petrov musin luebeck2012 libre

8/10/2019 Petrov Musin Luebeck2012 Libre

1/11

483

Monasteries in medieval

Novgorod and its suburbs

by Mikhail I. Petrov, Novgorod, andAlexander E. Musin, St. Petersburg

Monastic communities in Russia were an im-portant factor of the emergence of Christian cul-ture and the development of social organisationin the medieval city. The majority of known mon-

asteries in the 11th-13th centuries were concen-trated in cities and their suburbs. The process of

monastic colonization of Russia started not un-til the 14th-16thcenturies: in connection with newland development monasteries were establishedfar away from large city centres (Kliuchevsky1871, 370). It could be possible that the presenceof a monastic community was one of the con-ditions which granted settlements a city status.

A large quantity of monasteries in the cities, op-posite to Western Europe, could be explained byspecific features of both the orthodox monas-tic life and social organization in the medievalRussian city. Centuries-old strong connections

of monasteries with certainfamilies of Novgorod nobles

were traced according tothe written sources (Musin2010a). Such situation madethese monastic communi-ties ecclesia propria

Eigenkirche, although thereare no direct similaritiesbecause of vagueness of do-nators rights on ecclesias-tical property in orthodoxcanon law (Stutz 1964. Ste-fanovich 2002. Wood 2006).Such dependence on secularelemenst has reflections inmonastic material culture.

The total number of mon-asteries within distance of 30km from Novgorod reachesup to 64 (Sekretar 2011,11). Today 25 of them havesurvived or reconstructedbuildings. The constructions

of 39 others were lost or de-molished through centuries.Studies of Novgorod monas-teries are connected withtheir complicated history.

An important point ofNovgorod monasteries his-tory is connected with thesecularization of churchproperty in 1764 that abol-ished the majority of themand only 17 were kept active.

Fig. 1 Monasteries in Novgorod and its suburbs.

Map shows date of establishment of the monastery in various figures. Monasteries

with survived buildings are shown in black color; demolished buildings are shown

in white color. Numbered monasteries: 1 - Arkazhskij monastery of Assumption; 2

- Yuriev monastery of St. George; 3 - Monastery of St. Panteleimon; 4 - Monastery of

Annunciation on Miachino lake.


2/11

484

During the 2ndhalf of the 18th-1sthalf of the 19thcentury the majority of buildings in abolished

monasteries were lost. The revelation of their lo-cation became a successfully solved task whichbased on complex analysis of written sources,maps of 18th-19th centuries and small archaeo-logical research in several cases. Results of this

work are presented on the map(Fig. 1).

all monasteries were abolished. Some churcheswere given to religious communities under con-

dition of restoration and repair works. A largequantity of buildings dated back to the 18th-19thcenturies was demolished for building materials.

At the same time medieval monuments were pro-tected as national heritage and transferred to theNovgorod museum possession.

Fig. 2 Novgorod. Yuriev monastery. Monastic girdles embossed with images of Twelve Chrisitian feasts. Leather. Excava-

tions by M.K. Karger (Archival picture by M. K. Karger).

The process of secularization allowed tostart studies of culture and archaeology ofNovgorods monasteries. Part of the monas-

teries sacristies was transferred to Novgorodschurches. Two volumes of the book by archi-mandrite Makarij (Miroliubov) were pub-lished in the early 1860s (Makarij 1860). Thisbook deals with history and liturgical objectsof survived churches and monasteries. It con-tains descriptions of several religious artifacts

which have not sur vived up to modern times.Thus this book is still an important source onNovgorods monasteries.

The next stage of studies started in the 30sof the 20th century. After the revolution of 1917

Archaeological research of monastery church-

es in Novgorod was started by Mikhail Karger atthat time. Most important works were held in St.

