Pottery Complex of the Second Half 13th – First Half 15th Centuries from Excavations in Kamianets-Podilskyi

The paper analyses ceramics and buildings remains of the second half 13th – first half 15th centuries, coming from excavations in Kamianets-Podilskyi. It aims to introduce materials into scientific circulation, to compare the collection with synchronous objects from adjacent territories, to trace interactions in the material culture development in late medieval towns. Ceramics of the Golden Horde and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania times began to be systematically researched relatively recently in Ukraine. Thus, the materials from Kamianets-Podilskyi contribute to deepening our knowledge of less-known periods in the history of Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Materials analyzed were obtained during rescue archaeological research on the Polish Market square in Kamianets. These were fragmented parts of underground and aboveground building structures, as well as a collection of various household items. Building materials were mostly local clays and loam, less often wood and stone were used. A set of clay ‘roll’ blocks set in one of the pits allows us to assume similarity with the Golden Horde building technologies. Finds of coins and Crimean polychrome bowls fragments also indicate the complex emerged during the Golden Horde period. However, certain groups of pottery and coins of European minting define the complex upper date within the first half 15th century. Diverse ceramic types range from the complex is an interesting local typological phenomenon. It reflects mutual influences of the pottery traditions development both in time and space. After processing artefacts collection, the main groups of pottery were identified according to technological features. Some of them are rooted in the local ancient Rus’ traditions, others were formed under the influence of Western trends, while samples of a ‘specific’ group were common for almost the entire territory of modern Ukraine during Late Middle Ages. Pots collection was preliminary systematized up to 5 most common types selection, based on rim profiles. Many of them have a wide range of analogies, locally from Kamianets, as well as from the Western Ukraine, in Poland, Moldova and Romania. In addition to pots, the collection includes other types of kitchen and tableware, such as makitras, lids, jars and other single samples of ceramics. The typological diversity correlates with the multi-layered processes which took place in Kamianets-Podilskyi life during the Golden Horde and the Lithuanian periods. Materials from the complex, as well as other finds from synchronous objects within the city, deepen our understanding of the city’s development large-scale picture, which, however, requires further research.

Privilege was given to Kamiаnets City by Princes Yuri (George) and Alexander Koriatovych in 1374: Lists and Interpretations

The privilege which was given to Kamianets city in Podillia by Princes Yuriy (George) and Alexander Koriatovych in 1374 is quite famous in the scientific community. It is believed that due to this privilege Kamianets received Magdeburg Law. Up to now it only has been preserved in a few lists which were studied in detail by Yu. Sitsinskyi in his work "Podillia under the Rule of Lithuania". According to him two lists were kept in Kamianets Historical and Archaeological Museum: one in the diploma of King August III dated June 17, 1735, the second one in the diploma of King Stanislaw Augustus dated May 29, 1765. Besides in the State Archives of Khmelnytskyi Oblast we managed to come across several lists of this document. We are talking about the fund no. 120 "Podillia Chief Court" which has 4043 units of storage for the period 1796–1831 years. Until 2003 it was stored in Kamianets-Podilskyі City Archive. After the fire which occurred in April 2003 all materials were transported to the State Archives of Khmelnytskyi Oblast and restored. The texts of this privilege are contained in the following cases: 1) Inventory 1, case 3352: The case of lands belonging to the city of Kamianets. Volume 1. It was begun in 1537. It was completed in 1730. It had 240 sheets; 2) Inventory 1, case 1631: concerning the boundaries of Kamianets-Podilskyi city with adjacent possessions and state settlements. Volume 1: It was begun on November, 24 1799. It was completed on June, 11 1800. It had 130 sheets. In the first case we have only one version of the privilege in Polish (no. 1). The document was restored, glued of two parts with an offset of one line. The privilege is dated November 7, 1374. We do not know anything about this list at the moment. In the second case four lists were preserved. Polish versions are on sheets of 20–20 versus (no. 2) and 56–57 versus (no. 3) which had been dated November 7, 1374 and two translations into Russian are on sheets 6–6 versus. (no. 4) 21–22 versus (no. 5) with similar dating. Exactly this case is very interesting since this document had been used in the lawsuit concerning land demarcation in Kamianets-Podilskyi after the capture of Podillia by the Russian Empire in 1793. At the end of the article an academic version of the text privilege in Polish as well as a Russian translation of these archival cases are published.

