Archeological studies
Although the history of Galicia traditionally begins with the first documentary references to the territory that reveal its association with Kievan Rus’ in the late tenth century, there are also several archeological studies of the region, the results of which have often been used by historians to confirm or deny hypotheses about “prehistoric” and later historical developments.
Among the more prolific archeologists in the first half of the twentieth century were Bohdan Janusz, laroslav Pasternak, and Leon Kozlowski, each of whom wrote one or more general surveys of archeological findings in all or part of Galicia from the Paleolithic Age (300,000 BC) to the tenth century AD.[186] Before World War II, the number of archeological finds was already sufficient enough that monographs could be devoted to specific periods of archeological development in Galicia, in particular to what was called Scythian culture and the Roman Age.2 Medieval cities, especially Halych and L’viv, have also been a traditional focus of attention for archeological studies.3Archeological research in Galicia actually began in a serious manner in the second half of the nineteenth century, and a description of this early work was published by the local cultural activist lakiv Holovats’kyi.4 Since that time, the ever increasing number of archeological finds has been successively cataloged, beginning with the years before World War I,5 continuing during the interwar years,6 and culminating with the Soviet period after 1945, when archeological research in the region became particularly active. The results of the extensive Soviet work in Galicia and neighboring regions can be found in a journal devoted specifically to the subject, Materialy i doslidzhennia z arkheolohii' Prykarpattia i Volyni (Kiev 1958-present), as well as in numerous monographs and articles.7
2 Volodymyr Hrebeniak, “Slidy skyts’koi kul’tury v Halychyni,” Zapysky NTSh, CXVIICXVIII (L’viv 1914), pp.
9-25; Tadeusz Sulimirski, Scytowie na zachodniem Podolu, Prace Lwowskiego Towarzystwa Prehistorycznego, vol. II (L’viv 1936); Karol Hadaczek, ‘‘Kultura dorzecza Dniestru w epoce cesarstwa rzymskiego,” in Materyaldw archeologiczno- antropologicznych, XII (Cracow 1912), pp. 22-32; Marcyan Smiszko, Kultury wczesnego okresu epoki cesarstwa rzymskiego w Malopolsce Wschodniej (L’viv: Towarzystwo Naukowe 1932); M. Smiszko, T. Sulimirski, and K. Myczkowski, Przyczynki do poznania epoki cesarstwa rzymskiego potudniowo-wschodniej Polski, Prace Lwowskiego Towarzystwa Prehistorycznego, vol. I (L’viv 1934).3 See notes 47-55 below.
4 Iakov Golovatskii, “Ob izsliedovanii pamiatnikov russkoi stariny v Galichinie,’’ Trudy 1. ar- kheologicheskago s"iezda vMoskvie, I (Moscow 1869), pp. 219-241.
5 Wladyslaw Przybyslawski, Repertoryum zabytkdw przedhistorycznych Galicyi wschodniej (L’viv 1906); Volodymyr Hrebeniak, “Novi arkheol’ogichni nakhidky na terytorii Skhidnoi Halychyny,” Zapysky NTSh, CXXII (L’viv 1915), pp. 5-28; Bohdan Janusz, Zabytki przedhistoryczne Galicyi wschodniej, Prace Naukowe Wydawnictwa Tow. dla Popierania Nauki Polskiej, sect. 1, vol. V (L’viv 1918).
6 lurii Polians’kyi, “Novi arkheol’ogichni znakhidky z Halychyny," Zapysky NTSh, CXLIX (L’viv 1928), pp. 9-30; laroslav Pasternak, “Novovidkryti ryms’ki pam’’iatky z Halychyny i Volyni,” Zapysky NTSh, CLI (L’viv 1931), pp. 1 - 17; idem, “Persha bronzova doba v Halychyni v svitli novykh rozkopok,” Zapysky NTSh, CLII (L’viv 1933), pp. 63- 112; idem, “Novi arkheolohichni nabutky (1929- 1932),” Zapysky NTSh, CLII (L’viv 1933), pp. 113-130; idem, “Novi arkheolohichni nabutky Muzeiu NTSh u L’vovi za chas vid 1933-1936,” Zapysky NTSh, CLIV (L’viv 1937), pp. 242 - 268.
7 See the catalog of archeological sites in Galicia in O.O. Ratych, Drevn’orus’ki arkheolohichni pam”iatky na terytorii zakhidnykh oblastei URSR (Kiev: AN URSR 1957); the comprehensive bibliography in Arkheolohichni pam”iatky Prykarpattia i Volyni u rann'oslov"ians’kyi ta davn'orus’kyi chasy (Kiev: Naukova dumka 1982); and the monographs on specific periods by O.P. Chemysh et al., eds., Arkheolohichni pam"iatky Prykarpattia i Volyni kam"ianoho viku (Kiev:
A problem that links archeological “prehistory” with the historical era of Galician development is that of the Croats or White Croats, who are known to have inhabited the upper Dniester and Buh regions sometime between the fifth and tenth centuries AD.
Insufficient written documentary evidence and differing views regarding the available archeological and linguistic data have produced an extensive though controversial literature about the White Croats and Galicia. The controversy centers on several problems: (1) the origins of the group (whether they were autochthonous or an Irano-Alanic tribe or military/merchant elite from the Caucasus who migrated north of the Carpathians and then were absorbed by the sedentary western and eastern Slavs over whom they ruled and to whom they bequeathed their name); (2) the territorial extent of their rule (whether or not they formed a “Croatian Empire” stretching from the Oder valley in the west to the upper Dniester and Buh valleys in the east); (3) their migration southward (whether in the fifth, or sixth, or seventh centuries) and their relationship to the ancestors of the modern-day Croats; (4) their relationship to Moravia (whether or not they were annexed in the ninth century by the Greater Moravian state, which then established centers like Przemysl and introduced Christianity); and finally (5) their “ethnicity” (whether they were eastern Slavs, western Slavs, or a confederation of tribes of which only one was the White Croatian in Galicia).The best introductory survey on the White Croats is the concise encyclopedic article by Gerard Labuda, that outlines the various problems and reviews the existing literature on the subject.[187] [188] In 1863, the Galician-Ukrainian writer Omelian Partyts’kyi put forth what has come to be the traditional view of the White Croats: that they were an autochthonous East Slavic population that had created a strong state in Galicia by the seventh century and had then united with Kievan Rus’ in the early tenth century.[189] With some adjustments, this view has been maintained by most Ukrainian writers, as well as in more recent times by Soviet archeologists and historians anxious to reveal the existence of state structures among the eastern Slavs before the coming of the Varangians in the ninth century.[190] The Soviets are particularly opposed to Polish scholars (some of whom place the center of the White Croats along the upper Vistula, others along the upper Dniester), because they do not stress the supposedly exclusive eastern Slavic aspect of the Croats, and in at least one instance (Paszkiewicz) argue that they are all western Slavs.[191] The Czech specialists on early Slavic and medieval history, Lubor Niederle and Francis Dvornik, argue that the White Croats, centered along the upper Vistula River, were originally neither East Slavic nor West Slavic (having originated as an Irano-Alanic group from the Caucasus region), and that it was only after the majority of the group migrated southward (during the sixth century) that the remnants left behind were absorbed by local Slavs to whom they gave their name, so that only by the ninth and tenth centuries can one speak of ‘‘Polish, ’ ’ ‘ ‘Czech, ’ ’ or “Rus’ ” Croats.[192] The presence of Moravian-Czech influence in Galicia during the tenth century, to which the founding of Przemysl (c. 970s) and the introduction of a hybrid Latin/Byzantine form of Christianity are attributed, forms the subject of studies by laroslav Pasternak and Vaclav Chaloupecky.[193]
More on the topic Archeological studies:
- Theme 1. The Emergence and Development of the Southern Slavonic Tribes and Establishment of Kyivan Rus between the 2nd and the 11th Centuries
- 5 The Original Homeland of the Slavs
- Theme 10. The National Revival and Economic Modernization of the Ukrainian Lands under the Austrian (Austro-Hungarian) Monarchy of Habsburgs and the Russian Empire from the Middle 19th to the Early 20th Centuries