This article has been prepared for the 200th anniversary of the discovery of the first Staraya Ryazan’ hoard on June 6, 1822, marking the beginning of the archaeological research into ancient Russian towns, which has become the most important area in the science of antiquities of the Russian Middle Ages. The first book devoted to the study of the antiquities of Staraya Ryazan’ was published the following year [Kalaidovich, 1823]. Note that the title of the book contains the words archaeological research, and the author, unlike other scientific writers of that era, uses the word archaeology in a meaning close to its modern understanding. In honor of the upcoming anniversary, a number of articles have been published (see [Strikalov and Chernetsov, 2020; Sterligova, 2021]).

This article was written under the influence of S.A. Avdusina’s publication in the journal Rossiiskaya arkheologiya (Russian Archaeology) (2022), accompanied by high-quality photographs of the jewelry in question. I point to the artistic features of a silver medallion with the image of Our Lady of the Sign, found in 1950 by the expedition of A.L. Mongait, as part of a hoard partially destroyed by plowing (some ornaments from this hoard were found in 1937) [Avdusina, 2022, p. 174, Fig. 2.2].

The settlement of Staraya Ryazan’ is a kind of “field of miracles,” and new finds often allow a new interpretation of the features of things from collections containing materials from excavations of previous years. The “zest” of the Staraya Ryazan’ archaeology is, undoubtedly, hoards of precious jewelry. By their origin, they are usually associated with the siege and capture of the town by Batu’s army in December 1237. Russian museums currently have 17 similar complexes. We can conditionally add another one, found in 2021 in the immediate vicinity of Staraya Ryazan’ (near the historical village of Isady) [Strikalov, 2022].

The current stage of the study of the site began in 1994 with the work of the Staraya Ryazan’ archaeological expedition of the RAS Institute of Archaeology together with the Ryazan’ Historical and Architectural Museum-Reserve (since 1997, with the Russian State University for the Humanities as well); since 1994, this work has been supported on an annual basis by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR) and the Russian Humanitarian Scientific Fund (RHSF). From 1997 to 2004, it was additionally financed under the federal target program State Support for the Integration of Higher Education and Basic Science. Since 2003, these field studies have been supported by the RAS Division of Historical and Philological Sciences within the framework of the program History, Languages, and Literature of the Slavic Peoples in the World Sociocultural Context. Later, the research of the Staraya Ryazan’ expedition was supported within the framework of the RAS Presidium program of basic research Historical and Cultural Heritage and Spiritual Values of Russia. In 2012, the work of the expedition was also supported within the framework of a federal target program of the Ministry of Culture of Russia—Culture of Russia (2012–2018).

By a decree of the Council of Ministers of the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic of August 30, 1960, Staraya Ryazan’ was put under protection as a monument of history and culture of federal significance. Soon the architects A.F. Pankin and O.I. Okunev together with the archaeologist L.A. Belyaev drafted a project of the monument’s museumification [Pankin, 1987]. The project was not implemented. Meanwhile, natural processes are gradually destroying the settlement [Chernetsov, 2009; Uskov et al., 2013], and traces of illegal excavations, sometimes quite successful, have been discovered in a number of years [Chernetsov, 2018]. Since 2012, a permanent guard post has been functioning on Staraya Ryazan’. Only about 6–7% of the fortified area has been unearthed by long-term excavations. The area is very significant for its time—more than 67 ha, and outside the town walls there was a vast unfortified posad. About one-third of the area of the site has been studied by ground-penetrating radar [Klochko et al., 2008].

On July 31, 2005, another jewelry hoard was discovered in the Southern Settlement of Staraya Ryazan’ [Bulankina et al., 2005; Chernetsov, 2007; Staraya Ryazan’, 2014]. Among the ornaments found in the hoard, one of the medallions, depicting a bloomed cross, stands out for its artistic merit (Fig. 1, 1) [Staraya Ryazan’, 2014, p. 35, Table 14]. The medallion was part of a rich necklace, which included three similar decorations. The one in question is undoubtedly the central one. It surpasses the other two in size (the diameters of the medallions are 79, 72, and 70 mm). While the two smaller medallions are decorated with soldered ribbed wire imitating granulation, as well as with engraving and niello, gilding was additionally used to decorate the central medallion.

Fig. 1.
figure 1

Medallion from the Staraya Ryazan’ hoard of 2005 and a lamellar bracelet from the hoard of 1966. (1) The front side of the medallion, (2) the reverse side, (3) the scanning of the images on the bracelet (according to [Darkevich and Mongait, 1967]), (4) human figures present on the bracelet.

Full size image

Characteristic are the images of birds, depicted as well fed, with short curved beaks, a peculiar eye shape, and images of paws marked by artistic negligence, revealing extreme proximity to the ornithomorphic motifs on the famous lamellar bracelet with images of a female dancer and a male gusli player from the Staraya Ryazan’ hoard of 1966 (Figs. 1, 3; 2, 2–5) [Darkevich and Mongait, 1967, pp. 213, 214, Fig. 2, 3, pp. 216–222; Chernetsov, 2013; Chernetsov, 2014, pp. 72–77]. The decorative cutting of the birds’ wings on the medallion and the bracelet is somewhat different. The wings of the birds on the medallion are decorated with two opposing semicircles having a double outline; on the bracelet, they are replaced by two smaller segments of a circle outlined by one line. Note that the birds’ wings of the Sirins on another section of the same bracelet are decorated with a more complex pattern, similar to that of the birds’ wings on the medallion (Fig. 2, 6). Apparently, the considered detail of the decoration of the wings on the bracelet was simplified due to the miniature size of the images. Both birds on the medallion are presented with one wing stretched upwards (as if greeting one another). The wings of the birds on the bracelet are folded. The forward-facing wing of the griffin on the same bracelet is depicted raised up (Fig. 2, 7). The tails of the birds on the medallion are short; they rest against the frame of the composition. The birds’ tails on the bracelet are bent; in one case, they end with a plant element (a leaf stylized as a bird’s wing) (Fig. 2, 2). All these birds have an additional motif, resembling a second tail, raised up and ending with a plant shoot.

Fig. 2.
figure 2

Motifs that make it possible to identify the hand of one master. Medallion from the hoard of 2005 (1, 15), bracelet from the Staraya Ryazan’ hoard of 1966 (2–7), bracelet from the Staraya Ryazan’ hoard of 1970 (9–14, 16, 17), and a ring from excavations in 2010 at the Northern Settlement of Staraya Ryazan’ (8).

Full size image

The similarity between the decors of the medallion and the bracelet is not limited to images of birds. In both cases, we find similar plant motifs, which are characterized by an unusual width of the shoots. To assess this feature, it is enough to compare the networks on two medallions from the 2005 hoard [Staraya Ryazan’, 2014, p. 35, Fig. 14 and p. 36, Fig. 17]. Meanwhile, it is obvious that both medallions were made shortly before the concealment of the treasure within the same order, in the same workshop, albeit by different craftsmen. On the central medallion from the hoard of 2005 and on the bracelet found in 1966, there are characteristic plant leaves in the form of a stylized wing of a bird (a spiral motif at the base of the leaf and hatching resembling plumage). On the medallion, similar foliage adorns the vertical base of the cross (Fig. 2, 15).

Further comparisons led to the identification of another piece of jewelry with features similar to the manner of the master who had made the medallion and bracelet discussed above. This is a lamellar bracelet from the hoard of 1970 (Fig. 3, 1) [Darkevich and Mongait, 1978, p. 32, Table XVII; p. 36, Table XVIII; p. 37, Table XIX]. It comes from another estate, located not far from the place where the 1966 hoard was found.

Fig. 3.
figure 3

Staraya Ryazan’ finds, presumably associated with one master. (1) Lamellar bracelet from the Staraya Ryazan’ hoard of 1970 and (2) ring from the excavations in 2010 at the Northern Settlement of Staraya Ryazan’.

