Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
  • noneedit
  • Historianedit
In the medieval Rus written sources from the 11th-13th centuries are mentioned sledges as a medium for transportation of body of dead person to the church for burial. This is present in descriptions of funerals of Rus' rulers and... more
In the medieval Rus written sources from the 11th-13th centuries are mentioned sledges as a medium for transportation of body of dead person to the church for burial. This is present in descriptions of funerals of Rus' rulers and translations of remains of blessed Boris and Gleb. The analysis of these mentions could not give unambiguous answer to the question if we have here to do with practical or prestigious employment of transportation medium, or with a ritual. This problem needs further research. In this paper, the iconography of the painted miniatures from books and icons, from the 14th-16th centuries, is investigated. The aim was to examine their credibility, compatibility with written sources, the grade of artistic fiction and reflection of reality of the times when pictures were made. The question was also raised if the examined pictures introduce new information about the use of sledges in funeral ceremonials of Rus' rulers in the early medieval period. One miniature from the Silvester Codex is here of importance: it shows body of prince Boris carried for burial on the sledge into the Church of St. Basil in Wyshegrad near Kiev. As the written sources did not mention use of sledge during this event, it makes one wonder why the painter presented ceremony in such a way. It seems obvious that the painter knew about the ritual, in which body on the sledge was carried - not drawn as transportation - to the church. The sledge seems to belong as an accepted part of funeral ritual, probably with ancient tradition, possible also in use in later times. In the paper, finally, the need of further iconographic research was stressed. They have to be placed within their context, understood as integral parts of the manuscripts and icons, and whole art from the period.
In the article the Author is considering the correct translation of passage from the Tale of Past Years about events which took place after the death of Vladimir the Great in the year of 1015. He puts the question: How did the body of the... more
In the article the Author is considering the correct translation of passage from the Tale of Past Years about events which took place after the death of Vladimir the Great in the year of 1015. He puts the question: How did the body of the deceased Vladimir removed from the chamber? In Authors opinion, A.A. Kotljarewskis hypothesis, in which body of Vladimir was not carried out through the door in accordance to old pagans custom, is baseless. It is however possible, that body was drained on the ground through opening , which was made in the floor of aboveground of the passage between two buildings.
In the late autumn of 2020, a group of archaeologists from the city of Kalisz, Poland, undertook some research in the village of Słuszków (woj. wielkopolskie/PL). It was here in 1935 that one of the greatest hoards dating back to the... more
In the late autumn of 2020, a group of archaeologists from the city of Kalisz, Poland, undertook some research in the village of Słuszków (woj. wielkopolskie/PL). It was here in 1935 that one of the greatest hoards dating back to the beginning of the 12th century (»Słuszków 1«) had been discovered. The aim of the expedition was only to establish the position of this find, but in the course of a metal detector survey, something unexpected happened – the discovery of another hoard (»Słuszków 2«). The first hoard, which had been divided among people in the village, was initially large. It could have contained up to 20,000 coins and probably more silver ornaments than the number that have survived from this find. It is estimated that the original deposit weighed 15kg, so it would be the largest known hoard from the turn of the 11th and 12th centuries from Poland. The second deposit from Słuszków consists of 6,500 items, most of them coins, mainly Saxon and Polish cross deniers, and several dozen different European coins, as well as flat silver ingots, pieces of lead and four gold finger-rings. The latter items are the first finds of this type in Viking-age Polish hoards. On one finger-ring there is a Cyrillic inscription suggesting the origin of the ring from the Kiev Principality. The three other rings were possibly produced according to Byzantine-Carolingian tradition in Germany in the Ottonian or Salian Periods. Two large groups of cross deniers found in this deposit were previously known almost exclusively from the Słuszków 1 hoard. They were minted at the turn of the 11th and 12th centuries, probably in the mint in Kalisz or in its vicinity. Their issue is hypothetically attributed to the Polish ruler Zbigniew († 1111?). Also noteworthy is a fragment of an official coin of Duke Władysław Herman († 1102), showing his name and image, minted in Cracow after 1080. Other notable finds are examples of very rare large deniers issued by Palatine Sieciech († ca. 1110). These coins are the first private issues of bullion coins in Poland by a known and recognized magnate. Among the several dozen foreign coins, it seems that the most recent one is a denier of King Ladislaus I the Saint of Hungary († 1095), minted at the earliest in the 1080s. In the case of the two hoards from Słuszków, the concealment of such a large amount of precious metal items can probably be associated with some violent event, such as the war between two royal brothers, Zbigniew and Bolesław. The paper is a preliminary presentation of this new hoard and its contents.
