Today’s post is a translation of the introduction to Jewelry of Medieval Novgorod by M.V. Sedova, an overview of jewelry found in archeological digs around the medieval city of Novgorod. Translations of other chapters are to follow in subsequent posts. This introduction provides a general overview of the types of jewelry uncovered in Novgorod, the metallic alloys and methods of production used to create them, and some notes about the impact that trade relations and war with Europe had upon the jewelry trade. Novgorod’s extensive number of wooden finds have allowed archeologists to date items with extreme precision using tree-ring dating. The introduction also indicates how these finds of non-ferrous metal items (copper, brass, bronze, tin, lead) relate to the production of more valuable items (silver, primarily).
Jewelry Of Medieval Novgorod (10th-15th centuries)
A translation of Седова, М.В. «Введение.» Ювелирные изделия древнего Новгорода (Х-XV вв.). Москва: Издательство «Наука», 1981, с. 3-9. / Sedova, M.V. “Vvedenie.” Juvelirnye izdelija drevnego Novgoroda (X-XV vv.). Moscow: Publishing House “Science,” 1981, pp. 3-9.
[Translation by John Beebe, known in the Society for Creative Anachronism as Master Ivan Matfeevich Rezansky, OL.]
[Translator’s notes: I’ve done my best to convey both the meaning and style from the original. Comments in square brackets and footnotes labeled “jeb” are my own. This document may contain specialized vocabulary related to embroidery, archeology, Eastern Orthodoxy, or Russian history; see this vocabulary list for assistance with some of these terms. This translation was done for my own personal education, and is provided here as a free resource for members of the Society for Creative Anachronism who may be interested in this topic but are unable to read Russian. I receive no compensation or income for this work. If you like this translation, please take a look at other translations I have made available on my blog.]
[The article in the original Russian can be found here:
Table of Contents
- Introduction (pp. 3-9) [this post]
- Head Jewelry (pp. 9-22)
- Torcs (pp. 22-23)
- Pendants (pp. 23-48)
- Items of the Christian Cult (pp. 49-73)
- Pins (pp. 73-83)
- Brooches (pp. 83-93)
- Bracelets (pp. 93-121)
- Rings (pp. 121-144)
- Belt Decorations (pp. 144-153)
- Various Clothing Items (pp. 153-159)
- Other Products (pp. 159-180)
- Conclusion (pp. 180-194)
For the longest time, the only evidence of the evolution of the art of Novgorodian jewelry were items preserved in church sacristies.Pokrovskij, N.V. «Drevnjaja riznitsa Sofijskogo novgorodskogo sobora.» Trudy XV arkheologicheskogo s’ezda. 1914 (10). The excavations started in 1932 under the direction of A.V. Artsikhovskij introduced completely new materials to science. Particularly significant results were made during subsequent archeological studies, in particular those of the Nerevskij excavation site from 1951-1962, when an area of over 1 hectare was uncovered over a cultural layer thickness of up to 8 meters. During these monumental digs, the uncovered areas of the Nerevskij end of Novgorod, including the pavements of Velikaja, Kholop’jaja and Kosmodem’janskaja Streets, the remnants of 16 estates, and more than 1100 buildings, revealed an enormous number of items.
Of these items, a significant portion is items of semi-precious metals, in particular decorative items and clothing accessories.I am grateful to the artist N.S. Survillo and the photographers S.A. Orlov and S.T. Bocharov, who prepared the illustrations for this book. Material from the 1951-1955 dig was summarized for the first time in our article “Jewelry of Medieval Novgorod of the 10th-15th centuries”Sedova, M.V. “Juvelirnye izdelija drevnego Novgoroda X-XV vv.” Materialy i issledovanija po arkheologii SSSR. 1959 (65), pp. 223-261. http://www.archaeology.ru/Download/MIA/MIA_065.pdf, where we give a classification of items outlined by their chronology. Twenty years have passed since we wrote that article. Over that time, new excavations have been studied — on the Sofijskij side of the city: Tikhvinskij (1969), Ljudogoschinskij (1972), Kozmodem’janskij (1974), Troitskij (1973-1974); and on the Torgovij side: Il’inskij (1962-1967), Bujanij (1967), Slavenskij (1968), Gotskij (1968-1970), Mikhajlovskij (1970), Torgovij (1971), Rogatitskij (1971), Kirovskij (1972-1974).See: Materialy i issledovanija po arkheologii SSSR. 1956 (55), 1959 (65), 1963 (117), 1963 (123); Kolchin, B.A. “K itogam rabot Novgorodskoj arkheologicheskoj ekspeditsii (1951-1962 gg.)” Kratkie soobschenija Instituta arkheologii Akademii nauk SSSR. 1964 (99), pp. 3-20; Arkheologicheskie otkrytija 1965-1974 gg. Moscow, 1966-1975 (stat’i o rabote Novgorodskoj ekspeditsii); Arkheologicheskoe izuchenie Novgoroda. Moscow, 1978.
The undisturbed cultural layer and excellently preserved organic residues make Novgorod a unique monument. Over the past years, based the huge number of finds from bridgesjeb: The word “bridges” is used here, but I suspect this is intended to refer to the numerous wooden walkways and timber pavements that were used to cover and reinforce Novgorod’s streets in medieval times. Based on these wooden layers, a timeline has been established using tree ring analysis to determine the date when each layer was created. and buildings, a dendrochronological timeline has been created, from which is it possible to determine the date when a given find was interred into the earth with precision to at least the decade, and sometimes even to the very year.Kolchin, B.A. “Dendrokhronologia Novgoroda.” Materialy i issledovanija po arkheologii SSSR. 1963 (117), pp. 5-103. These timelines have been established for the Nerevskij, Il’inskij, Bujanij, Mikhajlovskij, Torgovij, and Kirovskij digs. The framework of the chronological existence of various product categories in this work has been determined based on this material. Finds from other digs have wider chronological spans, to the half-century, and play a secondary role when determining exact dates.
Dates for the construction of the wooden planks used to pave Velikaja, Kozmodem’janskaja and Kholop’jaja streets in the Nerevskij excavation site, that is, the chronological tiers, based on this dendrochronology, are as follows:On the correlation of dates for bridges in the Nerevskij site and bridges from other sites, see: Arkheologicheskoe izuchenie Novgoroda. Moscow, 1978, p. 21, illus. 5.
The work of N.V. RyndinaRyndina, N.V. “Tekhnologia proizvodstva novgorodskikh juvelirov X-XV vv.” Materialy i issledovanija po arkheologii SSSR. 1963 (117), pp. 200-268. https://www.twirpx.com/file/2871087/jeb: See my translation of this article into English here: https://rezansky.com/2020/01/jewelry-production-technology-in-10th-15th-century-novgorod/ was specifically devoted to the technological study of Novgorod jewelry items from the 1951-1958 excavations. This researcher analyzed these complexes, which prove the local manufacture of jewelry, in detail, revealed sets of tools and accessories used by Novgorod jewelers, established the range of their technical methods, and clarified the chronology of those methods based on the stratification of the Nerevskij dig. N.V. Ryndina revealed the complexes of seven jeweler workshops from the 12th-15th centuries in the Nerevskij dig, establishing in some cases the hereditary succession and transfer of production skills from generation to generation. Based on the extensive material, she tracked such technical methods as casting (lost wax, or using stone, wood, metal, sectional, composite layer, and rigid molds); free forging (drawing, drafting, lamination, filing, bending, twisting, punching); drawing; rolling; forging wire or rods on a grooved anvil; embossing; chasing; engraving; soldering; gilding; champlevé and cloisonné enamel; heat treatment of copper and bronze; grinding; and polishing. Using these methods, artisans attained levels of mastery which could only have been reached through specialization.idem., p. 266.
N.V. Rydina established the following chronological stages in metalcasting technology: in the 10th-11th centuries, the primary method was lost wax casting. Casting in stone molds was used rarely. Stone molds became widely used in the 12th century. This technique was tied to growing market demand and the shift from individual orders to work for a wider market. The 1170’s saw the appearance of sectional molds; in the 13th century, compound layered molds came into use, and in the 14th-15th centuries, compound rigid molds.
In the 10th century, Novgorod’s jewelers mastered the art of drawing wire, and in the 11th century, forging wire on a grooved anvil. In the 10th century, metal embossing was used. These observations attest to the great technical culture of many generations of Novgorod jewelers, developing and improving upon their methods over the centuries. These traditions remained uninterrupted in the 14th-15th centuries, as the city was not affected by the Mongol-Tatar invasion.
