The religious beliefs of Slav population in the Upper Prut and the Middle Dniester region

Rome, Constantinople and

Newly-Converted EuropeArchaeological and Historical Evidence

Volume II

U ŹRÓDEŁ EUROPY ŚRODKOWO-WSCHODNIEJ / FRÜHZEIT OSTMITTELEUROPAS

Geisteswissenschaftliches Zentrum Geschichte und Kultur Ostmitteleuropas, LeipzigInstytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Warszawa

Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego, Rzeszów

Rada Redakcyjna / HerausgebergremiumAndrzej Buko, Christian Lübke, Małgorzata Rybicka

Redakcja Serii / Redaktion der Reihe Matthias Hardt, Marcin Wołoszyn

tom 1, część 2 / Band 1, Teil 2

Rome, Constantinople and

Newly-Converted EuropeArchaeological and Historical Evidence

edited byMaciej Salamon, Marcin Wołoszyn, Alexander Musin, Perica Špehar

in cooperation withMatthias Hardt, Mirosław P. Kruk, Aleksandra Sulikowska-Gąska

Kraków – Leipzig – Rzeszów – Warszawa 2012

U ŹRÓDEŁ EUROPY ŚRODKOWO-WSCHODNIEJ / FRÜHZEIT OSTMITTELEUROPAS Geisteswissenschaftliches Zentrum Geschichte und Kultur Ostmitteleuropas e.V., Leipzig

Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Warszawa Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego, Rzeszów

Redakcja tomu / Redaktion des BandesMaciej Salamon, Marcin Wołoszyn, Alexander Musin, Perica Špehar,

Matthias Hardt, Mirosław P. Kruk, Aleksandra Sulikowska-Gąska

Recenzenci tomu / Rezensenten des BandesEduard Mühle, Günther Prinzing

Tłumaczenia / ÜbersetzungenAutorzy / Autoren, Alexey Gilevich, Monika Dzik oraz / sowie

Anna Kinecka (j. angielski / Englisch), Katarzyna Łyp (j. niemiecki / Deutsch), Alexander Musin (j. rosyjski / Russisch)

Weryfikacja językowa / SprachverifizierungMarcin Bednarz, Anna Kinecka, Doris Wollenberg

Skład / LayoutIrena Jordan

Obróbka graficzna / Graphik Autorzy / Autoren oraz / sowie Irena Jordan,

przy udziale / unter Mitwirkung von Jolanta Ożóg, Rafał Janicki

Projekt okładki / Layout des UmschlagesIrena Jordan, Rafał Janicki

Zdjęcie na okładce / Photo auf dem UmschlagBizantyńska stauroteka (X / XI w.) z Ostrowa Lednickiego,

zbiory Muzeum Pierwszych Piastów na Lednicy (Foto: R. Kujawa)Byzantinische Staurothek (10. / 11. Jh.) aus Ostrów Lednicki,

Sammlungen des Muzeum Pierwszych Piastów na Lednicy (Photo: R. Kujawa)

Druk tomu II / Druck von Band IIPoligrafia Inspektoratu Towarzystwa Salezjańskiego, Kraków

Dystrybucja / DistributionLeipziger Universitätsverlag

Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego

© Copyright by Geisteswissenschaftliches Zentrum Geschichte und Kultur Ostmitteleuropas e.V., Leipzig 2012© Copyright by Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Warszawa 2012

© Copyright by Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego, Rzeszów 2012

ISBN: 978-3-86583-659-5ISBN: 978-83-89499-85-1ISBN: 978-83-936467-0-8

The present volume is the result of cooperation of institutions named here:

Polish Academy of SciencesCommittee for the Research in Antique Culture

Byzantine Commission = National Committee of the AIEBInstitute of Archaeology and EthnologyPolish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw

Leipzig Centre for History and Cultureof East Central Europe (GWZO), Leipzig

Institute of HistoryJagiellonian University, Cracow

Institute of ArchaeologyUniversity of Rzeszów, Rzeszów

Institute for the History of Material CultureRussian Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg

Institute of ArchaeologySerbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Belgrade

Sponsored by:

CONTENTS

III.1 ARCHAEOLOGY: ROME, CONSTANTINOPLE, THE RELICS AND PRIVATE DEVOTION OBJECTS

THE INTRODUCTORY ESSAYSLora GerdSacred objects in Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Canon Law ......................................................................................Estelle Cronnier Eastern Christianity and relics of the saints: from refusal to quest ................................................................................Elżbieta DąbrowskaLe dépôt de reliques dans les sépultures – usage liturgique ou superstition? ................................................................Michael Müller-WilleReliquientranslationen im karolingischen und wikingerzeitlichen Europa ..................................................................Alexander MusinByzantine reliquary-crosses in the formation of medieval Christian culture in Europe ................................................

III.2 ARCHAEOLOGY: SEARCHING FOR ROME AND CONSTANTINOPLE

FROM THE SOUTH TO THE NORTHLyudmila Doncheva-PetkovaOn the dating and origin of some types of pectoral crosses from medieval Bulgaria ....................................................Snezana FilipovaEarly Christian reliquaries and encolpia and the problem of the so-called crypt reliquariesin the Republic of Macedonia ........................................................................................................................................Ádám Bollók Byzantine missions among the Magyars during the later 10th century? .........................................................................Péter ProhászkaÜber eine Variante der bronzenen byzantinischen Reliquienkreuze vom sogenannten Typ „Heiliges Land” aus dem Karpatenbecken unter Berücksichtigung eines „neuen“ alten Kreuzes aus der Gemarkung Tés (Ungarn) ...........Kateřina HorníčkováBetween East and West: Bohemian reliquary pectoral crosses as testimony to religious and cultural exchange ..........Janusz Górecki, Andrzej M. Wyrwa The staurotheke from Ostrów Lednicki .........................................................................................................................Joanna ŻółkowskaDisc pendants with St. George’s image from the early mediaeval period in Poland .....................................................Barbara ChudzińskaArchaelogical evidence from today’s Poland on personal piety during the late Middle Ages .......................................Marcin WołoszynDie frühmittelalterlichen orthodoxen Devotionalien in Polen und die Entstehung der ältesten Ostgrenze Polens. Forschungsgeschichte und Forschungsperspektiven ........................................................................Mirosław P. Kruk Two stray stone plaques (icons) from the collection of the National Museum in Kraków ............................................

