ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION FOR STUDYING HISTORICAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC PROCESSES OF KOMI-REGION IN CONNECTION WITH THE HISTORY OF TAXATION.

 

Historical and demographic researches, which recently have become more and more relevant and have aroused great interest, show some specific regularities in the history of the development of certain areas, and let us explore issues of historical and economic plan, using historical sources.

The most important problem of historical and economic researches is the problem of correlation of tax revenues by a source of payment (the territory) and by the final destination of these payments. Identifying the payments entity is also a difficult task in historical research. It was suggested that the administrative subordination of the territories should be established, which allowed to determine the direction of tax revenues, i.e. financial flows. Historical names of some areas in this regard are of considerable interest. This interest is based on the basis of splitting the territory accountable into certain administrative districts (provinces), which are intended for the tax collection, as well as for classification of poorly developed land as geographically uncertain. The study of the tax system provides insight into geographic features of the subjects of these relations, i.e. solving problems of historical science, as well as identifying some demographic parameters of a given territory.

Climatic and physiographic conditions of the Northeast Europe are described in Western historiography by J. Martin and N. Kollmann.[1]

There is considerable number of significant works of M.M. Bgolsovskiy, S.B. Veselovskiy, I.M. Kulisher and British researcher J. Martin for studying the mechanism of the taxation in the late medieval period. The essential point is to identify the mechanism of tax collection in the earlier period. «Zhalovannaya (podtverditelnaya) gramota Ivana III Vasilyevicha zhitelyam Permi Vychegodskoy na vladeniye rekami, ozerami i ugodyami, kotoryye vladeli ikh dedy i ottsy» — [translate: «Letter of grant (confirmation) of Ivan  III Vasilyevich for Perm Vychegodskaya residents about ownership of rivers, lakes and lands, which were owned by their fathers and grandfathers» — (1485)][2][3], in its regard, is a great source of economic history, for the entire Russian history too. Here annual tax is divided into specific tax-paying administrative units calculated in sables — 1707 furs[4], with the cash equivalent — 4 Hryvnia. Modern historian only has to reconcile the very first Budget Code of Komi region, in order to calculate the direct tax administration, carried out on the basis of the territory.

It is interesting to note that the apportionment of the tax is not implemented based on the entire ethnic territory of Komi, but merely on the Vychegda basin. According to research of Komi region ethnoarcheologists L.N. Zherebtsov, E.A.Savelyeva, ethnic territory of Komi-Zyryan was bigger, and there were 7 tax provinces.[5] Some “provintsii” – [translate: «provinces»] — do not coincide with areas of river basins, i.e. geographical determinant is absent. If land productivity is the same, then Vym and Udora are “odinakovyye” – [translate: «the same»] — tax territory. Then we can induce the area of sable “sbor” – [translate: «collection»] — from the province named «Vychegda» based on data of river basin Vym. Sysola’s basin productivity is very high. According to the data from Letter of grant to Ivan III, the main centers of life of Komi-Zyryan were Sysola and lower Vychegda, which make 57%.[6] Based on the same reasoning as it was in Vychegda, it is also possible to count the area of uzhgovets’ “mesta” – [translate: «places»] — which cover part of the territory of modern Kirov and Perm regions.

If we impose the “nalogooblagayemaya baza” – [translate: «tax basis»] —  on the ethno-settlement map by L.N. Zherebtsov, which serves as matrix of studied phenomenon[7], uzhgovsk’s tribute is even smaller than the area of Vyshera “provintsiya” – [translate: «province»], what shows the possibility of tax remissions which “vybili pod shumok” – [translate: “got”] — Vyshera’s people. / Figure 1 /. Finally, the total number of sables in tax revenues to the Russian royal treasury, granted by Ivan III to Perm Vychegodskaya population was 1707 sables a year — 6828 hryvnia, each of them is 20.5 g, and in total weigh 139.974 kg of silver, i.e. 140 kg/year, based on data of the end of the XV century. It is necessary to recall the numbers requiring appropriate verification, that the income from taxes of Smolensk prince in the pre-Mongol period was 3 thousand hryvnia of silver[8], i.e. 600 kg.

 

Жеребц

 

Fig..1. Moving Komi people in XIV – XV century (by L.N. Zherebtsov):
1 – permyane pimezhskie; 2 – permyane udorskie (vashskie); 3 – permyane vymskie, 4 – permyane nizhnevychegodskie; 5 – Vylegodskaya permtsa;
6 – Luzskaya permtsa; 7 – Sysol’skie zyryane (syr’yane); 8 – siryane uzhgovskie

 

 

 

 

 

Historians and archaeologists of Komi region have worked hard to establish many demographic parameters. It is shown that, for the time we’re interested in we are interested in,  the total population within the borders of modern Komi region is 12-14 thousand people, while the population covered by  “samozapis” – [translate: “self-recording»] — in 1485 was 6.9 thousand people.[9]

The data obtained by science hold the fundamental importance. It represents a methodological and epistemological framework to study cultural changings and to use of archaeological data in order to enhance scientific research.[10]

At the same time, sable is still being fished in the Republic of Komi, and also considerable work is being done to restore its population. In the Middle Ages, especially in the period under review, sable lived east of Ustiug and, as it is shown in the A.A. Nasimovich’s monograph, according to the data of 60s of the last century, some sable habitats are still preserved in the basin of Mezen’ river on the territory of Udora district.[11] Here it is necessary to note the fact, that in Letter of grant in 1485 it was Udora, situated in the basin of Vashka and Mezen’ rivers, which was indicated as taxable administrative district. Historical sable habitat is defined as the area in east of the North Dvina and Vetluga.[12]

According to research of ecologists in 1960s sable furs yield on the territory of Komi was 0.2 — 0.3 furs per 1000 hectares of taiga forests. Sable population density in Komi was probably no lower than it was during the time when the research by A.A. Nasimovich was conducted. Average population was 2-4 animals, and maximum was up to 10 per 1000 hectares with the yield of 0.4-0.6 — maximum up to 1.39.[13] The total taxable area was about 65 thousand sq. km. Dividing the total tax amount into the given area, we get the yield equal to 0,262 furs per 1000 ha of taxable area. Given that, apparently, such quantity of 1707 furs was also considered for internal taxation, then the “dokhodnost” – [translate: «yield»] — of the commercial areas was 0.52 furs per1000 ha at the end of the XV century.