Stepan Borysenok: to the Portrait of the Scientist

The history of the law in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania has always attracted the attention of researchers. The productive period in its study was the activity of the Commission for the Study of the History of Western-Ruthenian and Ukrainian Law of All-Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (hereafter AUAS). The theoretical achievements of the commission are significant. Nowadays some of its members’ works have been republished with modern commentaries, and separate studies have been devoted to them. But there are such members whose works do not have any historiographical researches despite their great scientific achievements. One of them is the historian Stefan (Stepan) Hnatovych Borysenok (May 17, 1891 – November 14, 1937). Borysenok was a talented and extraordinary researcher. This article presents his biographical data as well as the theoretical achievements of the scientist are analyzed. The scientific achievements of the researcher in the field of law history are not very large. They are about 10 works (thorough scientific articles) and several reviews. They were significant for that time. However a few decades later after writing of these articles modern researchers point to a significant number of inaccuracies and errors in his works. S. Borysenok’s works were highly appreciated by his contemporaries and scientific mentors M. Vasylenko and O. Malynovsky. First of all they were impressed by the fact that he always tried to turn to primary sources and was critical to the works of his predecessors. His works show an excellent knowledge of the historiography of a particular research problem. In addition S. Borysenok being a lawyer by education was able to analyze in more details the certain problems that were not always clear to historians. The issues related to the First Lithuanian Statute and the history of the Bar in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania had been researched by S. Borysenok since the middle of 1920s. In particular the main subject of his research in Moscow archives was "History of the Bar in Ukraine in the 16th–18th Centuries. The special articles of the researcher are interesting and original. Among them are such articles as "Formation of a Professional Bar in the Lithuanian-Ruthenian State", "Lawyer's Fee in the Lithuanian Principality in the 16th–17th Centuries" (The latter was published in the 7th issue of the "Proceedings of the Commission for the Study of the History of Western-Ruthenian and Ukrainian Law". But that issue was destroyed). One of the greatest work by S. Borysenok concerns the history of the Bar formation in the first half of the 16th century. Also in the late 1920's the researcher had been preparing for publication a thorough work with focus on the Lithuanian Statute (history of drafting the code, sources, lists). Correspondence with Lithuanian researcher A. Janulaitis (the ancestor of the Lithuanian Statutes historiography) indicates that the manuscript of this work (or a significant part of it) probably existed. At the same time the facts of cooperation with Lithuanian historians are recorded and they give us the opportunity to hope that the lost achievements of the researcher can still be found and introduced into scientific circulation. And we are convinced that they will be the impetus for the new scientific research and will cause a significant number of scientific discussions. In the early 1930's S. Borysenok was an employee at the library. He actively worked at the acquisition of the library fund with foreign professional publications. He tried to establish and systematize international exchange. On September 23, 1937 S. Borysenok was arrested on trumped up charges of alleged involvement in an "anti-Soviet nationalist organization". On October 25 of the same year he was sentenced to death via shooting (executed on November, 14).

«On the Model of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania»: Prospects of Integration of Cossack Ukraine into Compound of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1658–1659 (Expectations and Realities)