13

25

33

45

61

97

113

131

145

157

173

193

203

225

291

Jerzy GinalskiEin frühmittelalterlicher Sakralkomplex auf dem Burgwall „Horodyszcze” in Trepcza bei Sanok ...............................Marcin Piotrowski, Marcin Wołoszyn Two devotional objects from Lubaczów (south-eastern Poland) and their archaeological-historical context ...............Marcin WołoszynThe cross-pendants from Sąsiadka-Suteysk in south-eastern Poland. A preliminary report ..........................................Marcin Piotrowski, Marcin WołoszynCzermno/Cherven – archaeological investigation of an early Rus’ medieval town in Eastern Poland in 2010-2011. A preliminary report ....................................................................................................Тomasz Dzieńkowski, Marcin Wołoszyn An encolpion from Czułczyce in south-eastern Poland ..................................................................................................Anna Peskova Byzantine pendant reliquary-crosses from the territory of medieval Rus’......................................................................Natalia Astashova, Tatiana Saracheva Early medieval Rus’ relief decorated reliquary-crosses from the State Historical Museum in Moscow: insights from chemical content and technological analysis ............................................................................................Irina Sterligova Precious Eastern Christian Encolpia from the 9th to 17th сentury as represented in Russian collections .......................Nadezhda Chesnokova Eastern Orthodox icons and other holy objects in 17th century Russia – evidence from the records of Posolskiy Prikaz in Moscow ....................................................................................................................Alexander Ostapenko Miniature figures of archangels in medieval East Europe ..............................................................................................Natalia KhamaykoCrescent pendants (lunnitsa) in 11th-13th century Rus’: Pagan amulet or Christian ornament? ......................................Svetlana Ryabtseva Pectoral reliquary-crosses from the Carpathian-Dniester Region, 11th-16th centuries ....................................................Iuliia Mysko The religious beliefs of Slav population in the Upper Prut and the Middle Dniester region .........................................Marina Sergeeva Early Rus’ sacred object in antler and bone from the Middle Dnieper area ...................................................................Olena Veremeychyk Finds of Christian liturgical and devotional objects from the central part of Chernigov Land, 11th-13th century ..........Vira Hupalo Christian devotional objects from early medieval Zvenigorod (now Zvenyhorod, Ukraine) ........................................Radosław Liwoch On the new border of Christian civilisations. Archaeological material from the early Rus’ Plisnesk ............................Aliaksandr Bashkou The beginning of Christianisation of Western Belarus, 11th-14th century .......................................................................Kristina LavyshByzantine devotional objects from the territory of Belarus ............................................................................................Vadzim Koshman Enamels cloisonnés in Belarus in 11th -13th century: Byzantine influence and questions of local production ...............Jan ChochorowskiRussian Orthodox pendant crosses from Polish archaeological research on Spitsbergen ..............................................

IV AFTERWORDAlexander Musin, Marcin Wołoszyn Newly-Converted Europe – Digging In. An Archaeological Afterword .........................................................................

303

331

347

359

391

403

445

459

485

491

503

527

545

563

573

591

611

621

633

645

655

683

СОДЕРЖАНИЕ

III.1 АРХЕОЛОГИЯ: РИМ, КОНСТАНТИНОПОЛЬ, РЕЛИКВИИ И ПРЕДМЕТЫ ЛИЧНОГО БЛАГОЧЕСТИЯ

ПРЕДВАРИТЕЛЬНЫЕ РАЗМЫШЛЕНИЯЛора Герд Реликвии в византийском и поствизантийском каноническом праве ......................................................................Эстелль Кронье Восточное христианство и реликвии святых: от отвержения к поиску ..................................................................Ельжбета Донбровска Святыни в погребениях: богослужебный обряд или суеверие? ...............................................................................Михаил Мюллер-Вилле Перенесение реликвий и распространение реликвариев в Европе в эпоху Каролингов и викингов ...................Александр Мусин Византийские энколпионы в сложении средневековой христианской культуры в Европе ...................................

III.2 АРХЕОЛОГИЯ: В ПОИСКАХ РИМА И КОНСТАНТИНОПОЛЯ

С ЮГА НА СЕВЕРЛюдмила Дончева-Петкова К вопросу о датировке и происхождении некоторых типов нательных крестов в средневековой Болгарии .............................................................................................................................................. Снежана ФилипповаРаннехристианские реликварии и энколпионы и вопрос о криптовых реликвapиях на территории Республики Македония ...........................................................................................................................Адам Боллок Византийская миссия у мадьяр в конце Х века? ........................................................................................................Петр ПрохазкаБронзовые кресты-реликварии на территории Карпатского бассейна (Теш, Венгрия) ........................................Катерина Хорничкова Между Востоком и Западом: кресты-реликварии из Чехии как свидетельство культурно-религиозного обмена ................................................................................................................................. Ежи Гурецки, Анджей Вырва Ставротека Острова Ледницкого .................................................................................................................................Иоанна Жуковска Круглые иконки-подвески с образом святого Георгия на территории сoвpемeнной Польши ..............................Барбара Худзиньска Археологические данные о предметах личного благочестия эпохи позднего Средневековья (XIII-XVI вв.) на территории современной Польши .................................................................................................Марчин Волошин Восточно-христианские предметы личного благочестия эпохи Средневековья на территории Польши и становление древнейших польских границ на Востоке: история изучения и перспективы исследования .........

13

25

33

45

61

97

113

131

145

157

173

193

203

225

Мирослав Петр Крук Две каменные иконки из коллекции Национального музея в Кракове (Польша) ..................................................Ежи Гинальски Комплекс средневековых сакральных предметов с городища Трепча близь Санока в юго-восточной Польше .............................................................................................................................................Марчин Пиотровски, Марчин Волошин Два предмета личного благочестия из Любачува (Юго-Восточная Польша) в их историко-археологическом контексте ........................................................................................................................Марчин ВолошинНательные кресты из Сонсядки-Сутейска в юго-восточной Польше: предварительное сообщение ...................Марчин Пиотровски, Марчин Волошин Новые находки в Чермно .............................................................................................................................................Томаш Дженьковски, Марчин Волошин Борисоглебский энколпион из Чулчице (Люблинское воеводство, Польша) .........................................................Анна Пескова Византийские кресты-реликварии на территории Древней Руси ............................................................................Наталья Асташова, Татьяна СарачеваХимико-технологическое изучение древнерусских рельефных энколпионов из собрания Государственного исторического музея .....................................................................................................................Ирина Стерлигова Драгоценные восточно-христианские реликварии IX-XVII вв. по материалам российских собраний ...............Надежда Чеснокова Восточно-христианские иконы и реликвии в России XVII в. по материалам Посольского приказа ...................Александр Остапенко Миниатюрные фигурки архангелов в Восточной Европе эпохи Средневековья ...................................................Наталья Хамайко Лунницы в Древней Руси XI-XIII в.: языческий амулет или христианское украшение? ......................................Светлана Рябцева Кресты-реликварии в системе христианской культуры Карпато-Днестровского региона в XI-XVI вв. .............Юлия МиськоРелигиозные верования славянского населения верхнего течения реки Прут и Среднего Поднестровья ..........Марина Сергеева Древнерусские сакральные изделия из кости и рога на территории Среднего Поднепровья ...............................Елена ВеремейчикЦерковная утварь и предметы личного благочестия ХІ-ХІІІ вв. центральных районов Черниговской земли ....Вера Хупало Предметы христианского культа из древнерусского Звенигорода ...........................................................................Радослав Ливох На новых границах христианского мира: археологические материалы из древнерусского Плеснеска ...............Александр Башков Начало христианства на западе Белоруссии XI-XIV вв.: исторический и археологический аспекты .................Кристина Лавыш Предметы христианского культа византийского происхождения с территории Белоруссии ................................ Вадим Кошман Перегордчатая эмаль в Белоруссии в ХI–XIII вв.: византийское влияние и вопросы местного производства ...Ян Хохоровски Нательные кресты православной традиции из исследований польской археологической экспедиции на острове Шпицберген ..........................................................................................................................

