Rus Lands Research Articles

ЮЖНАЯ РУСЬ И ПРИКАРПАТЬЕ (ЮГО-ЗАПАДНАЯ РУСЬ) В ПЕРИОД МОНГОЛЬСКОГО НАШЕСТВИЯ: ПРОБЛЕМЫ НОВЕЙШЕЙ ИСТОРИОГРАФИИ

A revival of interest towards the Mongol invasion could be mentioned in the last years. In the latest researches, conserning problem of the invasion on the Southern and South-Western Rus lands, on the one hand, specialists state new thesises, based on sources, wich were not used still in the context of this problematics, on the other hand, scholars inspecting hardened beliefs, basing on new sources. Series of articles written by A.V. Mayorov, are dedicated to history of the Southern and South-Western Rus of the Mongol invasion period. Re-examined relations between south Russian princes and invaders. Ascertained directions and geographical limits of mongol drives, dates, number and position of taken towns, specifics of their assaults. Conclusions of the scholar are based on wide usage of western sources and detailed analyses of Russian

Influence of European humanism after trento concilium on the Ukrainian renaissance worldview formation

The article presents a comprehensive analysis of historiosophical Polish influence on the formation of Renaissance ideas and their reflection in ideology structure of the Ukrainian people. The author analyzes the basic ideas of humanism factors that penetrated into ethnic Ukraine – Rus lands, their point and the ideological sources and highlights the extent of their impact on the denomination and religious life of the Ukrainian people in the renaissance period.

Что нового в Киевской Руси?

Vadim Aristov outlines prospective directions for the study of Medieval Rus lands or, alternatively, East European Medieval history. He lists seven main objectives: deconstruction of seemingly self-evident concepts used to frame the historical narrative; critical revision of the available pool of primary sources; reflection on the analytical language of scholars; rehabilitation of the material aspect of the past currently overshadowed by textual projections; transcendence of the territorial and conceptual constraints imposed by national history; revolutionary innovation of themes and approaches to the study of the period; and last, but not least, proliferation of dialogue between different historiographic schools and traditions.

Rus’, Russia and National Identity

Discussing the contest for the legacy of Kievan Rus during the medieval and early modern periods of East history, Paul Bushkovitch opined that this question was essentially meaningless. What does it mean today to claim the heritage of Kievan Rus', a rather backward early medieval society whose primary cultural products emerged Orthodox Christianity and a monarchical political order? Many nineteenth-century scholars thought the issue irrelevant. Nevertheless, Bushkovitch concluded, the quest for answers to that question did produce useful scholarship.' Bushkovitch's opinion is a decided minority, if not a minority of one.2 The question of the role of Kyivan (Kievan) in schemas of East history lies at the base of Oleh S. llnytzkyj's sharp review of a new anthology edited by Simon Franklin and Emma Widdis entitled National Identity in Culture. An Introduction (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2004).3 llnytzkyj's review elicited a reply by Franklin on the listserv of the Early Studies Association,4 which in turn lead to llnytzkyj's reply, in which noted that Franklin had declined an invitation to respond on the pages of Canadian Slavonic Papers and extended that invitation to members of the Slavic interpretative community.5Scholarly disagreement in and of itself need not be depressing; indeed sometimes it is stimulating and productive. But this non-conversation, non-debate is unfortunate and troubling, not so much because it involves professional scholars but because of its tone. Alas, it has long since become apparent that the break-up of the Soviet Union and the re-establishment of an independent Ukraine have not led to an amelioration of the nationalist passion which has long characterized discussions of Ukrainian-Russian relations.Ilnytzkyj's main criticism can be summarized fairly simply. He objects most of all to the conceptual schema of the book, namely its references to a millennium of history and search for identity, which, seemingly, ignoring the classic objections of Mykhailo Hrushevs'kyi, confers the scholarly seal of approval on the Great nationalist usurpation of Kyivan (Kievan) Rus'. Ilnytzkyj finds that the authors of the anthology use the terms and Russia as synonyms, thereby excluding the Ukrainians and Belarusans East history. Ilnytzkyj deems the work not only wrong but also dangerous because of the harm it would inflict, presumably on unsuspecting students with impressionable minds (p. 128).I do not propose here to deal with theories of nationalism or the thorny issue whether national identity of any sort can be projected onto Kyivan (Kievan) or early modern Muscovy. I have already expressed skepticism that the concept of the Land of Rus' (russkaia zemlia), which figures repeatedly in the articles in the anthology, reflected consciousness through the fifteenth century.6 But as a reformed sinner in translating russkaia zemlia as the Russian Land, for which I am still atoning,7 I am motivated to try to contribute something useful on the relevant issues of medieval and early modern history. Franklin describes as misrepresentations Ilnytzkyj's insistence that the anthology transposes and Russia or makes exclusive claims to succession to Kyivan (Kievan) Rus'. To Franklin, repeating theories of a thousand years of history is not the same thing as endorsing them. There is no guarantee that this he said/they said dispute can be resolved; every reader is entitled to interpret the book as or she sees fit. I hope that by exploring the contents of the anthology on this question at least offers the possibility of shedding some light on the source of the disagreement.In the Preface the editors assert that questions about what was Russia, who were the Russians, and what was Russianness have been central for a thousand years, from the very first native literary and artistic endeavours of the 'Rus (ancestors of Russians, Ukrainians and Belorusians) in the eleventh and twelfth centuries (xi). …

