- 74 -

 Zmievi Vali of Kyiv Region

А.С.Бугай. Український Історичний Журнал, 1970, №6 с.74-83.

[A.S.Bugai. Ukrainian Historical Journal, 1970, №6, p.74-83]

 One of the least explored landmarks of antiquity in Ukraine are great earthworks-walls, which stretch for tens and hundreds of kilometers along rivers and interfluves in many regions of the forest-steppe Ukraine. The earthworks embankments (in Latin the “Vallum”, in Ukrainian and Russian the “Val”) are termed differently in different places of Ukraine: Bolshoy (Great) Val, Traianov Val, Polovetskiy Val, Atamanskiy Val and other, but the most common name is the “Zmievi Vali” (the Val – singular, the Vali — plural). They are known in Kyiv region, Cherkasy region, Vinnytsa region, Zhytomyr region, Volyn region, Kharkiv region, Poltava region

Most of the Zmievi Vali are located on the Right Bank of the Middle Dnieper.

Here they form an extremely complex network with a total length of known segments of about 800 km.

The author of this work investigated only those Zmievi Vali that are located on the territory in the boundaries created in the east by the Dnieper, in the north and west by the Teterev River, in the south by the Ros River and its tributaries. For convenience, this peculiar triangle called Kyiv area.

However, it is not known when and by whom the Vali were built and for what purpose. Is there any system at all in this assembly of the Vali?

According to historian B.A.Rybakov, the problem of the Zmievi Vali of Kyiv region is one of the most interesting mysteries of an ancient history of our country /1/.  It has been worrying scientists for more than 150 years. Some historians are inclined to consider the existing Vali network because of spontaneous defensive measures of the local population.

In the XIX century and at the beginning of the XX century the Zmievi Vali of Kyiv region mentioned in the works of I.Fundukley /2/, L.Pokhilevich /3/, V.Antonovich /4/, L. Dobrovolski /5/, B.Stelletski /6/.  E.Setsinski wrote about the Zmievi Vаli of Podillya /7/, V.Antonovich wrote about the Zmievi Vаli of Volyn /8/, D. Bagaley wrote about the Zmievi Vаli of Kharkiv region.  V.Lyaskoronski /9/, M. Maksimovich /10/ and others wrote about the Zmievi Vali of Poltava region and Dnieper Left Bank. Of the works of foreign scientists of the XIX and the beginning of XX century, one should mention the publications of I.Lipoman /11/, M.Grabovski /12/, S.Groza /13/, M.Wisznicki /14/, P.Shafarzik /15/.

Among Ukrainian and Russian scientists, the problem of Zmievi Vali has analyzed by B.Rybakov /16/, N.Voronin /17/, A.Dovzhenok /18/, P.Rappoport /19/.

Recently, Polish scientists, in particular E.Kowalczyk /20/, have published several studies on this issue.

In the 19th century, Ukrainian and Russian researchers have focused on three problems: creating a map of the Zmievi Vali, determining the genesis of their name and the period of construction.  At the beginning of the 20th century, there were attempts to create a map of the Vali, to establish the features of their design, and the time of their construction.

  75

      E. Kowalczyk considers the problem more broadly: the design of the Zmievi Vali; their connection with ancient settlements; origin of name; the Zmievi Vali as an example of constant,  passive defense; the way of their use; description of all investigated Vali.  The researchers of the 19th and early 20th centuries, with the exception of V.Antonovich, B.Stelletski and L.Dobrovolski, has a streak of descriptiveness in the presentation of the material they have collected.

In 1884 V.Antonovich was the first to publish the map of the Zmievi Vali of Kyiv region. In 1895, he provided its improved version, which has not lost its significance until now, although it has a number of disadvantages. Working on the map, V.Antonovich has used the descriptions of individual sections of the Vali, found from both published and unpublished works, reports from regional authorities on the ancient landmarks preserved on the corresponding territories, and some personal observations /21/.  However, as he has noted, “… this information is very incomplete, numerous gaps can be filled only via more precise research carried out especially for this purpose” /22/.

In 1909, a map of the Vali and settlements created by B.Stelletski was published /23/, and in 1911 — its revised version /24/. There is no information on materials used for creation of this map. It contained the drawings of the Vali, which were not present on the map of V.Antonovich. These are fortifications over the Vita and Bobritsa rivers, as well as an arched Val near the village of Kruglik, mistakenly connected by V.Antonovich with the village of Khodosovka. All other Vali along the Stugna River and to the south of it drawn in accordance with the first version of the map.