IV ПОСЛЕСЛОВИЕМарчин Волошин, Александр Мусин Раскапывая Новую Европу: послесловие археологов ...............................................................................................

291

303

331

347

359

391

403

445

459

485

491

503

527

545

563

573

591

611

621

633

645

655

683

Rome, Constantinople and Newly-Converted Europe. Archaeological and Historical EvidenceM. Salamon, M. Wołoszyn, A. Musin, P. Špehar, M. Hardt, M.P. Kruk, A. Sulikowska-Gąska (eds.)U źródeł eUroPy ŚrodKoWo-WScHodniej/FrüHzeit oStMitteleUroPAS 1,2

Kraków-leipzig-rzeszów-Warszawa 2012, vol. ii, p. 545-561

iUliiA MySKo

The religious beliefs of slav populaTion in The upper pruT and The Middle dniesTer region

abstract. The religious beliefs of Slav population in the Upper Prut and the Middle Dniester region. Basing on a complex analysis of archaeological sources the article presents an overview of the development of religious beliefs of Slav population of the early rus’ state in the Upper Prut and the Middle dniester region in the period 8th-first half of the 13th century. during the first chronological stage, which covers the period until the 990s, the time when these lands were made part of Kievan rus’ and the population was converted to christianity, the dominant spiritual-ideological beliefs were pagan. this is evidenced by burial rites practiced in the region, documented by single burials and burial grounds. in material culture these religious beliefs are reflected by the construction of distinctive sites of pagan worship (kapishche) and sanctuaries in small hillforts. Second stage – end of 10th-beginning of 12th century – is connected with official christianisation of the local population, as part of the policy of nationalization of the croatian lands pursued by the princes in Kiev. From this time date burial grounds with a rite characteristic for the transition from pagan to christian religion, inhumation graves with an east-west orientation become widespread and there are finds of objects associated with christian worship. third stage – mid-12th-first half of 13th century – is a period of consolidation and spread of christian religion, which is documented by the rise of christian cemeteries, relics of wooden and stone buildings associated with worship identified in villages and towns, monastic cave complexes, and numerous finds of christian devotional objects. despite this process of official christianization pagan sites continue to exist, documented by finds of structures associated with pagan worship similar to those observed during the preceding chronological period (sacrificial pits in burial grounds, sanctuaries in small hillforts with a culture deposit from 11th-12th century and newly built pagan sanctuaries). these religious complexes may be interpreted within the context of an emerging syncretic world-view, when the ideological principles of a new religion were interacting with the older pagan beliefs, something which is indicated indirectly by the introduction at this time of a new form sanctuary – a pagan temple with a roof.

reconstructing religious beliefs of Slav and rus’ inhabitants of the region under investigation during the early medieval period is of utmost importance for determining the roots of many phenomena of subsequent historical and cultural development. the study of religious syncretism has exceptional importance for identifying the sources of distinctive national traditions in the culture of the Slavs in eastern europe, including Ukrainians, as it is this phenomenon which gave the individual national color to the religious beliefs of the people.

the domination of polytheistic beliefs among the Slav population on the Upper Prut and the Middle dniester (modern chernivtsi oblast’ of Ukraine; cf. Fig. 1-3) and the complex process of evolution of this world-view subsequent to the adoption of christianity is confirmed by numerous archaeological finds. Pagan

545

546

iuliia Mysko

fig. 1. The research area: the upper prut and the Middle dniester region; drawn by i. Jordan.

fig. 2. Meanders of the Middle dniester; photo by i. Jordan.

547

the religious beliefs of Slav population in the Upper Prut and the Middle dniester region

fig. 3. Cult sites of the upper prut and Middle dniester region (Chernivtsi oblast’, ukraine [r. – region]); drawn by i. Jordan.A. Pagan cult sites (a – sacrificial pit; b – shrine-kapishche; c – hillfort-sanctuary; d – pagan temple; e – burial ground;

f – barrow-field; g – urn burial; h – cremation burial in a long house).1 – Oshykhliby, Kitsman r.; 2 – Vasilev, Zastavna r.; 3 – Rzhavintsy, Zastavna r.; 4 – Chornivka, Novoselitsy r.;

5 – Revno, Kitsman r.; 6 – Gorbovo, Gertsavitsa r.; 7 – Korneshty, Khotin r.; 8 – Rukhotin, Khotin r.; 9 – Zelena Lypa, Khotin r.; 10 – Cheponosy, Khotin r.; 11 – Nagoryany, Kel’mentsy r.; 12 – Babyn, Kel’mentsy r.;

13 – Kulishovka, sokiryany r.; 14 – galytsia, sokiryany r.B. Christian cult sites (a – inhumation; b – inhumation under a stone slab; c – inhumation under a mound; d – inhumation

within a stone setting; e – wooden church; f – stone church; g – sacred cave site).1 – Oshykhliby, Kitsman r.; 2 – Ivankivtsi, Kitsman r.; 3 – Maliatyntsi, Kitsman r.; 4 – Borivtsi, Kitsman r.; 5 – Khreschatyk,

Zastavna r.; 6 – Chun’kiv, Zastavna r.; 7 – Vasilev, Zastavna r.; 8 – Doroshivtsi, Zastavna r.; 9 – Kitsman, Kitsman r.; 10 – Vikno, Zastavna r.; 11 – Yurkivtsi, Zastavna r.; 12 – Pogorilivka, Zastavna r.; 13 – Chornyi Potik, Zastavna r.;

14 – Onut, Zastavna r.; 15 – Mytkiv, Zastavna r.; 16 – Musorivka, Zastavna r.; 17 – Perebykivtsi, Khotin r.; 18 – Chornivka, Novoselitsy r.; 19 – Gorishni Sherivtsi, Zastavna r.; 20 – Valiava, Kitsman r.; 21 – Mamaivtsi, Kitsman r.; 22 – Lenkivtsi, Kel’mentsy r.; 23 – Ostrytsia, Novoselitsy r.; 24 – Mamornytsia, Gertsaivs’kiy r.; 25 – Sankivtsi, Khotin r.; 26 – Dovzhok, Novoselitsy r.; 27 – Yarivka, Khotin r.; 28 – Prygorodok, Khotin r.; 29 – Darabany, Khotin r.; 30 – Livyntsi, Kel’mentsy r.; 31 – Lenkivtsi, Kel’mentsy r.; 32 – Voronovytsia, Kel’mentsy r.; 33 – Makarivka, Kel’mentsy r.; 34 – Babyn, Kel’mentsy r.;

35 – Dnistrivka, Kel’mentsy r.; 36 – Korman, Sokiryany r.; 37 – Galytsia, Sokiryany r.; 38 – Mykhalkovo, Sokiryany r.

