- Email: [email protected]
EVOLUTION OF THE RUSSIAN SLEIGH: FUNCTIONAL ASPECT
Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 115–122 E-mail: [email protected]
ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY OF EURASIA
115
ETHNOLOGY M.I. Vasiliev Novgorod State University, Sankt-Peterburgskaya 41, Veliky Novgorod, 173003, Russia E-mail: [email protected]
EVOLUTION OF THE RUSSIAN SLEIGH: FUNCTIONAL ASPECT The sleigh was one of the popular types of Russian land transportation starting at the time of ancient Rus (Voronin, 1948; Kolchin, 1968: 1 – 96, pl. 1 – 85; Artsikhovsky, 1969). Similar to other elements of material culture, sleighs reect particular aspects of economic development, the degree of social division of labor, specic features of social development, etc. The study of sleigh transportation is relevant to modern scholarship since it provides additional arguments for reconstructing more objective characteristics of Russian society in various periods of its history. Cultural and anthropological research of sleighs can be initiated from different viewpoints. The functional features of sleigh transportation are an important source of information. In the meantime, despite the existence of a number of archaeological and historical works on Russian transportation, the majority of them touch upon this aspect only implicitly, in most general terms (see (Voronin, 1948; Artsikhovsky, 1969; Marasinova, 1977; Kovrigina, Marasinova, 1979; Marasinova, 1985)). Only the works of B.A. Kolchin and his followers provide an analysis of the functional purpose of sleighs (Kolchin, 1968: 51 – 56; Khoroshev, 1997: 126 – 127; Dubrovin, 2000: 122 – 153); however, their conclusions require serious corrections. The issue is insufciently studied for the 16th – 18th cent., which is conditioned, in my view, by inefcient use of both published or unpublished archival materials. In general, the available information concerns basically the last two centuries and mostly refers to peasant transportation (Bezhkovich, 1959; Lebedeva, 1987). However, ethnographers do not answer the question of when the main types of freight, multipurpose,
and passenger sleighs used by the Russians in the 19th – 20th centuries emerged, including drays (drovni), sleds (podsanki), household sleighs, low wide sleighs (rozvalni), passenger sleighs, etc. Our research constitutes an attempt to resolve this problem. It is devoted to the history of Russian draft sleighs from the viewpoint of their functional purpose. The chronological scope of the study covers the period from the 10th cent., when the rst evidence of sleigh transportation among the Eastern Slavs began, until the 19th cent. for which we have fairly certain ethnographic materials. For a long time, the main sources on type diversity of sleighs in the 10th – 15th cent. were written sources and miniatures. They provide information only on two types of vehicles with runners – sleighs and carts. The term ‘sleigh’ (sani) refers exclusively to vehicles with runners, while the term ‘cart’ (voz) also denotes wheeled vehicles (Artsihkovsky, 1969: 314; Marasinova, 1977: 290). These materials have led many researchers to believe in the multipurpose character of carriages in pre-Muscovite Rus. Similar views are held even concerning the transportation of the 17th cent. (Kovrigina, Marasinova, 1979: 140 – 141). Along with this interpretation there existed another view that ancient sleighs were similar to the sleighs of the 19th – 20th cent. (Truvorov, 1889: 454 – 455; Voronin, 1948: 306). However, this view did not lead to the development of the idea concerning the availability of specialized sleighs in ancient Rus until a new category of historical sources was introduced in the late 1960s. The archaeological discoveries in Novgorod gave reason to speak about greater diversity of Old Russian sleights than had been reected in the written sources.
Copyright © 2008, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2008.04.005
116
M.I. Vasiliev / Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 115–122
According to B.A. Kolchin, ve types of sleighs existed in 10th – 15th cent. Russia: four draft types – multipurpose freight, passenger, passenger sleighs with a high stave (or racing sleighs), vozok sleighs (with a closed carriage body); and one type of a hand-driven sled (Kolchin, 1968: 54). This pattern is reproduced in the general archaeological study on the everyday culture of Old Rus (Khoroshev, 1997: 126). In my opinion, the existing views on the functional character of the Old Russian sleighs require certain adjustment. As was shown in one study, both the boundaries between the types of vehicles and their appearance need to be clarified (Vasiliev, 2006). A separate type of “racing” passenger ared sleigh with a high stave and the reconstruction of the vozok sleigh as a complete equivalent of the 17th-cent. vozok are most disputable. Archaeological nds give grounds for viewing them as different types of Old Russian sleighs (Ibid.). The analysis of archaeological materials has made it possible to identify in the time of Old Rus the entire range of draft sleigh functional groups known in the ethnographic period: freight, passenger, and multipurpose sleighs. Yet medieval sleighs in general were more versatile than sleighs used a few decades ago. In addition to the construction, indirect evidence of multifunctionality for the majority of Old Russian sleighs is the small number of words used for naming them until the last decades of the 15th cent. The dominant group was presented by multipurpose household sleighs, which transported cargo as well as people; specialized passenger sleighs occupied a modest position, making its identification among archaeological materials difcult (Ibid.). All the above makes it possible to consider the time of pre-Muscovite Rus as the initial period when different functional groups of the Eastern European type of sleighs developed. This period ended in the second half of the 15th cent. with the emergence of specialized sleighs: freight sleighs (drovni) (Novgorogskie pistsovye knigi..., 1886: cols. 98, 145, 188, 195, 206; 1905: col. 191), passenger sleighs (bolok and tapkan) (Pskovskie letopisi, 1955: 191; Pamyatniki..., 1882: 169). At the same time, the poshevni sleighs that were indicated as feudal rent-in-kind from the peasants of the Shelonskaya pyatina at the end of the 15th cent., judging by their large quantity (ten sleighs from three small villages) (Novgorogskie pistsovye knigi..., 1886: cols. 191 – 192) and by the functions of later sleighs of the same type are likely to represent the main modication of multipurpose household vehicles of Old Rus formerly called ‘sleighs.’ Starting from the late 15th – 16th cent., due to the objective trend of transportation specialization, the number of specialized types of sleighs significantly increased. Monastery, Boyar and Great Prince (Tsar) households had particular diversity of sleigh types.
In addition to regular drovni sleighs (versatile freight sleighs), at that time there appeared kremlevye (or krenevye) sleighs (Nikolsky, 1910: DLXXXI) and pod’ezdki (Opis..., 1861: 112; Slovar..., 1990: 76, 89). Judging by their more recent equivalents, they differed from regular sleighs by their predominant use in the autumn and winter periods. The sources also mention “forage” sleighs (Nikolskiy, 1910: DCXXIV), water carrying sleighs (Slovar..., 1975, vol. 2: 255), and vodoviki (Ibid.: 254). The rst were designed for transporting straw and hay, the second for transporting water, and had a vat or barrel attached to the platform, and the third type was used for transporting seine and differed from other types, according to ethnographic equivalents, in their larger size. Most of these freight vehicles were used by different social groups and continued to exist until recent times (Varfolomeyev, 1875; Evlentiev, 1879; Strokin, 1887: 9 – 10; Promysly..., 1888: 11; Kulikovsky, 1898: 67; Kuchin, 1901: 47; Krukovsky, 1904: 212; Dal, 1994, vol. 2: 487) (Field materials of the author, the Pinezhsky and Primorsky Regions of the Arkhangelsk Province and the village Nes of the Nenets Autonomous District, 1983; Archives of Novgorod State Museum Reserve (NGOMZ), No. 2354, p. P. 81, photos 124 – 125; No. 3271. photos 80 – 85; Russian State Archives of Old Acts (RGADA), F. 1192, Inv. 3, No. 19, p. 2). Only the term ‘pod’ezdki’ turned in the 19th – 20th centuries into a local term denoting a short sleigh (podsanki) for carrying treetops (Voronov, 1896: 588, g. 1; Zimnie kataniya..., 1992: 10, g. 3) (Archives of the Russian Ethnographic Museum (REM), F. 7, Inv. 1, No. 682, p. 20). In the 18th cent., the dray sleigh appeared and was used in the urban environment until the first third of the 20th cent. This type of sleigh was distinguished by an iron-bound wooden platform (Rivosh, 1990: 99; Shangina, 2003: 270) (Russian State Historical Archives (RGIA), F. 477, Inv. 2, No. 246, pp. 41 rev., 44, 65). In addition to open carriages, a closed sleigh intended for carrying various cargo, a little later called bolkovni, that often had a shed, became quite widespread in the households of the Tsar, nobility, rich monasteries, and merchants in the era of Muscovite Rus (Razkhodnaya kniga..., 1852: 1, 39, 40; Opis..., 1861: 82; Opisanie..., 1883: 495; Pereslavl-Zalessky..., 1891: 23; Karnovich, 1884: 335 – 336; Dal, 1994, vol. 1: 269 – 270; Slovar..., 1975: vol. 1: 282, 284) (Manuscript Department of the Russian National Library (OR RNB), F. IV, No. 232, p. 762; F. IV, No. 233, p. 348, 348 rev.; RGADA, F. 1239, Inv. 3, No. 54422. p. 2 rev.). In many ways, covered koshevye, polub (or palub) and later furman sleighs, which were used in Tsar, Boyar, and large monastery households in the 17th – 18th cent., had a similar functional purpose (transporting various foods and other supplies) (Rozysknye dela..., 1893: 175; Slovar..., 1988:
M.I. Vasiliev / Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 115–122