In the middle of the XIX century 1 hunter got average of 80 sables for the season. The main «technological» — way of hunting — a trap was continually improving and spreading. Sysola people paid the largest tax exceeding 0.3 furs per 1,000 hectares, which indirectly confirms the incomplete potential of the area, presented in the document in 1485. Obviously, it should be assumed, that not all the fur produced in Perm Vychegodskaya was shipped to the state treasury, but only half of it, which was obtained without damage to ecosystem.[14] Consequently, the average yield of sable in this taxing area was 0.52 furs per 1000 hectares, i.e. 1700 sables still remained, as it was said in the local budget; that makes it possible to determine the number of hunters up to 280 people, who were catching sables solely for tax purposes.

As a source for economic history of the Komi region, mentioned document makes it possible to claim, that with the simple reproduction of fur animal — sable, annually this area supplied 1700 furs, while catching 22-25 thousand animals, to the regional market without harm to ecosystems, with the total value of 140 kg silver in domestic prices.[15] It was shown, that according to relevant research the tax-paying population, covered by the mentioned letter of grant, was 6.9 thousand people. Thanks to this research, as well as to the calculations presented in these notes, we can calculate the value of the per capita tax equal to 0.24 sable furs per person. Reliability of these data will allow us to identify the functioning of public finance of the Russian state in the future.

As an example, let us show the information on how from 1681 till the end of the XVII century as a result of Fyodor Alexeyevich’s reform, except Strelyetskaya tax equal to 10 kopecks from the yard, no levies were charged in the Yarensky county of Komi region.[16] / Figure 1, 4 /.

It should be mentioned that the document doesn’t reflect a system of voluntary taxation of population (self-taxation) in the region, attracted to the Russian state, as the letter of grant is confirmative, i.e. it fixes already established relationship in the fiscal system, which suggests the search for previously issued source. At the same time, speaking about the events of 1446, when the troop, included 3 thousand warriors, led by Novgorod governors Vasiliy Shenkurskiy and Mikhail Yakol made ​​a trip to Ugra, A.N. Nasonov noticed that the native population itself counted the number of residents for tax purposes, which is a reflection of certain autonomy of Ugra. Priobja residents said to Novgorod residents: «My khotim vam dan’ dayati, a khotim schestisya, a ukazati vam stany i ostrovy, urechishcha» – [translate: “We agree to pay you tribute, we want to get even with you, show you the mills, the cities and natural boundaries”] (NPL 425).[17] A similar observation is also interesting because it lets us assume that Novgorod governors Shenkurskiy and Yakol fulfilling the task to deliver fur assigned by metropolis demanded to increase the value of tax collection from the area, accusing taxpayers in concealing part of the taxable area.[18] Trip to the Ugra in 1446, part of which ran through Arctic Circle[19] — is the farthest military campaign for tributes ever committed by Novgorod people.

Level of military training and related technologies of Siberian population was also described by  E. Cameron, who fairly draw attention to the dual nature of taxation and difficulties of new taxation rules, which often had dramatic consequences.[20]

To study the fiscal system of the ancient Russian state, Podvinye and Povychegodye provide great material with regard to the order of taxation, as well as the number of state tax payers. These data allow us to identify the areas and order of the tax administration. The incidents of emergency fisk deposited according to the news in 1446, were also based on payers statistics.

So, in 1428, Novgorod, using Zavolochye as compensation fund, allotted emergency tax of 5 thousand rubles on the basis of “z desyati chelovek rubl” – [translate: «one ruble from ten people”] [21] — what in modern historical literature A.A. Beavers paid attention to. As a result the number of payers came to 50 thousand.[22] It is important to note that the approach to the emergency tax collection according to the abovementioned calculation was typical for the North-Eastern Russia as a whole. Description of it is contained in contractual documents of the Moscow lords. Moreover, only Grand Duke was entitled to implement such tax.[23] In this context, the emergency of the tax provokes interest, which drew attention of I.J. Froyanov, it was “lovcheye” – [translate: “smart”] — of Mstislav Romanovich to impose the tax on the vicinity of Berestye in 1289  at the rate of 20 hens per one hundred (payers) “za kramolu” – [translate: «for sedition»].[24] In the view of studying the medieval fisk, if the tax collecting area can be defined, the amount of this tax, which was unconditionally used for domestic consumption and the number of taxpayers is to be determined yet. It is mentioned in the reference parent — Spanish Jew Ibn Yakub, who recorded the cost of 25 hens or wheat for 75 days of travel, up to 50 kg of grain equal to 1 dirham = 2.988 grams of silver in Prague in IX century.[25]

