An overview of ethnographic sources for the study of agriculture in medieval Novgorod

Volgina Nataliia Dmitrievna Postgraduate student, Department of Archeology, Lomonosov Moscow State University 119991, Russia, Moscow, Leninskie Gory str., 1 snatd@yandex.ru

The study of the history of agriculture in medieval Novgorod is a rather extensive topic that requires an integrated approach. In this regard, it is supposed to appeal not only to archaeological sites, but also to other types of sources. Russian Russian ethnographer and folklorist D.K. Zelenin in his monograph "Russian Ethnography" noted that when describing a modern Russian village, it is necessary to refer to traditional folk culture that goes back far into the past, since certain features of peasant life have not undergone radical changes ^{[1, p.8]}. This remark is equally true for attempts to restore the appearance of medieval everyday life and various aspects of economic activity. In many ways, the need to turn to other types of sources is due to the fact that the archaeological material, although quite extensive, but most of the objects reach our days in a fragmented state, which makes it difficult to reconstruct the appearance of the thing, as well as the methods of its application.

Ethnographic sources can be divided into 4 groups: physical, photographic documents, written sources and folklore. The first group includes items from the expositions of ethnographic museums. The second group contains various photographs that were obtained from the Internet and collections of local historians. A group of written sources are represented by memoirs of the peasant I.S. Karpov, which were collected and recorded by Russian ethnographers. And the last group includes folk folklore, also collected and recorded by researchers.

Agriculture has been the basis of the economic life of the Russian peasant since ancient times. The rich material material accumulated during long-term archaeological research demonstrated that even before the emergence of the Ancient Russian state, the East Slavic tribes had a complex economy, in which agriculture and related cattle breeding played a leading role, and hunting and other crafts were of lesser importance, but remained a serious help to the main types of economic activity ^{[3, p.48]}. To study the history of the development of agricultural technology, the territory of Ancient Russia is conventionally divided into geographical and climatic zones: southern Russia (Middle Dnieper, Pobuzhye, Transnistria) and northern Russia (Polesie, Upper Dnieper, Volga, Upper Volga and Poochye). Many researchers have repeatedly noted that the geographical environment is one of the most important determining factors of the level of development of society, it either accelerates or slows down this process. Agriculture is the branch of the economy that is more susceptible to this effect ^{[4, p.115]}. The geographical environment had a direct impact on the peculiarities of the development of agricultural machinery, which in turn predetermined the dominance of certain agricultural implements in this territory. This study will focus on the northern territories.

The forest area of Eastern Europe was mainly occupied by mixed and coniferous forests, the soil conditions of the north were much less favorable than in the south. The forest zone is an area of podzolic, sandy loam and loamy soils, very poorly saturated with humus ^{[4, p.51]}. The population of the forest zone did not have large, forest-free spaces at their disposal, so agriculture in this area acquired a specific forest character. Slash-and-burn agriculture, the agriculture of forest areas, has long been the main technique of cultivating land in this area. The sub-section is a developed hoe farming, with the use of primitive tillage tools: a harrow and a single-toothed rake. Slash-and-burn farming, as a rule, is the occupation of a large family due to the complexity of the organization.

The first stage of slash-and-burn farming included getting rid of the forest in a certain area. To do this, the forest was cut down, dried for a year, then burned. At the second stage, the burnt layer was put in order and planted directly in the ash ^{[5, pp. 1-4]}. The plot prepared in the forest (novina) served for only a year or two, a maximum of three years, every year the fertile layer was depleted and gave less harvest. The old site could be put back into operation no earlier than the forest grew on it, i.e. after 40-60 years ^{[3, pp.53-54]}. With the advent of more advanced arable implements in this area, slash-and-burn agriculture evolved into arable farming.

The Russian peasant's worries about cultivating the land began in early spring and ended in early autumn. One can find evidence of this in the folk saying: "The Evdokei came to the peasant to sharpen the plough, repair the harrow" ^{[6, p.243]}. Saint Evdokia's memorial day fell on March 1 according to the old calendar, on this day winter ended, and it was customary to guess at spring ^{[7, p.172]}. The sowing season lasted until the beginning of September, as also evidenced by Slavic sayings: "On the Seed–the day before the harvest of the pasha, and after the harvest by the hands of Masha." Saint Semeon's memorial Day fell on September 14th. The meaning of this saying can be understood in different ways: either we are talking about the fact that the weather often worsens after noon, which makes it difficult to work in the field, or as a signal that it is time to stop agricultural work.