136; Karnovich, 1884: 335) (RGADA, F. 396. Inv. 2, No. 1022, p.440 rev.; OR RNB, F. 351, No. 104/1340, p. 451 rev.; State Historical Archives of the Novgorod Province (GIANO), F. 513, Inv. 1, No. 417, p. 50 rev.; No. 646, p. 40). The vozovye (carriage) sleighs that played an important role in trading, proved to be the most stable form of all freight sleighs with sheds; they survived until the 20th cent., whereas the koshevye, palub, and furman sleighs in the 19th cent. gave way to wheeled carriages – wagons and vans (Tuchkov, 1818: 28, 86; Golubykh, 1930: 62 – 63). A large number of specialized closed freight sledges that emerged in the period of Muscovite Rus were confined to the Tsar’s household. Thus, in the “bird” sleighs, they carried birds that were used in royal falconry, in the portomoinye (lit. ‘for underwear washing’) sleighs the royal lingerie was carried to the river for rinsing (Kotoshikhin, 1840: 26; Dopolneniya..., 1853: 435; Anuchin, 1890: 131; Zabelin, 1901: 696, Alekseyev, 1941: 345; Denisov 1954: 299) (RGADA, F. 396. Inv. 2, Pt. 2, No. 1022, p. 440 rev.). There also existed the so-called vozok (covered sleigh). Researchers identify three types of these: krestovye (for the cross), zapasnye (for supplies), and postelnye (for the bed). The rst ones carried icons (“icon treasury”), the second – royal dress and linen, the third – trunks with the royal bed (Ekipazhi..., 1985: 17; Kirillova, 2000: 30). However, an analysis shows that vozki on runners were only the “bed” sleighs (RGADA, F. 396, Inv., 2, Pt. 2, No. 1022, p. 455), and the rest were wheeled carriages (Ibid., pp. 433 – 433 rev., 455 – 455 rev.). Meanwhile, the zapasnye and krestovye carriages on runners are called “sleighs” in the sources, allowing us to consider them to be open vehicles (Ibid., pp. 433 – 433 rev.). Major changes in royal daily life that occurred during the rule of Peter the Great led to the neglect of the majority of specialized carriages. Only the carriages intended for transporting the Tsar’s traveling attire and other things remained for further use, partly changing their construction and name – to gardirobnye (wardrobe), and later dorozhnye (traveling) sleighs and kibitka (tilt carriages) (RGIA, F. 477, Inv. 2, No. 246, pp. 76 – 76 rev.; Inv. 7, No. 81, p. 153 rev; No. 288, p. 7). The next group of new functional modifications of sleighs in the 16th – 18th cent. was represented by household sleighs that are often mentioned in sources as roskhozhie and ezzhalye (Razkhodnaya kniga..., 1852: 38) (RGADA, F. 1196, Inv. 3, No. 144, pp. 3, 4). A typical monastic type of such sleighs in the time of Muscovite Rus were the brattskie (of the brothers), chernecheskie (of the monks) sleighs, the “sleighs of cathedral elders” (see (Nikolsky, 1910: DС; Rasskhodnaya kniga..., 1875: cols. 129 – 130; Materialy..., 1994: 191)). They disappeared along with the loss of monasteries’ possessions in the 18th cent. The solodovye sleighs that were available at
117
the Tsar’s Stable Yard, ceased to be used even sooner. This type of sleigh was used to glorify Christ during Christmastide in the beginning of the 18th cent. The cost of such a sleigh was several times higher than the cost of a working sleigh (Opisanie..., 1883: 494) (RGADA, F. 396, Inv. 2, No. 1021, pp. 9, 78 rev.). Its name was probably derived from the word ‘solodkoe’ meaning ‘festive gathering,’ ‘feast of Epiphany Eve with fortunetelling and singing’ in the Tver and Rzhev dialects (Dal, 1994, vol. 1: 379). A multipurpose low wide sleigh with side poles probably appeared no later than the 17th cent., judging by the presence of side “wings” in certain types of passenger sleighs (Skazaniya..., 1834: 43) and by a 1666 document mentioning “chairs” in sleighs: “To Cup-bearer Elder Ignatius, who set willow poles in the seats of the dray, and for the bast, 4 altyns and 2 dengas” (Slovar..., 1981: 39). Other indirect evidence is the presence of the word kryakvas that denoted poles attached at an angle at the rear of the body of one of the carriages in the last quarter of the 17th cent. (RGADA, F. 396, Inv. 2, No. 1022, p. 452). From the 18th cent. and until recent times, rozvalni (low wide sleigh) was one of the most common variations of multipurpose carriages (Opis imeniya..., 1993: 217) (OR RNB, F. 351, No. 104/1340, pp. 451 rev.– 452; RGADA, F. 1192, Inv. 3, No. 19. p. 2; F. 1239, Inv. 3, No. 54422, p. 2 rev.; RGIA, F. 477, Inv. 7, No. 2, p. 79; No. 3, p. 21). In the 16th–17th cent., poshevni (oshevni, obshevni) sleighs were for a large multipurpose means of transportation. This type of sleigh received its name after bast casing (obshivka) of its body (Akty..., 1894: 1248; Akty istoricheskie..., 1841: 313; Fasmer, 1996: 349; Slovar..., 1987: 237). The specialized passenger sleigh of this type differed from cargo-and-passenger sleighs by a higher price and were much less common (Slovar..., 1980: 331) (Archives of the St. Petersburg Institute of History (SPBII), F. 276, Inv. 1, No. 99/5, p. 11). Only in the 18th cent. did the poshevni gradually transform from a multipurpose vehicle into one of the most common types of open passenger sleighs. By the 19th – 20th cent. they had preserved their household function in a few places only (see, e.g., (Serpukhov, 1866: 30; Shustikov, 1895: 360; Blomkvist, Grinkova, 1930: 65; Lebedeva, 1987: 331; Loginov, 1993: 68 – 69) (RGIA, F. 477, Inv. 4, No. 99, p. 52; No. 400, p. 100; Inv. 7, No. 2, pp. 63 rev. – 64; No. 3, p. 21 rev., 25 rev.; No. 83, pp.. 116 rev., 117 rev.; No. 289, pp. 20 – 24; GIANO, F. 480, Inv. 1, No. 1123, p. 37 rev.; OR RNB, F. 351, No. 98/1334б, p. 750; No. 104/1340, pp. 451 rev. – 452; Archives of REM, F. 7, Inv. 1, No. 290, p. 9; No. 1796, pp.. 13 rev. – 14). Beginning in the Muscovite Rus period, among numerous and varied specialized vehicles, open passenger sleighs were especially popular. Unlike freight and
118
M.I. Vasiliev / Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 115–122
household sleighs, they were often decorated. For this reason in the 16th – early 18th cent., such sleighs were often called krasnye (beautiful) (Akty..., 1878: 1006; Prikhodno-raskhodnye knigi..., 1903, vol. 1: 108; 1904: 58; Opisnaya kniga..., 1904: 126). In addition to universal passenger sleighs (usually named according to the name of their original manufacturing), a number of highly specialized sleighs emerged. Judging by the name skochki (racing) that was attached to some 17th-cent. vehicles (Merzon, Tikhonov, 1960: 571) also used in the 19th – 20th cent. (Dal, 1994, vol. 2: 334 – 335; vol. 4: 30; Loginov, 1993: 68 – 69; Shangina, 2000: 257, 335), these were light traveling sleighs for racing, that undoubtedly contributed to their popularity among rich people of Russia. In Tsar, Patriarch and monastery households of the 16th – 18th cent., a group of highly specialized passenger sleighs was formed. Their names indicate their function: vynosnye (bier-bearing), panikhidnye (funeral), dmitrovskie (of St. Dmitry Saturday) (Tereschenko, 1848: 107 – 108; Truvorov, 1889: 452; Anuchin, 1890: 130 – 131, note 82; Zabelin, 1901: 632; 1905: 598) (RGADA, F. 396, Inv. 2, No. 1022, pp. 432 rev., 480 rev.), verbnye (willow)*. The latter were used during the Palm Sunday (Russian lit. ‘Pussywillow Sunday’) procession (Anuchin, 1890: 120); the dmitrovskie sleighs apparently were used on most important commemoration days (St. Dmitry Saturday was one of those). The bier-bearing sleighs disappeared from royal funerals due to the change in the rite in the late 17th cent.** “Pussywillow” sleighs went out of use for the same reason in the 18th cent. After that the carriages that were used in memorial rituals lost their signicance, probably to a large extent due to the secularization of Church land and reduced vehicle stock of the clergy. The Inventory of the Stable Treasury for 1706 – 1707 reports of a pokoevye (chamber) sleigh in the 17th cent. that was designed for resting and sleeping during long journeys, for which it had a bed set on straps (RGADA, F. 396, Inv. 2, No. 1022, pp. 437 rev.– 438 rev.). Despite the disappearance of this term in the 18th – 19th cent., the function of the pokoevye sleighs was partly performed by polevye (eld) and dorozhnye (travel) carriages (see below). For a long time, inaltsovskie (naltsovskie) sleighs were considered to be sleighs with a highly specialized function (wedding) (Anuchin, 1890: 117). However, as documents show, it is more correct to regard them as “ceremonial” *In some cases, these sleighs were set on wheels, becoming an improvised wheeled carriage (see (Anuchin, 1890: 120 – 123; Chernyshev, 1980: 77)). **The last funeral using the sleigh-bier occurred on January 30, 1696, during the funeral of Tsar Ioann Alexeevich (see (Polnoe sobranie zakonov..., 1830: 220 – 221)).
sleighs since they were also used to greet the most respectable persons and in the funeral rite (Zabelin, 1901: 643; Makary..., 1906: 16, 18, 22, 24, 28, 52 – 53, 69). One more type of specialized open passenger vehicles of the royal court in the last quarter of the 17th cent. was represented by poteshnye (for amusement) and in the 18th century by maskaradnye (masquerade) or katalnye (riding) sleighs. The rst and the second varieties were used by court nobles for entertainment during festivities, and the last variety was utilized for street performances and sliding down from articial hills during Shrovetide (Opisanie muzeuma..., 1861: 39; Fagurel, 1998: 283 – 284; Pylyaev, 1990: 135) (RGADA, F. 396, Inv. 2, No. 1022, pp. 438 rev. – 439 rev., 557 rev. – 558; F. 1239, Inv. 3, No. 54422, p. 2 rev.; RGIA, F. 477, Inv. 7, No. 88, pp. 128 – 136). Poteshnye (for amusement) and maskaradnye sleighs went out of use in the 19th cent. due to the disappearance of “merry-go-round” feasts and masquerades from the everyday life of the Tsar’s court. The katalnye sleighs survived until the 1860s. Impressive evidence for the functional diversication of passenger vehicles from the period of Muscovite Rus onward is the prevalence of vykhodnye (weekend) and vsednevnye (everyday) sleighs among the lay and clerical elite, landlords and rich urban dwellers, as well as the presence of gorodovye (urban), polevye (eld), and pokhodnye (campaign) sleighs. The gorodovye* and vykhodnye sleighs were used primarily for driving in the town or city and therefore were made to be more ornate. The former type was also characterized by extensive use of Western European tongue harnessing (see, e.g., (Rozysknye dela..., 1893: cols. 156 – 157, 175; Razkhodnaya kniga..., 1852: 6; Opisanie...., 1883: 501; Albom..., 1903: 113 – 114, g. 72; Opisi..., 1988: 216; Materialy dlya letopisi..., 1887: 76) Archives of SPBII, F. 132, Inv. 2, No. 441, pp. 5, 16; RGADA, F. 396, Inv. 2, No. 1021, p. 67; No. 1022, pp. 430 – 440 rev.; F. 248, Inv. 110, No. 236, p. 6 rev., OR RNB, F. 351, No. 104/1340, pp. 447 – 448 rev.; RGIA, F. 477, Inv. 4, No. 99, pp. 9 – 19 rev., 26 – 27 rev., 48 – 54 rev.; No. 400, pp. 96 – 104; Inv. 7, No. 83, p. 93 rev. – 115 rev., 145 – 145 rev.; No. 104, p. 271 – 283 rev., 312 rev. – 313 rev., 332 – 332 rev.; No. 286, pp. 1 – 71; No. 288, pp. 11 – 13; No. 291, pp. 25 – 27, 28 – 29). People used “eld” and “campaign” sleighs outside the city, and generally these sleighs were less decorated than “urban” ones. Unlike the urban sleighs, which were mostly open, country sleighs were covered and supplied with thills and sometimes with “beds” (Rozysknye dela..., 1893: 157 – 158; Zabelin, 1905: 598) (RGADA, F. 396, Inv. 2, No. 1022, pp. 434 – 437 rev.). From the 18th cent. *Or gorodskie, as they were called in the early 20th cent. (Rivosh, 1990: 83).