After N.V. Ryndina’s research, the question of the raw materials from which the numerous items of jewelry were made remained unclear. Russia did not have its own sources of semi-precious metals. The copper deposits in the Olonetskij region and along the Pechora river were not discovered until the 15th century. Metal was brought from Lübeck and Gotland, and in the 14th century the Hanseatic League became a source.Khoroshkevich, A.L. Torgovlja Novgoroda v XIV-XV vv. Moscow, 1963, p. 314. A study by E.A. RybinaRybina, E.A. Arkheologicheskie ocherki istorii novgorodskoj torgovli. Moscow, 1978. is dedicated to the archeological data about Novgorod’s trade relations in the 10th-14th centuries. This work specifically looks at the import of semi-precious metals, and notes an interesting fact: items made from metal appear starting in the mid-10th century and continue through to the 15th century, but are seen in the largest quantities in the 13th century. This contradicts the generally accepted conclusion that Novgorod’s trade weakened in the 13th century due to its war against the Teutonic Order. It appears that trade with Gotland and Lübeck as the primary sources of semi-precious metal did not weaken, despite the war.
Until recently, the alloys used by Novgorod jewelers has remained unstudied. This problem was addressed by A.A. Konovalov in his work.Konovalov, A.A. Tsvetnye metally (med’ i splavy) v izdelijakh Novgoroda X-XV vv. Doctoral thesis, Moscow, 1974. He analyzed 11 temporal rings, 20 noisemaking pendants, 24 crosses, 42 bells, 23 pins, 70 brooches, 226 bracelets, 128 rings, and 12 buckles. Through spectrographic analysis, he identified 10 base alloys: (I) Cu; (II) Cu+Sn(+Pb); (III) Cu+Sn; (IV) Cu+Zn(+Pb); (V) Cu+Zn+Sn(+Pb); (VI) Cu+Sn+Zn(+Pb); (VII) Pb; (VIII) Pb+Sn; (IX) Sn; (X) Sn+Pb. For the 10th-11th centuries, brasses were characteristic (copper and zinc — group IV), as were zinc-dominated multi-component alloys (V) and pure copper (I). In the 12th century, there is a reduction in the amount of brass, and lead and lead-tin bronzes appear (groups II and III). In the 13th century, these become primary, while the proportion of items made from pure copper increases, and the number of items made from tin (group IX) doubles. In the 14th century, the contents of alloys did not change significantly; multi-component alloys vanish, and the quantity of tin items continues to increase. In the 15th century, there were significant changes: items made of tin and tin alloys (X) disappear, and there is a growing number of items made from a binary alloy of lead and tin (group VII), and the quantity of items made from lead/tin bronzes and copper/zinc alloys. As such, the selection of alloys from the 10th-11th centuries significantly differ from that of the 13th-15th centuries. The end of the 12th century was a time of new traditions in the preparation of alloys.
Early Novgorod metal from the 10th-11th centuries finds its closest match in Sweden and Latvia, attesting to a single ore base. Novgorod metal is distinct from that of Sweden and the Baltic region in the large number of items made of lead/tin bronze, which was beloved by Novgorod artisans. Products from Novgorod turned out to be different in metallic composition from items found in the barrows of the Izhora plateau and Vodskaja Pjatina. It follows that the decorations from the barrows were created not in Novgorod, but rather by local artisans. Konovalov interestingly suggests that the similarity of alloys in the works from Novgorod and the Baltic region may attest to the import and use of certain recipes from Baltic jewelers. In the 12th century, stable relations with the Swedes expanded. It seems that copper from Swedish deposits began to find their way to Novgorod, creating a unique impetus for the development of new alloys. In the 12th century, from amongst the Baltic zone alloys, the Novgorod-Swedish one is distinctive, including those from Finland and Belozero. These are the main findings of A.A. Konovalov’s work. For the characteristic categories of jewelry, I use the data from Konovalov’s study.
Substantial assistance in the study of Novgorod’s metal products has been provided by the summary work on certain categories of jewelry published in the Works of the State Historical Museum.“Ocherki po istorii russkoj derevni X-XIII vv.” Trudy gosudarstvennoj istoricheskoj muzei. Issue 43. Moscow, 1967. Data about finds of various types of decorative items in the burial mounds of the northern regions of Eastern Europe allow us to outline the trade, economic and ethnocultural ties between Novgorod and these regions of Rus’.