Foreword to the past. A Cultural History of the Baltic People by Endre s> Bojtár (review)

538 SEER, 8o, 3, 2002 general increase in population and economic buoyancy acrossthe Rus lands. No less suggestive is the finding that changes in settlement patterns around Beloozero from the end of the thirteenth century resemble those in other regions.The ruralpopulation was dispersedand the 'compactnests'gave way to settlements with fewer inhabitants strung across extensive areas far from the terracesabove flood meadows of the earlierperiod. The material culture of these new settlements seems to have been poorer. Engagement in the fur tradeseems to have dwindled and agriculturenow became the chief means of support:self-sufficiencywas at a premium. A link is suggestedwith the 'crisis' of settlements concentrated within limited areas and reliant on constant trading. The authors might usefully have considered a connection with the impact of Mongol overlordship -not so much physical destruction as the dissolutionof intricatenexuses of exchange. Rural populations had reason to withdraw into the backwoods and minimize their exposure to census takers and tributecollectors. This studyis not confined to the materialcultureand naturalhabitatof the peoples living around Lake Beloozero. Culturo-religioustopics receive lively treatment,offeringilluminationto studentsof Muscovy as well as Old Rus. It is argued that the first parishes may date back to c. I200 and some later churches were built on the site of earlier structuresor burial grounds. In the fourteenth and subsequent centuriesnew parish churcheswere built to serve the now more widely distributedcommunities. Many were situatedin or near earlier sometimes abandoned settlements, as if to gain benediction or sacred qualities from them, or perhaps to confer them. While the exact mechanismsof such choices of siteremainunclear,one may surmisethatlocal people's inclinations were important, if not determinant. Conversely, the monasteriesfoundedfromthe late fourteenthcenturyonwardswere nearlyall built in 'virgin'lands, far from ancient settlement sites. There seems to have been ambivalence in conceptions of sacred space, common perhaps to the monks and ordinaryfolk.Fewsystematicregional surveyscan be saidto brim with ideas and suggestionsfor furtherresearch. This splendidwork is one of them. FacultyofHistory JONATHAN SHEPARD University ofCambridge Bojtar,Endre. Foreword tothePast.A Cultural Histoy oftheBalticPeople. Central EuropeanUniversityPress,BudapestandNew York,1999. xiii + 4I9 pp. Tables. Maps. Notes. Bibliography.Index. ?3I.95. IN the course of this study, Endre Bojt'arcites E. H. Carr'sobservation that 'when I am tempted, as I sometimes am, to envy the extreme competence of colleaguesengaged inwritingancient ormedievalhistory,I findconsolationin the reflectionthat they are so competent mainly because they are so ignorant about their subject'(WhatisHistoy?, I962, p. 9, cited on p. 250). This 'biting' comment perhapsbestencapsulatesthe messageof aworkwhichwillno doubt stir up controversyin the field of 'Baltology' or 'Baltic Studies'. The latter is definedhereas a disciplinewhich 'ina narrowsense [... .] dealswithlanguages REVIEWS 539 that ... .] form a separate family within the Indo-European linguistic group, such as the East Baltic Latvian, Lithuanian, the extinct West Baltic (Old) Prussian,and a few other less significantextinct languages and dialects' and, more broadly, 'the cultureof these languages and peoples' (pp. 3-4). Readers more used to the alternative,(geo)politicalconception of 'Baltic Studies' will thusfind only incidentalreferencesto Estonianculturalhistory.Bojtar'swork was originally published in I997 in his native Hungarian. Non-specialist readerswillfindthe English-languagetranslationhardgoing in places, butwill surelynot failto be impressedby the depth and breadthof scholarshipbehind a work which was eleven years in the making. In a comprehensive survey of earlierworkin the field (thebibliographyof 'referredliterature'runsto fortyfour pages), Bojtar challenges much of the conventional wisdom on Baltic prehistoryderivedfromthe disciplinesof archaeology,philology, ethnography and 'mythography'.He issuspiciousof thekindof all-encompassingstructuralist methodology favoured by the neo-comparativist school (the quote from Carr is employed in this context). Most notably, he criticizes a tendency to projectmodernunderstandingsofBaltic(andnational)consciousness(typically basedon language)backto themore distantpastandhighlightsthe difficultyof definingwhatis 'own'andwhat is 'alien'in Baltichistory. 'Writing about prehistory', asserts Bojtar, 'can only stumble about in a forest of often paradoxical hypotheses [since] through the lack of written sourcesneither archaeology nor linguisticsis able to create historicalfactsfor themselves. Historically, only that exists which can be connected to time' (p. 4I). He then goes on to illustratethis contention through an analysis of debates surroundingthe location of the Indo-European and Baltic Urheimats (part two, chapters I-3), before outlining a history of the Baltic tribes and peoples on the basis of written sources (part two, chapters4-6). After a brief section on Baltic...