M.I. Vasiliev / Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 115–122
119
on, such sleighs were often called dorozhnye (travel) or voyazhnye (voyage) sleighs (RGIA, F. 477, Inv. 4, No. 99, pp. 9 – 19 rev., 48 – 54 rev.; Inv. 7, No. 81, pp. 142 rev. – 158; No. 288, pp. 5 – 10; No. 290, pp. 1 – 10). In the 19th cent., the name kibitka (covered with cloth or leather) (see, e.g., (Ibid., Inv. 7, No. 2, pp. 57 rev. – 58; No. 81, pp. 146 – 158; No. 290, pp. 1 – 20; GIANO, F. 513, Inv. 1, No. 935, p. 4)) and troechnye sleighs (for a troika of horses) (RGIA, F. 477, Inv. 7, No. 83, pp. 93 rev. – 96 rev.) increasingly superseded these functional terms. In the 19th cent., along with the two main types, an intermediate type of zagorodnye (out-oftown) sleighs appeared that combined urban decoration and suburban harnessing with a troika of horses (Ibid., No. 81, p. 168 rev.; No. 83, pp. 93 rev. – 96 rev.). The gorodovye and polevye sleighs gradually became the sign of the privileged part of the society. In the 19th cent., gorodovye became popular among cabs with passengers. Therefore, starting in the late 18th and especially in the 19th cent., such a division of sleighs indicated the growing differences between the noble and urban subcultures (rich urban dwellers and professional carriers who served them) on the one hand, and the rural subculture on the other hand. Since the Muscovite period, covered passenger vehicles intended for long distance travel became more variable. Initially these were bolki (polatki) and vozki (kaptana, izbushka – sleighs with a hut); kibitkas also became widespread starting in the 18th cent. (see, e.g., (Ibid., No. 2, pp. 57 rev. – 58; No. 81, pp. 146 – 158; No. 290, pp. 1 – 20; GIANO, F. 513, Inv. 1, No. 935, p. 4)). Vozki were mostly used in Tsar, Boyar, landlord, Patriarch, bishop, and monastery households*, whereas bolki and kibitkas were widespread among different groups of the population. The latter, being functionally versatile, provide little information for the present study. The vozki were intended for a variety of purposes. They can be subdivided into everyday (roskhozhie) and festive (vykhodnye) varieties on the one hand, and into travel (dorozhnye or pokhodnye) vozki and those used inside town (Zabelin, 1905: 598; Rozysknye dela..., 1888: cols. 341 – 344; Opisi..., 1988: 215 – 216) (RGADA, F. 396, Inv. 2, No. 1022, pp. 444 rev. – 454). The term ‘gorodovoi’ (town) as applied to vozki was not widely used probably because of their insignicant use in towns. Vykhodnye vozki are not mentioned in sources, but can be logically deduced as a synonym of roskhozhie. Among the carriages of the Tsar ’s Stables, L.P. Kirillova mentions winter sleighs, those for children, poteshnye (for amusement), and panikhidnye (funeral) vozki (Ekipazhi..., 1985: 17; Kirillova, 2000: 30), which
can be accepted with certain reservations. The last modication is rather doubtful since only panikhidnye sleighs – an open vehicle (see above) – are mentioned in sources. The terms ‘children’ and ‘amusement’ in this case are essentially synonymous. According to M.M. Denisova, poteshnye (amusement) sleighs were used for the Tsar’s children (‘potekha’ lit. ‘for amusement’) (Denisova, 1954: 298). They were distinguished by their small size (RGADA, F. 396, Inv. 2, No. 1022, pp. 452 rev. – 453, 555 rev.). Vozki lined with fur were called teplye (warm). In the inventory of the Stable Treasury for 1706 – 1707, eleven “warm sleighs” of the 17th cent. are indicated*. While this term is found only in the inventories of Tsar’s Stables’ Treasury, such vozki might also be used by Russian nobility. Primarily belonging to the royal court, these modications of vozki disappeared along with the Europeanization of court lifestyle during the rule of Peter the Great. In the 18th cent., sleighs that were more comfortable for long-distance journeys – “winter bedrooms” and linea – became popular among the nobility (Materialy dlya letopisi..., 1887: 76; Karnovich, 1884: 335 – 336). In the 19th –early 20th cent., the signicance of specialized winter vehicles decreased, and the main type of closed winter vehicle for secular and clerical aristocracy became carriages and other summer passenger vehicles which were set on so-called winter and town runners or “shoes” (RGADA, F. 1239, Inv. 3, No. 54422, p. 2 rev.; OR RNB, F. 351, No. 104/1340, p. 447; RGIA, F. 477, Inv. 2, No. 246, pp. 65 – 65 rev., 83, 197; Inv. 7, No. 3, pp. 4 – 4 rev.; No. 88, pp. 110 rev. – 112; GIANO, F. 513, Rev. 1, No. 646, pp. 39 rev. – 40; No. 674, p. 1). It can be concluded that in the 10th – 15th cent., there appeared the major functional types of draft Russians sleighs known at a later time: freight, passenger, and multipurpose sleighs. Most Old Russian sleighs were multifunctional, i.e. they were used both as freight and passenger transportation. In the late 15th – 17th cent., multipurpose sleighs became less common, and the number of freight and passenger sleighs, including closed vehicles, increased signicantly. From that time on, many new modifications of specialized sleighs appeared, evidencing economic and social differentiation within Russian society. Some of them did not survive until the ethnographic period due to loss of demand. Thus, specialized sleighs used by the Tsar’s court and by the boyars disappeared, becoming useless after the Europeanization of the courtly lifestyle in the early 18th cent. A number of monastery carriages suffered a similar fate after the secularization of land in the late 1700s. Finally, the division of Russian culture into
*Judging by the lack of information in the documents, such sleighs were absent or very rare in coachmen’s services.
*M.M. Denisova gives another figure (6) in her work (1954: 298).
120
M.I. Vasiliev / Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 115–122
elite and folk subcultures, clearly evidenced by 17th – 18th cent. materials, acquired a new aspect in the 19th cent., when the noble and the urban subculture were jointly opposed to the rural subculture.
References Akty istoricheskie, sobrannye i izdannye Arkheogracheskoyu komissieyu. 1841 Vol. 2: 1598 – 1613. St. Petersburg: [Tipograya II Otd. Sobstvennoy ego imperatorskogo velichestva kantselyarii]. Akty Iverskogo Svyatoozerskogo monastyrya (1582 – 1706). 1878 A. Truvorov (ed.). St. Petersburg: Arkheograf. komissiya. (Russkaya istoricheskaya biblioteka; vol. 5). Akty Kholmogorskoy i Ustyuzhskoy eparkhii. 1894 St. Petersburg: Arkheograf. komissiya. (Russkaya istoricheskaya biblioteka; vol. 14, pt. 2). Albom Meierberga: Vidy i bytovye kartiny Rossii XVII veka. 1903 St. Petersburg: A.S. Suvorin. Alekseyev M.P. 1941 Sibir v izvestiyakh zapadno-evropeiskikh puteshestvennikov i pisateley. XIII – XVII vv. 2nd ed. Irkutsk: Irkutsk. oblastnoe izd. Anuchin D.N. 1890 Sani, ladiya i koni kak prinadlezhnost pokhoronnogo obryada. Drevnosti: Trudy Moskovskogo arkheologicheskogo obshchestva, vol. 14: 81 – 226. Artsikhovsky A.V. 1969 Sredstva peredvizheniya. In Ocherki Russkoy kultury XIII – XV vekov. Pt. 1: Materialnaya kultura. Moscow: Izd. Mosk. Gos. Univ., pp. 307 – 316. Bezhkovich A.S. 1959 Sredstva peredvizheniya i upryazh v krestiyanskom khozyaistve. In Bezhkovich A.S., Zhegalova S.K., Lebedeva A.A., Prosvirkina S.K. Khozyaistvo i byt Russkikh krestiyan: Pamyatniki materialnoy kultury: Opredelitel. Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya, pp. 199 – 243. Blomkvist E.E., Grinkova N.P. 1930 Khozyaistvenny byt bukhtarminskikh staroobryadtsev. In Bukhtarminskie staroobryadtsy: Materialy Komissii ekspeditsionnykh obsledovaniy Akademii nauk SSSR, vol. 17. Leningrad: [Tsentralnaya tipograya Narkomvoenmora], pp. 49 – 192. Chernyshev V.A. 1980 Sukhoputnye sredstva soobshcheniya v Rossii XVI – XVII vv. Cand. Sc. (History) Dissertation. Leningrad. Dal V. 1994 Tolkovy slovar zhivogo velikoRusskogo yazyka, [in 4 vols.]. Moscow: Progress; Univers. Denisova M.M. 1954 “Konyushennaya kazna”: Paradnoe konskoe ubranstvo XVI – XVII vekov. In Gosudarstvennaya Oruzheinaya palata Moskovskogo Kremlya: Sbornik nauchnykh trudov po materialam Gosudarstvennoi Oruzheinoy palaty. Moscow: Iskusstvo, pp. 247 – 304. Dopolneniya k aktam istoricheskim, sobrannye i izdannye Arkheogracheskoyu komissieyu. 1853 Vol. 5. St. Petersburg: [Tipograya E. Pratsa].
Dubrovin G.E. 2000 Vodny i sukhoputny transportation srednevekovogo Novgoroda X – XV vv.: Po arkheologicheskim dannym, [vols. 1 – 2]. Moscow: Stary sad. Ekipazhi XVI – XVIII vv.: Katalog vystavki. 1985 L.P. Kirillova (ed.). Moscow: Gos. muzei Moskovskogo Kremlya. Evlentiev K.G. 1879 Zapiska ob Aleksandrovskom posade Pskovskogo uezda v promyslovom i drugikh otnosheniyakh. Pskovskie gubernskie vedomosti, No. 7: 62. Fagurel Yu.E. 1998 Kollektsiya maskaradnykh sanei XVIII v. iz sobraniya GIM (k voprosu ob istorii maskaradnykh zrelishch v Rossii v XVIII v.). Trudy GIM, vol. 106: 282 – 286. Fasmer M. 1996 Etimologicheskii slovar Russkogo yazyka, [in 4 vols.], vol. 3. St. Petersburg: Terra – Azbuka. Golubykh M. 1930 Kazachiya derevnya. Moscow, Leningrad: Gos. izd. RSFSR. Karnovich E.P. 1884 Istoricheskie rasskazy i bytovye ocherki. St. Petersburg: A.S. Suvorin. Khoroshev A.S. 1997 Sredstva peredvizheniya. In Drevnyaya Rus: Byt i kultura, B.A. Kolchin, T.I. Makarova (eds.). Moscow: Nauka, pp. 120 – 129. Kirillova L. 2000 Starinnye ekipazhi: Sokrovishcha Oruzheinoy palaty. Moscow: Gos. istoriko-kulturny muzey-zapovednik “Moskovskiy Kreml”. Kolchin B.A. 1968 Novgorodskie drevnosti: Derevyannye izdeliya Moscow: Nauka. (Svod arkheologicheskikh istochnikov; vol. E 1-55). Kotoshikhin G. 1840 O Rossii v tsarstvovanie Alekseya Mikhailovicha. St. Petersburg: Arkheograf. komissiya. Kovrigina V.A., Marasinova L.M. 1979 Torgovlya, puti i sredstva peredvizheniya. In Ocherki Russkoi kultury XVII veka. Pt. 1: Materialnaya kultura. Moscow: Izd. Mosk. Gos. Univ., pp. 122 – 144. Krukovsky M.A. 1904 Olonetskiy kray: Putevye ocherki. St. Petersburg: Peterburg. uchebny magazin. Kuchin I. 1901 Rybolovstvo v Valdaiskikh ozerakh. Vestnik Novgorodskogo zemstva, No. 5, sec. 6: 44 – 51. Kulikovsky G. 1898 Slovar oblastnogo Olonetskogo narechiya. St. Petersburg: Otdelenie Russkogo yazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoy Akademii nauk. Lebedeva A.A. 1987 Transport, perenoska i perevozka tyazhestey. In Ehtnogra¿ya vostochnykh slavyan: Ocherki traditsionnoj kultury, K.V. Chistov (ed.). Moscow: Nauka, pp. 313 – 341. Loginov K.K. 1993 Materialnaya kultura i proizvodstvenno-bytovaya magiya Russkikh Zaonezhiya (konets XIX – nachalo XX v.). St. Petersburg: Nauka.
