One of the Ancient Defense Borders on the Territory of Kyiv Region Ukr Hyst Jour 1971 No6

One of the Ancient Defense Borders on the Territory of Kyiv Region

А.С.Бугай. Український Історичний Журнал, 1971, №7 с.112-120.

[A.S.Bugai. Ukrainian Historical Journal, 1971, №7, p.112-120] 

      In the paper /1/, the author explored the defensive line located in the interfluves of both Irpin and Zdvizh, and Zdvizh and Teterev along the Chornogorodka — Radomyshl line. The choice of this boundary is not accidental. It noticed even earlier, and in 1970 it completely confirmed, that each Val between Zdvizh and Teterev is a direct continuation of the corresponding Val along the line Chornogorodka — Makariv, and therefore should considered as a whole. In addition, the line of Chornogorodka — Radomyshl begins where the Val along Stugna and Irpin ends, near the village of Pereviz. Thus, it hoped that the search would provide important information for comparison.

The approximate direction of the Vali from the village of Yablunivka to the Soboliv tract near Radomyshl is on the maps of V.B.Antonovich /2/ (Fig. 1) and E.Kowalczyk /3/ (Fig.2). 

 Fig.1. Map of Zmievi Vali by V. Antonovich.  Settlements:  1. Chodosivka. 2. Tripillia. 3. Torch tract. 4. Velika Bugaivka. 5. Zarichya (former Chanbikov). 6. Vasilkiv. 7. Plesetske. 8. Pereviz. 9. Yablunivka. 10. Chornogorodka. 11. Sosnivka. 12. Bischiv. 13. Motizhin. 14. Kopiliv. 15. Makariv. 16. Yuriiv. 17. Sitniaki. 18. Kopiivka.  19. Borivka. 20. Rakovichi. 21. Negrebivka. 22. Zabilotska Guta. 23. Radomisl.  Rivers: Dnipro, Irpin, Zdvizh, Teteriv, Desna.



True, Antonovich recognized the conventionality of his map, which, as he writes, drawn up based on various fragmentary and not always reliable messages. E.Kowalczyk did not improve Antonovich’s map. The German military maps of the Teterev and Zdvizh regions she used could not show traces of the destroyed Vali. Neither Antonovich nor Kowalczyk knew that the builders of the Vali took into account the oro- and hydrographic features of the territories.  It is not surprising that the above authors showed the Vali in solid lines from the Dnieper to Teterev. Ukrainian and Russian scientists of the first half of the 20th century, who wrote about the defense structures and military affairs of the Kyivan Rus (N.Voronin, V.Dovzhenok and P.Rappoport), did not consider the Vali that passed to the west of the river Irpin.

         Studying the defense borders along the Chornogorodka — Radomyshl line, the author aimed to create a new, perfect map-scheme of Vali and settlement-fortifications. He also aimed to reveal the topographic features of this line, to discover and describe the state of preservation and design features of the Vali in this area in comparison with similar structures in between the Dnieper and Irpin rivers, to find out the features of the technology of building Vali. The new map of the Zmievi Vali will reveal a certain system in the construction of the defense lines of the Kiev region. 

 Fig.2. Map of Zmievi Vali by E.Kowalczyk.



Research in 1970 provided sufficient material to create a reliable schematic map of the Zmievi Vali and fortified settlements from Chornogorodka to Radomyshl (Fig.3). If the maps of Antonovich and Kovalchik show an incomprehensible pile of Vali, then Fig.3 clearly shows the systemin the construction of the defensive line.The location of the Vali along the Chornogorodka — Radomyshl line is the same as that of similar structures over Vitia, Bobrytsa, Stugna and Pliska rivers.  At the same time, there are certain peculiarities. Because the Vali built over rivers and swampy valleys, each time a reliable boundary created with a triple line of obstacles: a river or marsh, a deep ditch and a high Val, which, possibly, ended with certain wooden fortifications.