The article looks in some detail at the question of letters written on birchbark even as it presents some the basic research issues involving birchbark manuscripts ("gramota") in general, including the first mentions of this form in the... more
The article looks in some detail at the question of letters written on birchbark even as it presents some the basic research issues involving birchbark manuscripts ("gramota") in general, including the first mentions of this form in the written sources in the Kitāb al-Fihrist and the so-called Questions of Kiryk. The author draws attention to the complex nature of the processes of reading, analyzing, interpreting and translating texts written on birchbark, which are literature on one hand, but archaeological sources on the other. Gramota are products of human activity, and the signs engraved on them contain information passed on in an act of communication. The author compares the significance of manuscripts on birchbark with that of narrative sources, noting the inestimable value of the former. Gramotas are to his view a kind of source material well suited to interdisciplinary studies.
The article presents the circumstances and context of finding a glass goblet in a woman’s grave in the Orthodox cathedral in the village of Krylos (near Halych, now in Ukraine) in 1937 and an attempt at reconstructing the shape of this... more
The article presents the circumstances and context of finding a glass goblet in a woman’s grave in the Orthodox cathedral in the village of Krylos (near Halych, now in Ukraine) in 1937 and an attempt at reconstructing the shape of this find. In addition to an overview of research on this topic, the article analyses the line of argumentation reflected in the literature, the ways in which researchers used their predecessors’ findings to create their own narratives and the sources that were explored in this process. The author concludes that it still impossible to identify with certainty either the woman in whose grave the goblet had been found or the man buried close to her in a sarcophagus (Yaroslav Osmomysl?). The dating of the goblet to the 12th c. is generally not questioned. The shape of the vessel was reconstructed on the basis of the synthetic monograph Staryy Halych from 1944. For this reconstruction, it was assumed that the lower part of the vessel resembled in shape the bottoms of glass vessels excavated in Vyshhorod near Kiev in 1935, and probably in Kiev itself in 1936–1937. A similarity of the Krylos goblet to the Kiev finds had already been noted by its discoverer Yaroslav Pasternak, but this fact was overlooked in later literature. The finds from Vyshhorod were first noted by Boris A. Rybakov, whose laconic mention in the 1948 study Remeslo drevney Rusi was cited quite uncritically by later researchers. However, publications lacked details on those items, especially on their dating and the context of their finding. According to an newer article by a Ukrainian researchers (2014), the glass vessel from the grave in Krylos is now in the collection of the National Museum in Lviv. Research that is currently being done in Ukrainian and Russian archives and museums reveals new and new data on excavations carried out in the first half of the 20th c., which may prove very valuable in describing the history of the single vessel focused on in this article as well as in exploring a wide range of other topics.
In his paper, the author concentrates on the comprehensive analysis of fragments of written records that he carried out in the context of the Battle of Zawichost. He starts with the review of sources such as Chronicle by Wincenty... more
In his paper, the author concentrates on the comprehensive analysis of fragments of written records that he carried out in the context of the Battle of Zawichost. He starts with the review of sources such as Chronicle by Wincenty Kadłubek, "Annals of the Cracow Chapter", "Old Cracow Annals", "Chronicle of Dzierzwa" and "Chronicle of Greater Poland". The author used a critical approach to those sources, the content of the written record and the reconstruction of the events. On the other hand, Ruthenian written records analysed by the author give us information about the Battle of Zawichost that is not confirmed by Polish sources. As a result, we are not able to state which sources contain original, primary information, and thus which should prevail.
The author presents the state of research and a critical review of existing hypotheses, aswell as a historical summary of issues related to the dating and attribution of the so-called Tamanbracteates. It is an excellent example of the... more
The author presents the state of research and a critical review of existing hypotheses, aswell as a historical summary of issues related to the dating and attribution of the so-called Tamanbracteates. It is an excellent example of the importance of the archaeological context, withoutwhich any interpretation is doomed to be based on more or less probable hypotheses. The authordoes not believe it possible today to attribute these „bracteates” to Vsevolod II Olgovič or toMstislav Vladimirovič, at least for now; he is also critical of any consideration in this contextof the seal attributed to Michael Oleg Svyatoslavič, as this artifact may very well be a modernfake. He shares the doubts of some researchers regarding the authenticity of newer finds ofsingle „bracteates”. He favors distinguishing three separate „bracteate” types: the first, bearing theso-called sign of the Rurikids, should be viewed as being of 11th c. date (it resembles the sign oncoins of Svyatopolk I), whereas the other two, both with representations of the archangel Michael,would be of 12th and 13th c. date respectively. The source base today is insufficient in the author’sopinion to determine who issued these so-called Taman bracteates and when. The situation maychange with new finds coming from archaeological contexts.
Research Interests:
Research Interests: