The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

To the history of origin of Galich



mikhait nesin

to the history of origin of Galich

Despite fierce debate about the concrete maintenance of a concept gorod1, all authors are solidary that process of a gradoobrazovaniye symbolizes an important stage of social development when there is a need for allocation certain ruling centrov2. Therefore the subject of a gradoobrazovaniye is integral for fruitful investigation in Old Russian social history. At east Slavs of the city appear in USh-1H of centuries 3 in quality polifunktsionalnykh4 the centers of again formed so-called "tribes", actually already actually territorialnykh5 ethnopolitical formations - glades, Drevlyans, it is nice, etc. which emergence actually and was caused by a victory of territorial communications over leaving patrimonial. (We will remind that the concept of the tribe in this case is especially historiographic, in sources there is no name characterizing a stage of the social relations of these Slavic formations at all. Though it did not prevent "tribes" to become a common stamp and it is easy to wander even on those works where their breeding essence.6) Besides as M.I. Zhikh fairly noted is denied, this situation is really contradicted by no points of view about time of final disintegration patrimonial svyazey7 (which some historians date the end of the X century). Process of social development proceeds not suddenly, and new trends noticeably advance old even before full withdrawal of the last. Especially as destruction of patrimonial communications began even with resettlement of Slavs in the 6th century 8, but tribes of USh-1H of centuries were sharply allocated on sociocultural tipu9. Even if "tribe" arose not at disintegration of big community as, for example, to a glade, and from local education of the same name as Croats, during the specified period the society endured the corresponding social shifts up to change of material culture. Croats of the 6-7th centuries are presented by cultural monuments of the Prague type, and the 8-9th centuries are onions-raykovetskoy10. Not breeding nature of "tribes" is confirmed also by the data on early domination of the cities considered by us at Slavs, with the real tribal system not sovmestimym11. It is symptomatic that the thought of a territorial essence of "tribes" nowadays got also into ranks of the senior generation of school of I.Ya. Froyanova12.

In this regard the history of formation of Galich which grew in the Croatian earth on the basis of found by archeologists on Krylosa is interesting

ancient settlement. Being located in the nodal place and initially involved in international trade, it, probably, primordially had big znachimost13. But a question of when and as it became the city, it is not solved to these por14. In this regard at once It should be noted illegality of especially ideological binding to data on pass of Hungarians made recently by two authoritative Ukrainian scientists through these places in 989 g 15 Scientists purposely supported the aspiration of local authorities to impose to Galich round date. Though date about migration of Hungarians through the southern East Slavic lands is very conditional because Hungarians left Transnistria in 10 years prior to etogo16. Besides, if it is strict to trust the legend by the Hungarian Anonymous author of the 12th century (where pass of Hungarians through Galich is described), Galich in it appears as already ready city with we reign a table, and Hungarians did not help its glorification, and on the contrary, took from the local prince with team generous otkup17. Besides, despite existence near Galich of the Hungarian burials that let18, according to archaeological data, pass of Hungarians really did not affect Krylosskoye posele-niye19 in any way. Besides, the text of the Anonymous author was made already several centuries later, many realities in it could not but take not documentary character for such term. It is important to note that Hungarians just began to take hostage children galichan in the 12th century 20, shortly before drawing up this Hungarian text. In this regard the similar requisitions specified in the legend could serve as the art equation of modern victories. As N.F. Kotlyar noted, "the celebration of 1100-year anniversary of Galich initiated by local government is represented illogical. Foundation of the city should be established or according to archaeological sources (as it was made in a case with Kiev), and then origin of Galich will be spaced from ours on the 12th time, and even for 13 centuries, or on the first mention in an authentic source, and it is 1140". At the same time, in a question of time of the basis of Galich there is no unity and among other scientists. It is necessary to mark out three main points of view. It agrees the first of them (A. Aullikh), the settlement was the city iznachalno22 though in VI (and furthermore in V) century of the cities at east Slavs was not yet. According to the second point of view (N. Kotlyar), Galich became the city rather late, in the 12th century, only then in it there was a fortress serving, according to the scientist, as the integral sign medieval goroda23. However, this opinion leans on outdated archaeological materials as in the 1990th on Krylosa the strengthenings created in the middle of the 10th century 24 that, however, does not prevent N. Kotlyar to put forward still old theses were found without mentioning opening new gorodishcha25. Attached so crucial importance to emergence of strengthenings and

A.V. Mayorov26. Medieval towns indeed did not manage without krepostey27. However, sometimes fortress was built outside the city as a shelter for neighboring peasants or strengthening of the precity settlement. So, powerful waves of the Slovenian priilmensky town on Mayata are dated still 7th century though the city it became later, the mass finds testifying to the large inhabited settlement belong to the 9th century 28 that quite corresponds to time of primary gradoobrazovaniye at east Slavs (results of excavation of this settlement put under serious doubt the known theory of E.N. Nosov about exclusive influence on process of primary gradoobrazovaniye at it is nice the foreign trade headed and organized by Scandinavians) 29. As an argument E. Nosov referred to excavation on the Ancient settlement, however it arose in the middle of the 9th century not as the city, and as a princely farmstead of alien dicrusts. Besides domination of this its function recognizes even E. Nosov30, seeking to show it typical trade and craft "protogorody". The natural narrowness of the site on which it arose initially excluded a possibility of the territorial growth, necessary for the city. Existence on it the craft economy easily explainably its exterritoriality which is fitting in and in East Slavic uklad31. Not casually the residence on the Ancient settlement, unlike the neighboring Slovenian centers, continuously kept the value till 11th century when a row already approved Novgorod. Further century calm was accompanied by the accurate adoption in Novgorod of reigning of the Kiev deputies. Then Yaroslav the Wise transferred the yard closer to the city, to the place of Dvorishcha which was then out of city massiva32. But by the end