Full size image

On this bracelet, we find birds resembling those described above. The cutting of the wings is presented in two versions: simplified, as on the bracelet of 1966 (Fig. 2, 9, 11), and complicated, as on the medallion (Fig. 2, 10). The forward-facing wing of all the birds on this bracelet is raised, as on the medallion from the 2005 hoard. In this case, all the birds are depicted with bloomed tails. In addition to birds, there are also images of quadrupeds on this bracelet. All of them, as well as birds, have the appearance of well-fed creatures, and the interpretation of fingers on their paws is similar to that shown in the images of the birds’ paws (Fig. 2, 12 –14). The floral networks are as wide as on the pieces under comparison. The motif of a leaf resembling a bird’s wing is also present. It can complete the ends of the bloomed tails of animals and birds (Fig. 2, 11, 13) or be part of an ornamental border, like an element of loach (Fig. 2, 16). Another motif presented on the bracelet is similar to that on the medallion of the 2005 hoard. This is a shamrock with a central element of rhombic outlines and side leaves twisted down. On the medallion, it adorns the upper part of the cross (Fig. 2, 17), while on the bracelet it forms the basis of several ornamental borders. The motif varies from rather carefully worked out images [Darkevich and Mongait, 1978, p. 37, Table XIX, 4] to extremely schematic ones, on which it is hardly recognizable [Darkevich and Mongait, 1978, p. 37, Table XIX, 1].

Another single piece of silver jewelry that can be associated with the same craftsman is a silver ring found during excavations at the Northern Settlement of Staraya Ryazan’ in 2010 (Fig. 2, 8; 3, 2) [Chernetsov, 2013]. On the shield of the ring, there is an engraved image of a bird with a wing stretched upwards, similar to the one described above. The decorative cutting of the wing is presented in a simplified version. The tail of the bird is shortened. In the upper left-hand part of the shield, there is a plant shoot marked with features common to the adornments discussed above. Thus, the style of one master can be traced on the decorations from three hoards and one single find.

Let us turn to the medallion with the image of the Virgin from the hoard of 1937/1950, which served as an impetus for writing this article (see [Avdusina, 2022, p. 174], Fig. 2, 2). A careful look at the plant motifs along the edges of the main image shows the characteristic features of the same master. These are wide ribbons of plant shoots and foliage resembling bird wings. The displacement of plant shoots to the periphery of the main image can be seen on the 1966 bracelet, where images of anthropomorphic characters surround more or less developed plant motifs, often growing out of the frame of the composition. Some of them are barely noticeable sprouts. The same feature is present on the ring found in 2010. The shoot in the upper left corner reflects a kind of “fear of emptiness,” inherent in many artifacts of ancient and medieval art.

It is necessary to dwell on the central, sacred image of the medallion. It obviously looks rough. The facial features of the Virgin and Christ can hardly be called sightly, strictly symmetrical. The hands of the Virgin are too large and ungraceful. How can this be reconciled with the master’s obvious admiration for the images of animals and plants, confident drawing, and the professionalism encountered in other works allegedly related to the same master?

To some extent, the answer to this question is the images of anthropomorphic characters and faces on the bracelet from the 1966 hoard (Fig. 1, 4). All of them have irregular facial features, the interpretation of the figures themselves is marked by commonplace, plain features. Characteristic are the carelessly outlined, rough, large hands of the gusli player. These signs could be associated with the disdainful attitude of the master to professional skomorokhs. However, similar features that can be traced in the image of the Virgin indicate that they rather reflect the attitude of the jeweler to the human race as a whole or the fact that he was better at depicting flora and fauna than people.

Interestingly, the medallion with the Virgin has another detail similar to the medallion from the 2005, this time not artistic but related to the techniques of jewelry making. On the reverse, unornamented side of both medallions, one can see the soldered end of a ribbed wire imitating granulation and decorating the eye of the medallion (Fig. 1, 2) (compare to [Avdusina, 2022, p. 174], Fig. 2, 2). Such an inconspicuous manufacturing defect was, of course, easy to eliminate, which was almost always done in the manufacturing of such medallions. Together with the indicated features of the similarity of the images on the jewelry in question, this technical detail confirms the assumption that we are dealing with the work of the same master.