George church of Yurievmonastery. There werediscovered 9 undisturbed burials dated to the 13th

century. They belong to theRiurikovichidynasty,local nobility and monks (Karger 1946). Severalburials contain leather monks girdles (Fig. 2) em-bossed with images of the Twelve Christian feasts

(Dodekaorthon) (Musin 2010b) and analabos cross-shaped shoulder straps of wicker leather(Fig. 3). They present earliest examples of suchmonastic habits while the same objects are known

from excavated burials in the Great Monastery ofthe Caves (PecherskyMonastery) in Kiev, Moscow


3/11

485

Kremlin, Smolensk, Tver and are dated back tothe 14th-15thcenturies (Evans/Wixom 1997, 305f.,

320). The girdles of this ty pe under considerationshould be compared with the description of mo-nastic habits in the famous Typikon(Ecclesiasti-cal Statute) of Patriarch of Constantinople AlexisStudios of 1030s. The original Greek text has notsurvived but its Slavonic translation made in the

shoulder straps were in monastic practice till thegreat liturgical reform, when in the 14th-15thcen-

turiesStudios Typikonwas replaced by the statuteof the Laure of St. Sabbas. Karger also held archae-ological research in the monastic church of Trans-figuration in Kovaliovo and uncovered there sev-eral stone sarcophagi. They contained textiles ofmonastic clothing and analabos.Results of these

works were not published(Sedov 2000).

Military actions of1941-1944 caused a lotof damage to monaster-ies situated in the battle-

line. After the war large-scale restoration works

were carried out in the1950-70s although somemonasteries are still ru-ined. Political changes oflate 20thcentury followed

with restitution of fourmonasteries of the Rus-sian Orthodox Church.Small-scale archaeologi-cal research was mainly

connected with resto-ration tasks and recon-struction of frescoes.

Large-scale archaeo-logical works were heldin 1962-1963 in Arka-zhskij monastery (Orlov1962; 1963a; 1963b. Or-lov/Krasnorechev 1967).The further text will de-scribe this monastic com-plex more thoroughly.

Recent archaeologicalresearch deals mainly

with suburban institu-tions except the mon-astery of Nativity of the

Virgin in Molotkovo (Se-dov 2004), which wasincluded into city bor-ders in the 14th century.

Unique liturgical utensils of a medieval altar anda burial of the 14thcentury were discovered in themonastic church of Transfiguration onNereditsa

Fig. 3 Novgorod. Yuriev monastery.Analabos. Leather. Excavations by M.K. Karger (Ar-

chival picture by M. K. Karger).

2ndhalf of the 12thcentury in Novgorod is housedtoday in the State Historical Museum in Moscow(Pentkovskij 2001, 384). This type of girdles and


4/11

486

(Sedov 2002). Excavations of St. Nikolas churchon Liatka raised a question on the possibility

of building sacrifice before church foundation.Such tradition is known from Byzantine Empire,although uncovered horse skeletons could haveother interpretation (Sedov 2011a).

Small architectural excavations were heldin Nikolo-Mostishchskij (Antipov/Bulkin 2011),

Nikolo-Sokolnitskij and Epiphany monasteries,the latter on Vodskaia road (Antipov et al. 2007).

Architectural studies of 15thcentury monasteriesallowed to discuss spatial structures of late me-dieval monastic communities (Antipov 2007a;2007b).

New data on monastic culture were receivedduring excavations of closely situated St. Pan-teleimon monastery and Annunciation monas-tery onMiachino lake (Sedov 2008, 2010, 2011b).Important information on cemetery structurearound the church was gained as a result of ex-cavations in St. Panteleimon. Research in An-nunciation monastery discovered the northernborder of the monastic territory with remains ofgates and gate-church. Excavations also includeda part of cellars with everyday life artifacts and

part of a silver payment ingot - grivna.

mention the elective post of Novgorod archi-mandritewho controlled monastic life and took

part in city government (Yanin 2004).

History of research of Novgorod monasteriesshows that archaeological studies were frag-mentary and mainly aimed on architectural re-mains. Everyday life of monasteries appears tobe of peripheral interest. Thus, it is impossibleto bring light on every question of the collo-quium. The archaeologically most well-studied

Arkazhskijmonastery of Assumption could be anexample of Novgorod suburb monastery. It wasfounded with building a wooden church in 1153(Novgorod Chronicle, 21) in a distance of 2-2.5

km from Novgorod kremlin. Its founder, hegu-menos Arkadij, previously was the hegumenosof the nearby situated (about 2 km) monasteryof St. Panteleimon, which was established byprinceIziaslav Mstislavich in 1134. Archaeologi-cal research discovered traces of land ploughingas premonastic use (Fig. 5). Donations of landfrom the princes domain to the monastery allowto suppose specific connections of Arkadijwiththe princes family. The majority of the earliestNovgorod monasteries was founded directly bythe princes family or, at least, with their support.

The growing power of city nobility, which startedin the 2nd half of the 12th century, increased itsrole in monastic life.

In the 13th-15th centuries the monastery wastightly connected with Prusskaiastreet nobility(Mikhalkovichi boyar clan). This can be provenby various articles in the Novgorod Chronicle.The custom to take monastic vow before deathbecame widely spread in the 13thcentury, as wecould see during brief survey of the investiga-tions in Yurievmonastery. Within the walls of As-sumption monastery the founder of boyar clan,

Mikhalka (+1206) (Novgorod Chronicle, 48),was buried. His son, Tverdislav, took here a vowfinishing his political career in 1220 (NovgorodChronicle, 62). Archaeological research discov-ered a large quantity of burials in stone sarcoph-agi in the area of the monastery.

Another evidence of connections betweenmonastery and local nobility is the buildingactivity. Building a church of stone shows bothimportance of a certain monastery and the roleof the donator, mentioned in written sources,because wood was the most common building

Fig. 4 Novgorod. Monastery of Assumption. Seal. Lead

(Photo: A. Andrienko).

Studies of topography and history of monas-

tic ownership of land were an important field

of research in the 2nd half of the 20th century

(Petrova et al. 2000. Ankudinov 2007). Several

case-studies deal with interaction between mon-

asteries and city community. Monastic adminis-

tration in the 15th century is confirmed by lead

seals (Fig. 4), documents issued by magistrates

of Novgorod districts and possibly kept in city

archives (Yanin 2004, 241f.). It is necessary to


5/11

487

material in medieval Novgorod. The woodenchurch of Assumption was replaced by a stonebuilding in 1188/89 (Novgorod Chronicle, 33).PosadnikTverdislav Mikhalkovichbuilds a stonegate-church in 1206 (Novgorod Chronicle, 48).

A stone church after the Synod of St. Michaelthe Archangel was built in 1395 by the order ofIsak Okinfov (Novgorod Chronicle, 167). Final-ly, posadnik Iurij Dmitrievich and his brotherIakov built the church of Miracle at Chonae in1407/1408 (Novgorod Chronicle, 179).

Remains of all these churches (except gate-

church) were discovered during excavations(Fig. 6). Church of Assumption was a small (8x 14 m) rectangular building with three apsesand western vestibule. More than thirty burials

were discovered during excavations: rectangularstone shrines dated back to the 12-13thcenturiesand stone sarcophagi which belong to the 14th-15th centuries (Fig. 7). Some leather fragments,comparable to those found in Yuriev monas-tery, were discovered in these burials. Two oth-er churches were typical Novgorod churches ofrepublican time: church with one apse about 12

- 14 m in size. Occupationlayers around churches

did not conserve any mo-nastic building, however,many objects characteriz-ing everyday monastic life

were found. They do notdiffer much from other ar-chaeological material fromNovgorod.

Undoubtedly, stone buil-dings demonstrate the levelof wealth and importanceof the monastery. But its

economic power was basedon land possessions. Arka-

zhskij monastery owned776.5 obzha1 of land (Sek-retar 2011, 571). The mon-astery was in the list of 6richest religious houses ofNovgorod. More than a halfof its land was situated ata distance about 200 kmto the south of Novgorod;land within the boundaries

of princes domain. This fact proves links withprinces family at the early history of the monas-tery. Nearby land property was rather small and,probably, was given by city government at themoment of the monasterys foundation (Ankudi-nov 2007, 292). Small sized plots of land possibly

were a result of private donations. Such system single large land property and several smallones was common for other Novgorod mon-asteries, independently of their size and impor-tance. Written sources of 16th-17thcenturies alsomention plots in the city which were owned bymonasteries.

The archaeological research in Novgoroddiscovered specific phenomena and providedunique information on monastic life and thecity (Musin 2003, 2004). It was clear that theclergy lived at several city estates excavated atNerevsky, Dmitrievsky and Troitsky sites (Kol-chin et al. 1981. Khoroshev 1982. Sedova 1994).