Gorodishche33 became XI century, with approach of the city, the main prince yard again. Besides in the 9th century, except the town on Mayata, in Priilme-nye other Slovenian cities, like Holopy gorodka34 appeared. Perhaps, the competition between these very close lying centers also played a role voknyazheniya of alien dicrusts. Besides time of emergence of the town on Mayata and his transformations into the city in the 9th century coincides with similar processes of internal development of other East Slavic "tribes", for example, of glades at which Kiev became the city too not earlier than the 9th century 35 whereas for the entire period of Old Russian history in it the number of Norman finds did not exceed dvadtsati36. Such picture will perfectly be coordinated with anthropological materialom37. Also the Carpathian Croats who also in the 9th century had a change of cultural type and emergence of the cities were not an exception though their lands lay away from the trade ways used by Normans. Naturally, foreign trade played an important role in strengthening of the East Slavic centers. But their emergence

and internal development went under local laws, but not at what will - because overseas dealers. Also the uninhabited "towns" founded in the 13th century by Alexander Nevsky on Sheloni are indicative. At one of them - Porkhov - the city grew more than hundred years spustya38. However, before construction of the first strengthenings the city center did not appear. But, unlike N.F. Kotlyar, A. Mayorov considered the latest archaeological developments and therefore fairly tied the basis of Galich to the middle of the 10th century 39 Besides, besides time also emergence of "the Galitsiny grave" with which in Galich the beginnings of the 13th century the legend about the birth goroda40 was strongly connected belongs. Indeed, according to news of the Ipatyevsky chronicle under 6614 (1206) "Privedosha to Mstislav's galichena on Benedict and a priida to Galichyu; and not ouspev-shyu an emoa nothing, Shchepanovich of Eli having built and on Galitsinou can-low, having grinned, speeches to an emo: & #34; Knyazhe! to an esa ouzha on Galitsin to a mogyla posedel, taka and in Galich knyazhil еси"; to a smeyakho bo sya to an emo, be turned back in Peresopnitsyu. And on seven skazhem about Galitsin to a grave and about nachat of Galich, an otkoudoa sya pochal" 41. And though the narration about foundation of the city and emergence of a grave did not reach us, but, according to a right remark issle-dovateley42, already from this mention it is visible that these two events for galichan were inseparably linked. However, it is important to consider that for two and a half centuries it could suffer strong distortion. So, in the 11th century specified two tombs of the prince Oleg who died in 912 g, and less than hundred years later after the Moscow conquest of Novgorod the local chroniclers were confused in localization of borders of Yaroslavov of the yard, the former veche center of the fallen republic, in the 16th century including the church of the patroness of trade built at the bargaining Paraskev Friday dvorishchensky hramom43 though earlier it was mentioned "at the Bargaining", and under 6621 (1113), the Ipatyevsky chronicle says that the Nicolo-Dvorishchensky cathedral was delivered "on the princess the yard to Novego-rode at Torgovishcha", accurately dividing these areas goroda44. Therefore it is hardly true to speak about unity of the territory of the bargaining and princely dvora45. It is worth recognizing a mistake of the late chronicler, easily explainable as loss dvorishchy former public value. Besides, not its birth, but an important stage in development sometimes was considered as the beginning of the city. The Novgorod news of arrival of Rurik since which Novgorod "lyudy an essence from a sort Varangian", but thus Novgorod (or more likely the city which is conditionally called Novgorod) already was and had the way is indicative therefore the chronicler immediately emphasized that Novgorod "lyudy an essence of Slovenia" 46. At the same time the research of a galitsky barrow showed that it was princely pogrebeniyem47. Therefore it is worth agreeing with V.D. Barend, B.P. Tomenchuk,