American historiography of this question shows, that it seems that Russian registers and sources from the end of the fifteenth century had nothing in common with the practice of the census of the Mongols. It is possible that the Muscovy — says Halpetrin Ch.J. — simply lacked the necessary bureaucratic resources for such a commission.[26] Without analyzing the historiography, we can note, that this remark is a reflection, which comes from the methodology of historical research, as, in particular, it is shown by D.K. Waugh the dispute among historians N.E. Nosov and A.A. Zimin about administrative and territorial reform in governance of the country “imeyut vazhnoye znacheniye dlya rassledovaniya vozniknoveniya moskovskogo byurokraticheskogo absolyutizma” – [translate: «is important for the investigation of the origin of the Moscow bureaucratic absolutism»].[27]

Here is some statistics

Returning to the chronicle records about campaign to Ugra in 1446, the following should be noted. Vasily Shenkuskiy and Mikhail Yakol went on Ugra not from Novgorod, but with the Zavolochskaya warriors, i.e. troop recruitment, which consisted of 3 thousand «detey boyarskikh i lyudey udalykh» — [translate: “brave and mighty warriors”] — took place among the population of Podvinye in Novgorod colony north Dvina basin, who were well acquainted with Ugra realities. Comparing two values ​​- the value of the tax-paying population — 50 thousand people and three thousand armed men, it is easy to establish that for the Russian North in the Middle Ages, when the troop of 3 thousand men was in the order of things, the population that could easily mobilize such contingents could be within the number of taxpaying population of Podvinye, established based on the study of events of 1428.

You can, however, assume that in winter 1324/25 the second Moscow Lord Yuri Danilovich took  Ustiug “na shchit”, i.e. besieged it, having at his disposal 3 thousand soldiers recruited among Novgorod people. Such troop presumably could be quickly recruited among Novgorod population at the rate of up to 50 thousand people. It is necessary to remember that in the literature it is mentioned about the possibility of Novgorod rural vicinity population to be in the range of 90 thousand people, which was made on the basis of studying the “Ustav Yaroslava o mostekh” – [translate: «Charter of Yaroslav about the bridges»].[28]

At the present time taking the number of the population of Novgorod for that period of 30 — 35 thousand people, which was recently established by K.A. Averyanov,[29] the mobilization of the troop for Yuri Danilovich, seems to have been conducted with certain motivations for recruits from the nearby districts, and from the inner belt metropolis.[30] Moreover, in winter farmers in the Russian North were not engaged in agricultural work, so Yuri Danilovich recruited his troop without any hassle.

In general the practice of Russian troops mobilization, including period of the establishment of a centralized state by Ivan III (1462-1505),[31] was viewed by D.Ostrovski, where the number of people “vstavshikh pod ruzhye” – translate: “who became warriors” — was carefully researched in the chronicles and are notable in this subject,[32] when our data are conjugated. In general, the total number of Russian army at the time of Ivan III was within 175-180 thousand people, as it is determined based on campaign against the Crimean Khan Ahmed in 1372 (D. Ostrovski) and Tver campaign in 1485 (G. Alef).[33] Data, reflecting the potential for mobilization, is adjusted in the values with the number of soldiers involved in the Vyatka campaign in 1489, which included 64 thousand people.

According to the observations of Y.A. Alekseev, based on Novgorod and Pskov sources, one infantryman “rekrutirovalsya” – translate: «was recruited» — from 3-5 yards,[34] meaning in this case that the mobilization of the troop consisted of 3 thousand warriors in Podvinie for the campaign on Ugra in 1446 was realized from 600-1000 yards. If we assume that one yard was populated by five residents, as it follows from the A.G. Bobrov findings in 1428, in this case, the population of Novgorod can be even increased with reasonable certainty. However, we will make the probabilistic conclusion, meaning that the population of Great Novgorod in XIV century — first half of the XV century was within 36 — 50 thousand people.

Direct confirmation of the logic of the studied process is the number of Novgorod warriors, who attacked Ustiug in 1398, at the beginning of Dvin war, led by commander Vasily Borisov and Novgorod mayors, where there were 8 thousand warriors.[35]

Document about “gosudarevykh danyakh” – translate: «sovereign tributes» — from Perm Vychegodskaya represents a unique historical source that goes with the chronologically ordered historical events. As is well known, in 1489 the Army of Ivan III, which included 64 thousand warriors and was accompanied by “sudovykh ratey” – translate: «ship array»- i.e. infantry delivered by ship, forced the Khlynov city to surrender, which together with the Vyatka land became part of the Russian state.[36] In meridian respect Vyatka land is located directly in the south against Vychegodskaya Perm, where, according to the Vyat’s chronicles, collected by historian, writer of chronicles from Seattle (USA) D.Cl. Waugh, in 6967/1459 Moscow established tributary relations in Vyatka land using military force. According to different variants in chronicles, Grand Duke Ivan took Vyatka land “i dan’ polozhisha» – translate: — “and charged tribute».[37]

Perhaps we should also point out the fact that even S.M. Solovyov, using as an example a campaign against Kazan in 1469, paid attention to the fact that Moscow encouraged Vyat people to join it and that Kazan ambassador, who was in Vyatka, opposed it.[38]

Thus the document in 1485 about confirmation of tributes from Perm Vychegodskaya, and joining Vyatka in 1489 are, from the geopolitical point of view, the base to reach Kazan from the north, as well as preparation for advancing towards Great Perm and then to Stone Belt in Siberia.