1 Obzha is a unit of square measurement of agricultural cul-

tivated land in medieval Novgorod. It has no exact equivalent

in modern metric system but can be estimated to have beenabout 1,2 hectare.

Fig. Novgorod. Monastery of Assumption. Ploughing traces (after Orlov 1963a, fig.

165).


6/11

488

Fig. 6 Novgorod. Monastery of Assumption. United excavation plan.

Fig. 7 Novgorod. Monastery of Assumption. Church of Assumption. Seen from the west (after Orlov 1962, fig. 9).


7/11

489

Among a large amount of Christian liturgical andprivate devotional objects discovered on city es-

tates several finds can be confidently identifiedas monastic objects: for example, fragments ofleather girdles with embossed Christian icons,like already known objects from Yuriev monas-tery, have been found on estate E of Troitsky sitein deposits dated to the 1420s (Fig. 8).

the 13th century. Two of them (682 (Yanin/Zal-izniak 1993, 66f.), 717 (Yanin/Zalizniak 2000,

15f.)) are letters between nuns of the nearby sit-uated St. Barbara nunnery and deal with variousmonastic procedures. Three letters (648, 660,681 (Yanin/Zalizniak 1993, 44, 52, 66)) mentionorganization of monastic burial, various objectsof monastic robes and domestic activities. Three

Fig. 8 Novgorod. Troitsky site. Monastic girdle. Leather. Around 1420 (Photo: S. Toropov, drawing: A. Musin).

Several complexes of birch-bark documentswhich come from various city estates show somelinks with certain monasteries and indicate thepresence of monks and nuns in town yards. Aletter (No. 605) from one monk to another withdisappointment at misunderstanding and ef-fort of reconciliation originates from estate A ofTroitsky site and is dated to the early 12thcentury(Yanin/Zalizniak 1986, 68ff.). A group of 8 birch-bark letters from estate I (cyrillic ) of Troitskysite is dated back to the mid-12th to the 1sthalf of

other letters (652 (Yanin/Zalizniak 1993, 47),727 (Yanin/Zalizniak 2000, 28) and 729 (Yan-in/Zalizniak 2000, 29)) have liturgical content.Material culture from this estate contains sev-eral objects connected with clerical activity. Allthese facts evidence that estate I could be the spe-cific city yard of a monastery where food stuffand goods were kept. Probably estate G was alsoconnected with St.Barbara nunnery. Birch-barkletter 657, discovered here, mentions furs for thenunnery (Yanin/Zalizniak 1993, 50f.).


8/11

490

City estate I of Nerevsky site was probably oc-cupied by clerics during the 2ndhalf of the 13thto

the 1sthalf of the 14thcentury. The owners labelwith inscription (belongs to) Maria the nun(323, end of the 13thcentury) was found amongseveral birch-bark letters with clerical content(Artsikhovsky 1963, 13). Another item linked tomonastic life can be a handle of a crosier withthe name Emelyan (Emelianos) (beginning ofthe 15thcentury) (Yanin 1993, 116. Kolchin 1968,31), which could be associated to the 25th arch-bishop of Novgorod who accepted the name ofEuthymius(1423-1429).

A bone signet Gods goods, dating to the late

13th-early 14thcentury, originates from this estateI of Nerevsky site (Fig. 9). Such object could beinterpreted as evidence of trading activities of amonastic or clerical community. There is no clearindication of international trade of Novgoro-dian monasteries. Meanwhile, the everyday lifeof citizens of Novgorod, connected with thearchbishops administration and possibly withgovernance of monastery economy as well asthat of several rural monasteries, comprised thepossessing and use of some European objects(brooches, objects with heraldic mountings, ce-

ramic and glass vessels, textiles) as archaeologi-cal finds testify (Musin 2006, 2012).

Such objects discovered within city estatescan be considered as evidence of monastic liv-ing outside monasteries during the 12th-15thcenturies and presumably the 11th one. All

these facts show that monastic life in medievalNovgorod was organized in a paradox manner:

the interesting part of archaeological evidenceon Novgorod monasticism comes not from exca-

vations of monasteries but from ordinary urbanyards where monks sometimes lived. Such cityyards could be considered as property of subur-ban monasteries within city borders. But somearchaeological data and written sources allowsupposing that such yards could also be placesof permanent monastic living.

