedor Glukhov (Novgorod boyar), 71, 72T, 74, 153T, 239n Fedor Morozov (Novgorod boyar), 71, 72T, I53T Fedor Ostaf'evich (Novgorod boyar), 136 Fekhner, M. V., 164-6 Filofei (Perm' bishop), 96 fish, 19, 67, 80, 93, 94, 106 Flanders, 62, 65, 66-7, 103, 104, 159-61, 21m, 24cm flax, 84, 85, 106 fur, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 31. 37. 39. 41-3. 102, 106, 108, 122, 149, 21m, 2i2n, 225m Arabic fox, 7; beaver, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16, 21, 22, 25-6, 27, 35, 87, 99, 105, 131, 24m; black fox, 7, 10, 11, 13, 17, 35, 69, 99, 105, 2i3n; Burtas (Bortassian) fur, 7, 25-6; ermine, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 21, 26, 29, 30, 31, 45, 64, 79, 85, 94, 99, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 164, 167, 2O4n, 225n, 242n; fox, 12, 14, 27, 31, 35, 82, 87, 94, 102, 105, 131, 167, I99n, 24m; gray squirrel, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 21, 25-6, 27, 29, 31, 57, 64, 66, 67, 69-81, 82-3, 84-5, 87, 99, 102, 104-5, 133. 135. I39-4O, 152-63, 164, 166, 2O4n, 2ion, 2i2n, 2i3n, 239n, 24m, 242n, anigen, 65, 67, 159-62, 168, harwerke, 65, klezemes, 65, 145, 160, 161, 2ion, 24on, luschwerke, 65, 159-62, 2o8n, poppelen, 65, schevenissen, 65, 67, schoenewerke, 65, 159-62, 2o8n, 2ion, troyenissen, 65, 67, 161; marten, 7, 9, 12, 14, 17, 51, 82, 83, 85, 99, 102, 104-5, i n . 131. 164, 167, I99n, 242n; minever, see gray squirrel; otter, 16, 35, 105, 18in; red fox, 7, 13; sable, 7, 10-12, 14, 17, 22, 29, 30, 31, 45, 59, 64, 80-1, 83, 85, 87, 92, 93, 94, 95-6, 97, 99, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 131, 133, 135. 143, 146, 147, 158, 164-6, 167, 168, I92n, 2O4n, 224n, 225n, 226n, 237n, 24 m, 242n; vair, see gray

squirrel; water sable, 16; white fox, 7, 99, 105 fur fashion, 52, 64, 82, 104, 2ion; among European royalty, 64, 104, 2O4n fur hunting, 6-7, 8, 10, 21, 28, 30, 69-70, 75, 79, 89, 94, 97 fur prices, 151, 159-62. 164-6, 239n, fur rents, 71-4, 77-9, 81, 83, 152-5, 158T fur taxes, 71, 74, 75-6, 81, 83, 139, 155-7. I 5 8 T

fur trade, value of, 2, 151, 159-64, 166, 240-in fur tributaries: Bulgar, 27; Burtas, 15-16. i85n; Iugra, 58-9, 94, 95, 96-7, 133, 145; Pechora, 53, 89, 96, 131, I99n, 222n; Perm' Velikaia, 95-6, 24m; Rus' lands, 87, 163, 24m; Samoedy, 97; Sibir' khanate, 164, 238n, 24m; Ves\ 22; Voguly, 94, 96-7, 133; Vychegda Perm', 58-9, 89, 91-2, 96-7, 131, 133. 140, 143, 164, 165 Galich, 134, 137, 140 Gardizi, 17, I73n, i82n, I9on, ig6n gems, 17, 23, 90, 93, 102, 167, i92n Georgii Percamota, 97, 104, 106, 226n Germany, 103, 104, 105-6, 161; merchants from, 49-51, 58, 85; see also Hamburg, Hanseatic League, Lubeck Ghaznevids, 16, 23, 182m fur consumption, 17, 18 Giuriata Rogovich, 53, 58 glassware, 16, 17, 19. 24, 39, 40, 44, 45 Gleb Sviatoslavich (prince in Novgorod), 54, 121, 229n Gleb Vasil'kovich (of Beloozero), 129 Gleden, 23, 59, 124, 128, 2O7n, 233n gold, 17, 18, 45, 93, 103, 106, 164, 167 Golden Horde, 32, 163; Berdibek, khan of, 32; Bulat Temir, 32; decline of, 32, 90. 92, 109; fur consumers, 27-8, 29, 88; Janibeg, khan of, 31; Mangu Temir, khan of, 31; suzerainty over Rus' lands, 89-90; and Tiumen', 93, 22m; see also Mongols, Great Horde, Sarai gosti-surozhane, 91, 2 i 9 n Gotland, 39, 40, 41; and German merchants, 49, 61-2: trade with Novgorod, 50-1, 62-3, 2O3n, 2o8n grain, 19, 108, I92n; form of rent payment, 72-3T, 74-5, 77-8, 83; trade in, 46, 84, 94 Great Horde, 101, 146-7, 227n; destruction of, 101, 147; trade with