The discussed source was accepted or reviewed just in time, because according to the facts stated by J.Martin, in the period between 1471, when Novgorod paying back Korostovskaya contribution, renounced ownership of Perm (Vychegodskaya), and joining Great Perm (Cherdyni) to Moscow in 1472 and the crisis of succession in Kazan in 1487, and also taking Vyatka in 1489, the government under the reign of Ivan III purposefully fought their way to the Urals, without fear of resistance of Tyumen Khanate.[39]

A.N. Nasonov related upper stream of Vym and the upper Povychegodye to Novgorod Perm.[40] To add to it, V.N. Tatishchev did not try to identify Perm with Biarm, attributing it to the word Norman origin. In the present time, there is an opinion that the Novgorod Perm was located on Pinyega[41] or Vychegda in general.[42] V.L. Yanin localized Perm in northern Pvychegode.[43] However in the literature the possibility of identifying the definition of “Zakamskoye serebro” — translate «Zakamskoye silver» — with Povychegodye, i.e. with Perm (Vychegodskaya) agreements with the Novgorod princes, was left aside.

Ivan Kalita demanded “Zakamskoye silver» immediately after they return from the Horde in 1332, he often went there, as shown by N.S. Borisov, lived there for a long time, either as a human shield, or as a royal hostage, covering himself and his reign at the same time from the negative reaction of the Horde because of public protests, enduring considerable moral and physical suffering. It was Povychegode, that looked like a territory situated “za Kamoy” – translate: «over Kama” — looking from Horde. According to V.L. Yegorov Khan (Sultan) Uzbek founded a new capital in the territory of Tsarevskoye settlement near Volgograd in 1332,[44] where, of course, “velikiy knyaz vladimirskiy” – translate: «Grand Duke from Vladimir» — could be invited, to be exact, this title was brought by Ivan Danilovich.

The taken label on the great reign, as noted V.Vodov, limited reign of Vladimir Belozerskiy principality, but Ivan Danilovich simply annexed it.[45] If we take into account the fact that according to Ivan Kalita in 1327 as a result of the implementation of Uzbek’s policy of “razdelyay i vlastvuy” – translate: «divide and rule» — which he was forced to apply as a consequence of the Tver revolt in 1327, as it is shown by A.A. Gorsky, allotted Kostroma and Novgorod in the reign of the Prince of Moscow, Vladimir and the rest of the Volga region in the reign of Suzdal Prince Alexander Vasilyevich, therefore we can assume that Uzbek’s “nadeleniye” – translate: “allotment» — machinery was unsystematic, and was considered as a blissful mistake for Kalita, as it made Kostroma the logistic center, as it would be said earlier, a transit point for «Zakamskoye silver» in the treasury.[46]

In historiography it is considered that Ivan I got authority to collect tribute from the Tatar and other princes of Ryazan land. With the help of the Tatar army, writes A.Poppe, he did not hesitate to loot the lands of his neighbors, demanding obedience and the right to collect tribute. In this process, he benefited for his treasury, so he got his nickname (purse).[47]

At the same time, we can note that Kalita didn’t have the right to collect taxes in the external zone of the Novgorod feudal republic colonies, including the Pechora, Yugra and Perm. In this regard, Letters of grant 1485 outlines the tax territory, which is identified here with the «Zakamainskoye silver», representing the lower and middle Povychegodye, i.e. the district, which was part of “reyestr” – translate: «registry» — of Novgorod princely agreements as «Perm».

Referring now to report in Komi and Vym chronicles, where in 1383 it was mentioned about the battle of Novgorod people with the local population of Soldor (Solvychegodskiy), which was viewed by J.Martin , V.N. Davydov, N.S. Bulatov, O. Ovsyannikov , B.N. Florea. It is clear from these observations that Perm, contended by Novgorod, should belong to Novgorod eparchy. It was an insidious blow on Moscow possessions by Novgorod people. It was committed after Tokhtamysh invasion, under the church banner, when Moscow Patriarchate authority has not strengthened yet, and Stephen of Perm, has just started his work and raised the question of the establishment of the Perm eparchy.[48]

Vologda has already long belonged to Moscow, so they got to the point of battle collision by giant roundabout route, as it was carried out in 1374 or in 1386 by ushkuyniks. But now Novgorod people have done longer and more difficult path, where on the final stage they used North Dvina. Exactly this thoroughfare was used in IX — XIII centuries by Normans, Norwegians by birth, who were heading to Bulgar or Suzdal.[49]

Therefore, Novgorod reminded Moscow that territory, which it attacked in 1383, is Novgorod’s property by definition; it was also considered Novgorod’s much later, which follows from the Treaty in 1471, concluded by Novgorod with the Polish king Casimir.[50] Though, the last was already a historical anachronism. S.M. Solovyov’s statement about inclusion of Perm to Shelonskiy agreement in 1478[51] should be recognized as unexpected historiographical discovery, which extends scientific historical and geographical research. Now it can be assumed that Povychegodye, until flowing into  Vishera’s middle stream Vychegda, as follows from the source of 1485, is Perm from Novgorod and princely agreements, the tribute from which was demanded in 1332 by Ivan Danilovich, while not formally breaking contract with Novgorod. Sofia’s First Chronicle from senior recension reports under the 1334/6842: » Togo zhe leta novgorodtsy vzyasha mir s velikim knyazem Ivanom Danilovichem”– translate: “The same summer Novgorod people made peace with the Grand Duke Ivan Danilovich” (PSRL T.6. Vyp.1. stb.407).