The collection of the Novgorod expedition includes 2447 examples of metallic items. These are primarily decorations and costume items: headwear, torqs, pendants, crosses, pins, brooches, bracelets, rings, buckles, belt decorations and rings, beads, perforated items, chains, buttons, bells, et.al. There are also various kinds of straps, weapons, knife handles, styluses, chandeliers, locks, scales, and other everyday objects of the townspeople. The majority of items (1853) came from the Nerevskij dig, 198 from Il’inskij, 28 from Bujanyj, 5 from Slavenskij, 27 from Gotskij, 46 from Tikhvinskij, 72 from Mikhajlovskij, 34 from Torgovyj, 8 from Rogatitskij, 22 from Ljudogoschinskij, 99 from Kirovskij, 43 from Troitskij, and 12 from Kozmodem’janskij.For the location of digs on a map of Novgorod, see: Arkheologicheskoe izuchenie Novgoroda. Moscow, 1978, p. 10, illus. 2. This large number of items has been accurately dated using dendrochronology, and itself serves as a kind of archeological determinant for other finds in the northern forest region of medieval Rus’, and for Russian decorative items in general.
Little is known about the names of medieval Russian decorations based on written sources. A recent work by G.N. LukinaLukina, G.N. “Nazvanija predmetov ukrashenija v jazyke pamjatnikov drevnerusskoj pis’mennosti XI-XV vv.” Voprosy slovoobrazovanija po leksikologii drevnerusskogo jazyka. Moscow, 1974, pp. 246-261. on the words of medieval Russian of the 11th-17th centuries collected all of the data related to this category of finds. The general Slavic terminology of decorative items also includes such terms as persten’ (ring), griv’na (torc), monisto (necklace), obruch’ (bracelet), and kol’tse (ring). The term persten’ is known starting in the 11th century meaning a decoration on the fingers, sometimes meaning a seal ring. The term kol’tse (starting in the 13th century) is encountered much less frequently, typically to mean a simple band (obodok), as opposed to a persten’ (a ring with a set stone). Sometimes kol’tse is used to mean an earring. The medieval name for a male neck decoration was a griv’na (torc), starting in the 12th century. Sometimes this word was used to signify a pendant on an icon, or as a unit of weight. Monisto (starting in the 12th century) was a neck decoration, or could also be a decoration on an icon. Venets’ was a synonym for a circlet, or in isolated cases, as a head decoration used in weddings. The word obruch’ (starting in the 12th century) was a decoration on the arm. Some later terms were zapjast’e (bracelet), napalek (ring), or ushniki (earrings). The oldest Slavic terms include ozherel’e – a decoration on the neck, or sometimes a collar (zherelo means “neck”); rjasa (12th-13th centuries), meaning a fringe or decoration; and chep’ (chain), a word characteristic only to the Russian language. Some borrowed terms were barmy (from German), meaning a princely collar; userjaz’ (starting in the 15th century, also borrowed from German) meaning “earring;” and kolty (borrowed from Ukrainian) meaning ear decorations (per I.I. Sreznevskij, starting in the 15th century).Sreznevskij, I.I. Materialy dlja slovarja drevnerusskogo jazyka. St. Petersburg, 1903, Vol. 1. Ser’ga (borrowed from Turkish) was used starting in the 14th century to mean a man’s earring. The word sustug’ was borrowed from Finnish in the 11th-14th centuries to mean a brooch. The words busy (beads) and pugovitsy (buttons) came into use only in the 17th century, and were also borrowed. The words brosh’ (brooch), kol’e (necklace), kulon (pendant) and medal’on (medallion) are completely modern in the Russian language.
The names of decorations and details of costume are encountered repeatedly in Novgorod’s birchbark letters. Particularly interesting is letter 335, found in layer 20, dated to 1116-1134. It mentions: “Redeem for me four kolotki, with each golden kolotok at half a grivna….”Artsikhovskij, A.V. Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste (iz raskopok 1958-1961 gg.) Moscow, 1963, p. 24.jeb: For this and the other birchbark letter translations below, I’m indebted to http://gramoty.ru/birchbark/, which conveniently has worked through translating them all into modern Russian. The word kolotok (kolt) here appears 300 years earlier compared to I.I. Sreznevskij’s information. Of undoubted interest is the stated value of gold kolty (half a grivna apiece), which was significant for that time. We are talking here about kolty decorated with cloisonné enamel. Letter 246, found in layers 22-24 (1070s-1150s), mentions a cross (“ch’st‘noe drevo“) worth “half-five” (that is, four and a half) grivny.Artsikhovskij, A.V. Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste (iz raskopok 1956-1957 gg.) Moscow, 1958, p. 11. In letter 138, found in layer 11 and dated to the turn of the 13th-14th centuries, we find mention of “two chains worth 2 rubles, with a cross.”Artsikhovskij, A.V. and V.I. Borkovskij. Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste (na raskopok 1955 g.) Moscow, 1958, p. 11. Letter 429 (an accidental find) lists “a necklace, earrings, three hats decorated with trim and with a headband” (a kokoshnik). Letter 500, dated to the 14th century, mentions “a silver necklace worth one and a half rubles, a second of crystal, a German shuba, and an icon with a goitan (that is, with a cord)….”Artsikhovskij, A.V. and V.L. Janin. Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste (na raskopok 1962-1976 gg.). Moscow, 1978, pp. 35, 93. These birchbark letter references give life to archeological finds, and give us an idea of their use and value in medieval Novgorod.