 Fig. 3.  Map of A.S.Bugai. 1. Vishgorod. 2. Holm tract. 3. Demidiv. 4. Gostomel. 5. Belogorodka. 6. Boyarka. 7. Pochtova Vita. 8. Hotov.  9. Kitaiv. 10. Pirogiv. 11. Hodosovka; 12.Tripillya; 13. Torch tract; 14. Velika Bugaevka; 15. Zarichia (former Khanbikov). 16. Vasilkiv. 17. Plesetske. 18. Zvonkove. 19. Pereviz. 20. Yablunivka. 21. Chornogorodka. 22. Sosnivka; 23. The fortified settlement near Sosnivka. 24. Bishiv. 25. Motizhin. 26. Kopiliv. 27. Fasova. 28. Fasivochka. 29. Makariv. 30. Yuriiv. 31. Sitnyaki; 32. Kopievka. 33. Nalivaikovka. 34. Nizhilovichi. 35. Borivka. .36. Rakovichi. 37. Negrebivka. 38. Zabilotska Guta. 39. Radomyshl.  40. Mikgorodok tract. 41. Andriivka. 42. Ivankiv. 43. The settlement near the village of Priborsk. 44. Orane.




By the way, N.Voronin made a mistake when he wrote that only “in the absence of a river, there was a ditch on the outer side of the Val” /4/.  Between the Dnieper and Teterev, there is not a single Val without a ditch. It needed not only as an additional obstacle, but it necessarily arose when extracting soil for embankment of the Val.The construction of such structures in the Dnieper basin and its large tributary Irpin, as well as in the basin of the Irpin and another large tributary of Zdvizh, carried out primarily along small tributaries of these large rivers. Their sources were located on common watersheds, and then small tributaries flowed in opposite directions and fell into large rivers (Dnieper, Irpin, Zdvizh), which limited the protected territories from the east and west.In the interfluve of the Dnieper and Irpin rivers, such pairs of rivers were Vita and Bobritsa, Stugna and Pliska. They were relatively small, but the Vita and Stugna valleys and partly Bobritsa were deep, with steep banks. Fortified with moats and ramparts, they were obviously a serious obstacle to the enemies. In the interfluve of the Stugna and Pliska, one ditch and Val was not enough.  On this site, a complex system of artificial earthworks created, described by L.Dobrovolski /5/.The Irpin, Zdvizh and Teterev rivers formed a natural boundary in the east, north and west.   There was no need to build additional fortifications.  Only fortresses-fortified settlements were required at the crossings. The conditions were different on the southern, most dangerous borders, which stretched for almost 90 km.

The physical and geographical conditions along such a long route marked by diversity. The rivers Lupa and Fosa flowed between Irpin and Zdvizh, along which it was possible to build a Val that would block the entire interfluve. They determined the direction of the defensive line in this area. However, behind Zdvizh, on its left bank, there was a wide strip of dry land, devoid of natural obstacles. Further, starting from Lake Buyan, the Gulva, Kodra and Belka rivers with wide, once impassable backwaters created insurmountable obstacles to Teterev itself.

Consequently, the direction of the route for the defensive Val was extremely favorable. It remained only to additionally strengthen the Makarov area on the left bank of Zdvizh, which was done in due time.

The rivers Fosa, along their entire length, and Lupa, from the beginning to Byshev, had, though wide, but shallow, with gentle banks of the valley.  They, together with swamps and a ditch and Val, could only represent a reliable obstacle in times of high water.

The routes of some other Vali in the interfluve of the Irpin and Zdvizh rivers indicate that they built in a drier period.  Perhaps this circumstance diminished the importance of the Val along Lupa and Fosa. Therefore, it became necessary to build several additional Vali in front of the main defense line.  The groundwater level between the rivers Irpin and Zdvizh, Zdvizh and Teterev was not the same. If between Zdvizh and Teterev the Vali ended near former lakes and swamps or went from swamp to swamp, then in the interfluve of Irpin and Zdvizh they passed right through swamps.  The most indicative from this point of view is Val IV-E (Fig. 3), which starts south of the modern outskirts of Byshev and goes to the village. Kopeyevka on the right bank of Zdvizh and on its left bank stretches to a swamp near the village of Borivka.