Recognizing the medallion with the Virgin as the creation of the master who made the bracelet from the 1966 hoard with a gusli player and a number of other items associated with the same jeweler, one should consider the possibility that another Staraya Ryazan’ medallion with a sacred image also belongs to him. This is a medallion from the hoard of 1970 with the image of a holy prince, probably Gleb (Fig. 4) [Darkevich and Mongait, 1978, p. 30, Table XII]. It is marked by extreme schematism of the face and vestments of the saint. An additional argument in favor of this possibility is the presence in the same hoard of a lamellar bracelet, which is attributed to the same craftsman as the bracelet from the 1966 hoard and the medallion from the 2005 hoard found on another site. Nevertheless, the paucity of specific features that make it possible to identify the style of an individual craftsman does not allow us to identify confidently the creator of the medallion bearing the image of the holy prince.

Fig. 4.
figure 4

Medallion with the image of the holy prince from the Staraya Ryazan’ hoard of 1970 (according to [Darke-vich and Mongait, 1978]).

Full size image

The famous bracelet from the 1966 hoard, with its exceptionally original and rich set of images, at one time aroused great interest in scientific circles. Suffice it to say that in one issue of Sovetskaya arkheologiya (Soviet Archaeology), next to the publication of this hoard by A.L. Mongait and V.P. Darkevich, there was an article by B.A. Rybakov, “The Rusalii and the God Simargl–Pereplut” [Rybakov, 1967].

That article proposed a rather controversial interpretation of the images on the bracelet. Their relation to Rusalii and not to other calendar festivals, or, for example, wedding rituals, seems debatable. Rybakov’s idea about the “revival” of paganism in pre-Mongol Rus’ seems an exaggeration. It also seems problematic to identify Simargl and Pereplut, as well as to identify the images of these mythological characters on works of ancient Russian art.

Other theses by Rybakov are quite sound. The connection of the images on the bracelet with the fabulous world of mythological–epic ideas is obvious since the images of a female dancer and musicians on one side of the bracelet are duplicated by images of fairy-tale creatures (sirens and griffins) on the other. The combination of dance and music with wine drinking clearly indicates a holiday, a feast; the images of the mask (next to the dancer) and musical instruments most likely indicate that the characters are professional skomorokhs.

Let us consider one of the themes presented on the bracelet, which, in my opinion, conveys a magical story with ancient pagan roots. I mean the image of a seated flutist drinking wine. Unlike the gusli player, he is not playing his instrument but rather holding it in his hand. The flutist is depicted sitting on a piece of wood or a stump. Behind the musician’s back, a tall branching shoot grows from this stump, reaching up to his head.

I think that what the musician is sitting on is a stump. This is evidenced by plant shoots on the sides of the gusli player and inklings of similar shoots or sprouts behind the back of the dancer. Apparently, the action takes place in nature, in a grove. The gusli player is also sitting, but not on a stump but on a bench, which has shoots growing downwards instead of legs.

The motif of the germination of a dried, resinous stump is known in Russian witchcraft spells, including those listing the impossible. An example from the Velikii Ustyug collection of spells of the first third of the 17th century [Turilov and Chernetsov, 2002, p. 204]:

Зговорит <…> муж железной: “Как у кобылы рогам не бывати, и на долоне (ладони) шерсти не вырости, от смоловатого пенья отрасти не отращивати, и всякой рыбе в воде соколом не летати, а соколу в воде рыбою не ходити <…> также и рабу Божию имярек невредиму быти от злых недругов и от всякого оружия.” (The iron man says <…>: “As a mare does not have horns, and hair does not grow on a palm, and no shoots grow from resinous stumps, and no fish in the water can fly like a falcon, and no falcon swims in the water <…> also let the servant of God, name to be spoken, be unharmed from evil enemies and from any weapon.”)