Srednevekovoe rasselenie na Belom ozere by N. A. s> Makarov S. D. Zakharov , A. P. Buzhilova (review)

REVIEWS 537 Makarov, N. A., Zakharov, S. D., and Buzhilova, A. P. Srednevekovoe rasselenie na Belomozere.lazyki russkoy kul'tury,Moscow, 200I. 495 pp. Tables. Figures.Appendices. Bibliography.Priceunknown. IN recent years many publications have appeared on rural settlement in the vicinity of large towns enjoying political prominence, for example E. N. Nosov's on Novgorod and A. E. Leont'ev's on the regions of Rostov and Suzdal. Yet no major work has been devoted to the networks of smaller settlementswhich arose round natural features such as lakes without having any obviously dominant urban centre. This book presentsthe resultsof more than fifteenyears of fieldworkdirectedby N. A. Makarov,and his authorship or co-authorshipof most sectionsin the book bringsit coherence. The 'region' of Beloozero isdefinedasthe centraland north-easternpartsofthe fourteenthcentury principality of Beloozersk, comprising approximately 9,ooo square kilometres of territory round Lake Beloozero and the upper Sheksna. The avowed aim of the authorsis to reconstructthe networksof ruralpopulations. Some i8o sites containing materials datable to between the ninth and the thirteenth centuries have been registered and the majority are unfortified settlements.Coverage is given to such problems as the date when the town of Beloozero shiftedto its present-daylocation on the south shore of the lake at Beloozersk. Interesting points are made about the Slavs' migration into the area. Apparently the pre-existing Finnic settlements were orientated southwestwardsfrom the lake and the Sheksna;the 'Slavo-Rus' settlementscannot be regardedas their direct continuation, even though the main settlement of the Rus, the town of Beloozero, arose in close proximity to the Finnic sites. The prime concern of the project is, however, with patternsof settlementand economic organizationand with assessingchanges over time. Disciplinessuch as palaeopathology can shed light on changing ways of life, as well as on life spans and the incidence of diseases. For example, analysis of the skeletons suggestsvariationsin the kindsof load borne by men and women and some of the signs of wear on thirteenth-century bones are consistent with heavy engagement in agrarianwork. Most innovative of all is the attentionpaid to the interrelationshipbetween populations and their natural environment. As Makarov observes, one must neverforgetthatthe earlyRus settlementsof the north-eastand north-western arose in materiallypoor lands and that even the new groupingswere virtual islands, 'separated from one another by sizeable tracts of thinly populated territories'(p. 2I9). He also highlights the role of lakes in the formation of networksof settlementsin northernRus. The naturalresourcesin and around the lakes,ratherthan the riverwaysby themselves,could best supportcompact populations. Makarov and his colleagues lacked detailed maps of the terrain around Beloozero or cartographic surveys of the archaeological sites of northern Rus. Their conclusions are necessarilytentative, relying on surface surveys and trial trenches. Yet the parallelswith developments elsewhere in the north-east are clear. The number of rural settlements around Beloozero rose substantiallyfromthe eleventh centuryonwards,reachinga climax in the second half of the twelfth. Similartrendsare discerniblenot only in the northeast but also in the regions of the Desna and the Upper Don. This points to a 538 SEER, 8o, 3, 2002 general increase in population and economic buoyancy acrossthe Rus lands. No less suggestive is the finding that changes in settlement patterns around Beloozero from the end of the thirteenth century resemble those in other regions.The ruralpopulation was dispersedand the 'compactnests'gave way to settlements with fewer inhabitants strung across extensive areas far from the terracesabove flood meadows of the earlierperiod. The material culture of these new settlements seems to have been poorer. Engagement in the fur tradeseems to have dwindled and agriculturenow became the chief means of support:self-sufficiencywas at a premium. A link is suggestedwith the 'crisis' of settlements concentrated within limited areas and reliant on constant trading. The authors might usefully have considered a connection with the impact of Mongol overlordship -not so much physical destruction as the dissolutionof intricatenexuses of exchange. Rural populations had reason to withdraw into the backwoods and minimize their exposure to census takers and tributecollectors. This studyis not confined to the materialcultureand naturalhabitatof the peoples living around Lake Beloozero. Culturo-religioustopics receive lively treatment,offeringilluminationto studentsof Muscovy as well as Old Rus. It is argued that the first parishes may date back to c. I200 and...