548

iuliia Mysko

religious beliefs are evident in the remains of sacred sites, grave goods, dwellings, ceramics, and objects bearing pagan symbols. the introduction of christianity was followed by the construction of churches, ruins of which have been identified in the region, the use of christian devotional objects, the change of the burial rite reflected by the transition to inhumation in cemeteries which became important sites for religious ceremonies performed according to the newly introduced christian orthodox principles. At the same time, as an outlying area of the Kievan state, the territory on the Upper Prut and the Middle dniester kept some of its pagan beliefs, which is demonstrated by finds of pagan relics. Building techniques, artifacts, e.g., amulets and lucky charms, have been used in the present study as input for reconstructing the syncretic mentality.

Slavs living on the Upper Prut and the Middle dniester have left a number of sites associated with worship attributed to the archaeological luka-raikovets’kya culture of the last quarter of the first millennium A.d. (Fig. 3). they are classified on the basis of their structural features into pagan shrines (sacrificial pits, dug for some special ritual purpose and then left) and sanctuaries (special structures, where an idol [idols] was placed and worshipped regularly; cf. rusanova 1992, 53). the latter are subdivided into several groups, represented in the study region by 1). ring sanctuaries (kapishche) with an idol at center, surrounded by a ditch or a series of pits; 2). the same kind of site, additionally enclosed by a rampart and a ditch (sanctuaries within small hillforts); 3). wooden roofed-over structures, with an idol within (rusanova, timoshchuk 1993, 9). B. timoshchuk distinguishes the following features as typical of the small hillfort-sanctuaries: 1). small size; 2). lack of evidence on regular occupation (settlement) or defensive function; 3). presence of a second, outer ring of ramparts; 4). the ritual ditches could serve a separate role, with or without ramparts; 5). sacrificial altars surrounded by a palisade built on top of the ramparts and at the bottom of the ditches; 6). the spot where the idol was placed (usually round or oval in outline) or the entire area of the sanctuary enclosed by ramparts and ditches, usually not very distinct; 7). the presence of long houses, built within the sanctuary but outside of the area occupied by the kapishche; 8). long-term use; 9). presence of settlements in the neighbrouhood of the sanctuary; 10). function of a religious centre of a given community (timoshchuk 1989, 79).

Sacred places (a sacrificial pit in the burial ground at revno; Mikhailina 1997, 81), sanctuaries of two kinds (revno kapishche; Mikhailina 1997, 78-80; see Fig. 4) and small hillfort-sanctuaries at rzhavintsy, Gorbovo, Kulishovka, nagoryany, Babyn, rukhotin (timoshchuk 1976, 84-85, 89-91; 1990, 162, 174; timoshchuk, rusanova 1983, 161-165; cf. Fig. 5-6) were studied in the region under investigation. if sacred sites (which appear during the 6th century and continue in evidence until the 13th century) were functioning as a separate kind of establishment and a part of more complex sacred structures, sanctuaries appeared not earlier than in the 8th century. More effort and special organization of labour were required to construct these sacred places than to dig sacrificial pits and start a kapishche, which could be used by families and inhabitants of a single settlement. the 8th-10th centuries were a period when hillfort-sanctuaries came into use and this coincides with the period of dominance of large kinship-neighbourhood communities, larger, more developed and better organized than the large family communities of the 6th-7th centuries incapable of constructing a sanctuary (timoshchuk 1990, 77). on the other hand, the emergence of sanctuaries may be regarded as a result of a long-term development of Slav ideology, the highest point of their pagan culture. All hillfort-sanctuaries were parts of the settlement network and were religious community centers, and this fact is confirmed by the finds from their territory. About thirty Slav settlements are identified in the region and almost every single one included one or more hillforts of different type, some of which could be classified as a sanctuary. it is important to note that every community apparently had its own religious center. the community burial ground or a hillfort-sanctuary played this role and during peacetime served complex social functions (timoshchuk, rusanova 1983, 161). Burial grounds (like those at revno and Bilivsk) and long houses were set up next to the ramparts within these hillforts that were without a permanent housing system, and religious rites could be carried out there (timoshchuk 1976, 121-129; 1982, 155-158, 168, 183-184). nearly all the small hillfort-sanctuaries were found in promontory hillforts and had some common features, which suggests unity of beliefs of the local population. the differences between the shape and details of construction are explained by variations in the pagan ritual within a single ethno-cultural region (Mysko 2005a, 92).

the burial grounds were an important place of worship for the Slavs. the dead were buried in them with ritual ceremonies required by the pagan beliefs in the afterlife. Slav burial grounds on the Upper Prut and the Middle dniester dated to the 6th-7th centuries were identified only at two locations: in the central area of Korneshty hamlet (urned burials; cf. Prikhodnyuk 1975, 109; timoshchuk 1982, 185) and near cheponosy

549


Fig. 4. The shrine-kapishche at Revno, Kitsman region, Chernivtsi oblast’, Ukraine; after L.P. Mikhailina (1997, Fig. 39-41) redrawn by J. Ożóg.

A. The upper horizon; B. The lower horizon (a – sod; b – dark gray soil; c – yellow clay; d – dark yellow clay;

e – small ditch; f – stones; g – charcoal; h – burnt clay; i – ash; j – posthole; k – virgin soil); C. Findings (1 – ceramic;

2 – glass ring; 3 – earring; 4 – bead; 5 – spindle-whorl).

550

iuliia Mysko

village (two burial mounds; see timoshchuk, Prikhodnyuk 1969, 78; Prihodnyuk 1975, 41-42, 109). the next chronological stage (8th-10th centuries) is characterized by continuity of the burial traditions, confirmed by archaeological findings made in the grave-fields, now with a more varied burial rite, attributed to luka-raikovets’kya Сulture: burial under a mound (chornivka; see timoshchuk 1982, 183; timoshchuk, rusanova, Mikhailina 1981, 89; timoshchuk 1992, 188-190) and burial in a flat grave (revno; cf. timoshchuk 1982, 183; timoshchuk, rusanova, Mikhailina 1981, 87). depending on the burial site Slav burial sites are classified as typical (in a burial ground), and non-typical (burial in a long house). the latter form is regarded as sacred,

Fig. 5. The sanctuaries at Rzhavintsy and Gorbovo; after B.A. Timoshchuk (1976, Fig. 39-41 [Rzhavintsy] and Fig. 43-44 [Gorbovo]) redrawn by J. Ożóg.

A. Rzhavintsy, Zastavna region, Chernivtsi oblast’, Ukraine. The plan of the hillfort showing test excavation trenches. Profiles of the ramparts:

1 – outer; 2 – inner (a – ash, charcoal; b – clay; c – stones; d – humus; e – light yellow clay; f – burnt clay; g – rammed clay; h – built-up area; i – the stone setting).

b. gorbovo, gertsavitsa region, Chernivtsi oblast’, ukraine. The plan of the hillfort.

551


Fig. 6. The sanctuary at Kulishovka, Babyn, Nagoryany, Rukhotin; after B.A. Timoshchuk, I.P. Rusanova (1983, Fig. 1 [Kulishovka], Fig. 4 [Babyn]) and after B.A. Timoshchuk (1990. Fig. 42 [Nagoryany], Fig. 53 [Rukhotin]) redrawn by J. Ożóg.

A. Kulishovka, Sokiryany region, Chernivtsi oblast’, Ukraine. The plan, profile of the first rampart and ditches. B. Babyn, Kel’mentsy region, Chernivtsi oblast’, Ukraine. The plan and cross-section of the sanctuary.

a – rampart; b – ditch; c – rim; d – slope; e – dark gray soil; f – gray soil; g – charcoal; h – burnt clay; i – stones; j – excavation trench.

C. Nagoryany, Kel’mentsy region, Chernivtsi oblast’, Ukraine.a – rampart and ditch; b – settlement; c – rim.

d. rukhotin, Khotin region, Chernivtsi oblast’, ukraine.

552

iuliia Mysko

connected to ancestor worship, as suggested by social-religious functions that these long buildings served. All the typical burials of the 6th-9th centuries have common Slav features: the grave inventory is very poor; the cremation took place at some distance from the site of burial, the remains were deposited in a pit grave, flat or under a small tumulus, usually without an urn. the difference between these two forms of burial is in the presence or absence of a burial mound and a ritual ditch which served as a sacred barrier between the worlds of the dead and the living. Ashes and other remains of the cremation pyre/traces of charcoal discovered in the burial grounds are interpreted as the remains of krada – a wooden fence set in the ditch which was burned during the burial ceremony. the rite of cremation was connected with the ancient belief in the purifying power of fire, when the soul of the dead individual rose to the skies with the smoke of the cremation fire; this also was supposed to help bring rain to the cornfields. though the cremation took place outside the burial ground the place where the remains were buried also underwent purification with fire. layers of charcoal were identified even inside cenotaph graves (the burial-mound near Bila, Kitsman region, chernivtsi oblast’; cf. timoshchuk 1982, 158). the latter reflects another aspect of ancient beliefs connected with an ambivalent attitude towards the dead. the tradition of raising a burial mound over the grave was supposed to prevent the buried family member from harming the living if all the burial rites had not been followed, turning into a vampire or a Slav upyr (Mysko 2005b, 43-45).

in contrast to the modest grave inventories fragments of ceramics may be said to be very numerous. the ritual smashing of pottery signified a sacrifice, the passing to a new state of being, death as a source of a new beginning, and was aimed to protect from evil forces (Shveshnikova, tsyvian 1979, 180-182). the raising of burial mounds was connected with ideological beliefs which had taken form in the rus’ society of the period. the following archaeological findings attest to the sacred character of the pagan mounds: traces of fire-making detected on a surface of clay; the burial site was surrounded by a sacred boundary; traces of fire on the top of the mound or on its slopes; the remains of funeral feasts and other evidence of ritual practices. All of these were identified in the materials from the burial ground at chornivka. At the same time, sites with mound burial are not common for the indigenous population on the Upper Prut and Middle dniester, their appearance was caused by social changes of the territory where croatian tribes lived1. during the 8th-9th centuries the majority of the population continued to follow the burial tradition ceremony which involved cremation outside the burial ground and deposition of the burnt remains in small pits, as in the burial ground at revno.

the religious beliefs of Slav peoples on the Upper Prut and the Middle dniester find reflection also in their dwellings. Unlike the outer world, without order, the inside of the house was protected from it by the sacred boundary of its walls, with the doorway facing the “safe” south cardinal point. this inner space tends to follow the same plan, with the stove taking a principal role as the center of isomorphic space of the dwelling. rites associated with veneration of the hearth were practiced near the stove, where the family spirits dwelled (Mysko 2000). Until the 10th century the stove is usually found in the northern corner, opposite the entrance, with the opening of the stove mouth facing South. investigation made of the dwellings in more than 80 sites on the Upper Prut and the Middle dniester (timoshchuk 1976, 146-168; 1982, 188), including fully excavated settlements at rashkiv (Khotin region, chernivtsi oblast’) and Kodyn (ostrytsa, Glybokoe region, chernivtsi oblast’), revealed that all of them were consistent with the inner layout described above. Some actions indicating the special attitude towards the stove were evident: respect for the area around the stove; the people left special items in the cracks of the stove (fragments of ceramics, iron knives, ornamented spindle-whorls, weights, and astragals); the ashes and fragments of the old stove would be buried when the family moved to another dwelling (Mysko 2004).

essential changes in the world-view of the early Slav population on the Upper Prut and Middle dniester took place only at the end of the 11th century when christianity was introduced in the region. the gradual influence of the new religion is traced in the materials from the burial ground near Gorishni Sherivtsi village (timoshchuk 1982, 63-65). even so, the majority of the local population altered their burial rite only around the middle of the 12th century. cemeteries dated to the 11th century are almost unknown. the only investigated site is the one at Borivtsi and the findings from this site are more typical for the earlier period of adoption

1 on the croatian tribes and their probable location in the region see the Primary russian chronicle, comments and appropriate literature (PVl, [sine anno], p. 10, a. 6515 [907], p. 16, a. 6500 [992], p. 54; see also comments on p. 393, 465; for english version see Primary…, [sine anno], p. 141, a. 6515 [907], p. 149, a. 6500 [992], p. 207; see also Sedov 1982, 125-128).

553


of christianity in eastern Slav lands (Voinarovskiy 1992, 33-38). in addition, burials at chun’kiv, also date from the 11th-13th centuries, and four graves in stone circles in the center of Vasilev known from early rus’ chronicles date from the 11th-12th centuries (Voinarovskiy 1992, 38-39).

the majority of grave-fields discovered on the Upper Prut and the Middle dniester (nearly 40) date from the 12th-first half of the 13th century (Pivovarov 2001, 25). they have been investigated in the city graveyards of Vasilev (timoshchuk 1982, 145-148, 159-161; 1992, 23) and the hillfort lenkivtsi (timoshchuk 1959, 255-256; 1982, 177-178). numerous village burial grounds of this period are less well studied. Usually, one to ten burials were investigated in the village cemeteries. the cremation burial rite had been replaced with inhumation, with an east-west orientation according to the christian canon: the body lay in an extended supine position, with or without a coffin; there were no grave goods whatsoever (except for dress accessories and personal ornaments); the common planning of the burial sites attached to churches. Basing on the form of burial all the grave-fields are subdivided into seven types: 1). simple inhumation (the majority); 2). inhumation with a “stone pillow”; 3). inhumation under a stone slab; 4). inhumation under a mound; 5). inhumation with a stone setting; 6). sarcophagus burial; 7). burials in ossuaries. next to the town cemeteries at Vasilev, where the common burial rite was inhumation within a stone setting, similar burials in ossuaries were found only once, inside the relics of a church in an early rus’ settlement at Vikno village (Martynivka; cf. timoshchuk 1969, 74-75).

