«ZMIYOVY» (THE SERPENT’S) WALLS OF PEREIASLAV REGION IN THE SCIENTIFIC LEGACY OF DR. MIKHAILO KUCHERA

Abstract

Serpent’s wall was one of the types of archeological sites that fell into the field of scientific interests of Dr. Mikhailo Kuchera. The scholar devoted a significant part of his work to issues of the dating, purpose, features of the spatial configuration, and metric characteristics of these structures. In particular, he studied the Serpent’s wall of the Pereiaslav region, which includes three segments: Velykyi (the inner), Malyi (the outer) and Perekhresnyi ramparts. They covered from the northeast and east the area between the Dnieper, Trubizh and Supii rivers. In 1974, the Institute of Archeology of the USSR Academy of Sciences began ten years research on Serpent’s wall within the Middle Dnieper region. The results were published in Dr. Kuchera’s monograph «Zmievy valy Srednego Podneprov’ya (Serpent’s Wall of the Middle Dnieper)».
 In the book, the author provided data on the location of ramparts, their structural features and safety, the size of individual segments, dating and purpose and determined the effectiveness of their use for defense. The separate section of the monograph is devoted to the Pereiaslav Serpent’s Wall. It is also mentioned in other parts of the publication.
 In general, Dr. Kuchera has considered the most actual issues related to the Serpent’s Wall. He offered a brief overview of the history of their study, made an attempt to characterize the configuration of buildings, and formed a version of the time of their creation and purpose. Most of his conclusions are based on Dr. Boris Shramko’s theory of the Karatul hillfort. In general, Dr. Kuchera considered the most pressing issues related to them. According to this theory, the Pereiaslav Serpent’s Wall is the remains of a giant settlement hillfort of Scythian times. Based on the results of Dr. Shramko research (in particular, the plan of Serpent’s Wall), Dr. Kuchera prepared the generalized description of the location of different segments of Serpent’s Wall of Pereiaslav region, provided the information about the length and created consolidated scheme of it. At the same time, he used the data on the Serpent’s Wall published by other researchers. In view of all this, he supported the Scythian version of the dating of the ramparts.
 In my opinion, the conclusions of Dr. Kuchera about the dating and purpose of the Pereiaslav Serpent’s Wall were premature. This is evidenced by the results of studies of these structures conducted over the past 25 years. Despite this, the information offered by scholars was important for the study of Pereiaslav Serpent’s Wall. Dr. Kuchera created a generalized review in which he accumulated and analyzed a significant part of the available data on these sites. Thus, he managed to form the most holistic at the time idea of the history of the study, spatial features, dating and purpose of these structures.