One of the four mentioned by B.N. Flora unique news of Vychegodskii (Komi) and Vym under chronicles of 1333 says «knyaz velikiy Ivan Danilovich vzverzhe gnev svoy  na ustyuzhtsev i na naugorodtsev, po chto ustyuzhtsy i naugorodtsy  ot Vychegdy i ot Pechory ne dayut chernyy vykhod Ordynskomu tsaryu i dali knyazyu Ivanu na chernyy bor Vychegdu i Pechoru i s tekh vremen knyaz moskovskiy nachal vzimati dan s permskiye lyudi» – translate: “Grand Duke Ivan Danilovich punished Ustyug and Novgorod people, as  Ustyug and Novgorod people did not let Ordynsk king go through Vychegda and  Pechora and let prince Ivan charge the tax in Vychegda and Pechora and since then Prince of Moscow began taking tribute from Permian people”.[52] In this entry twice repeated reference about Ustiug and Novgorod people, and the geographical location of taxation areas with relation to them shows that Novgorod tribute logistics passed through Ustiug, which was here as a transit point and it prospered as a transit region. From the information of later periods we can see that payer delivered money for a tax “svoimi silami” — translate: «on their own».[53] Certainly, it was delivered to Ustiug, which had considerable financial and economic potential.[54] This means that Ivan Kalita switched cash flow in the form of furs of 1707 sables a year from the lower and middle Vychegda, from the Novgorod boyar republic treasury in Moscow to its own, the logistics of which lied in moving fur from Kargopol, which was “smestnym” — translate: «shared» — possession of Novgorod and Belozerskih lords[55] through Ustiug — Kostroma —  to Moscow.[56]

More recent data collected in particular by S. Gerbershteyn for the period of XV — XVI centuries not only showed transport logistics of the area of ​​ Vologda Ustiug — Vychegda — Visscher, but also the base of tax collections, but without numerical values “kogda oni /kuptsy, tserkovnosluzhiteli, nalogoviki – N.Kh.\ dostigayut, nakonets, Ustyuga, lezhashchego v trekhstakh milyakh [ot Permi]. V etoy oblasti khleb upotreblyayut vesma redko. Yezhegodnuyu dan gosudaryu oni vyplachivayut loshadmi i mekhami” ​– [translate: «when they / merchants, clergymen , taxers – N.Kh. \ finally reached Ustiug lying three hundred miles [ from Perm ]. In this region, the bread is used very rarely. Annual tribute to the emperor they pay with horses and furs”].[57]

Moscow ruble in XIV — XV centuries cost 10 hryvnias.[58] On a specific date in 1332, weighted norm of Russian ruble ingot was fixed and equal to 195.3 g.[59] The article 150 -year-old flashback was shown, when 6828 counting hryvnia were equal to 682.8 rubles — the silver equivalent of tribute from Novgorod Perm was equal 133.35 kg of silver per a year to the treasury of Ivan Kalita, calculated by Moscow monetary weight norm. Therefore, we can make a conclusion of the historical science. The amount from the source reflects the realities of 1332, when Novgorod people offered Kalita 500 rubles, or 97,65 (≈ 100 ) kg of silver.[60]

The article gives information about the study of “Ustav Yaroslava” – translate: «Yaroslav’s  Letter of grant» about a bridge building across the Volkhov, dating 1265-1266 by the V.L. Yanin. They were used not only for the study of demography using the methods of historical geography, when the Treaty of Novgorod was involved with the Polish king Casimir in 1471,[61] being more than 200 years behind from the Yaroslav Letter. Most likely we should talk about the situation-comparative study of the historical process in the ongoing retrospectives by historian.

In one of the old Soviet historical and demographic studies a recommendation about how methodologically to implement time control in this kind of research can be found. “Eto proizvoditsya sleduyushchim obrazom. Dopustim, k tsifre chislennosti  naseleniya 1500 g. my prishili, vedya liniyu ot srednevekovoy statistiki. I k etoy zhe tsifre my mogli priyti, spuskayas vglub, vedya ot tsifr 1700 g. Yesli pri takom smykanii ryadov poluchayetsya lish nebolshoye raskhozhdeniye, to  eto budet govorit o prigodnosti rezultatov” – [translate: «It has to be done the following way.  Suppose we got the figure of population in 1500 leading the line of the medieval statistics. And we could get the same figure, going down, leading from figures of 1700. If the closing of the lines turns out to have only a small discrepancy, it shows the suitability of the results»].[62]

Comparison of these sums from the sources with different chronology allows us to assume the concrete nature of historical reconstructions, from both financial and geographic coordinates. Novgorod people believed that 500 rubles for the request of «Zakamskoye silver» as the issue price will allow them to avoid further requirements of the Grand Duke. But they were wrong — Ivan I started a new strategy to expand the taxed territory of the Moscow principality.[63] Let us assume that in the context of the events of the «Zakamskoye silver» empowering Lithuanian prince Narimont son of Gediminas of Karelian land by Novgorod in 1333 should be considered.[64]

Therefore, the ecological evidence of recent times presented in this paper, imposed on medieval written source – Letter of Grant of 1485 shows the huge potential of historical and demographic, as well as economic studies of medieval Russia — Northern-Eastern Europe.

 

 

 

[1] Kollmann N.S. Muscovite Russia, 1450-1598 //  Russia. A History / Ed.by G.L. Freeze, Oxford –N.Y. : Oxford un.press,1997, p.30.

[2] Zherebtsov I.L. Istoriografiya istoriko-demograficheskikh issledovaniy v Respublike Komi // Istoriografiya Komi. Syktyvkar: B.I., 1999. 109 p. (Materialy po istorii Komi. 2 edition). p.4-13.

[3]  Akty sotsialno-ekonomicheskoy istorii Severo-Vostochnoy Rusi kontsa  XIV – nachala  XVI vv. T.III/ M., 1964. p.308-311, № 291a; Savelyeva E.A. Korolev K.S. Drevniye rukopisi o Permi Vychegodskoy. Syktyvkar: Komi kn.izd-vo, 1997. p.72-77.

[4] It was firstly shown by English researcher J. Martin. See: Martin J. Treasure of the land Darkness. The fur trade its significance for medieval Russia. Camb. Camb.un.press, 1986. p. 163, 164.