Burials in early rus’ towns and close to the medieval settlements are diverse typologically and vary as to the number of excavated burials and burial forms. if all the burial types are present in towns, except for burials under a mound, then village graveyards do not have the burials of the 6th and 7th type (except for the ossuary at Martynivka); and in addition, inhumations with a “stone pillow” are not recorded there. this indicates that some types of burial are associated with specific strata of early rus’ society. the use of stone constructions, recorded in towns, was a typical feature of the feudal elite and clergymen’s burials. commoners and peasants practiced simple form of inhumation which varied depending on wealth, ethnicity and world-view.

christian cemeteries in general were set up near churches. Wooden structures, sometimes with a stone foundation, were distinctive for rural surroundings; however their remains are rarely detected, due to the poor preservation of wood. With a high percentage of probability they are identified on the basis of secondary evidence, e.g., a concentration of ceramic tiles, the plan of the graveyard attached to the church, and toponymic data. According to these signs we can talk about the existence of two churches in Vasilev, 2 – on the outskirts of lenkivtsi hillfort, and also at onut, Mytkiv, Vikno, and chornivka hillforts (Mysko 2006b, 138-139). the early rus’ masonry church at Vasilev proves that stone architecture existed in the towns. the technique of its construction has features of the architectural school of Halych with some probable Byzantine influences (timoshchuk 1982, 142-145).

cave chapels are a feature associated with christian religion which became widespread in the lands on the Middle dniester under the influence of monastic traditions from the near east. they have been indentified at Halych (Galich) and Korman. it is possible that cave chapels near Babyn and Khreshchatik villages (zastavna region, chrenivtsi oblast’) also date from the early rus’ period. Among characteristic features which prove that caves were used for christian worship, next to distinctive material finds, is the layout and orientation of the cave sanctuary according to cardinal points; the presence of specific architectural elements – the altar niche or ledge-altar (apse) in the eastern part of the cave, a niche or a shelf next to the altar, niches for icons; presence of rock tombs; graffiti on the walls depicting crosses and writings of religious content (ridush 2000, 13-14).

numerous small finds of christian devotional objects (nearly 70) document the spread of christianity across the region2. of these 48 were discovered during archaeological research (Vasilev – 9; lenkivtsi – 4; tsetsyno – 2; Vaslovivtsi – 1; chornivka – 27; orshivtsi – 1; Samushyn – 1; nedoboivtsi – 3), while 20 are without provenance (Pivovarov 2006, 182). there are numerous small works of art, church utensils and details of the interior. the former are: 1). small icon-pendants (stone and metal; see Fig. 7: 1, 5, 9, 13-15); 2). miniature cross-pendants (stone, metal and amber; cf. Fig. 7: 6, 8, 14, 16-22); 3). metal reliquary-crosses of various types (Fig. 8). two coin-like and one coin pendant can also be included in the corpus of christian devotional

2 For additional information see the article by S. ryabtseva in this volume (ryabtseva 2012).

554

iuliia Mysko

Fig. 7. Christian devotional objects from the Upper Prut and the Middle Dniester region (Chernivtsi oblast’, Ukraine [r. – region]); after S. Pivovarov (2006, Fig. 43-44) redrawn by J. Ożóg.

1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-13, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22 – Chornivka hillfort, Novoselitsy r.; 2, 16 – Tsetsyno, Chernivtsi r.; 5 – Samushyn, Zastavna r.; 8, 20 – Lenkivtsi settlement, Kel’mentsy r; 14 – Vasilev, Zastavna r.; 17 – Chornivka burial ground, Novoselitsy r.

1, 17-20 – bronze; 2, 16 – silver; 3, 4 – unspecified metal alloy; 6, 7 – amber; 8, 21, 22 – stone; 5 – slate; 9, 10, 15 – steatite; 11-13 – ceramic.

555


Fig. 8. Metal reliquary-crosses from the Upper Prut and the Middle Dniester region (Chernivtsi oblast’, Ukraine [r. – region]); after S. Pivovarov (2006, Fig. 39-40) redrawn by J. Ożóg.

1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 14, 16 – Vasilev, Zastavna r.; 3, 4, 9, 11, 13, 19, 20 – Chornivka hillfort, Novoselitsy r.; 6 – Orshivtsi, Kitsman r.; 10, 12 – Nedoboivtsi, Khotin r.; 15, 17 – Lenkivtsi, Kel’mentsy r.; 18 – Vaslovivtsi, Zastavna r.

556

iuliia Mysko

objects. A cast copper cross from late 12th-first quarter of 13th century is among the most important finds of church paraphernalia found in the church at Vasilev (timoshchuk 1992, 24; cf. Fig. 9). By analogy it was dated to the early rus’ period but was used as a non-altar or processional element until the destruction of the temple in the 17th century. Stylistic and art analysis of some of these items (encolpion with engraved images, some stone icons, the altar cross from Vasilev, Byzantine coins) suggest that their production had significant Byzantine links. However, another larger group of these items indicates they were made in the workshops of Kiev and Halych. the main concentration of similar objects was in the region of early rus’ towns (Vasilev and lenkivtsi) and the feudal estate at chornivka. the time period when similar small works of art entered the region is at the end of the 11th-beginning of the 12th century. the middle of the 12th-second half of the 12th century is the period when these items were in wide use, which is demonstrated by other data and agrees with chronological stages established for cemeteries when christianity was spreading in the region.

other than that, archaeological material from the early rus’ period testifies to the rise of religious syncretism in spiritual culture of the local population as a result of the adoption of christianity. it implies the blending of the orthodox and apocryphal christian elements with earlier pagan beliefs, and basing on this – the reinterpretation of the christian religious doctrine. certain pagan sites continued to function during this period: sacrificial (ritual) pits in burial grounds (Vasilev, oshyhliby [Kitsman region, chernivtsi oblast’]) which were used during the burial ceremony; small hillfort-sanctuaries with a culture layer from the 11th-12th centuries (Kulishovka, nagoryany, Babyn). A new feature characteristic for this period was construction of a new from of pagan temple e.g., at zelena lypa (timoshchuk, rusanova 1983, 165-166) and Halych (Pivovarov 2000, 74-90; cf. Fig. 10). the discoveries of these temples are very rare on territory of eastern Slavs, in contrast to the area occupied by the Western Slavs. the building of temples marked an essential change in the religious beliefs, a new stage in their evolution. Similar structures were identified in the region under discussion, then part of the borderland principality of the Kievan state. they were constructed away from the settlements, in inaccessible forest surroundings, where followers of the old religion, in secret from the prince’s administration, conducted their pagan rituals.