The best maps created by L.Dobrovolski.  However, they related only to certain sections of the Vali, in particular along the Vita and Bobritsa rivers and in the interfluve of the Irpin and Stugna rivers.

The field research of the Zmievi Vali and the work on the creation of their maps, carried out by L.Dobrovolski /5/, B.Stelletski /6/ and V.Lyaskoronski /9/, had stopped almost simultaneously in 1909-1912.  In the first half of the 20th century, Ukrainian and Russian researchers had published some data on the Vali /17, 19-1/, however, no field research has carried out, and no new maps created.

The article by E.Kowalczyk /20/ provides the maps of both discrete sections of the Vali published in the works of L.Dobrovolski, and a compiled map of all Vali located on the territory of Ukraine. As the basis of the compiled map, in particular, its part covering Kyiv area (Fig. 1), E.Kowalczyk has used the map of V.Antonovich and German army maps of the Teterev and Zdvizh rivers. Since both maps contain multiple errors, E.Kowalczyk’s compiled map turned out to be improper, which will discussed further.

The most important drawback of all the maps mentioned, in particular the map of E.Kowalczyk, is that they make impossible to find any system in the placement of discrete sections of the Vali.

It is so because the authors did not study the sections of the Vali in situ, but created the maps using just literary sources and various fragmentary information. Moreover, E.Kowalczyk did not take into account the discrepancies between the maps of Antonovich, Stelletski and Dobrovolski, and in her compiled map, she repeated the mistakes of Antonovich, noticed by Dobrovolski.

 76

 Fig. 1.  Map of Zmievi Vali E.Kowalzhik

V.Antonovich’s mistake was his concept of arc-like Vali, later supported by E. Kowalczyk.  Some of the Vali of Kyiv area, according to V.Antonovich, are arc-like and their ends converge to the Dnieper river.  Antonovich shows the Val near the village of Kruglik, which really has an arc-like shape (but has shown by him near the village of Khodosovka). Further Antonovich tried to prove that the Val, which begins not far from village of Trypillya, on the left bank of the Stugna River, crosses the Irpin and Zdvizh rivers, and in the north reaches the city of Dymer near the Dnieper. And the Val, which seems to be located near the village of Trypillya on the right bank of the Stugna River, forms an arc that reaches the village of Yaropovichi, and then goes along the right bank of the River Ros in the direction of the Dnieper.  The Val near the village of Budaevka (now the town of Boyarka), which is a part of the Val between the Dnieper and Irpin, Antonovich tried to connect with the Vali near the village of Vishgorod, thus closing the arc around Kyiv.

V.Antonovich has grounded his opinion on the idea that the defensive Vali needed for protection only from the south and southwest. In this regard, he has focused his attention only those rivers that flow into the Dnieper on the south of Kyiv considering them as the lines of defense.  E.Kowalczyk also pointed out those rivers as natural boundaries were important during construction of the Vali

77

and that the territory of Kyiv area well protected by rivers. However, she also took into account only the rivers flowing into the Dnieper in the south of Kyiv.

Neither V.Antonovich, nor his followers, took into account the interconnection between the Vali and rivers in the northern direction and did not investigate them as well. Therefore, they could not show that the builders of the Vali knew and took into account the relief of the entire Kyiv region, its oro- and hydrographic features.

L.Dobrovolski /5-2/ noted that the Dnieper River and its tributaries Irpin and Stugna formed an almost triangular territory around Kyiv. In the past, more full flowing, with wide (up to 3 — 4 km) floodplains, these rivers represented almost impassable natural boundaries. The territories bounded by them, after joining their shores in the southern part by Vali, turned out to be fortified areas with all-round defense.

The Vali between the rivers have built not along the random trajectories. For this purpose, as a rule, river valleys with near located riverheads have chosen. They connected by a fortified line of the Vali. The line of the Vali nearest to Kyiv ran along the Vita and Bobritsa rivers, the first of which flows into the Dnieper, and the second — into the Irpin. The second line ran along the Stugna River, which flows into the Dnieper, and the Pliska river, a tributary of the Irpin.  The Val between the Irpin and Zdvizh rivers was also located along the Lupa (Irpin tributary) and Fasa (Zdvizh tributary).

The study of the Zmievi Vali in situ and the map compiled by the author of the work (Fig. 2) allowed to recognize the mentioned concept of V.Antonovich as incorrect in the very core. The arcuate lines, which discussed, have appeared because of arbitrary connection of sometimes completely different segments of the Vali by V.Antonovich. The presence of ditches always on the south side indicates that the parts of arcs presented by Antonovich, for example, near the village of Yaropovichi, actually represented different Vali that converged to this village.

Other considerations also testify to the failure of the concept.  Kyiv area has threatened not only by enemies from the south.  Let us recall the movement of the Goths from the north to the Black Sea steppes, the wars with the Avars, Khazars, etc. This area always required an all-round defense, although the danger from the north, east or west may have been sometimes less. The builders made sure that the lines were the shortest and most impregnable, deprived enemies of the opportunity to bypass them from the west or east, and, finally, supplemented the existing natural boundaries.

It should be noted that our ancestors found a really optimal solution to this complex problem, so successful that even the construction of the Kyiv Fortified Region in the 30s (on the eve of World War II) was carried out along the ancient defense lines.

Based on our long-term observations of the directions and location of the Vali, we can conclude that they form a system well adapted to local physical and geographical conditions. In order to understand it, it is reasonable to abandon some of the names of discrete long lines of the Vali introduced by previous researchers, the authors of the maps, and to propose a different nomenclature.

 78

 Legend:    Val;    Moat;  о – Village/town;  ﬦ — Fortified settlement

 Fig.2. Map of the Zmievi Vali in the Kiev region, compiled by the author.

Settlements and fortified settlements:  1.Old-Kyivan fortress. 2.Kitaiv. 3.Pirogiv. 4.Chotiv (Sirakov fortified settlement). 5.Kruglik. 6.Poschtova Vita. 7.Bojarka. 8.Zabirja. 9.Bobritza. 10.Gostomel. 11.Demidiv. 12.Cholm tract. 13.Kozarovichi. 14.Stari Bezradichi (Fortified settlement Torch). 15.Fortified settlement “Berkiv Gorodok” (near the village Velika Bugaevka). 16.Zarichja (in the past village Chanbikov). 17.Farm Chlepcha. 18.Pereviz. 19.Jablunivka. 20.Bezpjatne. 21.Velika Soltanivka. 22.Mala Soltanivka. 23.Chornogorodka. 24.Sosnivka. 25.Gorobijivka. 26.Fasivochka. 27.Yuriivka. 28.Sitniaki. 29.Zavalivka. 30.Nalivaikivka.

 79

 Each segment of the Vali, each sequence of segments of the Vali that pass at a small distance from one another, can considered as an independent line of defense only when they complement the natural boundaries of some territory to a closed circuit. Only under these conditions can we correctly understand the significance of individual lines of defense, which, if considered separately from the natural lines, do not give an idea of a specific defense system.

Independent lines of defense indicated on our map with Roman numerals, individual links of any line — with the same number as the entire line, but with an index, in the form of a small letter of the Latin alphabet.

Separate Vali of one line of defense are designated by the same Roman numeral as its main Val, but with a capital Latin letter.

On the map compiled by the author (Fig. 2), four lines of Vali are specified, which correspond to the studied lines of defense.

1. The line along rivers Vita and Bobritsa consists of four links (1-a, 1-b, 1-c, 1-d).

2. The line along rivers Stugna and Irpin consists of a main solid line (II – a) and a separate branch (II – b).

3. The line III between villages Barachti and Bespyatne.

4. The line between rivers Irpin and Zdvizh   (IV-A, IV- В and IV- С)..

5. The line between rivers Zdvizh and Teterev. The number V indicates its beginning.

It is easy to see that this map, in the part that goes beyond the boundaries of the Dnieper — Irpin — Stugna triangle, is fundamentally different from the map of V.Antonovich and from the compiled map of E.Kowalczyk.

The main differences of this map are as follows:

• The Val along rivers Stugna and Irpin starts from the village of Zarichia (former village of Khanbikov).
• The second Tripillia Val, which V.Antonovich and E.Kowalczyk wrote about, is absent on the map, because such a Val has never existed at all.
• The Val III is marked: it starts from the eastern side of the village of Barakhty and ends 1,5 kilometers west of the village of Bespyatni.

Here, near the Val III, there is a settlement where the Mitnitsa (customhouse) was located once. According to some reports, this Val and the settlement belong to the 18th century, when the border between Russia and Poland passed here.  The Val III has not shown on any of the published maps. Uncertain information about this Val, obviously, became the reason for the appearance of the so-called Tripillia — Mitnitsa and Mitnitsa — Soltanovka Vali in the works of V.Antonovich, and later — of other historians. Although Val III directed towards Bolshaya and Malaya Soltanovka, it never reached them, just as it did not reach Tripillya. In this regard, there is no reason to say that the section of the Val that goes from Malaya Soltanovka to the village  Plisetskoe (II-b), where it intersects with the Val (II-a) along Stugna and Irpin rivers, is a continuation of the Val between villages Mitnitsa and Soltanovka, like Antonovich, Dobrovolski, Kowalczyk and others speculated.