There are numerous direct or indirect evi-dences that earliest Russian monasteries werecenobitic with acceptance of the Typicon ofStu-dios from Constantinople. But introduction ofcenobitic laws became urgent again in the 15th-16thcenturies (Kruglova 2008). Groups of monksand nuns living outside monasteries but withinurban estates seem to be a distinctive feature ofthe history of monasticism in Novgorod. Suchsystem could be regarded as a compromise be-tween Cenobite Rule according the Studios Typ-ikonaccepted in medieval Russia and idiorrhyth-mic principles (at least the living on their own).It could be explained by close connection ofmonastic structures with the town community,

especially with aristocratic families illustratingarchaic principles of organization.

Also another explanation of at least a part offinds of monastic habits should be taken intoaccount. The ritual of taking veil before deathspread in Russian society since mid-13thcentury.Consequently the burial of new monks shouldbe done according to monastic funeral ritualsand in monastic robes. Monastic finds in urban

yards could reflect such practice.

Novgorod monasteries were strongly connect-

ed with the city: city nobles established them anddonated land to them; eminent citizens becamesponsors of stone churches; they took monastic

vows and were buried within monastery walls.Many monasteries owned city plots and some-times monks lived at ordinary urban estates.

Loss of independence and following repres-sions inevitably reflected on Novgorod monas-teries. Land confiscations affected not only thenobility but also monasteries. As a matter of factArkazhskijmonastery lost half of its property in1478 and about 85% of it to early 16th century

Fig. 9 Novgorod. Nerevsky site. Bone signet Gods goods

(Photo: A. Musin).


9/11

491

(Sekretar 2011, 570). So the long period of de-cline started. The monastery suffered from Swed-

ish occupation in the early 17th century. Writtensources mention two damaged churches and 7inhabitants (Opis 1617, 107-108). Financial sup-port in 1626 (Opis 1617, 259, 289) shows mainlythe monasterys reputation than its wealth.Final-ly it lost self-government and became a part ofIuriev monastery in 1722 (Sekretar 2011, 571).The only stone building left in the monastery wasthe church of Assumption in the 18th century. Allother buildings living cells, granary and cel-lars were made of wood. Also cherry and ap-ple gardens were situated within the monastrys

fence. Stable, cow-shed, windmill and threshingbarn were listed outside in the inventory of 1737(Sekretar 2011, 571).

The monastery of Assumption was abolishedin 1764 during the secularization. The church of

Assumption was converted into parish church.Demolition of the church for building stone tookplace in 1847, its bells and stone crosses weremoved to the nearby situated church of Annun-ciation.

That was a story about the long way of Novgorodmonasteries from the glory of wealth and power

to the glory of national heritage and picturesqueviews. However, the present survey allowed us tohighlight the special features of monastic life inthe east of the Hanse area and trace the maingaps which should be covered during the futureinvestigation of monastic culture in Novgorod.

Zusammenfassung

Die Erforschung der Klster Novgorods be-gann erst spt in der 2. Hlfte des 19. Jahrhun-derts. Die groe Anzahl in Novgorod und Um-

gebung machte ihre Erforschung nicht leichter.Schriftliche Quellen sind selten und Ausgrabun-gen wurden meist nur in Zusammenhang mitRestaurierungsarbeiten durchgefhrt. Die fr-hesten Klster entstanden im 12. Jahrhundertmit Untersttzung durch den Frsten. Im 13.-15. Jahrhundert wurden mchtige Angehrigedes stdtischen Adels zu Stiftern. Sie grndetenKlster, stifteten Land oder Steinkirchen. Fami-lienbegrbnisse innerhalb von Klostermauernbelegen die starken Verbindungen zwischen denBrgern Novgorods und den Klstern. Der Vor-

steher der Klster (Archimandrit) wurde durchWahl bestimmt und war wahrscheinlich Mit-

glied des Novgoroder Rates.

Dank der archologischen Untersuchungenwurde eine spezielle Erscheinungsform monas-tischen Lebens in Novgorod aufgedeckt: In den

weltlichen Stadtgtern wurden Objekte klster-lichen Ursprungs gefunden. Dies sind Hinweisedarauf, dass Mnche nicht in Klosterzellen son-dern in Einrichtungen lebten, die nicht Kloster-besitz waren. Auch Hinweise auf monastischeHandelsaktivitten wurden in den Stadtgterngefunden.