Fig. 9. Vasilev, Zastavna region, Chernivtsi oblast’, Ukraine. Liturgical altar cross, end of 12th-first quarter of 13th century; after B.A. Timoshchuk (1992, Fig. at p. 19) redrawn by J. Ożóg.

557


Fig. 10. Plans of pagan sacred buildings from the early Rus’ period in Galitsya and Zelena Lypa; after S. Pivovarov (2001, Fig. 18 [Galitsya]) and after B.A. Timoshchuk, I.P. Rusanova (1983, Fig. 6 [Zelena Lypa]) redrawn by J. Ożóg.

a. galitsya, sokiryany region, Chernivtsi oblast’, ukraine.a – humus; b – ash; c – charcoal; d – stones; e – pottery; f – bone; g – slag; h – burnt clay; i – daub; j – posthole.

B. Zelena Lypa, Khotin region, Chernivtsi oblast’, Ukraine.

Syncretic tendencies are traced also in burial rituals documented by e.g.,: the presence of a layer of ashes and charcoal at the bottom of the grave pit; broken fragments of pottery on the ground surface; find of jewellery indicating that the burial of an unmarried woman was performed as a wedding (metal and silk rings in women’s graves at Vasilev, lenkivtsi, Kitsman, Sankivtsi, oshyhliby); the presence of grave goods; stone setting around

558

iuliia Mysko

graves; non-typical burials performed against christian rules (caves at chornivka and Martynivka) or situated in non-traditional sites (the foundation of the temple at Vasilev; see Mysko 2006a).

Small finds attest to the survival of pagan beliefs more than anything else, and the jewellery discovered at Vasilev, chornivka, lenkivtsi and Halych – in particular. Women’s dress accessories and ornaments, especially the protective amulets, next to their aesthetic aspect had a deep symbolic meaning, and were meant to protect the exposed parts of the human body. their semantic meaning was a combination of pagan and christian elements, a peculiar microcosm of the traditional costume. depending on their functional purpose they are divided into the following categories: ornaments for the head, hands, neck and breast (waist); by their material they are distinguished into metal (earrings, lunulae i.e., crescent-shaped pendants, bells, bracelets, rings etc.), stone (pendants e.g., of rock crystal, lazurite, beads made of agate and amber), bone, horn, shell (perforated animal bones and tusks, and cowrie shells) and glass bracelets (Mysko 2002).

thus, archaeological sources give us an opportunity to identify a number of chronological stages in the development of religious beliefs of the Slav population on the Upper Prut and Middle dniester in the period 8th to mid-13th century.

the first stage, when pagan beliefs were the common spiritual-ideological base, covers the period until the 990s, the time when these lands became a part of the Kievan State and its population was converted to christianity. the domination of pagan beliefs is documented by the burial rites of the Slav population of the region which may be studied using the evidence from single graves (Korneshty, cheponosy) and burial grounds (revno, chornivka). the setting up of special sites to conduct pagan rites was the highest display of religious belief at this stage and, basing on recurring features, may be classified into a number of types and varieties.

the second stage – the end of the 10th-beginning of the 12th century – is linked to the official introduction of christianity to the local population as part of the feudalization policy of croatian lands by the Kievan princes and establishment of christianity as the official state religion. this process is documented by materials from the burial grounds that feature transitional elements of the burial ritual from pagan to christian (Gorishni Sherivtsi, Borivtsi). Apparently, this is the period when inhumation with an east-west orientation had started to spread and christian religious objects are noted for the first time. Simultaneously, the ideological basis of the new religion had started to interact with ancient polytheistic beliefs of the local population, leading to the formation of a syncretic world-view. Signs of this world-view are quite noticeable during the next stage.

third stage – the middle of the 12th-first half of the 12th century – was a period of expansion of christianity. Archaeological material from the investigated early rus’ burial grounds indicate that the traditional christian burial rite was dominant during this period. At the same time, there is evidence on syncretic world-view in the burial rite. the remains of wooden and stone christian churches in villages and towns, monastic cave complexes and finds of christian devotionals are a prominent indicator that the new religion was generally recognized. At the same time despite the positive results of the official christianization some sacred pagan sites continue to exist during this stage. they include sites known during the preceding chronological period (sacrificial pits in the burial grounds at Vasilev, oshyhliby, and small hillfort-sanctuaries of the 11th-12th centuries at Kylishivtsi, nagoryany, Babyn) and a new form of pagan temple (at zelena lypa and Halych). this proves that a part of the local population still adhered to the pagan world-view. At the same time it is possible that these sacred sites were viewed from a new perspective of syncretic mentality which is indirectly proven by the emergence of a new from of sanctuary – the pagan temple with a roof.

Syncretic religious beliefs which took form during this stage continued in development and even now form part of the christian spiritual and religious system of the inhabitants of the region on the Upper Prut and the Middle dniester.

559


Резюме. Религиозные верования славянского населения верхнего течения реки Прут и Среднего Поднестровья. В статье на основе комплексного анализа археологических источников представлена обобщающая картина развития религиозных представлений славяно-русского населения Верхнего Попрутья и Среднего Поднестровья на протяжении Viii-первой половины ХІІІ вв. На первом хронологическом этапе, охватывающим период до 90-х гг. Х в., времени присоединения хорватских земель к Киевской Руси и крещения ее населения, господствующими духовно-идеологическими представлениями были языческие. Об этом свидетельствует погребальный обряд населения региона, известный по материалам как отдельных захоронений (Корнешты, Чепоносы), так и могильников (Ревно, Черновка). Отражением религиозных верований в материальной культуре было сооружение специальных культовых объектов: капища в Ревно и малых городищ-святилищ в Ржавинцах, Горбове, Кулешовке, Нагорянах, Бабине и Рухотине. Второй этап – конец Х-начало Xii вв. – связан с официальной христианизацией местного населения. Здесь появляются могильники с характерной для перехода от язычества к христианству погребальной обрядностью (Верхнешировецкий и Боривецкий некрополи), распространяются грунтовые захоронения с западной ориентировкой, встречаются предметы христианского культа. Третий этап – середина Xii-первая половина Xiii в. – период закрепления и распространения христианской религии, ярким показателем которой становятся христианские некрополи, остатки сельских и городских деревянных и каменных культовых построек (Василев, Ленковцы, Мартыновка и др.), пещерных монастырских комплексов (Галица, Кормань), многочисленные находки предметов христианского культа. Несмотря на положительные результаты официальной христианизации, на данном этапе функционируют и языческие культовые объекты, зафиксированные как в предыдущий хронологический период (жертвенные ямы на могильниках, городища-святилища с культурным слоем ХІ-ХІІ вв. в Кулешовке, Нагорянах, Бабине), так и вновь созданные («храмы идольские» в Зеленой Липе, Галице). Эти религиозные комплексы возможно осмыслить в контексте формирующегося синкретического мировоззрения, когда идеологические принципы новой религии вступали во взаимодействие со старыми языческими представлениями, на что косвенно указывает появление новой формы святилища – крытого храма.

bibliography

literary sourcesPrimary… PVl

The Russian Primary Chronicle, S.H. cross (ed.), Harvard Studies and notes in Philology and literature, 13, cambridge 1930. Повесть временных лет, В.П. Адрианова-Перетц, Д.С. Лихачев, М.Б. Свердлов (ed.), Санкт-Петербург 1996.