Part of this Val runs along the eastern shores of ancient lakes, shown even on modern physical and geographical maps. The fact that the Val passed through dry lakes and marshes is also evident from its special configuration, which differs from the previously known one.The outer outline of the Vali and their accompanying ditches along the Chornogorodka — Radomyshl line is the same as in the interfluve of the Dnieper and Irpin rivers. The Val poured not over the moat, but at some distance (80 — 100 cm) from it. Therefore, a strip of land formed between the ditch and the Val, the so-called berm. Thanks to this, the wall of the ditch did not collapse under the weight of the Val, nor did the ditch collapse from the crumbling of earth from the Val.  In some places, for example, between the villages of Negrebivka and Zabilotska Guta, as well as not far from the village of Borivka, there are areas where the moat is visible from both sides. It assumed that the groundwater did not allow digging a deep ditch from the enemy side, and the land needed for the Val had taken elsewhere. Such parts of the Vali observed in low-lying areas.The design feature of the part of the Val IV-E, built on the swamps, indicates the desire to prevent the destruction of the ditch and the Val under the influence of the weight of its embankment. For this purpose, the berm expanded to two meters, and the Val itself consisted of two parts (Fig. 4).  The first part was the base of the second, which had a base that was twice as narrow and was an ordinary Val poured from the edge of the platform of the opposite ditch. The height of the base and the upper Val is now about 120 cm. This design of the construction turned out to be effective, since it ensured the preservation of the moat to this day.


 Fig. 4.  The cross-section of the Val IV-E, built on the swamps

       Construction technology is of great interest. It is not the same everywhere and, apparently, chosen in accordance with the conditions of one or another part of the route. Not a single case found that the Val based on black soil, which once covered the earth.  One gets the impression that he specially filmed beforehand. As a rule, in places where a Val could easily destroyed by groundwater, it is based on well-compacted clay. It is so compacted, in comparison with the clay of the soil that now it can destroyed with great difficulty not only with an ordinary shovel, but also with a tractor plow. In many cases, the base of the Vali consists of burnt clay with admixtures of coal, and in some places also burnt logs. Coal in Vali rarely occurs in a continuous layer. Usually coal mixed with burnt clay and observed in the form of lenses and interlayers. This could only happen because of the collapse of the burnt clay in the cavities that formed after the wood burned down and the entire mixture thoroughly tamped.

The restoration of the map of the Vali between Irpin and Teterev rivers complicated by the fact that in many places they destroyed. The study of the paths of the disappeared earthworks carried out by identifying their traces in the form of stripes of yellow clay soil with spots of coal,




which are noticeable in many places. Sometimes the traces of Vali appeared in the form of ditches or their remains, and sometimes barely noticeable rises. Such traces are most noticeable in the fields after plowing. In cases where the fields planted with agricultural crops, in some places it was possible to notice the difference in the color of the plants. Plants were generally greener along the former ditches, and more weeds observed along the remains of the ditch.The general map of the Chornogorodka — Radomyshl defense line shown in Fig.3.  Vali IV-A, IV-D, IV-E and IV-K do not have a direct connection with each other. They could represent the initial system of defense between the Irpin — Zdvizh and Zdvizh — Teterev interfluves. Obviously, Val IV-E built later than Val IV-A. The rivers and swamps in front of the Val IV-A dried up at that time. Val IV-K was probably also built at the same time as Val IV-E, since at that time Irpin could become shallow, and fords appeared on it. The purpose of Val IV-D is difficult to establish. It is also difficult to say when it was built — later, earlier or simultaneously with the Val IV-A. Regarding the Vali IV-B, IV-C and IV-F, they built later than the Vali IV-D and IV-E. Even later, the line IV-B built, which crossed the line IV-D. At the intersection of the Vali, no attempts to link the new Val with the pre-existing one can see. This shows that during the construction of Val IV-B, the northern branch of Val IV-D had already lost its significance, possibly due to the presence of a new fortification IV-C.Some unevenness of the defense zone should note.  Between Chornogorodka and Lyakhova Gora, at the confluence of the Lupa into the Irpin, there is one Val, between the Lupa River and the village of Sosnivka, the width of the defense strip is about 4 km, on the Motyzhin – Fasova  line — 12 km, and under Makarov and beyond 6 — 7 km.  Attention is also drawn to the fact that between Irpin and Zhitomir highway in the defense zone there are three Vali, and from the highway to the Zdvizh, river and further there are four Vali.All these features of the defense zone not accidental. The presence of one Val over Irpin, from Chornogorodka to Lyakhovaya Gora, provided protection of the coast in places of possible crossings from a breakthrough into the rear of the defensive zone. The system of three Vali in the Sosnivka area, which occupied a strip 4 km wide, was apparently sufficient, because it covered by two more rivers that flowed into the Irpin here. The extension of the strip to 12 km along the Motyzhin — Fasova line explained by the fact that between the Vali IV-A and IV-B there are wide swamps on both sides of the Fosa river. The presence of four Vali on the right and left banks of Zdvizh from the village Kopeyevka to the city of Makarov was due to the lack of sufficient natural obstacles here. Nearby villages Borivka and Nizhilovichi system of four Vali ends.