M.I. Vasiliev / Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 115–122
Makary, patriarkh Antiokhiisky, v Rossii v 1654 – 1656 gg.: Dokumenty Posolskogo prikaza. 1906 N.V. Rozhdestvensky (introduction and commentary). Moscow: [Tipograya shtaba Moskovskogo voennogo okruga], pp. 1 – 120. (Chteniya v Obshchestve istorii i drevnostey rossijskikh; bk. 4, sec. 1). Marasinova L.M. 1977 Torgovlya i sredstva peredvizheniya. In Ocherki Russkoy kultury XVI veka. Pt. 1: Materialnaya kultura. Moscow: Izd. Mosk. Gos. Univ., pp. 252 – 291. Marasinova L.M. 1985 Puti i sredstva soobshcheniya. In Ocherki Russkoy kultury XVIII veka. Pt. 1: Materialnaya kultura. Moscow: Izd. Mosk. Gos. Univ., pp. 257 – 284. Materialy dlya istorii Zvenigorodskogo kraya. 1994 Vol. 2: Opisi Savvina Storozhevskogo monastyrya XVII veka, S.N. Kisterov, L.A. Timoshina (eds.). Moscow: Arkheograf. tsentr. Materialy dlya letopisi Volokolamskogo Iosifova monastyrya iz del Arkhiva Moskovskoy dukhovnoy konsistorii s 1746 po 1852 god. 1887 Moscow: [Univ. tipografiya M. Katkova], pp. 1 – 128. (Chteniya v Obshscestve istorii i drevnostey rossiiskikh; bk. 2, sec. 5). Merzon A.Ts., Tikhonov Yu.A. 1960 Rynok Ustyuga Velikogo v period skladyvaniya vserossiiskogo rynka (XVII vek). Moscow: Izd. AN SSSR. Nikolsky N. 1910 Kirillo-Belozersky monastyr i ego ustroistvo do vtoroy chetverti XVII veka (1397 – 1625). Vol. 1, No. 2: O sredstvakh soderzhaniya monastyrya. St. Petersburg: [Sinodalnaya tipograya]. Novgorogskie pistsovye knigi, izdannye Arkheogracheskoyu komissieyu. 1886 Vol. 4: Perepisnye obrochnye knigi Shelonskoy pyatiny. Bk. 1: 1498 g.; Bk. 2: 1539 g.; Bk. 3: 1552 – 1553 gg. St. Petersburg: [Tipograya Ministerstva vnutrennikh del]. Novgorogskie pistsovye knigi, izdannye Arkheogracheskoyu komissieyu. 1905 Vol. 5: Knigi Shelonskoj pyatiny. Bk. 1: Okolo 1498 g.; Bk. 2: 1498 g.; Bk. 3: 1499 – 1551 gg.; Bk. 4: 1571 g.; Bk. 5: 1576 g. St. Petersburg: [Senatskaya tipograya]. Opisanie muzeuma Konyushennoy ego imperatorskogo velichestva kontory. 1861 St. Petersburg: [Tipograya III Otdela Sobstvennoy ego imperatorskogo velichestva kantselyarii]. Opisanie zapisnykh knig i bumag starinnykh dvortsovykh prikazov 1613 – 1725 gg. 1883 A. Viktorov (comp.). Sec. 5: Konyushenny prikaz, No. 2. Moscow: [Tipograya M.P. Shchepkina], pp. 491 – 504. Opis Aptekarskomu i inym dvoram i Moskovskogo i inykh gorodov uezdov volostyam i selam i zavodam, kotorye vedomy byli Prikazu tazhnykh del, 1676 – 1677 gg. 1861 St. Petersburg: [Tipografiya I. Ogrizko], pp. 44 – 125. (Zapiski otdeleniya Russkoy i slavyanskoy arkheologii Imperatorskogo Arkheologicheskogo obschestva; vol. 2). Opis imeniya Batyushkovykh v sele Danilovskom (Bezhets. uezd Tverskoy gubernii) [1796 g.]. 1993 V.A. Koshelev (publ.). Vologda: Vologod. Gos. Ped. Inst., pp. 194 – 221. (Ustyuzhna: Istoriko-literaturny almanakh; No. 2).
121
Opisi imuschestva Novgorodskogo Soyskogo sobora XVIII – nachala XIX v. 1988 E.A. Gordienko, G.K. Markina (comps.). Moscow, Leningrad: Inst. istorii SSSR. Opisnaya kniga Muromskogo Boriso-Glebskogo na Ushne monastyrya, 1689 g. Soobschil I. Shlyapkin. 1904 S.D. Yakhontov (ed.). Ryazan: [Tipograya Gubernskogo pravleniya], pp. 113 – 137. (Trudy Ryazanskoy uchen. arkhiv. komissii; vol. 19, No. 2). Pamyatniki diplomaticheskikh snosheniy Moskovskogo gosudarstva s Polsko-Litovskim. 1882 G.F. Karpov (ed.). Vol. 1: (S 1487 po 1533 god). St. Petersburg: [Tipografiya A. Katanskogo i K]. (Sbornik Russkogo istoricheskogo obschestva; vol. 35). Pereyaslavl-Zalessky: Materialy dlya istorii Danilova monastyrya i naseleniya goroda XVIII stoletiya. 1891 Moscow: [Tipograya M.G. Volchaninova]. Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoy imperii. 1830 Vol. 3: 1689 – 1699 gg. St. Petersburg: [Tipografiya II Otdela Sobstvennoy ego imperatorskogo velichestva kantselyarii]. Prikhodno-raskhodnye knigi Bogoslovskogo monastyrya s 192 po 197 god (1684 – 1689). 1903 Ryazan: [Tipografiya Gubernskogo pravleniya]. (Trudy Ryazanskoy uchen. arkhiv. komissii; vol. 18, No. 1: 59 – 114; No. 2: 212 – 243). Prikhodno-raskhodnye knigi Bogoslovskogo monastyrya s 192 po 197 god (1684 – 1689). 1904 Ryazan: [Tipografiya Gubernskogo pravleniya]. (Trudy Ryazanskoy uchen. arkhiv. komissii; vol. 19, No. 1: 31 – 59). Promysly selskogo naseleniya Pskovskogo uezda. 1888 Pskov: [Tip. Gubernskogo pravleniya]. Pskovskie letopisi. 1955 Vol. 2. Moscow: Izd. AN SSSR. Pylyaev M.I. 1990 Staroe zhitie: Ocherki i rasskazy o byvshikh v otoshedshee vremya obryadakh, obychayakh i poryadkakh v ustroistve domashney i obshchestvennoy zhizni. Moscow: Kniga. Rasskhodnaya kniga Dorogobuzhskogo Boldinskogo Svyato-Troitskogo monastyrya. 1585 – 1586. 1875 St. Petersburg: n.p., cols. 290 – 313. (Rossiskaya istoricheskaya biblioteka; vol. 2). Razkhodnaya kniga Novgorodskogo mitropolita Nikona 7160 goda. 1852 Moscow: [Univ. tipografiya], pp. 1 – 62. (Vremennik Imperatorskogo Moskovskogo obschestva istorii i drevnostey rossiiskikh; bk. 13, sec. 2). Rivosh Ya.N. 1990 Vremya i veshchi: Illyustrirovannoe opisanie kostyumov i aksessuarov v Rossii kontsa XIX – nachala XX v. Moscow: Iskusstvo. Rozysknye dela o Fedore Shaklovitom i ego soobschnikakh. 1888 Vol. 3. St. Petersburg: Arkheograf. komissiya. Rozysknye dela o Fedore Shaklovitom i ego soobschnikakh. 1893 Vol. 4. St. Petersburg: Arkheograf. komissiya.
122
M.I. Vasiliev / Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 115–122
Serpukhov: Orudiya, upotreblyaemye v selskom khozyaistve. 1866 Novgorod: Novgorod. statisticheskaya komissiya, pp. 22 – 32. (Novgorodsky sbornik; vol. 5, sec. 1). Shangina I.I. 2003 Russky traditsionny byt: Entsiklopedichesky slovar. St. Petersburg: Azbuka-klassika. Shustikov A. 1895 Tavrenga Velskogo uezda. Zhivaya starina , No. 3/4: 358 – 375. Skazaniya sovremennikov o Dimitrii Samozvantse. 1834 Pt. 4. St. Petersburg: [Tipograya Imperatorskoy Akademii nauk]. Slovar Russkogo yazyka XI – XVII vv. 1975 Vols. 1, 2. Moscow: Nauka. Slovar Russkogo yazyka XI – XVII vv. 1980 Vol. 7. Moscow: Nauka. Slovar Russkogo yazyka XI – XVII vv. 1981 Vol. 8. Moscow: Nauka. Slovar Russkogo yazyka XI – XVII vv. 1987 Vol. 12. Moscow: Nauka. Slovar Russkogo yazyka XI – XVII vv. 1988 Vol. 14. Moscow: Nauka. Slovar Russkogo yazyka XI – XVII vv. 1990 Vol. 16. Moscow: Nauka. Strokin N.A. 1887 Rybnyj promysel na Pskovskom ozere. Pskov: [Tipograya Gubernskogo zemstva. Tereschenko A. 1848 Byt Russkogo naroda, vol. 3. St. Petersburg: [Tipograya voenno-uchebnykh zavedeniy]. Truvorov A.N. 1889 O konchine tsarevicha Simeona Alekseyevicha i o sanyakh, upotreblyavshikhsya pri pogrebenii tsarstvovavshikh na Rusi osob. Russkaya starina (St. Petersburg), No. 5: 451 – 457.
Tuchkov S.A. 1818 Voenny slovar, zaklyuchayuschiy naimenovaniya ili terminy, v Rossiiskom sukhoputnom voiske upotreblyaemye, pt. 2. Moscow: [Tipograya S. Selivanovskogo]. Varfolomeev N. 1875 Svedeniya khozyaistvenno-ekonomicheskie po Zaostrovskomu prikhodu Arkhangelskogo uezda, za 1874 g. Arkhangelskie gubernskie vedomosti, No. 25: 4. Vasiliev M.I. 2006 Funktsionalnye tipy srednevekovykh novgorodskikh upryazhnykh saney: Problemy interpretatsii. In Novgorod i novgorodskaya zemlya: Istoriya i arkheologiya: Materialy nauchnoj konferentsii. Novgorod, 24 – 26 yanvarya 2006 g., vol. 20. Veliky Novgorod: n.p., pp. 115 – 130. Voronin N.N. 1948 Sredstva i puti soobscheniya. In Istoriya kultury Drevney Rusi: Domongolskiy period. Vol. 1: Materialnaya kultura. Moscow, Leningrad: Izd. AN SSSR, pp. 280 – 314. Voronov G.A. 1896 Ocherk lesnogo khozyaistva i torgovli lesom v Novgorodskoy gubernii. Lesnoy zhurnal, No. 3: 575 – 607. Zabelin I. 1901 Materialy. In Zabelin I. Domashniy byt Russkogo naroda. Vol. 2: Domashniy byt Russkikh tsarits v XVI i XVII st. Moscow: [Tipograya A.I. Mamontova], pp. 569 – 777. Zabelin I. 1905 Istoriya goroda Moskvy, pt. 1. Moscow: [Tipo-litogr. I.N. Kushnerev i K]. Zimnie kataniya novgorodskikh krestiyan: (Metodicheskie rekomendatsii). 1992 M.I. Vasiliev (comp.). Novgorod: Oblastnoy tsentr narodnogo tvorchestva.