The cult of St. Barbara in Kiev

Kyiv - “Jerusalem of the land of Rus” with its shrines, miraculous icons, churches, monasteries has always attracted thousands of pilgrims. For a long time, one of the most popular saints of Kiev was the martyr Barbarian.

The Territorial and Demographic Development of Medieval Kiev and Other Major Cities of Rus': A Comparative Analysis Based on Recent Archaeological Research

state, from the ninth to eleventh centuries, when Kiev exercised political domination over all the lands of Rus' and was its capital. In the subsequent period of the fragmentation of the Kievan state, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, Kiev lost its dominance to younger, rapidly developing, local Rus' cities/towns. After intensive expansion during the ninth to eleventh centuries, Kiev entered a period of political, economic, and demographic decline which lasted until the destruction of the city by the Mongols in 1240. These historians attribute the decline of Kiev to the division of Rus' into independent principalities that grew stronger during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, to the ever more frequent raids on the Kiev region by nomadic Polovtsian tribes; to the sacking of Kiev in internecine Rus' warfare, most notably in 1169; and to the loss of population brought about by these disasters. They maintain moreover that from the twelfth century Kiev lost its importance as an intermediary in the trade between Byzantium, the Islamic East, and Western Europe, as main trade routes connecting the Orient and Occident shifted from Rus' to the Mediterranean.2

Pushkin's Narratives and the Hex of Darkness

Among the great poets of the world Pushkin was the first to express with such power and passion the eternal opposition of the cultivated and the primitive man.D. S. MerezhkovksiiI would like to begin this investigation of Pushkinian thematics with a fable, or better perhaps, a parable of my own making.Once upon a time in the land of Rus’ there lived two brothers. And although they were sired by a noble father and reared as befits the sons of a nobleman, they differed from each other as the day differs from the night, for the elder brother was tall and fairhaired and born of a Russian princess, while the younger brother was swarthy, small, and the bastard son of a dark-skinned barbarian maiden.As the boys grew up, to these bodily differences were added spiritual ones. For the elder brother was a dutiful son, who honored his parents and heeded his teachers and obeyed the laws of the land. After coming of age he traveled to the capital city and learned the ways of the imperial court and found favor in the eyes of the tsar.