The text can be called doubly magical since it is part of a magical text presented as the direct speech of a fairy-tale character. In the Superstitious Book of the 18th century, we find a similar list, at the beginning of which «Мертвому ввек по веку з гроба [не] востати» (“As the dead for ever and ever from the coffin [do not] rise”) is added [Smilyanskaya, 2002, p. 336]. The motif of the miraculous growth of new shoots from a dried tree appears again in the Velikii Ustyug collection: «Вам, (ведунам и ведуньям) не изоставити гнилого колодия ядреного по старому пенью, и ветвием зеленым не изнавешивати» (“You (sorcerers and witches) can’t make a rotten log of a vigorous old stump sprout out green branches”, [Turilov and Chernetsov, 2002, p. 217]. Note the mention of the manufacture of magical means from resinous stumps in the Olonets collection of spells of the first third of the 17th century: «Из 9 пней смолья взять по 3 щепы, чтобы пень пня не видел” (“From nine tar stumps, take three chips from each so that the stump does not see another stump” (i.e., so that from another stump is not visible)) [Russian Spells, 2010, p. 96].

The Tale of Peter and Fevronia, rich in magical folklore motifs, features the miracle of a holy princess, who turned forked dry branches used for cooking («древца малы, на них же котлы висяху» (“small trees, the cauldrons hanging on them”)) into «велико древие, имуще ветви и листвие» (“a great tree having branches and leaves”) [The Tale, 1979, pp. 219, 220].

The motif of shoots from a withered tree has very ancient parallels; in particular, there is the rod of the Prophet Aaron in the Bible [Numbers 17, 2–8; Heb. 9, 4]. In the apocryphal Gospel of James, it was transferred to Joseph the Betrothed, the nominal spouse of the Virgin [Averintsev, 1991, p. 559]. This episode was repeatedly reproduced in medieval and Renaissance art [Solomin, 1914, pp. 85, 86, Figs. IX, X]. There is an early analogy, dating back to pre-Christian times—a spell that includes words about the impossibility of such a miracle. These are the well-known lines of the Iliad, I, 234, 235 [Homer, 2009]:

Therefore I say, and swear it with a great oath—nay, by this my scepter which shalt sprout neither leaf nor shoot, nor bud anew from the day on which it left its parent stem upon the mountains.

Translated by Samuel Butler.

The motif of impossibility appears for the first time in ancient Russian literature in the Tale of Bygone Years when describing the events of pagan times. The impossibility of a floating stone immersed in water appears in the formula of the oath pronounced at the conclusion of the peace treaty with the Volga Bulgars in 985: «толи не будет между нами мира, елико камень начнеть плавати, а хмель почнет тонути…» (“there will be no peace between us if the stone begins to swim, and the hops begin to sink”) [Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles, 1962, Vol. I, Column 84].

The rite of the immersion of a stone in water (in this case, in the sea) at the conclusion of a peace treaty was known among the Western Slavs of pre-Christian times (see the message of N.M. Karamzin with reference to Saxo Grammaticus [Karamzin, 1988, Vol. I, p. 47, footnote 177]). A similar rite was known in ancient Greece, though not a stone but a piece of iron was drowned in the sea [Herodotus, I, 165, 2015; Plutarch (Aristides), 2012]. Both among the Eastern Slavs in 985 and among the ancient Greeks, the rite had the same meaning: the oath must be kept until the stone or iron emerges. Obviously, the Slavic rite is more archaic (because stone is used, not metal).

Inconsistencies of this kind, echoing those mentioned in the Velikii Ustyug collection, are known in the literature of different peoples. A horse with horns appears in the ancient Chinese legend about the heir Dan and Emperor Qin Shi Huang, as well as in the famous collection of stories about the miracles of Gan Bao (4th–5th centuries) [Gan Bao, 1996]. “The head of the raven will turn white, horns will grow on the head of the horse—then I will let you go <…> And so, the head of the raven turned white, and the horns grew on the horse’s head. The Qin prince had to let Dan go” [The Way to the Cloudy Gate, 1989, p. 23]. The hair on the palm is known in the ancient tradition—the answer of the Parthian ambassador to Crassus [Plutarch, 2012, Vol. I]. Such literary motifs are often accompanied by stories that such an “impossibility” could, nevertheless, miraculously come true.