The article explores the discursive questions connected with the preparation and conclusion of the Ukrainian-Polish treaty of Hadiach in 1658. In particular, the content of the agreement and factors that led to the fact that the idea of the Hadiach treaty (realignment of the Commonwealth into a state of three nationalities) remained unrealised are analysed. The attention was paid to the fact that Polish-Ukrainian negotiations and the conclusion of the agreement in the set near Hadiach in 1658 were conditioned by a number of factors relating to the current Ukrainian-Polish, Ukrainian-Moscow and Polish-Moscow relations. The prime factor that made the Hetman’s government of Ivan Vyhovsky negotiate with the authorities of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was the fact that it looked for a medium of reconciliation and further state development of Ukraine because there was a growing threat from Moscow. In Warsaw, in return, having made the most from the dire situation of Ukraine, the authorities longed for solving the “Ukrainian question” by the peaceful return of the lost Ukrainian territories in 1648. They also hoped that in the context of successful development of negotiations with Chigirin, it would be possible to get an advantage over Moscow in the long-running confrontation over dominance in CEE. The content of the treaty of Hadiach that was worked out during the long negotiations mirrored the trend when the Ukrainian part, which was more interested and acted with a weak diplomatic hand, had to agree to the terms dictated by Warsaw. Although, in general, the position of Ukraine in the reformed Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth should have resembled the position of Lithuania, Chigirin was forced to accept territorial restrictions, Warsaw's refusal to liquidate the church union, and so on. The author concluded that the prime factor, which eventually led to the collapse of the idea of Hadiach, was the reluctance of the Polish political elite to recognise equal rights for Ukraine and the Cossacks, and the fact that Warsaw sleepwalked when Moscow troops invaded Ukraine and Hetman Vyhovsky desperately needed the promised help.

One of the ‘New City’ (Shahr Al-Jadid) Copper Coin Types: Reading the Obverse Legend

The article deals with two particular topics of Juchid numismatics. The author examines the legend written in Arabic letters on the obverse of copper coins struck at Shahr al-Jadid, a town once located on the site of nowadays’ Old Orhei settlement (Moldova). Researchers use to attribute the coinage of this type to the final stage of Juchid presence in the region (second half of the 1360s). Silver coins of that period, save for the latest issues (AH 769–770), bear the name of Khan ʿAbd Allah (1363–1370). As for copper coins, all belonging to the same undated type, those were long considered anonymous. Early in the 2000s the Romanian numismatist Eugen Nicolae suggested to see on them the Turkic name ﻗﺘﻠﻐﺒﻮﻏﺎ Kutluğboğa, implying certain graphic errors in the coin inscriptions. On the basis of written sources researchers use to associate this name with one of the Juchid Khan’s regional governors, a dignitary who took part in negotiations with Venice in the middle of 1340–1350 and later also in the battle against the Lithuanian prince Olgerd’s army at Sinie Vody (‘Blue Waters’) in 1362. Two completely different reading versions of the same coin inscription have induced the author to carry out a study aimed at clarifying the real spelling and translation of the obverse legend. In the course of joint work with colleagues (Vladimir Nastich), the author has come to the conclusion that Eugen Nicolae’s reading of the obverse legend on the copper coins in question is critically erroneous and the proposed reading of the legend as the name Kutluğboğa is impossible, which is confirmed by a detailed analysis of the arabographic legend, accompanying with high quality photos of clearer samples. The author has succeeded to reaffirm the reading of the legend proposed by Svetlana Yanina in 1977. Vladimir Nastich offered a refined translation of the cited expression as “glorious [is] who is moderate”. Other types of Juchid copper coins of the late 14th century containing the same legend were also found. A similar dictum was detected as part of a more complete saying on a copper coin of the Qajar dynasty (Rasht, AH 1229 / 1813–1814 [Zeno numismatic database, #9077]). All this has led the author to transferring his search from numismatics to Islamic texts. As a result, the cited saying has been found among the Hadith ascribed to Prophet Muhammad. Spelling, transcription and translation of the expression look like this: ﻋﺰ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻨﻊ ﻭذل ﻣﻦ طمع ʿazza man qanaʿa wa-d̠alla man ṭamaʿa “glorious [is] who is moderate, and despicable [is] who is greedy”. The result of the described work can be outlined in several paragraphs: The legend on the ‘New City’ copper coin obverse is not Turkic as per Eugen Nicolae, just Arabic. Instead of whatever name, it contains the first part of the saying ﻋﺰ ﻣﻦ ﻗﻨﻊ ʿazza man qanaʿa “glorious [is] who is moderate”. The cited saying is present within the set of Hadith allegedly uttered by Prophet Muhammad. Thus, the question of correctness of its reading and translation can be considered settled and closed. The text of Hadith has been fixed on a Juchid coin for the first time. The use of part of the Hadith in the design of a mass coin issued in Eastern Europe before the withdrawal of the Juchids requires special attention and further study. The article should be interesting to historians and numismatists studying the history of Juchi Ulus, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the earliest history of the Moldavian principality, Islamic numismatics, and also to all those who are curious about the given topic.