269

Index Great Horde (cont.) Muscovy, 108; see also Golden Horde, Mongols Greek merchants, 101, 104, 115 Grekov, B. D., 13 Grigorii Nagatin (Novgorod boyar), 72T, 74T, 153T Guagnini, Allesandro, 30 Hadji-Girey (of Crimean khanate), 101 Hamburg, 65, 66, 106 Hanseatic League, 63, 84, 106, 139; trade with Novgorod, 62-3, 65-8, 81-2, 83-4, 85, 237n Harald Hardradi (of Norway), 40 Harkavy, A. E., I72n, I73n Hasse, John, 85, 99 Hedeby, 40 hemp, 84, 85 Herberstein, Sigismund von, 30, 93, 97, 103, 105, 107, 164, 226n hides, see leather honey, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 22, 39, 44, 118, I92n horses, 38, 87, 108 Hungary, 16, 27, 44, 47, 48, 104, 106 hunting birds, 12, 17, 31, 91, 102, 103, 106, 149, 224n Iaropolk Rostisiavich (prince in Novgorod), 128 Iaroslav Iziaslavich (prince in Novgorod), 120 Iaroslavl', 19, 20, 88, 119-20, 122-4, 131, 136, i g s n , 234n Iaroslav Sviatoslavich (son of Sviatoslav of Chernigov and prince in Murom-Riazan'), 20, 2 3 m Iaroslav Vladimirovich (grand prince of Kiev), 19, 44, 50-1, 2oon Iaroslav Vladimirovich (prince in Novgorod), 51 Iaroslav Vsevolodich (prince of Vladimir), 88, 232n Iazhelbitsy, treaty of, 138, 236n Ibak (of Tiumen'), 93 Ibn al-Athir, i 8 8 - 9 n ; on trade at Sudak, 25-6 Ibn Battuta, 1 9 0 - i n ; fur export to China and India, 3 1 ; on land of darkness, 29; on Sarai, 30-1 IbnBIbi, i 8 g n Ibn Dasta, see Ibn Rusta Ibn Fadlan I 7 i - 2 n , I73n, i 8 s n ; on Bulgars, 7; on the Rus', 1 0 - 1 1 ; on silver, 1 1 ; on Ves', 8, 2 1 ; travel route of, 12 Ibn al-Fakih, 39, 112, 115, I73n,

I96~7n; on Rus' route to Khazaria, 35-6 Ibn Hawkal, 1 7 3 - 5 ^ on Arsa, 10; on Rus' fur supplies, 10; on Rus' attack on Khazaria, 15; on trade in Caspian, 13 Ibn Khurradadhbih, 39, 112, 115, 17cm, I73n, I74n, I95~7n; on Rus' route to Khazaria, 35-6, 37 Ibn Rusta, 11, 1 7 m , I73n, i8on, I9on, I96n; on Burtas, 7; on the Rus', 10-11; on silver, 11 Ibn Wasil, 28 Igor (Rus' prince), 9, 18, 39, 116, I95n, 23cm Il'men, lake, 10 Iona (Perm' bishop), 95, 140 Iran, 12, 17, 24, 33, 44, I73n, i87n, i89n, 227n; exports from, 19, 23, 93, 144; merchants from, 107-8 Iraq, 23-4, 31-2 iron products, 6, 22, 24, 30, 53, 67 Irtysh river, 93, 143 al-Istakhri, 10, I74~5n Istanbul, 147, 149. 224n Isu, see Ves' Itil', 11, 15, 32, 112, 113, 114, i 8 o n ; commercial center, 12, 13, 14, 36, 37 lug river, 140; trade center at mouth of, 21, 22, 23; see also trade routes Iugra, 21-2, 99, 102, i85n, 2O4n, 222n, 232n, 234n, 236n; flight across Urals, 32, 95, 2O4n; fur suppliers to Novgorod, 53, 59, 80, 89; relations with Tiumen' and Sibir', 93, 2 2 m ; subordination to Muscovy, 95-6, 133, 141-4, 22on, 238n; trade with Bulgar, 29-30; trade with Ves', 21-2, 28; trade with Vychegda Perm', 131, 141; trade with Voguly, 30; see also fur tributaries Iura, see Iugra Iurii (prince of Galich), 137 Iurii Vladimirovich Dolgorukii (prince of Rostov), 119-20, 2 3 m Iurii Andreevich (prince in Novgorod), 127-8 Iurii Danilovich (prince of Moscow), 89 Iurii Vsevolodich (grand prince of Vladimir), 124, 126, 128-9, 23 3n Iushman (Vogul prince), 96, 143 Ivan III (grand prince of Moscow), 71, 83, 95, 102, 105, 106, 141, 143-4, 146, 164, 165, 2 i s n , 224n, 225n Ivan IV (grand prince of Mosow), 106-7, 145, 226n Ivan Berdenev (Novgorod boyar), 71, 73T, 71> I53T

27O

Index Ivan Danilovich (prince of Moscow), 89, 91, 131

Ivan Dmitreev Vorvarin (Novgorod boyar), 71, 73T, I53T Ivan Ofanasii Patrekeev (Novgorod boyar), 72T, 74T, 153T, 2 i 3 n Ivan Shirokov Iazhyshchinskii (Novgorod boyar), 73T, 74T, 77, 153T Ivan Zakhar'in Ovinov (Novgorod boyar), 73T, 74T, 77, 153T Ivangorod, 84 Iziaslav Iaroslavich (grand prince of Kiev), 44 Iziaslav Mstislavich (grand prince of Kiev),