Received April 16, 2007.
ARCHAEOLOGY, ETHNOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY OF EURASIA
115
ETHNOLOGY M.I. Vasiliev Novgorod State University, Sankt-Peterburgskaya 41, Veliky Novgorod, 173003, Russia E-mail: [email protected]
EVOLUTION OF THE RUSSIAN SLEIGH: FUNCTIONAL ASPECT The sleigh was one of the popular types of Russian land transportation starting at the time of ancient Rus (Voronin, 1948; Kolchin, 1968: 1 – 96, pl. 1 – 85; Artsikhovsky, 1969). Similar to other elements of material culture, sleighs reect particular aspects of economic development, the degree of social division of labor, specic features of social development, etc. The study of sleigh transportation is relevant to modern scholarship since it provides additional arguments for reconstructing more objective characteristics of Russian society in various periods of its history. Cultural and anthropological research of sleighs can be initiated from different viewpoints. The functional features of sleigh transportation are an important source of information. In the meantime, despite the existence of a number of archaeological and historical works on Russian transportation, the majority of them touch upon this aspect only implicitly, in most general terms (see (Voronin, 1948; Artsikhovsky, 1969; Marasinova, 1977; Kovrigina, Marasinova, 1979; Marasinova, 1985)). Only the works of B.A. Kolchin and his followers provide an analysis of the functional purpose of sleighs (Kolchin, 1968: 51 – 56; Khoroshev, 1997: 126 – 127; Dubrovin, 2000: 122 – 153); however, their conclusions require serious corrections. The issue is insufciently studied for the 16th – 18th cent., which is conditioned, in my view, by inefcient use of both published or unpublished archival materials. In general, the available information concerns basically the last two centuries and mostly refers to peasant transportation (Bezhkovich, 1959; Lebedeva, 1987). However, ethnographers do not answer the question of when the main types of freight, multipurpose,
and passenger sleighs used by the Russians in the 19th – 20th centuries emerged, including drays (drovni), sleds (podsanki), household sleighs, low wide sleighs (rozvalni), passenger sleighs, etc. Our research constitutes an attempt to resolve this problem. It is devoted to the history of Russian draft sleighs from the viewpoint of their functional purpose. The chronological scope of the study covers the period from the 10th cent., when the rst evidence of sleigh transportation among the Eastern Slavs began, until the 19th cent. for which we have fairly certain ethnographic materials. For a long time, the main sources on type diversity of sleighs in the 10th – 15th cent. were written sources and miniatures. They provide information only on two types of vehicles with runners – sleighs and carts. The term ‘sleigh’ (sani) refers exclusively to vehicles with runners, while the term ‘cart’ (voz) also denotes wheeled vehicles (Artsihkovsky, 1969: 314; Marasinova, 1977: 290). These materials have led many researchers to believe in the multipurpose character of carriages in pre-Muscovite Rus. Similar views are held even concerning the transportation of the 17th cent. (Kovrigina, Marasinova, 1979: 140 – 141). Along with this interpretation there existed another view that ancient sleighs were similar to the sleighs of the 19th – 20th cent. (Truvorov, 1889: 454 – 455; Voronin, 1948: 306). However, this view did not lead to the development of the idea concerning the availability of specialized sleighs in ancient Rus until a new category of historical sources was introduced in the late 1960s. The archaeological discoveries in Novgorod gave reason to speak about greater diversity of Old Russian sleights than had been reected in the written sources.
Copyright © 2008, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2008.04.005
116
M.I. Vasiliev / Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 115–122
According to B.A. Kolchin, ve types of sleighs existed in 10th – 15th cent. Russia: four draft types – multipurpose freight, passenger, passenger sleighs with a high stave (or racing sleighs), vozok sleighs (with a closed carriage body); and one type of a hand-driven sled (Kolchin, 1968: 54). This pattern is reproduced in the general archaeological study on the everyday culture of Old Rus (Khoroshev, 1997: 126). In my opinion, the existing views on the functional character of the Old Russian sleighs require certain adjustment. As was shown in one study, both the boundaries between the types of vehicles and their appearance need to be clarified (Vasiliev, 2006). A separate type of “racing” passenger ared sleigh with a high stave and the reconstruction of the vozok sleigh as a complete equivalent of the 17th-cent. vozok are most disputable. Archaeological nds give grounds for viewing them as different types of Old Russian sleighs (Ibid.). The analysis of archaeological materials has made it possible to identify in the time of Old Rus the entire range of draft sleigh functional groups known in the ethnographic period: freight, passenger, and multipurpose sleighs. Yet medieval sleighs in general were more versatile than sleighs used a few decades ago. In addition to the construction, indirect evidence of multifunctionality for the majority of Old Russian sleighs is the small number of words used for naming them until the last decades of the 15th cent. The dominant group was presented by multipurpose household sleighs, which transported cargo as well as people; specialized passenger sleighs occupied a modest position, making its identification among archaeological materials difcult (Ibid.). All the above makes it possible to consider the time of pre-Muscovite Rus as the initial period when different functional groups of the Eastern European type of sleighs developed. This period ended in the second half of the 15th cent. with the emergence of specialized sleighs: freight sleighs (drovni) (Novgorogskie pistsovye knigi..., 1886: cols. 98, 145, 188, 195, 206; 1905: col. 191), passenger sleighs (bolok and tapkan) (Pskovskie letopisi, 1955: 191; Pamyatniki..., 1882: 169). At the same time, the poshevni sleighs that were indicated as feudal rent-in-kind from the peasants of the Shelonskaya pyatina at the end of the 15th cent., judging by their large quantity (ten sleighs from three small villages) (Novgorogskie pistsovye knigi..., 1886: cols. 191 – 192) and by the functions of later sleighs of the same type are likely to represent the main modication of multipurpose household vehicles of Old Rus formerly called ‘sleighs.’ Starting from the late 15th – 16th cent., due to the objective trend of transportation specialization, the number of specialized types of sleighs significantly increased. Monastery, Boyar and Great Prince (Tsar) households had particular diversity of sleigh types.
In addition to regular drovni sleighs (versatile freight sleighs), at that time there appeared kremlevye (or krenevye) sleighs (Nikolsky, 1910: DLXXXI) and pod’ezdki (Opis..., 1861: 112; Slovar..., 1990: 76, 89). Judging by their more recent equivalents, they differed from regular sleighs by their predominant use in the autumn and winter periods. The sources also mention “forage” sleighs (Nikolskiy, 1910: DCXXIV), water carrying sleighs (Slovar..., 1975, vol. 2: 255), and vodoviki (Ibid.: 254). The rst were designed for transporting straw and hay, the second for transporting water, and had a vat or barrel attached to the platform, and the third type was used for transporting seine and differed from other types, according to ethnographic equivalents, in their larger size. Most of these freight vehicles were used by different social groups and continued to exist until recent times (Varfolomeyev, 1875; Evlentiev, 1879; Strokin, 1887: 9 – 10; Promysly..., 1888: 11; Kulikovsky, 1898: 67; Kuchin, 1901: 47; Krukovsky, 1904: 212; Dal, 1994, vol. 2: 487) (Field materials of the author, the Pinezhsky and Primorsky Regions of the Arkhangelsk Province and the village Nes of the Nenets Autonomous District, 1983; Archives of Novgorod State Museum Reserve (NGOMZ), No. 2354, p. P. 81, photos 124 – 125; No. 3271. photos 80 – 85; Russian State Archives of Old Acts (RGADA), F. 1192, Inv. 3, No. 19, p. 2). Only the term ‘pod’ezdki’ turned in the 19th – 20th centuries into a local term denoting a short sleigh (podsanki) for carrying treetops (Voronov, 1896: 588, g. 1; Zimnie kataniya..., 1992: 10, g. 3) (Archives of the Russian Ethnographic Museum (REM), F. 7, Inv. 1, No. 682, p. 20). In the 18th cent., the dray sleigh appeared and was used in the urban environment until the first third of the 20th cent. This type of sleigh was distinguished by an iron-bound wooden platform (Rivosh, 1990: 99; Shangina, 2003: 270) (Russian State Historical Archives (RGIA), F. 477, Inv. 2, No. 246, pp. 41 rev., 44, 65). In addition to open carriages, a closed sleigh intended for carrying various cargo, a little later called bolkovni, that often had a shed, became quite widespread in the households of the Tsar, nobility, rich monasteries, and merchants in the era of Muscovite Rus (Razkhodnaya kniga..., 1852: 1, 39, 40; Opis..., 1861: 82; Opisanie..., 1883: 495; Pereslavl-Zalessky..., 1891: 23; Karnovich, 1884: 335 – 336; Dal, 1994, vol. 1: 269 – 270; Slovar..., 1975: vol. 1: 282, 284) (Manuscript Department of the Russian National Library (OR RNB), F. IV, No. 232, p. 762; F. IV, No. 233, p. 348, 348 rev.; RGADA, F. 1239, Inv. 3, No. 54422. p. 2 rev.). In many ways, covered koshevye, polub (or palub) and later furman sleighs, which were used in Tsar, Boyar, and large monastery households in the 17th – 18th cent., had a similar functional purpose (transporting various foods and other supplies) (Rozysknye dela..., 1893: 175; Slovar..., 1988:
M.I. Vasiliev / Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 115–122