[5] Istoriya demografii. M.-Syktyvkar: B.I., 2007, s.18.

[6] Ibid, p.31.

[7] Istoriya Komi ASSR s drevneyshikh vremen do nashikh dney. Syktyvkar: Syktyvkarskoye kn.izd-vo, 1981. p.36.

[8] Kulisher I.M. Istoriya russkoy torgovli. Pb: Ateney, 1923. p.42.

[9] Zherebtsov I.L Naseleniye Komi kraya a kontse  XV — nachale  XX  v. Chislennost migratsii, etnicheskiy sostav. Syktyvkar, 2000. p.6-8; Zherebtsov I.L, Smetanin A.F. Ocherki o desyati vekakh istorii. Syktyvkar: Komi kn.izd  -vo, 2003, p.35; Istoriya demografii, p.12.

[10] Wesson C. B., Rees M.A.  Betweens Contacts and Colonies. Archaeological Perspectives and Prehistoric Southeast.  Tuscalossa & London: The Alabama Univer,press, 1997 p. 112.

[11] Sable, marten … / Otvet.red.A.A. Nasimovich. M.: Nauka. 1973. P.24-25.

[12] Ibid p.52; Khan N.A. Lokalizatsiya Yugry i istoricheskiye arealy russkogo sobolya // VI, 2006. № 11. P.126, 128.

[13] Sable, marten … P.49.

[14] According to the same information max. productivity in the Soviet Union had the taiga in the Sverdlovsk region, where the yield was up to 0.62 furs, with an average western Siberian index 0.4 — 0.6 skins from 1000 hectares of forest area. See: Sable, marten. P.41.

[15] This data allow us to be more attentive to Ibn Fadlan statement «ot kazhdogo doma – shkuru sobolya» — translate: «from each house – one sable fur.» See: Kovalevskiy A.P. Kniga Akhmeda Ibn-Fadlana o yego puteshestvii na Volgu v 921-922 gg. Kharkov, 1956. P.140.

[16] Matsuk M.A. Krestyane Komi kraya v kontse XVI – XVII  vv. Feodalnaya ekspluatatsiya. M.: Nauka, 1990, p.13.

[17] Research of famous Hungarian scientist P. Hajdu showed that from a linguistic point of view, both the Khanty and Mansi fit Yugra, while stressing that the statement that Hungarians were inhabitants of the country Ugoria looks controversial. See: Hajdu P. Uralskiye yazyki i narody. M.: Progress, 1985. P.32-36. Therefore, Novgorod people could rise slightly above the confluence of the Irtysh in Ob.

[18] Campaign in 1445 was a desperate attempt of Novgorod monetary authorities to improve boyar republic financial position before the crisis in 1446. See: Khan N.A. Vzaimodeystviye i vzaimovliyaniye Rusi i Ordy v oblasti ekonomiki i kreditno-denezhnoy politiki v XIV v. M.: IE RAN, 2005. P.121.

[19] Ovsyannikov O.V. Srednevekovaya Arktika: Arkheologicheskiye otkrytiya poslednikh let // Arkheologich.vesti. 1994. № 3.  P.121-131.

[20] Cameron E. Early Modern Europe. An Oxford history. Oxford: University press, 1999. P.207.

[21] Bobrov A.G. Novgorodskiye letopisi XV v.. SPb: Dmitriy Bulanin, 2001. P.163.

[22] Khan N.A. Vzaimodeystviye i vzaimovliyaniye..,. P.75.

[23] That follows from the phrase “koli mi budet vzya{ti}” – translate: “when we will take”. See: Kuchkin V.A. K otsenke dogovora 1372 g.Velikogo knyazya Dmitriya s Vladimirom Serpukhovskim \\ Otechestven.istoriya, 2007. № 3, p.80.

[24]Froyanov I.Ya. Myatezhnyy Novgorod. Ocherki istorii gosudarstvennosti, sotsialnoy i politicheskoy borby kontsa IX — nachala XI stoletiya. SPb: Izd-vo SPb un-ta, 1992, p.254-255.

[25] Nazarenko A.V. Drevnyaya Rus na mezhdunarodnykh putyakh. Mezhdistsiplinarnyye ocherki kulturnykh, torgovykh, politicheskikh svyazey 1X-XII vekov. M.: Yazyki russkoy kultury, 2001, p.168.

[26] Halpetrin Ch.J. Russia and the Golden Horde. The Mongol Impact on Medieval Russian History: Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987, p.94.

[27] Waugh D.K. A.A. Zimin’s Study of the Sources for Medieval and Early Modern Russian History // Essays in Honor of A.A. Zimin. Colubus: Slavica Publishers Inc, 1985, р.38-39, 41-42. In the remark, not related to the above footnote, we note that collections and scientific historical works such as «Managing Russia» in the semantic content mean not only the management, containing a specific material, but the study of such management from outside, i.e. external management. In particular : «In contrast to medieval Europe, the difference of the relationship between the society and the state in medieval Russia — writes in this work English historian J.Hosking – was in «modernization» and the centralization of the state, in fact, not leading to the weakening but to strengthening of these archaic institutions. The result was that I / author – N.Kh. / would call systems of «forced trust» between society and the state.” See: J. Hosking. Struktury doveriya v russkom obshchestve s tochki zreniya istorika // Upravleniye Rossiyey. Opyt. Traditsii. Novatsii.  XVI — XX vv. Kollektivn.monografiya. M.: Nauka, 2007, p.91-92.

[28] Burov V.A. O sotnyakh, tysyachakh i tme Novgorodskoy zemli //  Novgorod i Novgorodskaya zemlya. Istoriya i arkheologiya. Vyp. 7.  Materialy nauchnoy konferentsii 28-29 yanvarya 1993 g. Novgorod,  1993, p.98-99.