Of course, among the finds there are almost no unique items of extreme value. Expensive items of precious metals were carefully preserved and rarely lost. When they went out of style, they were smelted down. This is why there were almost no treasures buried in antiquity, and why there are almost no finds of precious decorations. This is true of Novgorod as well as other cities.
The mastery of Novgorod’s jewelers can be judged by the exquisite, highly-artistic items tied to the church and preserved in medieval sacristies.Bocharov, G.N. Prikladnoe iskusstvo Novgoroda Velikogo. Moscow, 1969. https://www.twirpx.com/file/1249720/ However, the names of these artisans are almost completely unknown. Two masters – Kosta and Bratila – placed their names on their works.Rybakov, B.A. Remeslo drevnej Rusi. Moscow, 1948, pp. 294-299. A 13th-century chronicle preserves the names of two additional master silversmiths (Strashka in 1200, and Nezhily in 1234) who perished in the war with Lithuania. 16th century manuscripts list some 222 master silversmiths, about 4% of the overall number of the city’s artisans. Compared to other cities, Novgorod had the highest number of master jewelers.Artsikovskij, A.V. “Novgorodskie remesla.” Novgorodskij istoricheskij sbornik. 1939 (VI), pp. 8-9.
However, the output of Novgorod’s silversmiths was not limited to the creation of unique precious items. Their main products were inexpensive items of various alloys of copper, tin, lead and zinc, which found great demand among the population of Novgorod and the surrounding villages. It is exactly this mass production to which we have devoted this work. Here, we present all categories of decorative and clothing detail items: headwear, torcs, chest pendants, crosses, icons, clothing pins, brooches, bracelets, rings, et.al. The variety of these decorations extends from the 10th to the 15th centuries. The description of examples within each category is in chronological order, starting with the 10th century. This work includes finds from all of the digs from 1951-1974, but finds from the Nerevskij dig (1951-1962) is most important for establishing a timeline for jewelry items, as it contained the largest number of examples. Finds from the remaining digs, from both the Sofijskij and Torgovij sides of the city, serve merely to complement and check the accuracy of the chronology established from the Nerevskij dig. For this reason, the chronological tables are primarily built upon the dendrochronological scale from the Nerevskij dig, and are complemented by analogous finds from other digs, which are also dated using dendrochronology (see illus. 81).
In publications of Novgorod material, it is customary to provide provenance data when describing an item: the first number indicates the tier, the second the layer in which the item was found, and the third, the square. If only these three numbers are provided, then the item is from the Nerevskij dig. If there are two numbers (for example, 21-1507), this indicates the item is from layer 21, square 1507. In the remaining examples, the initial letter of the name of the dig is provided, then the tier (optional), layer and square. For example, Il16-25-341 indicates that the item is from the Il’inskij dig, tier 16, layer 25, square 341. The Tikhvinskij dig is indicated as “Tikhv”, Ljudogoschinskij as “Ljud”, Kozmodem’janskij as “Kozm”, Bujanij as “Buja”, Slavenskij as “Slav”, Gotskij as “Got”, Mikhajlovskij as “Mikh”, Torgovyj as “Torg”, Kirovskij as “K”, Rogatitskij as “Rog”, Troitskij as “Tr.” The primary collections of finds are preserved in the Novgorod Historical-Architectural and Artistic Museum-Reserve. In addition, part of the collection was transferred to the State Historical Museum in the State Hermitage.