The Val IV-A between the rivers Irpin and Zdvizh is not a continuation of the Val II-a along Stugna-Irpin rivers, as it has been shown by V.Antonovich, and in a slightly modified form by E.Kowalczyk.  It starts at a distance of 7 — 8 km from the

 80

 place where the Val II-a ends, that is, near the confluence of the Lupa river into the Irpin river, goes along its left bank to the village of Byshev, where it gets lost in estates, but appears in the village of Gorobeyevka, north of Byshev.  From Gorobeyevka village the Val winds its way to the village of Motyzhin, further towards the village of Kopilovo. It disappears there.

Near the Zhitomir highway, the Val turns to the northwest, goes through the forest for a short time, crosses the highway and approaches the village Fasivochka through the fields of the village of Kalinovka. The Val ends at the confluence of the Fasova river with the Zdvizh River.  There is no extension of the Val beyond the Zdvizh river.

     6. Val V, which crosses the Zdvizh — Teterev interfluve, does not begin where the Val Irpin-Zdvizh ends, but in the village of Zavalovka, several kilometers upstream of the Zdvizh River.

The map of the Ist, II and IV lines of defense shows that, in fact, their construction carried out in such a way as to complete the natural lines, forming certain fortified areas.

The beginning of the line V of defense gives reason to think that it built on the same principle.

The state of preservation of the Vali is different. The line I is the worst preserved. This may indicate that it is the most ancient. However, it could be that this line built in haste and therefore was not so fundamental, easier to succumb to the influence of time.

It is very interesting to note that Val II-b, which runs from Malaya Soltanovka to the village of Plisetske, is more similar in appearance to Val I-a (Vita-Bobritsa).  If it is possible to prove their synchronicity, this will indicate that at some historical moment there was a two-echelon defense of the territory around Kyiv: along the rivers Vita and Bobritsa (line I of defense) and along the interfluve of the Stugna and Irpin (line II).

It is of interest the peculiarity of one of the segments of the Val I, namely, its arched shape near the village of Kruglik (I-b). The ditch around this Val runs everywhere from the outside. Consequently, this Val intended for an all-round defense, and not only to protect against attacks from the south. Since the Val I-d does not cross it, this indicates that the arcuate Val is older and simply used by the builders of the Vita-Bobritsa defense line.

No less important problem than the problem of the Zmievi Vali map is the problem of the time to which their construction belongs.

Ukrainian and Russian historians have expressed different hypotheses about the time of the construction of the Zmievi Vali.  Some referred them to Scythia times, others to Sarmatia times, etc.

The most widespread was V.Antonovich’s hypothesis about the construction of Vali during the principality of Vladimir and his successors.

E.Kowalczyk defines the same time boundaries, referring the construction of Vali to the early Middle Ages (VIII — XIII centuries).

Russian scientists, in particular B.Rybakov, were more cautious, not favoring any of the hypotheses. Moreover, B.Rybakov excludes from consideration the Grand Ducal time.

 81

 P.Rappoport in his article «On the question of the defense system of the Kyiv land» (1954, /18-1/) wrote that the site, bounded by the Dnieper, Irpin and Stugna, neither in the Grand Ducal times, nor later was not a politically independent

territory. However, it was only in 1965 that he spoke more definitely that the Vali are not of Kyiv period, but “another, much more ancient era” /25/. However, he did not say which one, referring to the fact that it is impossible to do this using the example of the Vali in the middle of the Dnieper- Irpin — Stugna triangle. The first edition of the Ukrainian Encyclopedia (1959-1965) indicates the time from the beginning of our era until the time of the Grand Duke, but in the four-volume encyclopedic dictionary there mentioned only the time of the Grand Duke.

Actually, the question of when the Zmievi Vali built remains open. The huge amount of construction work that had to be completed evidences on the length of time required for their construction. However, the upper limit of the period, XIII century, established by E.Kowalczyk, is too high.

By this time, both the strategy and tactics of defense should have changed. No wonder in the annals of the XI — XII century there is no information about the construction of the Vali, as well as the data on their use for defense.  The Vali remembered several times in the annals, but not as military objects that played some role in the clashes and guarded, but as landmarks /4-1/, using which the chronicler could better indicate the topographic position of the places where princely squads have moved or clashes have occurred.