The preparation of arable land for future sowing was carried out with the help of a plough and a harrow. Russian Russian ethnographer D.K. Zelenin rightfully calls the plough – the main Russian agricultural tool ^{[2, p.6]}. The Russian plough was not uniform for all territories of the Russian state, but was represented by different species, which were determined by soil and climatic conditions. Based on the classification of arable implements proposed by D.K. Zelenin, the plough refers to plowing implements that are equipped with dump devices (police) that allow not only to furrow the soil, but also to drag the layer of earth behind them ^{[1, pp.10-12]}. A characteristic feature of the plough, which made it suitable for work in forest soils, was the high attachment point of the draft force, which allowed the tool to fit loosely to the ground and thereby avoid stumps and tree roots that remained after tillage ^{[8, pp.33-34]}. Another distinctive feature of the plough is the two–pronged working part, on which iron tips are installed - coulters, which in the old days were sometimes called "omeshi". In one of the epics "Volga and Mikula" you can find a mention of the work of a plough:

"Volga drove out into the open field,

He heard ratai in the open field.

And ratai is yelling in the field, urging,

And Ratai's bipod is creaking,

Yes, they scratch through the pebbles.

He rode Volga to ratai,

I drove all day from morning to evening,

Yes, he could not fight in the field.

And ratai is yelling in the field, urging,

And ratai's bipod creaks,

Yes, they scratch through the pebbles

Volga drove another day,

The next day from morning to evening,

With his little friend horobroya.

He drove into the open field of ratai,

And ratai is yelling in the field, urging,

Marks the grooves from edge to edge,

He will go to the edge — there will be no other way.

It turns out the roots of the stones,

Yes, he knocks down all the great stones in the furrow,

The rat's filly has a nightingale,

Yes, ratai has a maple bipod,

Ratai's hoods are silk. ^{[9, p.50]}"

Russian Russian ethnographer V.F. Miller in his work "Essays of Russian folk literature" describing the epic of "Volga and Mikula" called it "a real picture of northern ploughing" ^{[10, pp.168-169]}. As already described above, the soils in the northern regions are difficult to cultivate due to the large number of boulders and tree roots that constantly "creak" and have to be bypassed during plowing. The hard work of peasant ploughmen is widely reflected in folk sayings and proverbs: "Who screams, he sings, and who serves, he grieve", "The peasant is going to die, and plow the land" ^{[6, pp.240-243]}. With great love and respect, they also say about the plough: "Hold on to the plough; she is a nurse"; "Mother plough has golden horns" ^{[6, p.242]}.

They started plowing early in the morning, in some cases at night. In the memoirs of I.S. Karpov, a peasant from the Krasnoborsky district of the Arkhangelsk region, we find a short story about how this process took place: "Spring has come, together we have to plow and sow the neighbor's land and our own. Although the horse is invisible, it is good for work. The summer in 1905 was hot, in the Petrov post, when exporting manure for steam, gadflies ate horses to the blood. I had to plow at night and rest during the day. 2 days before Petrov's Day, on June 26 (art. art.), at about 10 p.m. I went to plow at night – it's not hot" ^{[11, p.23]}. Further, the author recalls a rather dangerous incident that happened to him while working in the field: "My mother woke me up, cooked me something to eat, which was useful, and while it was not hot and gadflies did not rise, I went to plow about 4-5 hours. Arriving at the arable land and driving through the furrows 2 – 3, I see: my horse is snorting, watching and trembling – afraid of something, keenly stroking to the sides. Reaching the boundary line, she goes to go home, but I turn her back and, finally, despite my efforts to restrain her, she rushed home, and I, clinging to the reins, wanted to stop her, but for fear of being cut by sharp ploughshares, let go of the reins. A column of dry dust has formed from running fast, and the horse is not visible in the dust. Inevitably, the horse must cut off its legs, because the ploughshares were at the very feet of the horse. Realizing this danger, I ran after the horse with a sob and saw one ploughshare (ralnik) buried deep into the ground, breaking off with the whole tree, the second ploughshare, catching on a log, broke off and flew over the fence to the side. The horse is safe, standing at the barn gate, shaking all over. They unharnessed the horse, tied it to a post, and began to scourge the horse with willow rods with my mother, pushed it into the yard and left it without food as punishment" ^{[11, p.23]}.