120, 126 Iziaslav Vladimirovich (son of Vladimir Monomakh and prince in Murom), 119, 23m

Jenkinson, Anthony, 99, 107, 228n jewelry, 6, 17, 40, 41-2, 44, 45, 51 Joseph (of Khazaria), 36-7, 113, I72n Kama river, 6, 123, 141; location of Bulgar, 5; location of Udmurts, 7; merchants from, 30; site of Sassanian coins, 6; see also trade routes Karelian Pomor'e: Novgorod boyar estates in, 69 Kargopol', 20, 152, 239n; rents in, 79; taxes in, 75-6, 155-7, 158T, 2i5n, Kasim (of the Kazan' khanate), 141 Kazan' khanate, 137, 22 7n; commercial center, 2, 86, 92-3, 103, 107, 109, n o , 144, 167; control over routes to Siberia, 94, 98, 99, 100, 141-3; foundation of, 33, 92, 109, 22m; luxury fur exports, 100, 103-4, 107-8, 109; luxury fur supplies, 93-4, 100, 109, 141-2, 145; merchants from, 95, 100; relations with Perm' Velikaia, 95; relations with Tiumen', 93-4; Russian merchants at, 107, 141, 144, 228n; see also Muscovite-Kazan' relations al-Kazwini, i86n, igon; on Saksin, 23 Kemar (Kimar), 6, 7 Khanty, 30; see also Iugra Khazaran, 15, 113 Khazaria, 6, 7, 13, 111-14, 17m; control of access to Caspian, 12-13, 37» 112-14, 229n; destruction of, 15, 16, 113-14, i8on; displacement of Bulgars, 5; merchants from, 6, 13, 14; trade with Bulgar, 12, 13; tributaries of, 5, 7, 13, 14, i n , I72n; see also trade routes, Kievan Rus'

Khazars (population), 10, 15; in Saksin, 23; in Sudak, 25 Khoigushskii pogost, 73T, 74, 77, 78T, 153T, 239n Kholmogory, 30, 83, 85, 99, 135, 237n, 24m Khorasan, 23, 24, 25, i82n, i87n; fur consumption center, 13, 18; Suri, governor of, 18 Khotslavl'skii pogost, 73T, 74, 78T, 153T, 4 , 39 Khvol'son, D. A., I72n, I73n, i86n Khwarezm, 12, 24, I79n, i84n, i87n, I95n; commercial conditions in, 25, 26-7; formation of empire, 25; invasion by Mongols, 25; merchants from, 6, 23, 25; trade with Bulgar, 12, 13, 14, 43; see also Bukhara, Urgench Kievan Rus', 16; commercial center, 2, 44, 86, n o , 167, 2oon; Kiev (city), 10, n , 14, 16, 18, 19, 87; political center, 2, 9, 37, 111-12, i83n; relations with Khazaria, 14-15, 111-14, 118; trade with Central Europe, 47-9; trade with Sudak, 47-9; see also Russo-Bulgar relations, Russo-Byzantine relations Kipchaks, see Polovtsy Kleinenberg, I. E., 106 Kliaz'ma river, see Bulgar, Russo-Bulgar relations, trade routes Kokshenga river, 136, 138 Kolomna, 87, 105 Konstantin Vasil'evich (prince of Rostov and Ustiug), 90, 132 Konstantin Vsevolodich (grand prince of Vladimir), 59, 124, 128-9, 207n, 233n Konstantin Borisovich (prince of Rostov and Ustiug), 88 Kovalevskii, A. P., 13 Krachkovskii, A. Iu., I73n, I97n Kubenskoe lake, 129, 131, 134 Kulikovo, battle of, 131 Kuz'ma Fefilatov (Novgorod boyar), 71, 73T, 77, I53T, 239n Ladoga, lake, 7, 9, 20, 22, 53 Laetus, Julius, 102 "land of darkness," 1, 21-2, 29, 167 leather (and leather goods), 7, 12, 14, 84, 85, 93, 106, 108, I98n Lesnikov, M. P., 159-61 Lithuania, 61-2, 105, 224n, 225n, 24m; ally of Crimean khanate, 101, 146; Russian merchants in, 105, 224n; see also Muscovite-Lithuanian relations, trade routes Livonia, 65, 83, 2o8n; Christianity,

271

Index Livonia {cont.) introduction of, 61-2; control over Peterhof, 63, 84; trade with Novgorod, 62-3; see also Dorpat, Reval, Riga, Hanseatic league Iivonian Order, see Brothers of the Sword, Order of Liibeck, 49, 50, 61, 62, 65, 106, 151, 2O2n; control over Peterhof, 63, 84; merchants of, 62; toll register (1368), 66, 2o8n, 239n Luka Fedorov (Novgorod boyar), 71, 73T, 153T