136; Karnovich, 1884: 335) (RGADA, F. 396. Inv. 2, No. 1022, p.440 rev.; OR RNB, F. 351, No. 104/1340, p. 451 rev.; State Historical Archives of the Novgorod Province (GIANO), F. 513, Inv. 1, No. 417, p. 50 rev.; No. 646, p. 40). The vozovye (carriage) sleighs that played an important role in trading, proved to be the most stable form of all freight sleighs with sheds; they survived until the 20th cent., whereas the koshevye, palub, and furman sleighs in the 19th cent. gave way to wheeled carriages – wagons and vans (Tuchkov, 1818: 28, 86; Golubykh, 1930: 62 – 63). A large number of specialized closed freight sledges that emerged in the period of Muscovite Rus were confined to the Tsar’s household. Thus, in the “bird” sleighs, they carried birds that were used in royal falconry, in the portomoinye (lit. ‘for underwear washing’) sleighs the royal lingerie was carried to the river for rinsing (Kotoshikhin, 1840: 26; Dopolneniya..., 1853: 435; Anuchin, 1890: 131; Zabelin, 1901: 696, Alekseyev, 1941: 345; Denisov 1954: 299) (RGADA, F. 396. Inv. 2, Pt. 2, No. 1022, p. 440 rev.). There also existed the so-called vozok (covered sleigh). Researchers identify three types of these: krestovye (for the cross), zapasnye (for supplies), and postelnye (for the bed). The rst ones carried icons (“icon treasury”), the second – royal dress and linen, the third – trunks with the royal bed (Ekipazhi..., 1985: 17; Kirillova, 2000: 30). However, an analysis shows that vozki on runners were only the “bed” sleighs (RGADA, F. 396, Inv., 2, Pt. 2, No. 1022, p. 455), and the rest were wheeled carriages (Ibid., pp. 433 – 433 rev., 455 – 455 rev.). Meanwhile, the zapasnye and krestovye carriages on runners are called “sleighs” in the sources, allowing us to consider them to be open vehicles (Ibid., pp. 433 – 433 rev.). Major changes in royal daily life that occurred during the rule of Peter the Great led to the neglect of the majority of specialized carriages. Only the carriages intended for transporting the Tsar’s traveling attire and other things remained for further use, partly changing their construction and name – to gardirobnye (wardrobe), and later dorozhnye (traveling) sleighs and kibitka (tilt carriages) (RGIA, F. 477, Inv. 2, No. 246, pp. 76 – 76 rev.; Inv. 7, No. 81, p. 153 rev; No. 288, p. 7). The next group of new functional modifications of sleighs in the 16th – 18th cent. was represented by household sleighs that are often mentioned in sources as roskhozhie and ezzhalye (Razkhodnaya kniga..., 1852: 38) (RGADA, F. 1196, Inv. 3, No. 144, pp. 3, 4). A typical monastic type of such sleighs in the time of Muscovite Rus were the brattskie (of the brothers), chernecheskie (of the monks) sleighs, the “sleighs of cathedral elders” (see (Nikolsky, 1910: DС; Rasskhodnaya kniga..., 1875: cols. 129 – 130; Materialy..., 1994: 191)). They disappeared along with the loss of monasteries’ possessions in the 18th cent. The solodovye sleighs that were available at
117
the Tsar’s Stable Yard, ceased to be used even sooner. This type of sleigh was used to glorify Christ during Christmastide in the beginning of the 18th cent. The cost of such a sleigh was several times higher than the cost of a working sleigh (Opisanie..., 1883: 494) (RGADA, F. 396, Inv. 2, No. 1021, pp. 9, 78 rev.). Its name was probably derived from the word ‘solodkoe’ meaning ‘festive gathering,’ ‘feast of Epiphany Eve with fortunetelling and singing’ in the Tver and Rzhev dialects (Dal, 1994, vol. 1: 379). A multipurpose low wide sleigh with side poles probably appeared no later than the 17th cent., judging by the presence of side “wings” in certain types of passenger sleighs (Skazaniya..., 1834: 43) and by a 1666 document mentioning “chairs” in sleighs: “To Cup-bearer Elder Ignatius, who set willow poles in the seats of the dray, and for the bast, 4 altyns and 2 dengas” (Slovar..., 1981: 39). Other indirect evidence is the presence of the word kryakvas that denoted poles attached at an angle at the rear of the body of one of the carriages in the last quarter of the 17th cent. (RGADA, F. 396, Inv. 2, No. 1022, p. 452). From the 18th cent. and until recent times, rozvalni (low wide sleigh) was one of the most common variations of multipurpose carriages (Opis imeniya..., 1993: 217) (OR RNB, F. 351, No. 104/1340, pp. 451 rev.– 452; RGADA, F. 1192, Inv. 3, No. 19. p. 2; F. 1239, Inv. 3, No. 54422, p. 2 rev.; RGIA, F. 477, Inv. 7, No. 2, p. 79; No. 3, p. 21). In the 16th–17th cent., poshevni (oshevni, obshevni) sleighs were for a large multipurpose means of transportation. This type of sleigh received its name after bast casing (obshivka) of its body (Akty..., 1894: 1248; Akty istoricheskie..., 1841: 313; Fasmer, 1996: 349; Slovar..., 1987: 237). The specialized passenger sleigh of this type differed from cargo-and-passenger sleighs by a higher price and were much less common (Slovar..., 1980: 331) (Archives of the St. Petersburg Institute of History (SPBII), F. 276, Inv. 1, No. 99/5, p. 11). Only in the 18th cent. did the poshevni gradually transform from a multipurpose vehicle into one of the most common types of open passenger sleighs. By the 19th – 20th cent. they had preserved their household function in a few places only (see, e.g., (Serpukhov, 1866: 30; Shustikov, 1895: 360; Blomkvist, Grinkova, 1930: 65; Lebedeva, 1987: 331; Loginov, 1993: 68 – 69) (RGIA, F. 477, Inv. 4, No. 99, p. 52; No. 400, p. 100; Inv. 7, No. 2, pp. 63 rev. – 64; No. 3, p. 21 rev., 25 rev.; No. 83, pp.. 116 rev., 117 rev.; No. 289, pp. 20 – 24; GIANO, F. 480, Inv. 1, No. 1123, p. 37 rev.; OR RNB, F. 351, No. 98/1334б, p. 750; No. 104/1340, pp. 451 rev. – 452; Archives of REM, F. 7, Inv. 1, No. 290, p. 9; No. 1796, pp.. 13 rev. – 14). Beginning in the Muscovite Rus period, among numerous and varied specialized vehicles, open passenger sleighs were especially popular. Unlike freight and
118
M.I. Vasiliev / Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 115–122
household sleighs, they were often decorated. For this reason in the 16th – early 18th cent., such sleighs were often called krasnye (beautiful) (Akty..., 1878: 1006; Prikhodno-raskhodnye knigi..., 1903, vol. 1: 108; 1904: 58; Opisnaya kniga..., 1904: 126). In addition to universal passenger sleighs (usually named according to the name of their original manufacturing), a number of highly specialized sleighs emerged. Judging by the name skochki (racing) that was attached to some 17th-cent. vehicles (Merzon, Tikhonov, 1960: 571) also used in the 19th – 20th cent. (Dal, 1994, vol. 2: 334 – 335; vol. 4: 30; Loginov, 1993: 68 – 69; Shangina, 2000: 257, 335), these were light traveling sleighs for racing, that undoubtedly contributed to their popularity among rich people of Russia. In Tsar, Patriarch and monastery households of the 16th – 18th cent., a group of highly specialized passenger sleighs was formed. Their names indicate their function: vynosnye (bier-bearing), panikhidnye (funeral), dmitrovskie (of St. Dmitry Saturday) (Tereschenko, 1848: 107 – 108; Truvorov, 1889: 452; Anuchin, 1890: 130 – 131, note 82; Zabelin, 1901: 632; 1905: 598) (RGADA, F. 396, Inv. 2, No. 1022, pp. 432 rev., 480 rev.), verbnye (willow)*. The latter were used during the Palm Sunday (Russian lit. ‘Pussywillow Sunday’) procession (Anuchin, 1890: 120); the dmitrovskie sleighs apparently were used on most important commemoration days (St. Dmitry Saturday was one of those). The bier-bearing sleighs disappeared from royal funerals due to the change in the rite in the late 17th cent.** “Pussywillow” sleighs went out of use for the same reason in the 18th cent. After that the carriages that were used in memorial rituals lost their signicance, probably to a large extent due to the secularization of Church land and reduced vehicle stock of the clergy. The Inventory of the Stable Treasury for 1706 – 1707 reports of a pokoevye (chamber) sleigh in the 17th cent. that was designed for resting and sleeping during long journeys, for which it had a bed set on straps (RGADA, F. 396, Inv. 2, No. 1022, pp. 437 rev.– 438 rev.). Despite the disappearance of this term in the 18th – 19th cent., the function of the pokoevye sleighs was partly performed by polevye (eld) and dorozhnye (travel) carriages (see below). For a long time, inaltsovskie (naltsovskie) sleighs were considered to be sleighs with a highly specialized function (wedding) (Anuchin, 1890: 117). However, as documents show, it is more correct to regard them as “ceremonial” *In some cases, these sleighs were set on wheels, becoming an improvised wheeled carriage (see (Anuchin, 1890: 120 – 123; Chernyshev, 1980: 77)). **The last funeral using the sleigh-bier occurred on January 30, 1696, during the funeral of Tsar Ioann Alexeevich (see (Polnoe sobranie zakonov..., 1830: 220 – 221)).
sleighs since they were also used to greet the most respectable persons and in the funeral rite (Zabelin, 1901: 643; Makary..., 1906: 16, 18, 22, 24, 28, 52 – 53, 69). One more type of specialized open passenger vehicles of the royal court in the last quarter of the 17th cent. was represented by poteshnye (for amusement) and in the 18th century by maskaradnye (masquerade) or katalnye (riding) sleighs. The rst and the second varieties were used by court nobles for entertainment during festivities, and the last variety was utilized for street performances and sliding down from articial hills during Shrovetide (Opisanie muzeuma..., 1861: 39; Fagurel, 1998: 283 – 284; Pylyaev, 1990: 135) (RGADA, F. 396, Inv. 2, No. 1022, pp. 438 rev. – 439 rev., 557 rev. – 558; F. 1239, Inv. 3, No. 54422, p. 2 rev.; RGIA, F. 477, Inv. 7, No. 88, pp. 128 – 136). Poteshnye (for amusement) and maskaradnye sleighs went out of use in the 19th cent. due to the disappearance of “merry-go-round” feasts and masquerades from the everyday life of the Tsar’s court. The katalnye sleighs survived until the 1860s. Impressive evidence for the functional diversication of passenger vehicles from the period of Muscovite Rus onward is the prevalence of vykhodnye (weekend) and vsednevnye (everyday) sleighs among the lay and clerical elite, landlords and rich urban dwellers, as well as the presence of gorodovye (urban), polevye (eld), and pokhodnye (campaign) sleighs. The gorodovye* and vykhodnye sleighs were used primarily for driving in the town or city and therefore were made to be more ornate. The former type was also characterized by extensive use of Western European tongue harnessing (see, e.g., (Rozysknye dela..., 1893: cols. 156 – 157, 175; Razkhodnaya kniga..., 1852: 6; Opisanie...., 1883: 501; Albom..., 1903: 113 – 114, g. 72; Opisi..., 1988: 216; Materialy dlya letopisi..., 1887: 76) Archives of SPBII, F. 132, Inv. 2, No. 441, pp. 5, 16; RGADA, F. 396, Inv. 2, No. 1021, p. 67; No. 1022, pp. 430 – 440 rev.; F. 248, Inv. 110, No. 236, p. 6 rev., OR RNB, F. 351, No. 104/1340, pp. 447 – 448 rev.; RGIA, F. 477, Inv. 4, No. 99, pp. 9 – 19 rev., 26 – 27 rev., 48 – 54 rev.; No. 400, pp. 96 – 104; Inv. 7, No. 83, p. 93 rev. – 115 rev., 145 – 145 rev.; No. 104, p. 271 – 283 rev., 312 rev. – 313 rev., 332 – 332 rev.; No. 286, pp. 1 – 71; No. 288, pp. 11 – 13; No. 291, pp. 25 – 27, 28 – 29). People used “eld” and “campaign” sleighs outside the city, and generally these sleighs were less decorated than “urban” ones. Unlike the urban sleighs, which were mostly open, country sleighs were covered and supplied with thills and sometimes with “beds” (Rozysknye dela..., 1893: 157 – 158; Zabelin, 1905: 598) (RGADA, F. 396, Inv. 2, No. 1022, pp. 434 – 437 rev.). From the 18th cent. *Or gorodskie, as they were called in the early 20th cent. (Rivosh, 1990: 83).