Der Verlust der Eigenstndigkeit im 15. Jahr-hundert markiert den Beginn einer langen Pe-riode des Niedergangs, in der die Klster ihre

wirtschaftliche Macht verloren. Die Skulari-sierung im 18. Jahrhundert war fr die meistengleichbedeutend mit ihrem Verschwinden. DieKlosterkirchen wurden vielfach zur Gewinnung

von Baumaterial abgebrochen. Es gab aber auchNeubauaktivitten in den erhaltenen Klstern.Nach der Revolution wurden Klster, die ber-lebt hatten, abgeschafft. Einige wurden abgebro-chen, aber die mittelalterlichen Kirchen wurdenspter Denkmler des nationalen Kulturerbes

Bibliography

Ankudinov I. Iu. Ankudinov, Predvaritelnye itogi is-

2007 toriko-geograficheskogo izucheniia Ilmen-

skogo Poozeria kontsa XV v., in: V. L. Yanin(ed.), Novgorod i Novgorodskaia zemlia. Is-

toriia i arkheologiia 21, Velikiy Novgorod

2007, 286-296.

Antipov 2007a I. V. Antipov, K istorii arkhitekturnogo

ansamblia Nikolskogo Viazhishchskogomonastyria (XV-XVI vv.), in: Trudy Gosu-

darstvennogo Ermitazha XXXIV: Arkhitek-

turno-arkheologicheskij seminar: Izuchenie

i restavratsiia pamiatnikov drevnerusskoi

arkhitektury i monumentalnogo iskusstva,Sankt-Petersburg 2007, 214-225.

Antipov 2007b I. V. Antipov, Ansambli v novgorodskoj

arkhitekture 1430-1460kh gg.: Vladychnyj

dvor i monastyri (Viazhishchskij, Otenskij,

Khutynskij), in: Iskusstvo Drevnej Rusi istran vizantijskogo mira, Sankt Petersburg

Moscow, 2007.

Antipov et al. I. V. Antipov, Val. A. Bulkin and A. V. Zherve,

2007 Issledovanie pamiatnikov arkhitektury v

prigorodnykh novgorodskikh monastyri-akh, in: V. L. Yanin (ed.), Novgorod i Novgo-

rodskaia zemlia. Istoriia i arkheologiia 21,

Velikiy Novgorod 2007, 313-318.


10/11

492

Antipov/ I. V. Antipov, Val.A. Bulkin, Nikolskaia

Bulkin 2011 tserkov Mostishchskogo monastyria, in:

Arkhitektur noe nasledstvo 54, Moscow 2011,31-46.

Artsik hovsky A. V. Artsikhovsk y, Novgorodskie gramoty na

1963 bereste (iz raskopok 1958-1961 gg.), Moscow

1963.

Evans/Wixom H. C. Evans and W. D. Wixom (eds), The Glory

1997 of Byzantium. Art and culture of the Middle

Byzantine Era A.D. 843-1261, New York 1997.

Karger 1946 M. K. Karger, Raskopki i restavratsion-nye raboty v Georgievskom sobore Iurieva

monastyria v Novgorode (1933-1935), in:

Kratkie soobshcheniia instituta istorii ma-

terialnoj kultury, issue 8, Sankt-Petersburg1946.

Khoroshev A.S . Khoroshev, Novye materialy po arkhe-

1982 ologii Nerevskogo kontsa, in: V. L. Yanin, B.

A. Kolchin (eds), Novgorodskij sbornik . 50

let raskopok Novgoroda, Moscow 1982, 239-269.

Kliuchevsky V. O. K liuchevskij , Drevnerusskie zhitiia svi-

1871 atykh kak istoricheskij istochnik, Moscow

1871.

Kolchin 1968 B. A. Kolchin, Novgorodskie drevnosti: der-

eviannye izdeliia, Svod arkheologicheskikh

istochnikov, E1-55, Moscow 1968.

Kolchin at al. B. A. Kolchin, A. S. Khoroshev and V. L. Yanin,

1981 Usadba novgorodskogo khudozhnika XII v.,

Moscow 1981.