The conclusion can only be this: written sources are sufficiently studied, but they do not indicate the time of construction of the ramparts.

Brunon’s testimonies, to which Antonovich referred, do not explain anything, because if Vladimir had built one Val, then who would have built the others?

We need methods of scientific dating of the era of construction of the Zmievi Vali based on the analysis of material objects associated with the Vali, which can only be obtained from a direct study of the Vali and the territories associated with them.

V.Antonovich’s statement that “The system of protecting the regions with long earthen ramparts was not a feature of Kyivan Rus’; this was borrowed from the west; the Romans transmitted it to the Germans from whom it was transmitted to the Slavs” /31/, should be fundamentally denied.   A.G.Kuzmin has correctly noted that the Avars also built ramparts, moreover, earlier. It remains unclear, in his opinion, whether the Avars borrowed this practice from the Dnieper people, or vice versa /26/.

It  known that from the first millennium BC and to the XIII century AD,  Scythians, Sarmatians, Goths, Huns, Avars, Pechenegs, Polovtsians, Tatars and many other nomadic or migratory peoples went, wave after wave, by the steppes of the Northern Black Sea region. Forcing their predecessors from the steppe, subjecting and / or killing the population of other occupied territories, carrying out distant aggressive campaigns to Minor and Western Asia, plundering the Roman provinces, the hordes of nomads could not miss the cities and villages of the settled population of the forest-steppe. An attempt to conquer, or at least rob it, obviously had aroused every time new hordes of nomads appeared in the steppe.

The population of the forest-steppe could not remain indifferent to threat of aggressive neighbors in the steppes. At the beginning of the first millennium BC

 82

 huge fortified settlements  built: Nemirivske (Vinnitsa Region), Sharpivske (Cherkasy Region), Khotivske (Kyiv Region) and many others.

The construction of settlements, fortified with earthen ramparts, can regarded as the first stage of organizing the defense against nomads. The second stage began with the organization of protection not of individual places of settlements, but of significant territories. From the construction of large fortifications, which carried out in the 7th — 6th centuries BC, it was only one-step to the construction of ramparts to protect entire areas. In this regard, the message of Herodotus (the middle of the 1st millennium BC) that the local population built an earthen rampart from the Taurid Mountains up to Lake Meotia (IV.3) to protect against the Scythians is of great interest. Neither the Roman state nor the Germanic tribes existed at that time. Consequently, the idea of ​​building ramparts probably arose among the local population long before the appearance of these peoples in the historical arena.

Indeed, wide and deep rivers, swamps, large ravines with steep slopes were an important natural obstacle for nomads with their numerous herds and carts. The local population could not fail to consider this. It is quite natural that the settled tribes and their associations occupied such territories that were unsuitable for a long stay of nomads and at the same time provided a reliable defense. In the cases where in some areas natural obstacles were insufficient, they supplemented with artificial structures.

In particular, on the lines of the Zmievi Vali In the Kyiv area there are located many settlements. However, in modern historical literature they better known as fortified settlements of the Grand Duke era, although many of them contain traces of settlements that are more ancient and fortifications (Zvonkove, Belogorodka, Plisetske, Khodosovka, Zarichia, Stari Bezradichi and others).

Historical conditions of the 1st millennium BC e. in the Kiev region were such that even then the idea of ​​defensive ramparts and fortifications at them could arise and realized. However, the following periods in the life of the population of the Ukrainian forest-steppe differed little from the historical conditions of the 1st millennium BC. Therefore, the possibility of the construction of the Zmievi Vali and later up to the time of Askold and Dir cannot excluded. Later important events in our history reflected in the annals.

To solve the issues of the chronology of the Zmievi Vali, it is of great importance to compare the design features of individual sections of the Vali. However, until now, special studies of the design Vali have not carried out.  All information of this nature obtained by chance reduced to a few observations over those sections of the embankments that formed by roads and water. Therefore, it is necessary to systematically study the internal structure of the Vali and compare them both with the known structures of ramparts of settlements of different eras, and among themselves.

Inspection of some lines of defense (I — b, I — d, II — a, II — b, III, IV — A, IV — B) showed that the external shape of the Vali and ditch around them is almost the same everywhere. The moat is always located on the external, in relation to the limited area, side. However, there are deviations.  The Val I-с has moats on both sides.

   83

 As for the internal structure of the Vali, in the sections studied (I-c, II-a, III, IV-A, IV-B) it does not have a pronounced specificity. For the most part, the Val poured from the earth that taken out of the ditch. However, almost everywhere in the lower layer of the backfill, pressed or burned clay found. It is possible that the top layer of soil removed from the ditch first thrown aside and then used to fill the upper part of the Val.

Arcuate Val near the village of Kruglik has a different design. As can be seen from the cross-sections that were examined in this part, a layer of sand about 6 m wide and up to 2 m high was poured along the route, on which a layer of silty clay up to 1.5 m thick was then applied. After the clay dried out, the Val filled up to its full height with ordinary earth. In another case, part of the Val II-a along the Stugna river near the village Khlepcha entirely consists of burnt clay and coal. The use of silty clay and its burning to create the base of the rampart is characteristic of the fortifications of the VII-VI centuries BC.  Of course, there are still not enough data for conclusions based only on the indicated analogies. The presence of sections with different design features in the backfill of one Val line allows their comparison with the ramparts of the fortifications of the 7th — 6th centuries BC, with Slavic ramparts and ramparts from the times of Kyivan Rus’.

Some features of the Vali backfill make it possible to turn to the methods of physics. The fact is that in the lower and middle layers of the embankments and in the Vali of the settlement of the village of Pochtova Vita, layers and lenses of coal, and sometimes burnt trees, bark and the like, were found almost everywhere. These remains of vegetation are the most important material, the radiocarbon analysis of which in modern laboratories of absolute age can indicate the time of the construction of the Vali. In order to use coal to establish the date, convincing evidence is needed that the wood was burned during the construction of the Vali, and not eventually. One such proof is that coal placed in the lowest layers. It is almost impossible to place it there after building the Vali. Secondly, coal is found in different lines of defense (I — b, I — d, II — a, IV — A and IV — B) almost throughout each of them, that is, over tens of kilometers.  Ultimately, the last observation is as following: in many places, coal layers covered with a layer of burnt clay or sand cemented from high temperatures. This could only happen if clay or sand have poured onto the wood that was still burning. Consequently, the coal found in the Vali is an important and definite means of dating their construction time.

Of course, there is an interesting question — why coal, in such a large amount, appeared in the embankments of the Vali?  One should conclude that the area along which the Vali pass once covered with forest. Naturally, the builders, before starting to dig the ditch and fill the Vali, had to clear the route cutting the trees and bushes. The easiest and simplest way is to burn them out. For some reasons, in some places the filling with earth began when the tree was still burning.

Burning wood along the route of the future rampart was an important and necessary technological stage in its construction. It is possible that the builders cleared the area in front of the Val in the same way. Moreover, the area covered

 84

 with coal should have been much wider than the actual route of the Val itself. Only because of prolonged plowing of neighboring territories, the coals could eventually disappear from them. However, in one section of the Val I-d, near the village of Zabirie, which now covered with forest and, apparently, never been plowed up, we found coal at a depth of 25 — 30 cm in a strip adjacent to the Val, up to 50 — 60 m wide.

Coal samples for analysis taken from all defense lines and from the Vali in the settlement of Pochtova Vita (*).

Conclusions

Field studies of the Zmiyevi Vali of Kyiv area, carried out by the author of the work, made it possible to obtain the following results:

• A defense system has revealed, in which natural barriers supplemented by Vali.
• A modern map of the first lines of the Vali proposed,
• The connection of some settlements with the IV line of Vali discovered.
• The external and internal structures of individual sections of the Vali have been investigated,
• A new means of dating of each of the lines of the Vali proposed — the use of radiocarbon analysis of coal, which found in the ramparts where they passed through the forests and small bushes.
• Since the burning of the forest, which grew on the Vali as the time passed, was a necessary stage in the restoration of fortifications, then the second (counting from below) layers of coal, which were found here and there, will allow establishing the time of renewal and restoration of defensive structures.
• Further refinement of the map of the Zmiyevi Vali in the area between the Zdvizh and Teterev rivers and along the Krasnaya and Ros’ rivers will continue. Of particular interest are the villages of Khodorkov and Yaropovichi on Irpin river, to which several lines of ramparts from Unava and Ros’ rivers converge.

*) Some of the coal samples transferred already for analysis to the Laboratory of Absolute Age of the Geological Institute of Academy of Sciences of the USSR. The results of the analysis will for the first time provide an accurate answer to the question of when the lines of the Zmiyevi Vali closest to Kyiv built.

 84 — 1

 References  [Література]

1.  Газета «Труд» 14 августа 1969 р. [The newspaper “Trud”, August 14, 1969]

2.  И.И.Фундуклей. Обозрение могил, валов и городищ Киевской губернии, К., 1848. [I.Funduklei. Survey of graves, vali and fortified settlements of the Kyiv province. Kyiv, 1848].

3.  Л.П.Похилевич. Сказания о населенных местностях Киевской губернии, K., 1868. [L.Pohilevich. Legends about the populated areas of the Kyiv province. K., 1868]

4-1.  В.Б.Антонович. Змиевы валы в пределах Киевской земли. Киевская старина; март, 1884. [V.Antonovich. Zmievi Vali within the Kyiv land. Kyiv antiquity. March.1884]

4-2.  В.Б.Антонович. Археоогическая карта Киевской губернии. Москва. 1895.  [V.Antonovich. Archaeological map of the Kiev province. Moscow. 1895].

5-1.  Л. Добровольский. Змиевы валы вблизи Киева, К., 1908;   [Zmievi Vali near Kyiv. Kyiv, 1908].

5-2.  Л. Добровольский. Водораздел Ирпеня и Стугны. Чтения в Историческом обществе Нестора-летописца, кн. 21, № 3, Киев, 1910; [L.Dobrovolski. Watershed of Irpin and Stugna. Readings in the Historical Society of Nestor the Chronicler, book 21, #3, Kyiv, 1910].

5-3.  Л. Добровольский. К вопросу о древних укреплениях в окрестностях Киева. Военно-исторический вестник, кн. 1, 1912; L.Dobrovolski. On the issue of ancient fortifications in the vicinity of Kyiv. Military history bulletin, book 1, 1912].

5-4.  Л. Добровольский. (1) Колишній наддніпрянський оборонний вал під Києвом (Мриги-Конча). (2) З минулого Хотівської околиці Києва. — Записки Iсторико-філологічного відділу  Всеукраїнської Академії Наук, кн. XIII, К., 1927;  [L.Dobrovolski. (1) Ancient Naddnipryanskiy defensive Val near Kyiv (Mrigi-Koncha).  (2) From the past of the Khotovskaya outskirts of Kiev Notes of the Historical and Philological Viddilu of All-Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, book 13, Kyiv, 1927]

5-5.  Л. Добровольский. Городище у Почтовой Виты. Киев, 1912. [L.Dobrovolsky. Fortified settlement near Vita Poschtova. Kyiv. 1912].

6-1.  Б.С.Стеллецкий. Белгородка, К., 1909. [B.Stelletski. Belgorodka. Kyiv. 1909].

8-2.  Б.C.Cтеллецкий. Общая схема древних укреплений и путей вокруг Киева. Военно-исторический вестник, К., № 7-8, 1911. [B.Stelletski. General scheme of ancient fortifications and paths around Kiev. Military-historical bulletin, K., #7-8, 1911].

7.  Е.Й.Сецинский.  Археологическая карта Подольской губернии. Труды 11-го Археологического съезда в Киеве, 1899, т.1, Москва, 1901. [E.Setsinski. Archaeol. map of the Podolsk province. Proc. 11-th Archaeol. Congr. in Kyiv, v.1, Moscow, 1901].

 84-2

 8. В.Б.Антонович. Археологическая карта Волынской губернии. Труды 11-го Археологического съезда в Киеве, 1899, т.1. [V.Antonovich. Archaeological map of the Volyn province. Proceedings of the 11th Archaeol. Congr. in Kyiv, 1899, v.1].

9-1. И.Г.Ляскоронский. Городища, курганы и длинные (змиевы) валы, находящиеся в бассейне р. Сулы. Труды XI Археологического съезда в Киеве, 1899, т.1; [I.Laskoronski. Settlements, barrows and long (Zmievi) Vali located in the basin of the river Sula. Proc.XI Archaeol. Congr. in Kyiv, vol 1, 1899].

9-2. И.Г.Ляскоронский. Городища, курганы и длинные (змиевы) валы, по течению рек Псла и Ворсклы. Труды 13 Археологического съезда в Екатеринославе, 1905, т. 1, М.,1907; [I.Laskoronski. Settlements, mounds and long (Zmievi) Vali, along the course of the Psla and Vorskla rivers. Proc.13-th Archaeol. Congress in Yekaterinoslav, 1905, vol. 1, Moscow, 1907].