560

iuliia Mysko

StudiesMikhailina = Михайлина Л.П.

1997Mysko = Мисько Ю.В.

2000

2002

2004

2005a

2005b

2006а

2006b

Prikhodnyuk = Приходнюк О.М. 1975

Pivovarov = Пивоваров С.2000

2001

2006

Ridush = Рідуш Б.Т. 2000

Rusanova = Русанова И.П. 1992

Rusanova, Timoshchuk = Русанова И.П., Тимощук Б.А.1993

ryabtseva s.2012

Населення Верхнього Попруття VІІІ-Х ст., Чернівці.

Про сакральні функції східнослов’янського житла, [in:] П. Толочко, Д. Козак, С. Крижицький et al. (eds.), Археологічні студії, 1, Київ-Чернівці, p. 113-120.Прикраси ХІІ-першої половини ХІІІ ст. як відображення синкретичного світогляду давньоруського населення Буковини, Буковинський журнал, 3-4, p. 191-201.Почитание печи у восточных славян (по археологическим данным Днепровского Правобережья), [in:] С.А. Арутюнов, Т.А. Воронина (eds.), Хлеб в народной культуре: Этнографические очерки, Москва, p. 83-90. Культовые места и святилища славянского населения Верхнего Попрутья и Среднего Поднестровья, [in:] Н.А. Алексеенко, Д.Е. Афиногенов, Ю.А. Бабинов et al. (eds.), Sacrum et Profanum. Культ святых мест в древних и современных религиях, Севастополь, vol. i, p. 85-98.Эволюция погребального обряда славяно-русского населения Пруто-Днестровского междуречья VI-XIII вв.: мировоззренческий аспект, [in:] В.И. Гуляев (ed.), Теоретические и методические подходы к изучению погребального обряда в современной археологии. Тезисы докладов всероссийской научной конференции, Москва, p. 43-45.Прояви синкретичних релігійних уявлень за матеріалами поховань давньоруського населення Верхнього Попруття і Середнього Подністров’я, [in:] Л.В. Баженов, П.П. Брицький, Г.К. Кожолянко et al. (eds.), Питання стародавньої та середньовічної історії, археології й етнології, 1 (21), Чернівці, p. 16-27.Християнські культові споруди давньоруського часу Верхнього Попруття і Середнього Подністров’я, [in:] Б. Остафійчук, І. Коваль, І. Остащук et al. (eds.), Християнська спадщина Галицько-Волинської держави: ціннісні орієнтири духовного поступу українського народу, Матеріали Міжнародної ювілейної наукової конференції, Івано-Франківськ, Галич, p. 136-141.

Слов’яни на Поділлі (VI-VII ст.н.е.), Київ.

Давньоруська язичницька споруда в с. Галиця, [in:] О.І. Сич, В.О. Балух, П.П. Брицький et al. (eds.), Питання стародавньої та середньовічної історії, археології й етнології, 1, Чернівці, p. 74-90.Християнські старожитності в межиріччі Верхнього Пруту та Середнього Дністра, Чернівці.Середньовічне населення межиріччя Верхнього Пруту та Середнього Дністра (ХІ-перша половина ХІІІ ст.), Чернівці.

Печери Середнього Подністров’я в історії населення регіону: автореферат дисертацiї кандидата історичних наук, Чернівці.

Культовые места и языческие святилища славян VІ-ХІІІ вв., Российская археология, 4, p. 50-67.

Языческие святилища древних славян, Москва.

Pectoral reliquary-crosses from the Carpathian-Dniester Region, 11th-16th centuries, [in:] M. Salamon, M. Wołoszyn, A. Musin, P. Špehar, M. Hardt, M.P. Kruk, A. Sulikowska-Gąska (eds.), Rome, Constantinople and Newly-Converted Europe: Archaeological and

561


Sedov = Седов В.В.1982

Sveshnikova, Tsyvian = Свешникова Т.В., Цивьян Т.В. 1979

Timoshchuk = Тимощук Б.А. 1959 1969 1976 1982 1989

1990 1992

Timoshchuk, Prikhodnyuk = Тимощук Б.О., Приходнюк О.М.1969

Timoshchuk, Rusanova = Тимощук Б.А., Русанова И.П. 1983

Timoshchuk, Rusanova, Mikhailina = Тимощук Б.А., Русанова И.П., Михайлина Л.П. 1981

Voinarovskiy = Войнаровський В.М. 1992

address of the author:

канд. історичних наукЮлiя МиськоЧернівецький національний університет ім. Ю. ФедьковичаКоцюбинського 2 Чернівці 58012УКРАЇНАe-mail: [email protected]

Historical Evidence, U źródeł eUroPy ŚrodKoWo-WScHodniej / FrüHzeit oStMitteleUroPAS 1,2, Kraków-leipzig-rzeszów-Warszawa, vol. ii, p. 527-543.

Восточные славяне в VI-XIII веках, Москва.

К функциям посуды в восточнороманском фольклоре, [in:] В.Д. Королюк (ed.), Этническая история восточных романцев: древность и средние века, (Cборник статей), Москва, p. 147-190.

Ленковецкое древнерусское городище, Советская археология, 4, p. 251-257. Північна Буковина – земля слов’янська, Ужгород. Слов’яни Північної Буковини V-ІХ ст., Київ.Давньоруська Буковина (Х-перша половина ХІV ст.), Київ.Об археологических признаках восточнославянских городищ-святилищ, [in:] П. Толочко (ed.), Древние славяне и Киевская Русь, Киев, p. 74-83.Восточнославянская община VI-Х вв. н.э., Москва. Василів – місто Галицької Русі, Чернівці.

Ранньослов’янські пам’ятки VI-VII ст. в Середньому Подністров’ї, [in:] В.І. Бідзіля (ed.), Слов’яно-руські старожитності, Київ, p. 71-79.

Славянские святилища на Среднем Днестре и в бассейне Прута, Советская археология, 4, p. 161-173.

Итоги изучения славянских памятников Северной Буковины V-X вв., Советская археология, 2, p. 80-93.

Підплитові поховання давньоруського могильника Борівці на Буковині, [in:] П.П. Толочко (ed.), Археологічні дослідження, проведені на території України протягом 80-х років державними органами охорони пам’яток та музеями республіки, (Тематичний збірник наукових праць), Київ, p. 33-45.

dr iuliia Mysko

chernivtsi national University

Kotsiubynskogo 2 58012 chernivtsi

UKrAine e-mail: [email protected]

The religious beliefs of Slav population in the Upper Prut and the Middle Dniester region

Documents