Acceptance of Swedish Protection by J. Radziwill in 1655: Contemporaries’ Assessments and Hetman’ Motives

The article highlights the perception and assessments of contemporaries of the Grand Hetman of Lithuania Janusz Radziwill's acceptance of Swedish protection in 1655 and examines the reasons for such a step by the Hetman through the prism of his own vision and understanding of the then difficult situation of the principality and ways out. It is determined that after the attack of Swedish troops on the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the summer of 1655, the situation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania deteriorated sharply, as its territory became the epicenter of military confrontation (at the same time the war with the Moscow state). In such a situation, J. Radziwill and part of the political elite considered the adoption of Swedish protection to be an effective means of saving the principality. It is established that his step provoked the accusation of contemporaries of betraying the Commonwealth and King Jan Casimir. It was found that the important reason for J. Radziwill's acceptance of Swedish protection was the lack of support from Warsaw in the face of a military threat to the principality from Sweden and Muscovy, and thus the impossibility of fighting them at the same time. The factor that prompted the hetman to take such a step was the capture of Vilna by Russian troops and the capitulation of the crown army near Uyscem in late July 1655. On the one hand, Lithuania's acceptance of the protection of the Swedish monarch threatened the integrity of the Commonwealth, which according to the results of the Union of Lublin in 1569 was proclaimed a state of two components – the Crown and Lithuania. However, on the other hand, given the fact that Lithuania was left alone with the military aggression of Muscovy and Sweden, it was an attempt to save the principality and strengthen its political influence.

The Problem with the State Sovereignty of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania during the Reign of Alexander Yahailavich (1492–1501)

The death of Kazimir IV Yahailavich in 1492 led to the break of the personal union between the Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania. These two states had got separate monarchs, who became the sons of Kazimir – Jan Olbracht and Alexander. The period of 1492–1501, the Alexander’s reign in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, was a serious test for the independence of this state. The transition from a personal to the more formal dynastical union had been thrown the Grand Duchy before a hard dilemma. On the one hand it wanted to keep the alliance with Poland that already had a long historical tradition, was supported by a large body of agreements and provided its benefits. On the other hand the Grand Duchy sought to defend its sovereign rights that the Poland had not recognized always. There are a number of facts that could proof the perception by Poland and Jan Olbracht of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Alexander as subordinated powers. For instance, Jan Olbracht named himself as a Supreme Duke of Lithuania. He used to conclude international agreements in the name of Aleksandr. The King of Poland tried to appoint the Catholic bishops in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In his tern Alexander sometimes emphatically referred to him as his elder brother in official documents. He also used to mint coins with the coat of arms of not only the Grand Duchy of Lithuania but also the Kingdom of Poland. Specific features at that time was that they were strongly conditioned by the family ties of two monarchs. All of Kazimir’s sons, including Jan Olbracht and Alexander sought to maintain family and dynastic unity, to support each other. It came in full force in the international relations. For example two or even three of the Yahajlavichy brothers could enter into an agreement with foreign states. In general, we can say that some signs of dependence of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania on Kingdom of Poland, which still be traced, belonged mainly to the external, symbolic attributes of statehood. They hardly hurt the fundamental principles of sovereignty of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The more acute problem was the union between the two states. The conditions to elect Alexander as a King of Poland was a new bilateral agreement. The Piotrkau-Mielnik Union of 1501 became such an agreement. In actual fact, it covered a fusion of two states into the one country, one king, one soim (parliament) and so on. But this plan had never become truth. The ratification of the union was postponed for a long time in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and in 1505 it was denied any approves at all. As a result, the states turned back to the personal union, to that type of relations exciting before 1492. For the Grand Duchy of Lithuania it meant to keep on the sovereign state status.