9-3. И.Г.Ляскоронский. Змиевы валы в пределах южной России, их соотношение к курганам-майданам и приблизительная эпоха их возникновения. Труды 13 Археологического съезда в Екатеринославе, 1905, т. 1, М.,1907.   [I.Laskoronski. Zmiyevy Vali within southern Russia, their ratio to the maidan mounds and the approximate era of their origin. Proc.13-th Archaeol. Congress in Yekaterinoslav, 1905, vol. 1, Moscow, 1907].

9-4. И.Г.Ляскоронский. Городища, курганы, майданы и длинные (змиевы) валы в области Днепровского Левобережья. Труды IV Археологического съезда в Чернигове, 1909; Мoscow, 1911.  [I.Laskoronski. Settlements, mounds, maidans and long (Zmievi) Vali in the region of the Dnieper Left Bank. Proceedings of the IV Archaeological Congress in Chernigov, 1909; Moscow, Moscow, 1911].

10.  М.А.Максимович. Труды 1 Археологического съезда в Москве, 1869, т. 1, М.,1871. [M.Maksimovich. Proceedings of the 1st Archaeological Congress in Moscow, 1869, vol. 1, Moscow, 1871].

11.  І.Lipoman. Zastanowienie siе nad mogilami, pustemi siedliskami i zamczyskami okopanemi, Zmijowymi walami ets., Wilno, 1832.

12.  М.Grabowski. Ukraina dawna i terazniejsza, t.1, Kijow, 1850.

13.  S.Groza. Opisame mogil i innych starozytnosci powiatu

Machnowieckiego,Кijowskiej 1884 roku. “Atenaeum», t.V, Wilno, 1854.

14.  М.Wisznicki. Waly Trajana, “Ziema», t.II, 1911.

15.  Р.Szafarzyk. Slowianskie starozytnosci, t.1, Praha, 1837.

16-1.  Б.А.Рыбаков. Древняя Русь, М., 1963; [B.Ribakov. Ancient Russia. M., 1963].

 84-3

 16-2.  Б.А.Рыбаков. Владимировы Крепости на Стугне. Краткие сообщения Института археологии АН СССР, М.,  выпуск 100, 1965. [B.Ribakov. Vladimirov’ Fortress on Stugna. Brief reports of the Institute of Archeology of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, M., issue 100, 1965].

17.  Н.Н.Воронин. Крепостные сооружения. История культуры древней Руси, т.1, 1948. [N.Voronin. Fortress structures. History of the culture of ancient Russia, vol. 1, 1948].

18. В.Й.Довженок. Військова справа в Київській Pyci, К., 1950. [V.Dovzenok. Military affairs in Kyivan Rus. Kyiv. 1950].

19-1. П.А.Раппопорт. К вопросу о системе обороны Киевской земли. Краткие сообщения Института археологии АН УССР, К., 1954. [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 Ukraine, K., 1954].

19-2. П.А.Раппопорт. Очерки по истории русского зодчества, Х—ХІІІ в. МИА СССР, 1956, № 52. [P.Rappoport. Essays on the history of Russian architecture, X-XIII centuries. MIA USSR, 1956, No. 52.

20. Е.Kowalczyk. Waly Zmijowe. “Kwartalnik Historii Kultury Materialnej",  XVII, № 2, 1969.

21. В.Б.Антонович. Змиевы валы в пределах Киевской земли. Киевская старина; март, 1884, стр.356.. [V.Antonovich. Zmievi Vali within the Kyiv land. Kyiv antiquity. March.1884, p.356]

22. В.Б.Антонович. Археологическая карта Волынской губернии. Труды 11-го Археологического съезда в Киеве, 1899, т.1, стр. 133-134. [V.Antonovich. Archaeological map of the Volyn province. Proceedings of the 11th Archaeol. Congr. in Kyiv, 1899, v.1, p.133-134]..

23. Б.С.Стеллецкий. Белгородка, К., 1909. [B.Stelletski. Belgorodka. Kyiv. 1909].

24. Военно-исторический вестник.  Приложение к № 7—8, 1911. [Military Historical Bulletin. Appendix to No. 7-8, 1911].

25. П.А.Раппопорт. Древнерусские крепости, М., 1965, стор. 39. [P.Rappoport. Old Russian fortresses, M., 1965, p. 39].

26. А.Г.Кузьмин. Слово о полку Игореве «о начале русской земли». «Вопросы   истории», 1969, № 5, стор. 64. [A.Kuzmin. A word about Igor's regiment "about the beginning of the Russian land."  Questions of history, 1969, № 5, p.64].