[29] Averyanov K.A. Demografiya i arkheologiya // Etnodemograficheskiye protsessy na Severe Yevrazii. Sb.nauchnykh trudov. M.- Syktyvkar, 2006. P.8-9.

[30] The value is offered for the city of pre-Mongol period. Of course, in post-mongol time it should be changed, possibly higher because of refugees «from the bottom.» According to data of German scientists E.Klyug and S. Goehrke  at least 24 thousand people lived in Novgorod in XIV century. See: Klyug E. Knyazhestvo Tverskoye (1247-1485 gg.). / Pod obshchey red. P.D.Malygina i P.G.Gaydukova. Tver: B.i., 1994. S.226.

[31] In 1448 Ivan III became successor – it was a good remark of British scientists of Russian studies, which largely explains the reason for the rapid success in foreign affairs of the Moscow king. See: Crummey R.O.The Formation of Muscovy 1304-1613.L.,  2002, Р.85;  Krom M.M. Ivan III // http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Ivan_III.aspx#1-1G2:3404100600-full. See also: Fennell J. L. Ivan the Great of Moscow. London: Macmillan, 1961.

[32] Ostrowski D.Troop Mobilization by the Muscovite Grand Princes (1313-1533) || Eric Lohr and M.Poe (eds), The Military and society in Russia, 1450-1917 (Leiden, Boston and Koln: Brill, 2002 p.20-21.

[33] Alef G. The Origins of Muscovite Autocracy. The Age of Ivan III \\ Forschungen zur osteuropäiscen Gescichte,(Berlin). 1986. Band,39, s, 122; Ostrowski D. Op.cit., 2002, p.22.

[34] Alekseyev Yu.A. Pokhod 1489 g.na Vyatku // «V kratkikh slovesakh mnogoy razum zamykayushcheye…» / Otvet.red. A.Yu. Dvornichenko. SPb: Izd-vo SPb un-ta, 2008, p.226.

[35] Ostrowski D. Op.cit., p.22.

[36] Alekseyev Yu.A. Quotation; Nizov V.V. O kharaktere velikoknyazheskoy zavisimosti «Vyatskoy zemli» v kontse XIV —  pervoy polovine XV v. // Yevropeyskiy Sever v kulturno-istoricheskom protsesse: K 625-letiyu goroda Khlynova. Kirov: Kirov.obl.tipografiya, 1999. P.144-157; Florya B.N. Komi-Vymskaya letopis // Novoye o proshlom nashey strany. Pamyati akademika M.N. Tikhomirova. M.: Nauka, 1967. P.221; Considering taking Viatka by Ivan III, the largest British historian and specialist in Russian J.Fennnell noticed that in scientific terms we should approach the study of this problem together with Ustyug. See: Fennell J. Op.cit., p.93.

[37] Uo D.K. Istoriya odnoy knigi. Spb: Dm.Bulanin, 2003, p.176-177.

[38] Solovyev S.M. Istoriya Rossiyskaya s drevneyshikh vremen. Vtoroye izdaniye. SPb: «Obshchestvennaya polza», b.g.. T.3, p.1414.

[39] Martin J. Treasure of The Land of Darkness. The fur trade and its significance for  Medieval Russia. L.N.Y., 2004. P.140-144.

[40] Nasonov A.N. “Russkaya zemlya” i obrazovaniye territorii Drevnerusskogo gosudarstva. M.: Izd-vo  AN SSSR, 1951. P.112.

[41] Davydov V.N. Prisoyedineniye komi kraya k Moskovskomu gosudarstvu .Syktyvkar, 1977. 38p. (Seriya preprintov “Nauchnyye doklady” / AN SSSR. Komi filial: Vyp.23). P.5, 8, 28.

[42] Bulatov V.N. Russkiy Sever. Kniga pervaya. Zavolochye (1Kh-XV1 vv.). Arkhangelsk: Izd-vo Pomorskogo un-ta, 1997. P.230.

[43] Yanin V.L. Iz istorii novgorodsko-moskovskikh otnosheniy v XV v.// OI. 1995. № 3. P.155.

[44] Yegorov V.L. Istoricheskaya geografiya Zolotaya Ordy v KhIII-XIV vv. M.: Nauka, 1985. P.113.

[45] Vodoff V. Princes et principaties russes (Xe — XVIIe siecles). Northampton: Variorum reprints, 1989, s.100 & n.24.

[46] Gorskiy A.A. Moskva i Orda. M.: Nauka, 2001, p.60-61.

[47] Quotation form edition 2007 г. — Poppe A. Christian Russia in the Making. Variorum:  Ashgate, 2007, p.15.

[48] Davydov V.N. Quotation P.19, 21. According generalization of Cambridge history of Russia, in the events of 1383 «Moscow managed to consolidate discordant tributes management and exquisite fur trade in its territory.» See: The Cambridge history of Russia. Vol.1. From early Russia to 1689 | Ed. M.Perrie. Cambridge un.press, 2006, p.169.

[49] Dzhakson T.N. Etot tainstvennyy i zagadochnyy «Byarmland» // Otechestvo: 1-y nomer 2-go polugodiya 2000 g. Vyp.19. P.87-102: Zakiyev M.Z. Tatary: problemy istorii i yazyka. Kazan: AN Tatarstana, 1995.  P. 75–76. Savelyeva E.A. Yevropeyskiy Severo-Vostok nakanune khristianizatsii // Khristianizatsiya komi-kraya i yeye rol v razvitii gosudarstvennosti i kultury. T.1. Plenarnyye doklady. Istoriya. Syktyvkar, 1996. P.16-27. The presence in the topography  of the Anglo-Saxon coin hoards of Veliko-Ustyugskogo of 1827 with coins of X — XI centuries can be the evidence of Norman artifacts, which seems to be interpreted as a «quest symbol capital»

[50] Arkheologiya Respubliki Komi / Otv.red. E.A. Savelyeva. M.: “DiK”, 1997. P.561.