The appeal to folk folklore is also of interest to the researcher from the point of view of clarifying terminology. In popular usage, there was no clear definition of the name of the iron tips of the working parts of arable implements. In the above fragment, you can see that the tips of the working part of the ploughshare are called ploughshares by the author, although we are certainly talking about coulters. The assignment of names to certain tools (handlers, ploughshares, ploughshares) occurred only by Soviet scientists, who laid the foundation for their classification.

After plowing, the field was harrowed to clear the soil of roots, weeds and clods left after plowing, level the soil, and also cover the seeds with earth. The bitch harrow is one of the most primitive types of harrows. It was made from young spruce trunks, which were divided in half, and the branches were processed in such a way that they looked like teeth. The structural features of this type of harrow made it possible to use it on soils with a large number of irregularities and various obstacles ^{[12, pp.24-25]}. These qualities made the bough harrow incredibly popular in the northern regions until the advent of mechanized harrows. A similar harrow is shown in a photograph from the collection of the Russian local historian A.A. Belikov (1883-1941).

Fig.1 Belikov A.A. Harrow. Karelians. Russia, Republic of Karelia, Olonetsky district, 1927. (The Kunstkammer. Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography. MAHE AND 1228-723)

In the month of August, it was time for the peasant to mow and harvest. In the memoirs of I.S. Karpov we read: "9 months have passed since my arrival, the hay season has come – the month of August. According to the law established since ancient times in the parish, no one had the right to start haymaking earlier than Elijah's Day (July 20, art.). 4 days before Elijah's Day, all parishioners gathered to share the haymaking. All the haymaking lands in the meadow are named in the lists and each is sold at auction. At these auctions, the priest and I were allocated hay, and the priest sent me to be among the parishioners so that they would not forget to endow us" ^{[11, p.29]}.

The main tool for harvesting hay since ancient times has been the pink salmon scythe. It had a long blade and was attached to a short and curved handle. It was necessary to mow with such a scythe, bending in both directions. This feature made it suitable for mowing in hard-to-reach forest areas that were saturated with stumps and hills. Such scythes continued to be used in forest areas until the beginning of the XX century.

Fig.2 Mowing of pink salmon, Olonets province (according to: Russian: historical and ethnographic atlas, 1967. p.61, fig.16 B)

Since ancient times, the sickle has been the main tool for harvesting. Before the advent of factory sickles, they were made by local blacksmiths. The shapes of sickles in various areas had some distinctive features (blade size, degree of curvature, etc.). In a general sense, sickles were a rounded curved knife with a blunt end and a wooden handle. Most often, sickles had a serrated blade. In some cases, the ends of the sickles were flattened. On one of the sickles from the collection of the Kizhi Museum-Reserve, the end of the sickle was twisted and then flattened. Apparently, such a design was not just decorative, but utilitarian in nature. During the harvest, the blunt end of the sickle separated a bunch of ears from another, after which it was cut off.

Also, tools such as pitchforks and rakes were used in the process of harvesting and harvesting hay. Among the archaeological materials collected during archaeological surveys on the territory of Novgorod, these tools are quite well represented. There are several copies that have come down to us in almost complete preservation, which gives an idea of their appearance. Comparing them with ethnographic parallels, it can be concluded that their design did not undergo significant changes until the beginning of the XX century. It is known from archaeological materials that the rakes were of two types: integral and composite. Whole rakes were made from a cut of a tree, where sharpened branches served as rake teeth. The composite rake was a block with holes where separately made teeth and a handle were inserted. More modern rakes were made in a similar way, they differ only in that they sometimes had a rounded or pointed block ^{[12, pp.29-30]}.

The simplest pitchforks had the same device as pitchforks made of archaeological materials. They were made of a stick at the end of which there were natural forks. In some cases, iron shackles were put on the forks ^{[12, p.30]}.

Summing up the results of this study, it is necessary to emphasize once again the importance of using ethnographic sources for the interpretation of archaeological material. Traditional economic activities such as farming, hunting or various crafts are rooted in the deep past and retain their characteristics for a long time. This feature allows researchers to fully reconstruct certain processes about which only archaeological evidence has been preserved, which do not always reach our days in full.