|↟1||Pokrovskij, N.V. «Drevnjaja riznitsa Sofijskogo novgorodskogo sobora.» Trudy XV arkheologicheskogo s’ezda. 1914 (10).|
|↟2||I am grateful to the artist N.S. Survillo and the photographers S.A. Orlov and S.T. Bocharov, who prepared the illustrations for this book.|
|↟3||Sedova, M.V. “Juvelirnye izdelija drevnego Novgoroda X-XV vv.” Materialy i issledovanija po arkheologii SSSR. 1959 (65), pp. 223-261. http://www.archaeology.ru/Download/MIA/MIA_065.pdf|
|↟4||See: Materialy i issledovanija po arkheologii SSSR. 1956 (55), 1959 (65), 1963 (117), 1963 (123); Kolchin, B.A. “K itogam rabot Novgorodskoj arkheologicheskoj ekspeditsii (1951-1962 gg.)” Kratkie soobschenija Instituta arkheologii Akademii nauk SSSR. 1964 (99), pp. 3-20; Arkheologicheskie otkrytija 1965-1974 gg. Moscow, 1966-1975 (stat’i o rabote Novgorodskoj ekspeditsii); Arkheologicheskoe izuchenie Novgoroda. Moscow, 1978.|
|↟5||jeb: The word “bridges” is used here, but I suspect this is intended to refer to the numerous wooden walkways and timber pavements that were used to cover and reinforce Novgorod’s streets in medieval times. Based on these wooden layers, a timeline has been established using tree ring analysis to determine the date when each layer was created.|
|↟6||Kolchin, B.A. “Dendrokhronologia Novgoroda.” Materialy i issledovanija po arkheologii SSSR. 1963 (117), pp. 5-103.|
|↟7||On the correlation of dates for bridges in the Nerevskij site and bridges from other sites, see: Arkheologicheskoe izuchenie Novgoroda. Moscow, 1978, p. 21, illus. 5.|
|↟8||Ryndina, N.V. “Tekhnologia proizvodstva novgorodskikh juvelirov X-XV vv.” Materialy i issledovanija po arkheologii SSSR. 1963 (117), pp. 200-268. https://www.twirpx.com/file/2871087/|
|↟9||jeb: See my translation of this article into English here: https://rezansky.com/2020/01/jewelry-production-technology-in-10th-15th-century-novgorod/|
|↟10||idem., p. 266.|
|↟11||Khoroshkevich, A.L. Torgovlja Novgoroda v XIV-XV vv. Moscow, 1963, p. 314.|
|↟12||Rybina, E.A. Arkheologicheskie ocherki istorii novgorodskoj torgovli. Moscow, 1978.|
|↟13||Konovalov, A.A. Tsvetnye metally (med’ i splavy) v izdelijakh Novgoroda X-XV vv. Doctoral thesis, Moscow, 1974.|
|↟14||“Ocherki po istorii russkoj derevni X-XIII vv.” Trudy gosudarstvennoj istoricheskoj muzei. Issue 43. Moscow, 1967.|
|↟15||For the location of digs on a map of Novgorod, see: Arkheologicheskoe izuchenie Novgoroda. Moscow, 1978, p. 10, illus. 2.|
|↟16||Lukina, G.N. “Nazvanija predmetov ukrashenija v jazyke pamjatnikov drevnerusskoj pis’mennosti XI-XV vv.” Voprosy slovoobrazovanija po leksikologii drevnerusskogo jazyka. Moscow, 1974, pp. 246-261.|
|↟17||Sreznevskij, I.I. Materialy dlja slovarja drevnerusskogo jazyka. St. Petersburg, 1903, Vol. 1.|
|↟18||Artsikhovskij, A.V. Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste (iz raskopok 1958-1961 gg.) Moscow, 1963, p. 24.|
|↟19||jeb: For this and the other birchbark letter translations below, I’m indebted to http://gramoty.ru/birchbark/, which conveniently has worked through translating them all into modern Russian.|
|↟20||Artsikhovskij, A.V. Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste (iz raskopok 1956-1957 gg.) Moscow, 1958, p. 11.|
|↟21||Artsikhovskij, A.V. and V.I. Borkovskij. Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste (na raskopok 1955 g.) Moscow, 1958, p. 11.|
|↟22||Artsikhovskij, A.V. and V.L. Janin. Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste (na raskopok 1962-1976 gg.). Moscow, 1978, pp. 35, 93.|
|↟23||Bocharov, G.N. Prikladnoe iskusstvo Novgoroda Velikogo. Moscow, 1969. https://www.twirpx.com/file/1249720/|
|↟24||Rybakov, B.A. Remeslo drevnej Rusi. Moscow, 1948, pp. 294-299.|
|↟25||Artsikovskij, A.V. “Novgorodskie remesla.” Novgorodskij istoricheskij sbornik. 1939 (VI), pp. 8-9.|