M.I. Vasiliev / Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 115–122
119
on, such sleighs were often called dorozhnye (travel) or voyazhnye (voyage) sleighs (RGIA, F. 477, Inv. 4, No. 99, pp. 9 – 19 rev., 48 – 54 rev.; Inv. 7, No. 81, pp. 142 rev. – 158; No. 288, pp. 5 – 10; No. 290, pp. 1 – 10). In the 19th cent., the name kibitka (covered with cloth or leather) (see, e.g., (Ibid., Inv. 7, No. 2, pp. 57 rev. – 58; No. 81, pp. 146 – 158; No. 290, pp. 1 – 20; GIANO, F. 513, Inv. 1, No. 935, p. 4)) and troechnye sleighs (for a troika of horses) (RGIA, F. 477, Inv. 7, No. 83, pp. 93 rev. – 96 rev.) increasingly superseded these functional terms. In the 19th cent., along with the two main types, an intermediate type of zagorodnye (out-oftown) sleighs appeared that combined urban decoration and suburban harnessing with a troika of horses (Ibid., No. 81, p. 168 rev.; No. 83, pp. 93 rev. – 96 rev.). The gorodovye and polevye sleighs gradually became the sign of the privileged part of the society. In the 19th cent., gorodovye became popular among cabs with passengers. Therefore, starting in the late 18th and especially in the 19th cent., such a division of sleighs indicated the growing differences between the noble and urban subcultures (rich urban dwellers and professional carriers who served them) on the one hand, and the rural subculture on the other hand. Since the Muscovite period, covered passenger vehicles intended for long distance travel became more variable. Initially these were bolki (polatki) and vozki (kaptana, izbushka – sleighs with a hut); kibitkas also became widespread starting in the 18th cent. (see, e.g., (Ibid., No. 2, pp. 57 rev. – 58; No. 81, pp. 146 – 158; No. 290, pp. 1 – 20; GIANO, F. 513, Inv. 1, No. 935, p. 4)). Vozki were mostly used in Tsar, Boyar, landlord, Patriarch, bishop, and monastery households*, whereas bolki and kibitkas were widespread among different groups of the population. The latter, being functionally versatile, provide little information for the present study. The vozki were intended for a variety of purposes. They can be subdivided into everyday (roskhozhie) and festive (vykhodnye) varieties on the one hand, and into travel (dorozhnye or pokhodnye) vozki and those used inside town (Zabelin, 1905: 598; Rozysknye dela..., 1888: cols. 341 – 344; Opisi..., 1988: 215 – 216) (RGADA, F. 396, Inv. 2, No. 1022, pp. 444 rev. – 454). The term ‘gorodovoi’ (town) as applied to vozki was not widely used probably because of their insignicant use in towns. Vykhodnye vozki are not mentioned in sources, but can be logically deduced as a synonym of roskhozhie. Among the carriages of the Tsar ’s Stables, L.P. Kirillova mentions winter sleighs, those for children, poteshnye (for amusement), and panikhidnye (funeral) vozki (Ekipazhi..., 1985: 17; Kirillova, 2000: 30), which
can be accepted with certain reservations. The last modication is rather doubtful since only panikhidnye sleighs – an open vehicle (see above) – are mentioned in sources. The terms ‘children’ and ‘amusement’ in this case are essentially synonymous. According to M.M. Denisova, poteshnye (amusement) sleighs were used for the Tsar’s children (‘potekha’ lit. ‘for amusement’) (Denisova, 1954: 298). They were distinguished by their small size (RGADA, F. 396, Inv. 2, No. 1022, pp. 452 rev. – 453, 555 rev.). Vozki lined with fur were called teplye (warm). In the inventory of the Stable Treasury for 1706 – 1707, eleven “warm sleighs” of the 17th cent. are indicated*. While this term is found only in the inventories of Tsar’s Stables’ Treasury, such vozki might also be used by Russian nobility. Primarily belonging to the royal court, these modications of vozki disappeared along with the Europeanization of court lifestyle during the rule of Peter the Great. In the 18th cent., sleighs that were more comfortable for long-distance journeys – “winter bedrooms” and linea – became popular among the nobility (Materialy dlya letopisi..., 1887: 76; Karnovich, 1884: 335 – 336). In the 19th –early 20th cent., the signicance of specialized winter vehicles decreased, and the main type of closed winter vehicle for secular and clerical aristocracy became carriages and other summer passenger vehicles which were set on so-called winter and town runners or “shoes” (RGADA, F. 1239, Inv. 3, No. 54422, p. 2 rev.; OR RNB, F. 351, No. 104/1340, p. 447; RGIA, F. 477, Inv. 2, No. 246, pp. 65 – 65 rev., 83, 197; Inv. 7, No. 3, pp. 4 – 4 rev.; No. 88, pp. 110 rev. – 112; GIANO, F. 513, Rev. 1, No. 646, pp. 39 rev. – 40; No. 674, p. 1). It can be concluded that in the 10th – 15th cent., there appeared the major functional types of draft Russians sleighs known at a later time: freight, passenger, and multipurpose sleighs. Most Old Russian sleighs were multifunctional, i.e. they were used both as freight and passenger transportation. In the late 15th – 17th cent., multipurpose sleighs became less common, and the number of freight and passenger sleighs, including closed vehicles, increased signicantly. From that time on, many new modifications of specialized sleighs appeared, evidencing economic and social differentiation within Russian society. Some of them did not survive until the ethnographic period due to loss of demand. Thus, specialized sleighs used by the Tsar’s court and by the boyars disappeared, becoming useless after the Europeanization of the courtly lifestyle in the early 18th cent. A number of monastery carriages suffered a similar fate after the secularization of land in the late 1700s. Finally, the division of Russian culture into
*Judging by the lack of information in the documents, such sleighs were absent or very rare in coachmen’s services.
*M.M. Denisova gives another figure (6) in her work (1954: 298).
120
M.I. Vasiliev / Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 115–122
elite and folk subcultures, clearly evidenced by 17th – 18th cent. materials, acquired a new aspect in the 19th cent., when the noble and the urban subculture were jointly opposed to the rural subculture.
References Akty istoricheskie, sobrannye i izdannye Arkheogracheskoyu komissieyu. 1841 Vol. 2: 1598 – 1613. St. Petersburg: [Tipograya II Otd. Sobstvennoy ego imperatorskogo velichestva kantselyarii]. Akty Iverskogo Svyatoozerskogo monastyrya (1582 – 1706). 1878 A. Truvorov (ed.). St. Petersburg: Arkheograf. komissiya. (Russkaya istoricheskaya biblioteka; vol. 5). Akty Kholmogorskoy i Ustyuzhskoy eparkhii. 1894 St. Petersburg: Arkheograf. komissiya. (Russkaya istoricheskaya biblioteka; vol. 14, pt. 2). Albom Meierberga: Vidy i bytovye kartiny Rossii XVII veka. 1903 St. Petersburg: A.S. Suvorin. Alekseyev M.P. 1941 Sibir v izvestiyakh zapadno-evropeiskikh puteshestvennikov i pisateley. XIII – XVII vv. 2nd ed. Irkutsk: Irkutsk. oblastnoe izd. Anuchin D.N. 1890 Sani, ladiya i koni kak prinadlezhnost pokhoronnogo obryada. Drevnosti: Trudy Moskovskogo arkheologicheskogo obshchestva, vol. 14: 81 – 226. Artsikhovsky A.V. 1969 Sredstva peredvizheniya. In Ocherki Russkoy kultury XIII – XV vekov. Pt. 1: Materialnaya kultura. Moscow: Izd. Mosk. Gos. Univ., pp. 307 – 316. Bezhkovich A.S. 1959 Sredstva peredvizheniya i upryazh v krestiyanskom khozyaistve. In Bezhkovich A.S., Zhegalova S.K., Lebedeva A.A., Prosvirkina S.K. Khozyaistvo i byt Russkikh krestiyan: Pamyatniki materialnoy kultury: Opredelitel. Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya, pp. 199 – 243. Blomkvist E.E., Grinkova N.P. 1930 Khozyaistvenny byt bukhtarminskikh staroobryadtsev. In Bukhtarminskie staroobryadtsy: Materialy Komissii ekspeditsionnykh obsledovaniy Akademii nauk SSSR, vol. 17. Leningrad: [Tsentralnaya tipograya Narkomvoenmora], pp. 49 – 192. Chernyshev V.A. 1980 Sukhoputnye sredstva soobshcheniya v Rossii XVI – XVII vv. Cand. Sc. (History) Dissertation. Leningrad. Dal V. 1994 Tolkovy slovar zhivogo velikoRusskogo yazyka, [in 4 vols.]. Moscow: Progress; Univers. Denisova M.M. 1954 “Konyushennaya kazna”: Paradnoe konskoe ubranstvo XVI – XVII vekov. In Gosudarstvennaya Oruzheinaya palata Moskovskogo Kremlya: Sbornik nauchnykh trudov po materialam Gosudarstvennoi Oruzheinoy palaty. Moscow: Iskusstvo, pp. 247 – 304. Dopolneniya k aktam istoricheskim, sobrannye i izdannye Arkheogracheskoyu komissieyu. 1853 Vol. 5. St. Petersburg: [Tipograya E. Pratsa].
Dubrovin G.E. 2000 Vodny i sukhoputny transportation srednevekovogo Novgoroda X – XV vv.: Po arkheologicheskim dannym, [vols. 1 – 2]. Moscow: Stary sad. Ekipazhi XVI – XVIII vv.: Katalog vystavki. 1985 L.P. Kirillova (ed.). Moscow: Gos. muzei Moskovskogo Kremlya. Evlentiev K.G. 1879 Zapiska ob Aleksandrovskom posade Pskovskogo uezda v promyslovom i drugikh otnosheniyakh. Pskovskie gubernskie vedomosti, No. 7: 62. Fagurel Yu.E. 1998 Kollektsiya maskaradnykh sanei XVIII v. iz sobraniya GIM (k voprosu ob istorii maskaradnykh zrelishch v Rossii v XVIII v.). Trudy GIM, vol. 106: 282 – 286. Fasmer M. 1996 Etimologicheskii slovar Russkogo yazyka, [in 4 vols.], vol. 3. St. Petersburg: Terra – Azbuka. Golubykh M. 1930 Kazachiya derevnya. Moscow, Leningrad: Gos. izd. RSFSR. Karnovich E.P. 1884 Istoricheskie rasskazy i bytovye ocherki. St. Petersburg: A.S. Suvorin. Khoroshev A.S. 1997 Sredstva peredvizheniya. In Drevnyaya Rus: Byt i kultura, B.A. Kolchin, T.I. Makarova (eds.). Moscow: Nauka, pp. 120 – 129. Kirillova L. 2000 Starinnye ekipazhi: Sokrovishcha Oruzheinoy palaty. Moscow: Gos. istoriko-kulturny muzey-zapovednik “Moskovskiy Kreml”. Kolchin B.A. 1968 Novgorodskie drevnosti: Derevyannye izdeliya Moscow: Nauka. (Svod arkheologicheskikh istochnikov; vol. E 1-55). Kotoshikhin G. 1840 O Rossii v tsarstvovanie Alekseya Mikhailovicha. St. Petersburg: Arkheograf. komissiya. Kovrigina V.A., Marasinova L.M. 1979 Torgovlya, puti i sredstva peredvizheniya. In Ocherki Russkoi kultury XVII veka. Pt. 1: Materialnaya kultura. Moscow: Izd. Mosk. Gos. Univ., pp. 122 – 144. Krukovsky M.A. 1904 Olonetskiy kray: Putevye ocherki. St. Petersburg: Peterburg. uchebny magazin. Kuchin I. 1901 Rybolovstvo v Valdaiskikh ozerakh. Vestnik Novgorodskogo zemstva, No. 5, sec. 6: 44 – 51. Kulikovsky G. 1898 Slovar oblastnogo Olonetskogo narechiya. St. Petersburg: Otdelenie Russkogo yazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoy Akademii nauk. Lebedeva A.A. 1987 Transport, perenoska i perevozka tyazhestey. In Ehtnogra¿ya vostochnykh slavyan: Ocherki traditsionnoj kultury, K.V. Chistov (ed.). Moscow: Nauka, pp. 313 – 341. Loginov K.K. 1993 Materialnaya kultura i proizvodstvenno-bytovaya magiya Russkikh Zaonezhiya (konets XIX – nachalo XX v.). St. Petersburg: Nauka.