[51] Solovyev S.M. Istoriya Rossiyskaya s drevneyshikh vremen. Vtoroye izdaniye. SPb: «Obshchestvennaya polza», b.g.. T.3, p.1421.

[52] Florya B.N. Quotation, p.225.

[53] Matsuk М.А. Quotation, p.16.

[54] In 1425 Novgorod  people «voevasha» – translate: “conquered” — Ustiug where they got «okup» – translate: “redemption” — (NPL, s.415), equal to 596 rubles. See: Khan. N.A. Vzaimodeystviye i vzaimovliyaniye…, p.  46, 68-69.

[55] Averyanov K.A. Kupli Ivana Kality. M.: Entsiklopediya rossiyskoy derevni, 2001. P.172-173. On Tihmanskiy ground burial Anglo-Saxon coin Ethelred 1003-1009 minted in Winchester was found among the others. See: Ovsyannikov O.V.  Srednevekovyye goroda Arkhangelskogo Severa. —  Arkhangelsk: Sev.-zapadnoye kn.izd-vo, 1992,  p. 202-203.

[56] According to J.Martin, Novgorod colonization in the XII century reached North Dvina by Kargopol. See: Martin J. Op.cit. P.20. Topography with treasures of Western European coins, including Anglo-Saxon, in the Vychegd basin: Cherdynskiy 1890, Nikolskiy (in Vylyad), Veliko-Ustyugskiy 1827, Blagoveshchenskiy (in Kokshange) clearly indicates the penetration of Novgorod tribute in Perm. Their upper part is most likely the evidence of the western Norwegian policy within 1100. See: Nosov E.N., Ovsyannikov O.V., Potin V.M. The Arkhangelsk Hoard // Fennoscandika. Helsinki. 1992. IX., p.15, fig.14; p.19.n.7; The Cambridge history of Scandinavia. V.1. Prehistory to 1520 / Ed. K.Helle, 2003, p.385.

[57] Gerbershteyn S. Zapiski o Moskovii. T.1. Latinskiy i nemetskiye teksty. Perevod. M.: Pamyatniki istoricheskoy mysli, 2008, p.380-381.

 

[58] Kuchkin V.A. Rubl i yego fraktsii po dokumentalnym dannym IV —  pervoy poloviny XV1 v. //  Povolzhye v sredniye veka TD Vseros.nauch.konferentsii, posvyashchennoy 70-letiyu G.A. Fedorova-Davydova (1931-2000). Nizhniy Novgorod, 2001, p.142.

[59] Khan N.A. Vzaimodeystviye i vzaimovliyaniye.., P.29, 55, 113-115, 116, fig.1.

[60] Cost of pretenses of Novgorod people in Ugra events in 1446 with some caution may be defined as the equivalent of 5 or 10 thousand rubles. Here ruble serves as money of account, while counting the hryvnia was unchanged and met the requirements of 196.2 grams of silver. See: Bauer N. Silver & gold ingots…(Serebryanyye i zolotyye slitki russkogo srednevekov’ya. (Arkheologicheskoye issledovaniye). Iss.1. (1929). Iss.2 (1931) Monografiya. Per. s nemetskogo. Vvedeniye i kommentariy N A. Khana (Chast’ 3). 2-ye izdaniye. — M.: B.i., 2013), s.160-161. 167. 189.

[61] Burov V.A., Quotation, p.100.

[62] Urlanis B.Ts. Rost naseleniya v Yevrope (opyt ischisleniya).  B.m.: OGIZ – Gospolitizdat, 1941, p.16.

[63] The data by K.A. Averyanov about the demographics of Novgorod and other Russian cities is based on one of the volumes of «Arkheologii SSSR. Drevnyaya Rus. Gorod. Zamok. Selo» (M.: Nauka, 1985), which became obviously one of the main sources of demographics of pre-Mongol and post-Mongol time in Eastern Europe. Chronological and geographical allocation of ancient cities, made by A.A. Gorsky, showed that the growth of the political influence of the North-East of Russia at the turn of the XIII-XIV centuries was not based on the economic superiority over the other Russian lands, but due to other causes. See: Gorskiy A.A. Russkiye zemli v  XIII — XIV vv. Puti politicheskogo razvitiya. M.: IRI RAN, 1996. P.66-68. As we can see, this source was created by hard work of several generations of Russian and Soviet archaeologists and could not be surpassed until now.

[64] NPL, p.345-346. According to German historiography, Ivan Kalita has not sought to start an open conflict with Lithuania, although the first collision was the result of the campaign of Russian prince to Smolensk. However, next dynastic marriage, as well as “popustitelstvo” –  [translate: «connivance»] — of Horde unleashing Muscovite-Lithuanian military-political conflict deserve special study. See: Nitsche P[eter]. Die Mongolenzeit und der Aufstieg Moskaus (1240-1538) // Handbuch der Geschichte Russlands 1, ed. Hellmann M., Stuttgart 1981, p.64.

Author:  on 18.08.2016
Categories: Об экономике и ее истории.
Tags: No tags for this post

Related Posts

Other posts

«»

Comments

This post currently has one response

Добавить комментарий

Ваш e-mail не будет опубликован.

Last posts