Kruglova 2008 T. V. Krug lova, K istorii monastyrskoj reformy

v Novgorodskoj zemle (po letopisnym dan-

nym), in: T. Iu. Tsarevskaia (ed.), Novgorod i

Novgorodskaia zemlia. Izkusstvo i restavrat-siia 3, Velikiy Novgorod 2008, 8-29.

Makarij 1860 Makarij (Miroliubov), archimandrite,

Arkheologicheskoe opisanie tserkovnykhdrevnostej v Novgorode i ego okrestnostiakh

1-2, Moscow 1860.

Musin 2003 A. E. Musin, Sotsialnye aspekty istorii drev-

nerusskoj Tserkvi po dannym novgorod-

skikh berestianykh gramot, in: V. L. Yanin

(ed.), Berestianye gramoty: 50 let otkrytiia i

izucheniia. Moscow 2003, 102-124.

Musin 2004 A. E. Musin, Usadba I Nerevskogo raskopa.

Opyt kompleksnoj kharakteristiki khristian-skikh drevnostej, in: V. L. Yanin (ed.), Novgo-

rodskie arkheologicheskie chteniia 2, Velikij

Novgorod 2004, 137-151.

Musin 2006 A. E. Musin, Arkheologicheskie issledovaniia

na territorii Novgorodskoj volosti Molvotit-

sy v 2005 g., in: V. L. Yanin (ed.), Novgorod i

Novgorodskaia zemlia. Istoriia i arkheologiia20, Velikiy Novgorod 2006, 67-76.

Musin 2010a A. E. Musin, Tserkovnaia organizatsiia sred-

nevekovogo Novgorododa v XI v., in: V. Yanin(ed.), Novgorod i Novgorodskaia zemlia v

epokhu Iaroslava Mudrogo: istochniki i issle-

dovaniia, Velikiy Novgorod 2010, 155-197.

Musin 2010b A. E. Musin, Russian Medieval Culture as anArea of Preservation of the Byzantine Civi-lization, in: P. L. Grotowski and S. Skrzyniarz

(eds), Towards Rewriting? New Approaches

to Byzantine Archaeology and Art. Proceed-

ings of the Symposium on Byzantine Art andArchaeolog y Cracow, September 8-10, 2008,

Series Byzantina: Studies on Byzantine and

Post-Byzantine-Art 8, Warsaw, 2010, 11-46.

Novgorod R. Michell and N. Forbes (eds), The Chroni-

Chronicle cle of Novgorod (1016-1471), Camden third

series, 25, London 1914.

Opis 1617 V. L. Yanin (ed.), Opis Novgoroda 1617 g., in:

Pamiatniki otechestvennoj istorii. Vypusk 3,

Moscow 1984.Orlov 1962 S. N. Orlov, Otchet po raskopkam i issledova-

niiu ruin Arkazhskogo monastyria bliz Nov-

goroda, proizvedennykh letom 1962 g. Archi-

ve Institute of Archaeology, Russian academy

of Sciences, R-1, 2440 and 2440a.

Orlov 1963a S. N. Orlov, Otchet o raskopkakh na meste

Arkazh skogo monast yria pod Novgorodom.

Sezon 1963 g., Kept in: Archive Institute of

Archaeolog y, Russian academy of Sciences,R-1, 2760.

Orlov 1963b S. N. Orlov, Arkheologiche skie issledovani-

ia na meste Arkazhskogo monastyria pod

Novgorodom, in: Nauchnaia konferentsiia

Novgorodskogo pedagogicheskogo instituta.Mart 1963, Novgorod 1963, 23-24.

Orlov/ S. N. Orlov and L. E.Krasnorechev, Arkhe-

Krasnorechev ologicheskie issledovaniia na meste Arka-

1967 zhskogo monastyria pod Novgorodom, in:

Kultura i iskusstvo Drevnei Rusi, Leningrad1967, 69-76.

Pentkovskij A. M. Pentkovskij, Tipikon patriarkha Aleksi-

2001 ia Studita v Vizantii i na Rusi, Moscow 2001.

Petrova et al. L. I. Petrova, I. Iu. Ankudinov, V. A. Popov

2000 and T. V. Silaeva, Topografiia prigorod-nykh monastyrej Novgoroda Velikogo, in:

Novgorodskij istoricheskij sbornik 8 (18),

Sankt-Peterburg 20 00, 95-158.