Loev Campaign of Ukrainian Army in 1649: Debating Points and Open Questions

One of the significant events of Ukraine's struggle for independence during the first period of the National Revolution (1648 – June 1652) was Loev campaign of its troops, which despite the defeat and hetman S.M. Krychevsky’s death nevertheless prevented the Lithuanians invasion. Though for the first time in historiography V. Lypynskyі proved convincingly in his monographic study the falsity of neglecting its role in the Ukrainian-Polish military-political confrontation in the summer of 1649, as well as the works of subsequent scholars (including modern ones) did. But up to now Lithuanian theater of hostilities has been considered traditionally as an event with a minor effect. However this is far from the case! For example although it was not decisive in 1649 and 1651, it is by no means possible to interpret as something insignificant. It is firstly. Secondly, except for confessions ("confession") of captured Ukrainian soldiers and rebels, the lack of Ukrainian origin sources (no one letter, universal, report, diary, message or the story of the battle participant have been saved) is still a major obstacle for the reconstruction by the researchers of more or less a complete picture of the Ukrainian army’s Loev campaign. They only managed to reproduce the most important events in very general / contour features and even then through the prism of information material from Lithuanian and Polish sources. Instead, its course with the Lithuanian units’ participation is depicted scrupulously thanks to the efforts of Polish authors. However in general due to the schematic presentation of the Ukrainian command strategic plan, the steps taken for its implementation, the factors that significantly changed the course of the battle and determined its results, the overall panorama of the event looks somewhat simplified, devoid of internal dynamics and drama and in some ways with the spraying of popularity while imaging the infallibility of the Lithuanian polny hetman J. Radziwill decisions and actions. In order to outline the ways to correct shortcomings and fill scientific gaps the author’s research focus is on identifying a number of actual problems of the Ukrainian army’s Loev campaign. Having analyzed heritage and discovered source base, the author considers those actual problems need rethinking, finding new ways to solve them, further discussions or even starting their study. They included the following ones: to clarify the essence of B. Khmelnytsky's strategic plan, developed in May-June, regarding the place and role of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) in the forthcoming campaign against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth; to find out the time and place of the Acting Hetman S. Krychevsky departure to the Lithuanian theater of hostilities and the route of its promotion; to specify the number of soldiers who took part in the battle on both sides; to find out the essence of S. Krychevsky’s activity since his appearance in Chernobyl (about July, 8) till the capture of Kholmech (July, 29); to determine the nature of his relations with colonel S. Pobodailo, who defended the crossing of the Dnieper opposite Loev; to coverage the action plan of the latter, the reasons for their passivity and inconsistency with the attack of the Acting Hetman on the Lithuanian camp in the morning of July, 31, etc. The author is aware that hoping for their full clarification will be a fiction until the sources which had been created by Ukrainians, the participants of the campaign are found. Nevertheless, the painstaking work of researchers in archives and manuscripts departments of scientific libraries in Ukraine, Poland, Belarus, Lithuania and other countries will undoubtedly enrich the existing source base as a whole and contribute, albeit slightly, to enrich knowledge in the study of this problem.

Moldova's Relations with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the Second Half of the 14th Century – Beginning of the 15th Century (until the Treaty of Lublau in 1412)