In Russian fairy tales, the above examples correspond to a pile of fables (“Do not like, do not listen”). Especially indicative is the subject of making fire, for which one had to pay by telling fables alone [Afanas’ev, 1957, Vol. 3, pp. 218, 222, 224]. Making fire is one of the most important mythological subjects; playing with fables thus turns out to be the most important magical means, a kind of “language of the gods.”

In relation to the “sprouted stump” depicted on the bracelet, apparently, such a stump symbolizes the wonderful life-giving power of music. In addition to the images of the musicians and the dancer, the theme of music—singing—is reflected in the decor of the bracelet in the images of birds and wonderful sirens. As is known from Russian epics, skomorokhs had divine abilities:

They are not ordinary people, they are saints.

And I haven’t even prayed to them yet.

[Russian epics, 1951, Vol. 2, p. 151].

Plant shoots, the interpretation of which helps establish the characteristic manner of a particular jeweler, in addition to their fabulous, magical meaning, could also be used as a kind of sign of the master. This is indicated by the image of a plant motif on the rump of a lion depicted on the right door wing, in the lower part of the famous southern gilded door (“gate”) of the Cathedral of the Nativity of the Theotokos in Suzdal’ [Ovchinnikov, 1978, Figs. 129, 130]. On the rump of the predator, there is a decorative motif inscribed in a circle, which undoubtedly represents a semblance of brands used for livestock (Fig. 5) [Chernetsov, 2018a; see also: Chernetsov, 2010, pp. 267, 268]. On the rump of the lion, it is a type of shamrock or palmette. This decorative element unequivocally represents a legal sign, which was perceived by contemporaries of the creation of the door as a kind of horse brand. Since the very image of the lion in this case is most likely a symbolic signature of the donor (prince), it would seem logical to place the corresponding sign of the Rurikids or a motif reflecting ideas of power and military prowess in the brand on his rump. Instead, however, we see an element of floral decoration, obviously an example of the work of the master who made the precious door. A similar palmette is repeated on the door as a decorative element on the wing of the image of the adjacent griffin. However, unlike the motif on the croup of the lion, it cannot be unambiguously interpreted as a kind of signature of the master.

Fig. 5.
figure 5

Plates of the lower part of the right leaf of the gilded doors of the southern portal of the Cathedral of the Nativity of the Theotokos in Suzdal’ (according to [Ovchinnikov, 1978]).

Full size image

The griffin’s rump also bears a brand. This is a solid gilded disc, bounded by a black circular strip inscribed in an outer gold ring. The griffin’s brand is presented on a black background, which distinguishes it from the background of the gilded thigh of the fantastical animal. Perhaps there was supposed to be a more detailed drawing on this brand, but this detail of the decor remained unfinished.

The craftsman who created masterpieces such as the famous bracelet with a gusli player from the 1966 and the central medallion from the 2005 hoard was obviously the leading and most skilled jeweler who worked in a workshop associated with the princely family on the eve of the Mongol invasion.

Let us try to compare the above observations with the topography of the finds. The hoard of 1966 comes from the so-called “voivode’s estate,” on the territory of which the largest cluster of four hoards in Staraya Ryazan’ was discovered, in one of which a product of one outstanding master was found, the features of whose work are described above. The 1992 hoard included gold items (the second case of finding a complex of gold items in Staraya Ryazan’). Obviously, the estate belonged to a representative of the princely family. This is evidenced not only by the concentration of hoards [Chernetsov, 2005, p. 77]. The very location of the mansion, which either practically adjoined the defensive wall or even was built into it (forming a kind of donjon), most likely should be associated with a person who belonged to the princely family. The owner of the estate, most likely, was not necessarily the ruling prince who occupied the Ryazan’ throne since this estate was at a considerable distance from the nearest temple. He could have been a representative of the younger or side branches of the princely family. In Staraya Ryazan’, there may have been estates of appanage princes of the Ryazan’ land. The data of later times testify that the capital cities of large principalities could have been jointly owned by several representatives of the princely family. The abundance of finds of fragments of imported amphora ceramics speaks in favor of the princely dignity of the owner of the estate.