Sedov 2000 Vl. V. Sedov, Tserkov Spasa-Preobrazheniia

na Kovaleve, in: Novgorodskie drevnosti.

Arkhiv arkhitektury XI, Moscow 2000, 47-80.

Sedov 2002 Vl. V. Sedov, raskopki v tserkvi Spasa na Ne-reditse, in: Arkheologicheskie otkrytiia 2001

goda, Moscow 2002, 69-70.

Sedov 2004 Vl. V. Sedov, Novgorodskij khram epokhi

rastsveta boiarskogo stroitelstva: tserkovRozhdestva Bogoroditsy na Molotkove, in:

Rossijskaia arkheologiia, 1/2004, 46-54.

Sedov 2008 Vl. V. Sedov, Otkry tie drevnej obiteli: arkhi-

tekturno-arkheologicheskie issledovaniiaBlagoveshchenskogo monastyria bliz Veli-


11/11

493

kogo Novgoroda, in: Vestnik Rossijskogo gu-

manitarnogo nauchnogo fonda 4(53), 2008,

184-195.

Sedov 2010 Vl. V. Sedov, Issledovanie Blagovesh-chenskogo i Pantelejmonova monastyrej bliz

Novgoroda, in: Institut arkheologii. Novye

polevye issledovaniia, Moscow 2010, 84-85.

Sedov 2011a Vl. V. Sedov, Tserkov Nikoly na Liatke (po

dannym raskopok 1998 g.), in: Novgorod-skie arkheologicheskie chteniia 3, Velikij

Novgorod 2011, 110-124.

Sedov 2011b Vl. V. Sedov, O rannej istorii novgorodskogo

Pantelejmonova monastyria, in: DrevniaiaRus, 4/2001, 13-31.

Sedova 1994 M. V. Sedova, Palomnichesk ij kompleks XIIv. s Nerevskogo raskopa, in: Novgorodskie

arkheologicheskie chteniia, Novgorod 1994,90-94.

Sekretar 2011 L. A. Sekretar, Monastyri Velikogo Novgoro-

da i okrestnostej, Moscow 2011.

Stefanovich P. S. Stefanovich, Prikhod i prikhodskoe duk-

2002 hovenstvo v Rossii v XVIXVII vv., Moscow

2002.

Stutz 1964 U. Stutz, Die Eigenkirche als Element des mit-

telalterlich-germanischen Kirchenrechts,

Darmstadt 1964.Wood 20 06 S. Wood, The Proprietary Church in the Me-

dieval West, Oxford 2006.

Yanin 1993 V. L. Yanin, Vladelcheskie nadpisi na by-

tovykh predmetakh, in: V. L. Yanin and A. A.

Zalizniak, Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste(iz raskopok 1984-1989 gg.), Moscow 1993,

112-122.

Yanin 200 4 V. L. Yanin, Monastyri srednevekovogo

Novgoroda v strukture gosudarstvennykh

institutov, in: Srednevekovyj Novgorod, Mos-

cow 2004, 237-244.

Yanin/ V. L. Yanin and A. A. Zalizni ak, NovgorodskieZalizniak 1986 gramoty na bereste (iz raskopok 1977-1983

gg.), Moscow 1986. See also Internet site:www.gramoty.ru

Yanin/ V. L. Yanin and A. A. Zalizni ak, NovgorodskieZalizniak 1993 gramoty na bereste (iz raskopok 1984-1989

gg.), Moscow 1993. See also Internet site:

www.gramoty.ru

Yanin/ V. L. Yanin and A. A. Zalizni ak, Novgorodskie

Zalizniak 2000 gramoty na bereste (iz raskopok 1990-1996

gg.), Moscow 2000. See also Internet site:www.gramoty.ru

Anschrift der Autoren:

Mikhail I. PetrovArchaeological Research Center of NovgorodNovgorod State MuseumIlliina Str. 26RUS-173000 NovgorodRussland

Alexander E. MusinInstitut for the History of Material CultureRussian Academy of Sciences Dvortsovayanaberezhnaya

R-18 St. Petersburg 191186Russland

petrov musin luebeck2012 libre

Documents