In the middle and second half of the 14th century, significant territorial changes took place in Central, Eastern, and Southeastern Europe. The old political structures, which by that time had outlived their usefulness, were replaced by new ones: the revived Kingdom of Poland, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and the Moldavian principality. These changes took place in a fierce struggle, with confrontations on the battlefield giving way to confrontations on the diplomatic front. In addition to the above-mentioned political formations, the Hungarian king also had an important place in this struggle. Louis the Great of Anjou at one time united the Hungarian and Polish crown into his own hands, after the death of Casimir the Great Polish king who had no male offspring. The Moldovan rulers took advantage of the international political conjuncture in this space, who skillfully conducted their foreign policy based on the principle of the balance of power. First, the problem of heredity in Poland and then in the Hungarian kingdom itself undoubtedly contributed to the strengthening of a still very young state that appeared in the middle of the 14th century, first as a Hungarian march, and which was tasked with moving eastward, and then as an independent state. However, at that time, every political entity had a suzerain, which gave him the right to exist. Vasal addiction varied from case to case. In turn, when such an opportunity arose, the Moldovan rulers could change their overlords based on political interest. In this, they used the strength and power of the Lithuanian princes. At first, being in allied relations with the Koriatovichs, the Moldovan rulers strengthened their state, and then, by the will of fate, they developed friendly relations with Vitovt / Alexander and tried not to spoil relations with him, participating in those planned through the Grand Duke of Lithuania. A special test for the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was the war with the Teutonic Order, which broke out in 1409. The Moldavian soldiers again took part in the Battle of Grunwald in 1410. However, the problem was that the Teutons were supported by the Hungarian king, Sigismund of Luxembourg, who wanted to return the Hungarian influence in Moldova. Thus, the Moldavian principality was drawn into the tangle of international relations in this area where the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was of great importance.

Material Resource of Officials of Kyiv and Volhynian Lands in the Middle of the XVI Century

The article analyzes such an important aspect of the functioning of offices in Ukrainian lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, as material support. The focus is on positions that have survived the Lithuanian era and continued to be distributed by monarchs after the Union of Lublin in 1569. The central place was occupied by the palatinus (voivode), which, however, existed only in the Kyiv region. The Kyiv voivode had considerable resources at his disposal, which were of territorial origin can be divided into three groups. The first was income from their voivodship in uniform taxes, privilegia, and duties, which burdened various segments of society in Kyiv. The second group was formed at the expense of the Grand Duke for voivode preferences for the collection of tribute from territories that have not traditionally been within the jurisdiction of Kyiv voivode. The source of the third group was the goodwill of the Grand Duke in Vilna. The funds of this group were allocated directly from the states thesaurus. Already the very structure of income of the head of the Kyiv region indicates a permanent lack of resources for providing various functions assigned to it and primarily related to defense and diplomatic missions to the Crimea. Hence the need for periodic and sometimes constant subsidies aimed at the effective implementation of the voivode’s responsibilities. From this point of view, the position of the capitaneus, especially of the Southern Kyiv region, looked a little better. Significant profits were brought to them by tributes from trapers and Cossacks, various duties, including court, business taxes on the territory of old age. Indirect income was also given by labor duties imposed on the local population. The degree of subordination of these elders to the voivode was relatively insignificant. The institute of capitaneus in Volhyn was even more important given the absence in the region such a government as a voivode. Marshal of the Volhynian land, who was a conditional analog of the Kyiv voivode, had only military power in the region, and his income depended on capitaneatus, which went complete with the office of marshal (Lutsk or Volodymyr). The governments of the claviger, praefectus castrorum, and pontonarius functioned in both regions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Their power was concentrated in the key castles of both lands – Kyiv, Lutsk, Volodymyr, Kremenets and the jurisdiction of the locksmith concerned the tenuta – settlements within the old age, the income from which should have gone to public needs. The influence of crown law should be explained by the appearance of vexillator and tribunus, whose activities involved little material support. The reform of 1565–1566 marked the beginning of the work of the succamerarium and terrestre judicium, which became the organs of the gentry municipality. Activities of chanceries and presence of officials there included in the terrestris hierarchy – succamerarius, terrestris judex, subjudex, and notarius, provided for the provision of judicial, notarial, and surveying services on a paid basis. In general, the material support of the governments of the Ukrainian lands of the Grand Duchy Lithuanian was not systematic. Often, especially concerning Kyiv voivode, the prince approved the decision on additional funding from the treasury. Reform 1565–1566 did not add organization in this regard. Instead, it was a plus regulation of sources of funding for newly formed governments – succamerarius, terrestris judex, subjudex, and notarius.