M.I. Vasiliev / Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 115–122
Makary, patriarkh Antiokhiisky, v Rossii v 1654 – 1656 gg.: Dokumenty Posolskogo prikaza. 1906 N.V. Rozhdestvensky (introduction and commentary). Moscow: [Tipograya shtaba Moskovskogo voennogo okruga], pp. 1 – 120. (Chteniya v Obshchestve istorii i drevnostey rossijskikh; bk. 4, sec. 1). Marasinova L.M. 1977 Torgovlya i sredstva peredvizheniya. In Ocherki Russkoy kultury XVI veka. Pt. 1: Materialnaya kultura. Moscow: Izd. Mosk. Gos. Univ., pp. 252 – 291. Marasinova L.M. 1985 Puti i sredstva soobshcheniya. In Ocherki Russkoy kultury XVIII veka. Pt. 1: Materialnaya kultura. Moscow: Izd. Mosk. Gos. Univ., pp. 257 – 284. Materialy dlya istorii Zvenigorodskogo kraya. 1994 Vol. 2: Opisi Savvina Storozhevskogo monastyrya XVII veka, S.N. Kisterov, L.A. Timoshina (eds.). Moscow: Arkheograf. tsentr. Materialy dlya letopisi Volokolamskogo Iosifova monastyrya iz del Arkhiva Moskovskoy dukhovnoy konsistorii s 1746 po 1852 god. 1887 Moscow: [Univ. tipografiya M. Katkova], pp. 1 – 128. (Chteniya v Obshscestve istorii i drevnostey rossiiskikh; bk. 2, sec. 5). Merzon A.Ts., Tikhonov Yu.A. 1960 Rynok Ustyuga Velikogo v period skladyvaniya vserossiiskogo rynka (XVII vek). Moscow: Izd. AN SSSR. Nikolsky N. 1910 Kirillo-Belozersky monastyr i ego ustroistvo do vtoroy chetverti XVII veka (1397 – 1625). Vol. 1, No. 2: O sredstvakh soderzhaniya monastyrya. St. Petersburg: [Sinodalnaya tipograya]. Novgorogskie pistsovye knigi, izdannye Arkheogracheskoyu komissieyu. 1886 Vol. 4: Perepisnye obrochnye knigi Shelonskoy pyatiny. Bk. 1: 1498 g.; Bk. 2: 1539 g.; Bk. 3: 1552 – 1553 gg. St. Petersburg: [Tipograya Ministerstva vnutrennikh del]. Novgorogskie pistsovye knigi, izdannye Arkheogracheskoyu komissieyu. 1905 Vol. 5: Knigi Shelonskoj pyatiny. Bk. 1: Okolo 1498 g.; Bk. 2: 1498 g.; Bk. 3: 1499 – 1551 gg.; Bk. 4: 1571 g.; Bk. 5: 1576 g. St. Petersburg: [Senatskaya tipograya]. Opisanie muzeuma Konyushennoy ego imperatorskogo velichestva kontory. 1861 St. Petersburg: [Tipograya III Otdela Sobstvennoy ego imperatorskogo velichestva kantselyarii]. Opisanie zapisnykh knig i bumag starinnykh dvortsovykh prikazov 1613 – 1725 gg. 1883 A. Viktorov (comp.). Sec. 5: Konyushenny prikaz, No. 2. Moscow: [Tipograya M.P. Shchepkina], pp. 491 – 504. Opis Aptekarskomu i inym dvoram i Moskovskogo i inykh gorodov uezdov volostyam i selam i zavodam, kotorye vedomy byli Prikazu tazhnykh del, 1676 – 1677 gg. 1861 St. Petersburg: [Tipografiya I. Ogrizko], pp. 44 – 125. (Zapiski otdeleniya Russkoy i slavyanskoy arkheologii Imperatorskogo Arkheologicheskogo obschestva; vol. 2). Opis imeniya Batyushkovykh v sele Danilovskom (Bezhets. uezd Tverskoy gubernii) [1796 g.]. 1993 V.A. Koshelev (publ.). Vologda: Vologod. Gos. Ped. Inst., pp. 194 – 221. (Ustyuzhna: Istoriko-literaturny almanakh; No. 2).
121
Opisi imuschestva Novgorodskogo Soyskogo sobora XVIII – nachala XIX v. 1988 E.A. Gordienko, G.K. Markina (comps.). Moscow, Leningrad: Inst. istorii SSSR. Opisnaya kniga Muromskogo Boriso-Glebskogo na Ushne monastyrya, 1689 g. Soobschil I. Shlyapkin. 1904 S.D. Yakhontov (ed.). Ryazan: [Tipograya Gubernskogo pravleniya], pp. 113 – 137. (Trudy Ryazanskoy uchen. arkhiv. komissii; vol. 19, No. 2). Pamyatniki diplomaticheskikh snosheniy Moskovskogo gosudarstva s Polsko-Litovskim. 1882 G.F. Karpov (ed.). Vol. 1: (S 1487 po 1533 god). St. Petersburg: [Tipografiya A. Katanskogo i K]. (Sbornik Russkogo istoricheskogo obschestva; vol. 35). Pereyaslavl-Zalessky: Materialy dlya istorii Danilova monastyrya i naseleniya goroda XVIII stoletiya. 1891 Moscow: [Tipograya M.G. Volchaninova]. Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoy imperii. 1830 Vol. 3: 1689 – 1699 gg. St. Petersburg: [Tipografiya II Otdela Sobstvennoy ego imperatorskogo velichestva kantselyarii]. Prikhodno-raskhodnye knigi Bogoslovskogo monastyrya s 192 po 197 god (1684 – 1689). 1903 Ryazan: [Tipografiya Gubernskogo pravleniya]. (Trudy Ryazanskoy uchen. arkhiv. komissii; vol. 18, No. 1: 59 – 114; No. 2: 212 – 243). Prikhodno-raskhodnye knigi Bogoslovskogo monastyrya s 192 po 197 god (1684 – 1689). 1904 Ryazan: [Tipografiya Gubernskogo pravleniya]. (Trudy Ryazanskoy uchen. arkhiv. komissii; vol. 19, No. 1: 31 – 59). Promysly selskogo naseleniya Pskovskogo uezda. 1888 Pskov: [Tip. Gubernskogo pravleniya]. Pskovskie letopisi. 1955 Vol. 2. Moscow: Izd. AN SSSR. Pylyaev M.I. 1990 Staroe zhitie: Ocherki i rasskazy o byvshikh v otoshedshee vremya obryadakh, obychayakh i poryadkakh v ustroistve domashney i obshchestvennoy zhizni. Moscow: Kniga. Rasskhodnaya kniga Dorogobuzhskogo Boldinskogo Svyato-Troitskogo monastyrya. 1585 – 1586. 1875 St. Petersburg: n.p., cols. 290 – 313. (Rossiskaya istoricheskaya biblioteka; vol. 2). Razkhodnaya kniga Novgorodskogo mitropolita Nikona 7160 goda. 1852 Moscow: [Univ. tipografiya], pp. 1 – 62. (Vremennik Imperatorskogo Moskovskogo obschestva istorii i drevnostey rossiiskikh; bk. 13, sec. 2). Rivosh Ya.N. 1990 Vremya i veshchi: Illyustrirovannoe opisanie kostyumov i aksessuarov v Rossii kontsa XIX – nachala XX v. Moscow: Iskusstvo. Rozysknye dela o Fedore Shaklovitom i ego soobschnikakh. 1888 Vol. 3. St. Petersburg: Arkheograf. komissiya. Rozysknye dela o Fedore Shaklovitom i ego soobschnikakh. 1893 Vol. 4. St. Petersburg: Arkheograf. komissiya.
122
M.I. Vasiliev / Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33/1 (2008) 115–122
Serpukhov: Orudiya, upotreblyaemye v selskom khozyaistve. 1866 Novgorod: Novgorod. statisticheskaya komissiya, pp. 22 – 32. (Novgorodsky sbornik; vol. 5, sec. 1). Shangina I.I. 2003 Russky traditsionny byt: Entsiklopedichesky slovar. St. Petersburg: Azbuka-klassika. Shustikov A. 1895 Tavrenga Velskogo uezda. Zhivaya starina , No. 3/4: 358 – 375. Skazaniya sovremennikov o Dimitrii Samozvantse. 1834 Pt. 4. St. Petersburg: [Tipograya Imperatorskoy Akademii nauk]. Slovar Russkogo yazyka XI – XVII vv. 1975 Vols. 1, 2. Moscow: Nauka. Slovar Russkogo yazyka XI – XVII vv. 1980 Vol. 7. Moscow: Nauka. Slovar Russkogo yazyka XI – XVII vv. 1981 Vol. 8. Moscow: Nauka. Slovar Russkogo yazyka XI – XVII vv. 1987 Vol. 12. Moscow: Nauka. Slovar Russkogo yazyka XI – XVII vv. 1988 Vol. 14. Moscow: Nauka. Slovar Russkogo yazyka XI – XVII vv. 1990 Vol. 16. Moscow: Nauka. Strokin N.A. 1887 Rybnyj promysel na Pskovskom ozere. Pskov: [Tipograya Gubernskogo zemstva. Tereschenko A. 1848 Byt Russkogo naroda, vol. 3. St. Petersburg: [Tipograya voenno-uchebnykh zavedeniy]. Truvorov A.N. 1889 O konchine tsarevicha Simeona Alekseyevicha i o sanyakh, upotreblyavshikhsya pri pogrebenii tsarstvovavshikh na Rusi osob. Russkaya starina (St. Petersburg), No. 5: 451 – 457.
Tuchkov S.A. 1818 Voenny slovar, zaklyuchayuschiy naimenovaniya ili terminy, v Rossiiskom sukhoputnom voiske upotreblyaemye, pt. 2. Moscow: [Tipograya S. Selivanovskogo]. Varfolomeev N. 1875 Svedeniya khozyaistvenno-ekonomicheskie po Zaostrovskomu prikhodu Arkhangelskogo uezda, za 1874 g. Arkhangelskie gubernskie vedomosti, No. 25: 4. Vasiliev M.I. 2006 Funktsionalnye tipy srednevekovykh novgorodskikh upryazhnykh saney: Problemy interpretatsii. In Novgorod i novgorodskaya zemlya: Istoriya i arkheologiya: Materialy nauchnoj konferentsii. Novgorod, 24 – 26 yanvarya 2006 g., vol. 20. Veliky Novgorod: n.p., pp. 115 – 130. Voronin N.N. 1948 Sredstva i puti soobscheniya. In Istoriya kultury Drevney Rusi: Domongolskiy period. Vol. 1: Materialnaya kultura. Moscow, Leningrad: Izd. AN SSSR, pp. 280 – 314. Voronov G.A. 1896 Ocherk lesnogo khozyaistva i torgovli lesom v Novgorodskoy gubernii. Lesnoy zhurnal, No. 3: 575 – 607. Zabelin I. 1901 Materialy. In Zabelin I. Domashniy byt Russkogo naroda. Vol. 2: Domashniy byt Russkikh tsarits v XVI i XVII st. Moscow: [Tipograya A.I. Mamontova], pp. 569 – 777. Zabelin I. 1905 Istoriya goroda Moskvy, pt. 1. Moscow: [Tipo-litogr. I.N. Kushnerev i K]. Zimnie kataniya novgorodskikh krestiyan: (Metodicheskie rekomendatsii). 1992 M.I. Vasiliev (comp.). Novgorod: Oblastnoy tsentr narodnogo tvorchestva.
Received April 16, 2007.