On the territory from the village of Borivka to the Soboliv tract, near Radomyshl, only three short Vali found. The first IV-Ea, about 200 m long near the village of Rakovichi; the second IV-Ev, 2.5 km long stretches from the village of Negrebivka to the village of Zabilotska Guta; the third IV-Ес, twice as long as the first, begins at the western outskirts of the village of Zabilotska Guta and reaches the Soboliv tract. In addition, on the western outskirts of the village of Nizhilovichi, where the Gulva River begins, one Val IV-Da goes to the forest. At a distance of 100-150 m to the south, a second Val built parallel to the named one. Both of them initially connected by a transverse Val and go to the swamp between villages Komarivka and Borivka.




The length of each of them, starting from the transverse Val, is over 2 km. The local population calls the area between them inter-Val.Considering the map of the Zmievi Vali along the Chornogorodka — Radomyshl line, we conclude that the Vali, upon completion of the construction of the last of them, represented a system of in-depth defense.Defense lines between villages Tripillia and Pereviz and between Chornogorodka and Radomyshl built in such a way as to protect from the south and southwest the territories bounded on the other sides by the Dnieper, Irpin, Zdvizh and Teterev rivers. This gives reason to think that in other places, where the Vali shown without connection with natural boundaries, in reality there could have been and, apparently, there was still a connection. So the Vali were built south of Stugna, near Pereyaslav-Khmelnitsky, on Sula, between Kodima and Sinyukha, and the like.In close connection with the Zmievi Vali in the interfluves of Irpin and Zdvizh, Zdvizh and Teterev, as can be seen from Fig.3, there are settlements in Chernogorodka, Byshev, Motyzhin and Radomyshl. In addition, in the village of Sosnivka, to the east of the Val IV-E, the remains of a settlement discovered. Perhaps, L.Pokhilevich had it in mind when he wrote: “The second settlement is located 6 km from the town (Byshev, A.B.), in the direction of the Irpin river; it looks like a rectangle 1 km long, 400 m wide, 2800 m around the perimeter; surrounded by a Val and a ditch » /6/. It is likely that on the site of the present village of Yuryiv there was another fortified settlement. Consequently, between Irpin and Zdvizh, the fortifications were located along the Vali, approximately 8 — 10 km from each other. The spheres of influence of each settlement had a radius of no more than 5 km, and this allowed the garrisons of two neighboring settlements no more than an hour later to arrive at any place, if there was a danger there.

In the interfluve of Zdvizh and Teterev, apart from the fortified settlements in Makariv, Radomyshl and ancient Mikgorodok, no other fortified points found.

The following circumstances also attract attention: the settlements in Chornogorodka, Motyzhin, Makariv and Radomyshl are located on the inner side of the defense zone, each at a distance of about 1 km from it.  Consequently, the garrisons had sufficient operational space. The settlement in Byshev was on the inner line of the Vali, which also allowed its defenders to provide the defense of their sector. Regarding the fortifications in villages Sosnivka and Yuryiv, they obviously played the role of outposts.

The special significance of such settlements as Sosnivka, Byshev, and Makariv evidenced by the presence of large observation kurgans. Nearby Sosnivka, the mound destroyed, but opposite the village of Lupske, near Byshev, it still rises. There are two large mounds near Makariv. A special road led to the top of the largest of them, the remains of which are still visible today. The Val IV-A went around it from the west. Consequently, this mound existed even before the construction of the Val.

Almost all the settlements of the Kiev region attributed to Prince Vladimir and his successors. However, the annals directly say that Vladimir, pointing out the insufficiency of cities near Kiev, began to place them along rivers Oster, Sula, Stugna, etc. The settlements in Chornogorodka, Byshev, Motyzhin, Makarov, Radomyshl usually belong to the grand ducal and





even later times. However, the connection of these settlements with the defense line of Chernogorodka — Radomyshl, built, apparently, largely earlier than the grand ducal times, is so close that there are big doubts about the validity of common views on the time of their foundation. Of course, these settlements could use during the existence of the Kiev state, but their construction, or at least a significant part of them, most likely took place in older times.Due to the imperfection of Antonovich’s map, many researchers could not find and show the system according to which the defense of the Kiev region built. In 1909, B.Stelletski wrote  “Indeed, looking at the map of the outskirts of Kiev and restoring the history of the past times, we inevitably come to the conclusion that our ancestors in matters of the country’s defense possessed some kind of art”. And at the next page he notes: «It is more likely that the adopted defense system was not worked out by theoretical reasoning and did not appear immediately in a ready-made form of a well-coordinated plan, and long experience and an urgent need to strengthen one or another point raised the consciousness of their necessity» /7/.   We find similar reasoning for L.Dobrovolski /8/. The doubts of B.Stelletsky and L.Dobrovolsky shared by modern historians’ /9/.The defense structures of the Kiev region did not appear at the same time. But in order to resolve the issue of “the systematic creation of former fortifications near Kiev … almost the same as the systems of modern fortresses”, as L.Dobrovolski wrote, it is necessary first of all to restore the history of the construction of a network of existing Vali and fortifications. In this case, apparently, we must proceed from the fact that in ancient time the boundaries of public organizations identified with defense lines.  Behind them was no man’s land. Borders could remain unchanged for a long time, sometimes they moved because of the annexation of new territories, then a new defense line built, and the previous one became a reserve one. It could also be that, under pressure from outside, it moved into the depths of the territory, a new defensive line built along it, and the old one lost its significance. It not excluded that in the «Kyiv Triangle» one line was built on the border, say, along the Stugna river, and the second, reserve, along the Vita river. To admit, however, that Vali built at the same time along rivers Ros, Krasnaya, Stugna, Vita and far to the west beyond Irpin and Zdvizh, apparently, would be inappropriate. The set of Vali and fortifications in the Kiev region, most likely, is not a single system, but the sum of several systems created at different times.B.Stelletsky, L.Dobrovolsky and finally P.Rappoport wrote about defensive lines and structures only in the triangle bounded by the Dnieper, Irpin and Stugna. They, like other historians (N.Voronin, V.Dovzhenok), did not remember at all about the defense lines of the Zdvizh and Teterev regions, without having sufficient materials at their disposal. It is not surprising that P.Rappoport, speaking about the territory bounded by the Dnieper, Irpin and Stugna, concludes: “Therefore, it is impossible to decide on the principles of organizing the defense of the Kyiv land in this small area. However, the clarification of the location of old Russian settlements in the immediate vicinity of Kiev, will give materials  that will help in the future to approach the solution of these very important issues of the history of Russian military art ” /10/.

The statement of the question by the named authors has two drawbacks. Firstly, they regard the Kiev region as something permanent, in relation to which it is necessary to analyze




the entire set of defensive structures found on it.  Secondly, speaking of the Kiev region, they mean only the territory bounded by the Dnieper, Irpin and Stugna, although, undoubtedly, the lands to the west of Irpin and south of Stugna belong to it.To judge whether the builders had previous plans for the defense of their land and the degree of perfection of the systems they created, it is advisable to consider each line of defense separately. This will make the task easier and more specific. Only under these conditions can one generally hope for a correct solution to the problem as a whole.Consider the map of the Zmiyevi Vali along the lines of Tripillya — Vasilkiv — Khlepcha — Plesetske — Pereviz and Chornogorodka — Sosnivka — Byshev — Motyzhin — Makariv – Radomyshl.  One can notice that, firstly, on Irpin the end of the Val along the Stugna river does not coincide with the beginning of the Chernogorodka — Radomyshl line, which not interrupted on the Zdvizh   river. Secondly, on the Irpin river there are a number of settlements in the villages Zvonkove, Belogorodka, in the Khlepcha and Kholm tracts, which guarded the river crossings and paths to the middle of the «Kiev triangle».  At that time, the fortress in villages Chornogorodka, Gostomel and Demidov, apparently, defended the left bank from danger from the right bank. The fact that the fortified settlements in the interfluve of the Irpin and Teteriv rivers, as well as the Chornogorodka — Radomyshl line, noted mainly on the left banks of these rivers, suggests the same thoughts. On the left bank of Zdvizh, apart from Makariv, there are settlements in the villages of Andriivka and Priborsk.  On the left bank of Teteriv, in addition to the settlements in Radomyshl and Mikgorodok, they are in Ivankiv and Pahane. On the right banks of Zdvizh and Teteriv, settlements not mentioned at all. All this suggests that the territories between Irpin and Zdvizh and between Zdvizh and Teteriv were part of a larger territory.Such circumstances attract attention. The defense schemes of the interfluves of the Dnieper and Irpin and Irpin and Teterev indicate a certain independence of these territories, and the proximity and similarity of the structures of the Vali and the protection schemes themselves indicate the presence of many common elements in the life of the population of these lands. The formation of lines of defense in both territories for protection indicates the presence of a common enemy.