Mahmed Amin (khan of Kazan'), 103, 143-4, 225n, 228n Mahmud (Ghaznevid ruler), 17-18, i84n Mahmutek (of Kazan' khanate), 92, 22m Mamai, 32, I94n, 2i9n Mamuk (Tiumen' khan), 93-4, 143 Mangyts (Tatar clan), 33, 22 7n Mansi, see Voguly Marfa Boretskaia (Novgorod boiarynia), 72T, 74T, 153T, 2i3n, 2i4n Marwazi, 28, I72n, I9on Masud (Ghaznevid ruler), 18, 114 ai-Mas'udi, 17cm, I72n, i86n; on Khazar control of the Caspian, 36, 112-13; on theBurtas, 7, 13 Mengli-Girey (Crimean Tatar khan), 102, 103, 143, 146, 224n, 227n Merya (Finnic tribe), 9, 18 Mezen' river, 8, 132, 138-9; taxes from region of, 157, 23 7n Michael Choniates (metropolitan of Athens), 45 Michael VIII Paleologus, 31 Middle East, 16, 32, 44, 46; exports from, 19.24 mid-Volga lands, 2, 168, 169; see also Bulgar-on-the-Voga and Kazan' khanate Mikhail (of Cherdyn'), 95, 142, 22cm Mikhail Berdenev (Novgorod boyar), 72-3T, 74T, 77, 153T Minorsky, V., I72n Moldan (Iugra prince), 96, 143 Mongols, 14, 189m Chagatai ulus, 32; Il-khans, 28, 190m invasion of Bulgar, 27, 30; invasion of Khwarezm, 25; invasion of Rus' lands, 25-6, 61, 86-7, 130, 207m Yuan dynasty (China), 33; see also Golden Horde, Great Horde, Sarai, trade routes Mordva, see Burtas Moscow, 87, 137; commercial center, 2, 85, 86, 104-5, 109. n o , 164-5, l 6 6 > 167; luxury fur exports, 90, 92, 100-3,

105-7, 108-9, 133. 140, 145-6, 149-50, 163-4, J 68; luxury fur supply, 83, 91-2, 94, 96-7, 99-100, 103, 109, 133, 140-3, 144-5, T46, 149; northern and northeastern expansion, 32, 82-3, 89-90, 91-2, 94-6, 131-45, 223n, 237n; political center, 2, 149-50, I94n; tribute to Golden Horde, 89-90, 109, 13 3; see also Muscovite-Crimean Tatar relations, Muscovite-Kazan' relations, Muscovite-Lithuanian relations, Muscovite-Novgorod relations, Muscovite-Ottoman relations, Russo-Bulgar relations Mozhaisk, 105 Mstislav Andreevich (son of Andrei Bogoliubskii), 127 Mstislav Iziaslavich (grand prince of Kiev), 127 Mstislav Rostislavich (prince of Rostov and Novgorod), 128 Mstislav Vladimirovich (son of Vladimir Monomakh), 119, 2O4n al-Mufcadassi, 12, I79n Murom, 16, 92, 123, 127, 22m, 23m; Rus' control over, 15, 20, 119, 23m Muroma (tribe), 9 Murom-Riazan', see Murom Muscovite-Crimean Tatar relations, 100, 101-2, 143-4, 145-50, 165, 224~5n Muscovite-Kazan' relations, 140-5, 22 7n, 236m annexation of Kazan', 86, 92, 93, 109, n o , 145; commercial relations and competition, 92-3, 100, 103-4, 107, 141-4; political relations and rivalry, 94, 100, 107, 140-5 Muscovite-Lithuanian relations, 105, 145-50, 164, 225n Muscovite-Novgorod relations, n o , 130-40, 145, 149, 234n, 235m annexation of Novgorod, 83-4, 138, 140 Muscovite-Ottoman relations, 102-3, 146-9, 165-6, 168, 224~5n, 238n Narva, 82, 84, 85 Nasonov, A. N., 88 Nasr (Qara-Khanid ruler), 17 Natal'ia Moseev Babkina (Novgorod boiarynia), 71, 73T, 153T Nentsy, see Samoedy Netherlands, 106; merchants from, 84, 106