The accumulation of the four hoards on the territory of one estate cannot be considered as an exhaustive description of the property owned by its inhabitants. It is very likely that some part of these hoards went to the invaders. It is possible that one or more hoard(s) hidden during the siege of the city nevertheless returned to the original owners, their neighbors, and household members. The proposed considerations, of course, do not mean that the four discovered hoards must necessarily correspond to five or more buried ones. In the same way, it is impossible to predict the total number of hoards of jewelry based on the fact that only 6% of the fortified territory of the city has been excavated to date. Treasures hidden at a shallow depth (which is quite natural, given the rapid development of events and wintertime), probably, for the most part, have already gone to researchers or random people. At the same time, the find of 2013 (see [Staraya Ryazan’, 2014, pp. 51–56, Tables 45–53; Strikalov and Chernetsov, 2014]) indicates that the possibility of discovering hoards lying close to the surface has not yet been fully exhausted. Treasures hidden in underground and other pits are still waiting for their discoverers.

The Staraya Ryazan’ hoard of 2013 was found in the Northern Settlement (in the earliest part of the ancient Russian town), quite far from the estate marked by the finds of several hoards. It has attracted the attention of researchers not only because it contains a number of richly decorated pieces of jewelry but also because it is clearly associated with the jeweler and contains raw materials for jewelry, as well as a large number of tools—jewelry matrices. Their number significantly exceeds the needs of a single master or even a separate workshop. Many matrices are replicas of others from the same complex or variations of them with minor differences. Matrix models made of a soft alloy and unsuitable for working with metal were obviously intended for transfer to craftsmen from other workshops and craft centers [Strikalov and Chernetsov, 2015; Chernetsov et al., 2018]. A small roll of gold foil and an ingot of the same metal from the complex in question, as well as dies for making settings for precious stones, indicate that the workshop with which the artisan who concealed the treasure was associated also worked with these most expensive materials. Meanwhile, treasures containing gold items and precious stones are a rare exception in Staraya Ryazan’.

An accidental discovery on the territory of a private estate, also located in the Northern Settlement, of an exceptionally large jewelry matrix depicting the flight of Alexander the Great on griffins (a subject associated with feudal emblems and an apology for monarchical power) suggests that the main grand ducal jewelry workshop of the city could have been located nearby [Belyaev and Chernetsov, 2005, pp. 186, 187, Fig. 7]. Later, during excavations at a neighboring estate, heavily destroyed remains of earlier large heating structures were found, a large series of nozzles for pumping air into the furnace to achieve high temperatures, obviously associated with handicraft production, as well as a number of jewelry matrices. The distance from here to the treasure buried by the jeweler is only a few hundred meters. It is obvious that archaeologists closely approached exceptionally bright finds.

The gradual accumulation of new materials from the excavations of Staraya Ryazan’ and their comparison with those discovered earlier allows us to draw conclusions and make observations of great scientific importance. This is the identification of a significant set of jewelry created by an outstanding jeweler, who served representatives of the princely family. Perhaps he headed the Grand Duke’s workshop. The finds of 2013 and subsequent years, associated with the hoard damaged during tillage, testify to the connection of the complex with an artisan who worked in a large workshop. Its products included the most precious materials rarely found in Staraya Ryazan’ hoards. The obvious redundancy of the jewelry tools included in the complex indicates that this large workshop produced items intended for jewelers engaged in individual craft or as part of individual small teams. Not far from the hiding place of this treasure, obviously, a large grand ducal jewelry workshop functioned. The proposed constructions, which have been formed in recent years, allow us to take a fresh look at the jewelry production of Staraya Ryazan’ and open new prospects for its further study.