P.Rappoport believes that “the area of ​​the territory bounded by the Dnieper, Irpin and Stugna, neither during the existence of a single Kyiv state, nor during the times of feudal fragmentation, was not politically an independent territory” /9/.  You can add this thought. Historical science also does not know that at the time of the Kyivan Rus or later the territory from Irpin to Teteriv and further located to the north-west of the Chornogorodka — Radomyshl line and bounded by these rivers, either by itself, or together with the Kyiv Triangle, represented an independent territory.

It is difficult to agree that the defense line of Chornogorodka — Radomyshl was not borderline, but internal. This line was very powerful and took a long time to build, and obviously played a different role at different times. The fact that there are no records about this in the annals and chronicles testifies to the age of the structures.

A definite completion of the study of the Zmievi Vali in the interfluve of the Irpin — Zdvizh and Zdvizh — Teterev rivers will be the establishment of the time of their construction.  An important




tool for this is the coal found in the Vali. Its radiocarbon analysis will finally make it possible toanswer the question of when the Vali were built, and hence the question of when there was a public organization that could carry out such a huge construction.Based on the analysis of the scheme of defensive structures along the Chornogorodka — Radomyshl line, conclusions made for the first time about the relative time of construction of individual Vali and the independence of the borders between Irpin and Teteriv, and Tripillia and the village of Pereviz on Irpin.Now there is every reason to note the great military skill and high level of culture of the builders of the Zmievi Vali — the sons of the people who were the master of the lands of the Kyiv region.

Kyivan Rus did not rise from scratch. She had worthy predecessors who laid the solid foundations of the Slavic statehood long before the arrival of the Varangian’s.


1. А.С.Бугай. Змійові вали Київщини. УІЖ, 1970, № 6, с.74-83.  [A.S.Bugai. Zmievi Vali of Kyiv Region. Ukrainian Historical Journal /UHJ/. 1970, № 6, 112-120]

2. В.Б.Антонович. Археологическая карта Киевской губернии, М., 1895. [V.B. Antonovich. Archaeological map of the Kiev province. 1895]

3. Е.Kowalczyk. Waly Zmijowe. «Kwrtalnik Historii Kultury Materialnej», 1969, t.17, № 2.

4. Н.Н.Воронин. Крепостные сооружения. История. История культуры древней Руси, М., 1948, с.441. [N.N.Voronin. History of culture of ancient Russia, M., 1948, p. 441]

5. Л.Добровольский. Водораздел Ирпеня и Стугны. Чтения в Историческом обществе Нестора-летописца. К.,1910, книга 21, № 3.  [L.Dobrovolsky. Watershed of Irpin and Stugna. Readings in the Historical Society of Nestor the Chronicler, K., 1910, book 21, issue 3.]

6. Л.Похилевич. Уезды Киевской и Радомысльский, К., 1887. [L.Pokhilevich. Districts of Kiev and Radomyshl]

7. Б.С.Стеллецкий. Белгородка, К., 1909. [B.S.Stelletsky. Belgorodka, K., 1909.]

8. Л.Добровольський. К вопросу о древних укреплениях в окрестностях Киева. Военно- исторический вестник, 1912, книга 1, с.175.  [L. Dobrovolskiy. On the issue of ancient fortifications near Kiev. Military Historical Bulletin, 1912, Book 1,  p. 175]

9. П.А.Раппопорт. К вопросу о системе обороны Киевской земли. Краткие сообщения Института археологии АН УССР, 1954, № 3.   [P. Rappoport. On the question of the defense system of the Kiev land. Brief reports of the Institute of Archeology of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR, 1954, № 3.]