Nicea, 45 Nishapur, 12, 18 Nizhnii Novgorod, 23, 32, 87, 92, 107, 126, I94n, 22m

272

Index Nogais, 33, 93, 107, 108, 109, 22711; trade with Kazan', 107, 108, 22811; trade with Moscow, 108, 109, 22811 Noonan, Thomas S., 177-811 Norse sagas, 39-40, 41-2 North Africa, 14, 167; fur consumption region, 12, 13 North Dvina river, 20, 22, 30, 53-5, 57, 136; see also Dvina land Novgorod, 87, 138, 205n, 2 4 m ; Baltic trade, 39-43, 49-51, 61-2, 86, 167-8, 202m commercial center, 2, 10, 19, 24, 39-40, 65, 81-2, 83-5, 99, 109, n o , 145, 151, 159-63, 166, 167, 2ion, 226m expansion to northeast, 20, 22, 53-5. 57-9. 130, 168, 2i9n, 234n, 23&n; fur supply to Kiev, 44, 53, I99n; Hanseatic trade, 62-3, 65-8, 81-2, 83-4, 85, 136, 158-9, 2ion, 2i2n, 237n, 239n; luxury fur supply methods, 57-9, 80-1, 82-3, 88-90, 91, 131, I33» 138-9, 168; merchants of, 50-1, 58-60, 80-1, 83, 98, 122, 128, i86n, 20 7n, 2O9n, 232n, 237m squirrel supply system, 68-81, 82-3, 85, 104, 133. 135-6, 138, 139-40, I45» 149. 152-9, 166, 168; and Sukhona route, 58-9, 126-30; trade with Order of Teutonic Knights, 67-8, 237n; and upper Volga route, 19, 20, 58, 119, 121; see also Muscovite-Novgorod relations, Novgorod-Suzdalian relations, Russo-Bulgar relations, Obonezhskaia piatina, Zaonezh'e Novgorod-Suzdalian relations, 59-60, 87-8, 120-2, 126-30, 2 3 m , 233n Novyi Torg, see Torzhok Nur-Saltan, 103, 143, 227n Ob' river, 30, 80-1, 92, 94, 95, 96, 141, 143, 167 Obonezhskaia piatina, 53, 57, 133, 160, 242n; grain production in, 74-5, 78, 83, 2I3-I4n, 239n; Novgorod boyar estates in, 68-70, 71, 74, 77, 83, 152-5; rents from, 74, 77, 152-5, 156, 158T, 239n; see also individual pogosts Oghuz (Turks), 12, I79n; in Saksin, 23; wars of, 24, 25 Oka river, 15-16, 123-4, 126, 146; Bulgar control over, 15-16; see also Bulgar-on-the-Volga, Russo-Bulgar relations, trade routes Oleg (prince of Kiev), 9, 37, i n , 115, Oleg Sviatoslavich (prince of Chernigov), 20, 117, 119, 229n, 2 3 m

Oleksandr Timofeev (Novgorod boyar), 73T, 74T, 153T "On unknown men in the eastern land," 80-1, 83 Onega, lake, 7, 22, 68, 74, 154 Onega river, 58, 75; see Novgorod expansion, Zaonezh'e Ontov monastery, 77, 79, 152, 2 i 5 n Oshtinskii pogost, 72T, 78T, 153T, 155T; economic organization on boyar estates, 78, 239n Ostafii Anan'evich, 70, 136 Ostiaki, see Iugra Ottoman empire: ambassadors from, 103, 149, 224n, 225n; control over Black Sea, 101, 146-7; fur consumption, 102-3, !O9. 140, J 46; see also Muscovite-Ottoman relations Ottar (of Halogaland), 41 Paleostrov monastery, 70 Paraskeva-Piatnitsa, church of, 50 Paulus Jovius, 30, 99, 106, 107, i g 2 n Pechenegs, 37, 44; migration westward, 116; relations with Rus', 38-9, n 6 - 1 7 , 118, I97n, I98n; trade with Cherson, 116-17, I97n, I98n, 2 0 m Pechera (tribe), see Pechora Pechora river, 8, 92, 96, 132, 223n; territory of Iugra, 21; territory of the Voguly, 30, 94 Pechora (tribe), 9, 91, 99, i92n, 222-ycw see also fur tributaries Pegolotti, Francesco Balducci, 31-2 Pelushskii pogost, 73T, 74, 77, 78T, 153T, 2i4n, 239n Pereiaslavl', 20, 115, 2 3 0 - i n Perekop, 146, 224n Perfurii's sons (Novgorod boyars), 71, 73T, 153T Perm', 9, I92n, 237n; see also Perm' Velikaia, Vychegda Perm' Perm' Velikaia, 30, 93, 94-5, 96, 100, 141-2, i84n, 222n; conversion to Christianity, 95; subordination to Muscovy, 95, 96, 140-2, 144, 22on Persia, see Iran Petachiah (of Regensburg), 48 Peterhof, 50, 62, 63, 65, 82, 84, 159, 2O2n, 2O9n, 226n; closure, 84; see also Hanseatic League, Novgorod Pimen (metropolitan), 91 Pinega river, 92, 138-9, 144; taxes from region of, 157, 237n: see also Novgorod: expansion to northeast, Zaonezh'e, Moscow: northern and northeastern expansion

273

Index Pirenne, Henri, 20311 Pitirim (Perm' bishop), 94-5, 138 Poland, 27, 48, 62, 103, 104 Polotsk, 105, 127, 147 Polovtsy, 23, 119, i87n, 22gn; and the Dnepr route, 44, 117-18, 230-in; control over steppe routes, 26; in Sudak, 25.47 pominki, 101-2, 224n pottery, 8, 16, 19, 23, 41, 51 Presniakov, A. E., 235n Priladozh'e, 53 Primary Chronicle, 9, 35, 39, 53, 111, 116, I95n Pritsak, Omeljan, i82n, I95n, I96n, 23on Pskov, 84-5, 106, 159; merchants of, 84 Putivl', 101, 105, 146-7, 224n, 225n Qadir-khan, 17-18 Qara-Khanids, 16, 23, 24, i82n, i86n; fur consumers, 17 Qara-Khitay, 24-5, i87n Queller, Donald, 46 Radilov (fortress), 123 Reval, 62, 66, 84, 85, 106, 151, 2ion, 239m merchants of, 66-7; ships from, 66, 159 Rey, 12, 18, 112; market center, 6, 12, 13, 14, 36; merchants from, 6 Riazan', 87, 123, 127 Riga, 62, 159; ships from, 66-7, 159 Riurik legend, 35, 121 Riurik Rostislavich (prince in Novgorod), 127 Roman Mstislavich (prince in Novgorod), 127 Rostislav (prince in Tmutorokan'), 229n Rostislav Mstislavich (grand prince of Kiev), 127 Rostov (principality), 9, 15, 88, 119, i82n, I95n; control over Beloozero, 119, 121, 129-30, 183m control over Ustiug, 59, 88, 128-30, 132; expansion, 20, 22, 122; famine in (1071), 19; Muscovite control over, 89-90, 136; possessions in Zavoloch'e, 79-80, 131, 136; Rus' control over, 18-19 Rostov-Suzdal', 2, 20, 22, 44, 59-60, 86, 119, 122; see also Novgorod-Suzdal' relations, Russo-Bulgar relations Rum, see Byzantium Rus', 9, 11, 13, 15, 35, I73n, I74n, I95n; fur supplies, 8, 10-11, 14, 43; raids in Caspian sea, 37, 112-14, 22gn; trade with Khazaria, 35-7, 43, 112; see also Pechenegs, Russo-Bulgar relations, Russo-Byzantine relations Russo-Bulgar relations, n o ;

Kievan-Bulgar relations, 14-16, 114, 119; Muscovite attack on Bulgar (1376), 32, 2i9n; Novgorod-Bulgar relations, 18-19, 24, 30, 32, 43-4, 58, 120-2; Suzdalian-Bulgar relations, 20-3, 86-7, 119-20, 121-6, 232n Russo-Byzantine relations, 16-19, 37-8, 43, 44-5, 48-9, 115-16, 118, 20m; military campaigns against Constantinople, 37, 113, n 5 - 1 6 , 197n, 23on St. John the Baptist, church of, 50-1, 2O3n St. Nikola, church of, 70 St. Olaf, church of, 50, 62 St. Sophia (Novgorod), 54, 132; participant in fur supply network, 79-80 Saksin, 16, 21, 23, 24, 32, 46, i86n, salt, 30, 41, 43, 51, 67, 75, 84, 85, 90, 93, 106, 107, 151, i92-3n Samanid Empire, I79n, i84n, 22gn; coins of, 8; collapse of, 16; trade with Bulgar, 12, 13, 14 Samarkand, i86n; fur consumption center, 25 Samkarsh, see Tmutorokan' Samoedy, 53, 58, 80-1, 94, 96, 99, 141, 144, 222n

Samson Perkhur'evich, 70 Sarai: capital of Golden Horde, 33, 92, I94n; commercial center, 28, 30-2, 88, 90, 92, 100, I92n, I94n, 2i9n;

foundation of, 30; see also Golden Horde, Great Horde Saraichik, 31, 108 Sarkel, 36, 113, 229n Sassanian Empire, 6 Scandinavia, 8, 40-1, 83; and Kievan Rus', 39, 50-1; merchants from, 40-3, 49-52; trade with Novgorod, 41, 49-51, 62 Schleswig, 40, 50; German merchants at, 49 Seim river, see trade routes Seljuk Turks, 23, 24, 45, 47, i86n, i87n, i89n; Sultan Sanjar, 24, i87n; trade at Sudak, 26-7 Semender, 13, 113 Shaibanid dynasty, 33, 93, 238n Sheksna river, 20; see also trade routes Shemiakha, 92 Shenkursk pogost, 68, 70, 136 Shepard, J., 116 Shirwan, 93, 114, i87n, 227n Shirwan-shah, 15, 112; control over Caspian trade, 16, 114, i8on, 18m Shoenberg, Dietrich, 164-6

274

Index Shungskii pogost, 70, 72T, 74-5, 78T, 153T, 154, 155T; economic organization on boyar estates, 77, 78, 2i4n, 239n Siberia, 8 0 - 1 , 83, 93, 143, 144, 145 Sibir' khanate, 92, 93, 96, 143, 145, 164; annexation by Muscovy, 145, 2 4 m ; see also fur tributaries, Tiumen', khanate of silver, 19, 90, 93, 103, 106, 151, 162-3, 167-9, I92n; Byzantine, 39; cessation of Oriental imports, 11, 16, 19, 40, I77n, 185m European, 8, 40, 43, 67-8, 84, 85, 86, 160, 167, 2O3n, 2O7n, 2 i 2 n ; Hansa restrictions on use of, 67-8, 82, 2 i 2 n ; Oriental coins, 6, 8, 11, 14, 39, 4 2 - 3 , 167, I77~8n: hoards in Sweden, 40, 4 1 ; Tatar tribute, form of, 88, 90, 163 Sinop, 26, 2 0 i n slaves, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 22, 24, 25-6, 31, 37, 39, 118, I92n, 228n Slavs, 18, I73n, I74n; fur suppliers, 16; tribes of, 9, 10, i n , i 7 2 n ; victims of Rus', 9 Smolensk, 38, 105, 127, 147, 149, 2 3 m Solovetskii monastery, 69-70 Spain, 12, 13, 14 spices, 6, 19, 24, 26, 31, 39, 4 2 - 3 , 44, 45, 46, 90, 93, 102, I92n, I94n, 198m pepper in Novgorod, 19, 121 Staraia Ladoga, 9, 35, 53, 58, I95n, 2O4n Stefan of Perm' (bishop), 91-2, 94, 98, 132-3, 22cm Stroganov family, 99, 164, 223n Sudak, 46; Russians in 2 5; trade center, 25-7, 31, 47-8, 91, 100, i 8 8 n ; trade with Bulgar, 16; trade with Kiev, 26; tribute payment to Polovtsy, 25 Sukhona river, 20, 55; see also Novgorod, Suzdalia, trade routes Suleiman I, 165 Suvar, 5, 27, 28, 30 Suzdalia: control over Sukhona, 87, 126-30; control over Unzha-Iug route, 23, 28, 87; expansion to north, 23, 124, 130; famine in (1024), 19; fur export to Golden Horde, 88; merchants of, 19, 59, 87; political development, 119, 120, 127; Suzal' (city), 87; transit trade through, 19, 121-2; see also Rostov-Suzdal', Russo-Bulgar relations, Novgorod-Suzdal' relations Sviatopolk (prince in Novgorod), 120 Sviatoslav Iaroslavich (prince of Chernigov), 20, 119, 121 Sviatoslav (grand prince of Kiev), 111, 113, 117, 229n Sviatoslav's Charter, 54, 57, 68, 79, 121

Sviatoslav Mstislavich (prince in Novgorod), 128 Sviatoslav Rostislavich (prince in Novgorod, 127 swords, 12, 35, 37, 39 Syria, 23, 26, 31-2, 33 Tabaristan, 17, 18, 23, 229n Taibugins, 93, 145 tallow, 84, 85 Tana, see Azov Tarasii (bishop), 88 Tartu, 84, 85 Tavda river, 93, 96; see also trade routes Tedaldi, Giovanni, 226n Terpilov pogost, 75 Teutonic Knights, Order of, 61-2, 139, 164, 235n; trade with Novgorod, 67-8, 159-62, 237n Tikhomirov, M. N., 44 Timur, 33, 92, 100, 2 2 m Tiumen' khanate, 93-4, 99, 141-3, 144; merchants from, 94, 142-3; see also Sibir' khanate Tmutorokan', 36, 46-7, 114, i88n, 2 0 m , Tobol' river, 9 3 ; see also trade routes Tokhtamysh, 33, I94n, 2 i g n Tolvui pogost, 70 Toropets, 127, 147 Torzhok, 127-8, 134, 135 trade routes: Baltic sea routes, 39-41, 49, 62-3, 66, 84; Black Sea-Don-Volga, 36, 39, 43, 112-13; Bulgar-Central Asia, 6, 12, 16-17, 23-4, 25, 27, 31, I79n; Byzantine, 4 5 - 6 ; Caspian, 12-13, 16, 23-4, 108, 112; Caucasus, 24; Cherdyn' route, 97-8, 141-2, 144, 223n; Dnepr, lower, 37, 38, 44, 112, 115, 117-18, 119; Don river, 101, 147, 149, 224n; Kama river, 30, 94, 142, I92n, 22 i n ; Kazan'-Central Asia, 107-8; Khazaria-Muslim East, 12-14, 16, 36, 112; Kiev-central Europe, 4 7 - 8 ; Kliaz'ma-Oka-Volga, 16, 122-6; Lithuanian, 101, 105-6, 146-9, 224n, 22 5n, 226n; Novgorod-Livonia-northwest Europe, 62-3, 2o8n; Oka river, 11, 15-16, 18, 19, 20, 122; silk route, 31-2, 33, 90, I94~5n; steppe routes, 25-7, 101, 146-7, 148M, 149, 224m Sukhona-Dvina-Vychegda, 44, 58-60, 88-90, 99, 129, 130, 136, 138, 1840, i86n, 232-3n; Sukhona-Iug, 20, 87, 126-30, 137; across Urals, 94, 97-8, 141-3; "Varangians to the Greeks," 39, 43, 116; Volga, lower, 6, 11, 12-14, 16, 23-4, 25, 27, 30-2, 33-4, 36, 88,

275

Index trade routes (cont.) 90, 100, 107-8, 114, iSbn, i87n, I94~5n, 2i8-i9n, 227n, 229m Volga-Unzha-Iug, 20-1, 22-3, 28, 58, 87, 122-6; Volga, upper, 7, 8, 11, 16, 18-20, 21, 22, 28, 39, 43, 58-9, 87, 119-20, 121-2, I78n, 232m zaloznyi route, 46, 2 0 m ; Zavoloch'e, 55-7, 74-5. 79-8o, 83 Transcaucasia, 46-7, i87n; merchants from, 107 Transoxania, see Central Asia Trebizond, 26, 45, 46 Tura river, 93; see also trade routes Turchesov district, 76, 79, 152, 155-7, 158T, 242n Tver', 163, 227n, 2 4 m ; merchants from, 105, 107

Veckinchusen, Hildebrand, 66-7, 208n, 2O9n, 2ion, 2i2n, 24on Vel' pogost, 79, 134 Venitskii pogost, 73T, 78T, 79, 153T, 155T; economic organization on boyar estates, 77, 239n Ves', I72n, i84n, i85n; eastward migration, 20-2, i83~4n; homeland of, 7-8, 21-2, 53, i85n; imports of, 8, 24; relations with Russians, 60, 121-2; trade with Bulgar, 7-8, 14, 18, 19-23, 24, i85n; trade with Iugra, 21-2, 28; trade with Vychegda Perm', 8, 57, 126; see also fur tributaries Viatka, 135, 137-8, 140-2, 143, 144,

Viaz'ma, 105, 146-7 Vikings, 8-9 Vil'no, 105, 147 Visby, see Gotland Udmurts, 28, 30, 93; ancestors of, 7 Visu, see Ves' Udor river, 94 Vitovt (of Lithuania), 137, 235n Uglich, 88 Vladimir (city), 87-8, 121 Ulu Muhammad, 92, 2 2 m Vladimir (principality), 119, 124, 128 al-'Umari, 29-30, I 9 i - 2 n , I94n, 2 i g n Vladimir (prince of Kiev), 15, 18, 116, Unzha river, see trade routes 117, 119, 23on Urgench, 16, 27, I79n, i87n, I94n; Vladimir Iaroslavich (son of grand prince destruction of, 25, 33; transit center, Iaroslav Vladimirovich of Kiev). 44 25. 31-2 Vladimir Monomakh, 20, 119 ushkuinniki, 32-3, 132, 2 i 9 n Voguly, 30, 99, 131, 133, 138, 222n; Ustiug Velikii, 23, 87, 88-90, 95, 96, 128-9, x 3 7 - 8 , 142-3, 2O7n, 2i8n, conflicts with Russians, 94-5, 96, 22on, 22on, 223n; access to Siberian fur, 237n; flight across Urals, 32, 9 5 ; 97-8, 141-2; Bulgar attack on, 124, relations with Tiumen' and Sibir', 9 3 ; 126, 232m commercial center, 88, subordination to Muscovy, 96, 142-4; 97~99» zoo, 109, 140-1, 142, 144, trade with Iugra, 30; trade with 158; conflicts with Novgorod, 80, 89, Vychegda Perm', 131, 141 131, 134-5, !58; foundation of, 59, Volga river, 9, 10, 13, 18; location of 124, 128; Kazan' attacks on, 100, 140; Bulgar, 5; grain trade along, 19; see also merchants of, 99, 142, 144, 2 2 m ; trade routes Muscovite control over, 89-90, 91, Volga, lower: disruptions along, 3 2 - 3 ; 131-2, 135, 138, 141, 144; possessions ships along, 12, 13, 36; see also trade in Perm', 89, 131, 133 routes Ust'vym', 94, 22on Volga, upper: Bulgar control over, 15, Uzbeks, 33 123; Russian control over, 18-19, 20, 123-4; see also trade routes Vaga river, 22, 131, 135, 136, 138, 144, Vologda, 57, 58, 85, 88, 96, 99, 126, 2O5n, 2i3n, 236m Novgorod boyar 132, 134-5- 137. 138, 140, 141. 235n, estates in region of, 68-70; Rostov 236n, 2 4 m possessions in region of, 136 Volyn, 4 0 - 1 Vasilii I (of Moscow), 134-5, 235n Votiaki, see Udmurts Vasilii II (of Moscow), 137-8, 235n, 236n, Vsevolod Iaroslavich (grand prince of 23 7n Kiev), 119 Vsevolod Iur'evich (prince of Vladimir), 59, Vasilii III (of Moscow), 103, 106, 107, 122-4, I 2 8 , 2O7n, 233n Vsevolod Mstislavich (prince in Novgorod), Vasilii Iur'evich (of Galich), 137 50, 120, 2 3 m Vasilii Matfeev, 68-70, 136 Vyborg, 84 Vasil'ko (of Beloozero), 129

276

Index Vychegda Perm', 32, 57, 60, 94, 98-9, 130, 140-1, 143, i84n, 2o6n; Muscovite control over, 91-2, 96, 131-3, 136, 138, 220m trade with Ves', 8, 2o6n; see also fur tributaries Vychegda river, 20, 91-2, 94; see also trade routes Vygozero, 75 Vym' river, 8, 21, 91, 94; see also trade routes Vytegorskii pogost, 72T, 77, 78T, 153T, 155T, 24 m; economic organization on boyar estates, 78, 213-14^ 239n wax, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 37, 39, 44, 67, 84, 85, 118, 2ion, 21m wax merchants' association, see St. John the Baptist, church of weapons, 6, 14, 41, 43, 51, 93, 94 White Horde, 32, 33, 22m William of Rubruck, i93n; Mongol fur

consumption, 2 7-8; on trade at Sudak, 26,47 wine, 6, 39, 41, 45, 67 Witte, Engelbrecht, 66, 21m Wittenborg brothers, 66, 2i2n Worcester, bishop of, 52 Yura, see Iugra Zakhar Morozov (Novgorod boyar), 72T, 74T, 153T Zakhoder, B. N., I94~5n Zaonezh'e, 53, 55-7; Muscovite authority in, 83; Novgorod colonization, 68-70 Zavoloch'e, 20, 54, 89, 126-7, X33» X35» 138, 155, 2O5n, 233n, 235n; Novgorod possessions in, 54-7, 71, 74, 136, 2o6n; Rostov possessions in, 136; Rus' expansion into, 54; see also Emtsa, Dvina land, Vaga Zimin, A. A., 2O3n

277