A.V. Mayorov and M.I. of Zhikhom48 that emergence of a barrow (almost sin-

hronny with construction of fortress) had connection with transformation of the ancient Croatian settlement into the large city center. However, contrary to opinion And. Mayorovu49, ancient settlements of this kind at Croats appeared not only in the middle of the 10th century, but also throughout the two-centuries period, from IX in beginning XI Articles 50. At the same time emergence of this sort of settlements was accompanied by the improvement which took place in the 9th century at local Slavs in zemledelii51 and coincided with a gradoobrazovaniye at other East Slavic communities. Therefore it is incorrect to judge somebody special rise in town planning in the region at the time of emergence of shafts on Krylosa, in our opinion. The city of Galich became more than hundred years later later emergence in the Carpathian Croats of the first city centers. With rather late finding by the large East Slavic village of the city status we meet also at the Smolensk Krivichi. The capital of the last, the city of Smolensk (till 11th century being in Gnezdovo, but in the middle of the 10th century mentioned under the name Konstantin Bagryanorodny as the slavinii center krivichey52) grew from the Slavic settlement located on the important trade way too and became the city already in the X Article 53. It is curious that many of the above-mentioned authors read out Smolensk-Gnezdovo the certain polietnichny, torn-off from local Slavic the district trade and craft settlement, from huge (if not leading) a social and cultural role Scandinavian poselentsev54. But almost all Norman things were found in the burials arranged generally just on an East Slavic sample. And the Scandinavian origin of a part from these finds sporno55. Thirdly, as it was repeatedly noted in science, existence of imported things in the East Slavic centers is not the proof of presence of many Norman is lodged-tsev56. It is especially important taking into account existence in Eastern Europe of trade waterways with which subsidence in the East Slavic cities not only Norman, but also Byzantine, Arab and Western European objects is connected.

Probably, formation of the city of Galich (and it is possible, and the same Smolensk) was connected with establishment in it of reigning which did not represent autocratic "monarchy" 57, but was the integral element of a city social organism and quite lawful occasion for gradoobrazovaniya58. At the same time (at least, for the second half of the 10th century) among other regional centers Galich was not the main thing. Already to 981 g Pe-remyshl (erected shortly before it in the third quarter of the same century) 59 which capture by Kiev residents was automatically equated to conquest of all Croatian Prikarpatya60 was the main town the district. However, except

it there was a campaign on Croats of 992 g 61 But then moved to more western, Transcarpathian lands. Peremyshl taken in 981 g lay to the west of Galich, so the last and even less so was subdued still then. Sometimes, however, write that Croats submitted to Kiev at Olege62. But, specified M. by Zhikh63, the late list of participants of a campaign on Greeks could be doubtful, but also, Croats could go hiking not as tributaries, and as the allies wishing to profit in rich Black Sea Coast. In details wrote both EL of Korolyuk64, and the same I.Ya. of Froyanov65 about it. further change of views and. Froyanova it was connected with development of its general view on evolution of a dannichestvo at a politogeneza though no internal social system cancelled external contacts. Another thing is that the second half of the 10th century was for the Carpathian Croats hard time. Nearby the young Kiev state which was actively incorporating new East Slavic "tribes" saved forces. In the West Poland posed a threat. Already in the second half of the century the strong opposition of Kiev with Poland for the power in the region will begin (an edge baptism at Vladimir I and submission to its again built city of Vladimir-Volynsk fit into series of these protivostoyaniy66 too). Croats endured the difficult period of association with tiverets and ulicham which at that time receded to this region from an impact pechenegov67. After conquest of the region Kiev the prince table and an episkopiya of all future Southwest Russia within several decades concentrate in Vladimir-Volynsk created as a strong point of Kiev and which removed the neighboring center volynyan Volhynia to a role of the simple suburb. Volhynia at the same time did not disappear, having decayed, allegedly, at crash patrimonial stroya68. About attenuation of social development of the Volynsk society the sources are silent, and Volhynia "on Bug" existed even in the 15th century 69 However, in the 1180th the Kiev prince Vsevolod Yaroslavich should have attached urgently aggressive landless brothers Rostislavichey, and in the Croatian Prikarpatye prince tables in Peremyshla, Zvenigorod and Trebovle are approved. (Not without reason Vsevolod gave them lands after their cruel attack to Vladimir-Volynsk, and before was reconciled with their landless provision and lack of reignings in future Galichina). Though the choice of the new princely capitals was influenced also by local realities. For example, Peremyshl given to the elder brother initially was the main center of the Carpathian Croats, the city of the average brother, Zvenigorod, arose in the 1140th 70 on the place of one of three major sanctuaries described al-Massudi kraya71. As for Trebovl, he grew up in the nodal place and in many respects due to the convenient location on the visible trade ways actively moved forward to the end of the century as alternative

To Peremyshl a capital hail in the region. However, according to N. of Kotlya-ra72, Trebovel was always dependent, blindly submitting to Peremyshl, and then at once to Galich. However, at the end of the 11th century the known independence of Trebovlya73 is observed. The drama history connected with dazzle of the local prince Vasily Rostislavich is indicative. Even in Kiev and Vladimir-Volynsk the earth which is becoming stronger Trebovol-Skye seemed the competitor. The location of the city which is obviously involved in the salt trade passing through Peremyshl and Galich with Kiev and connected by the rivers with the Black Sea trade affected. In 1097 Vasily Terebovolsky wanted to subordinate to himself Danube, than and caused anger in Kiev and Vladimir.

Galich also is a part of Trebovolsky possession. In the first half of the 12th century in it there is a princely table for Ivan Vasilyevich, the younger son of the died trebovolsky prince Vasily Rostislavi-cha. Between 1124 and 1140, after the death of the elder brother, Ivan inherits also Terebovol, but it is necessary to live in Galiche74. After his death in 1141 its lands departed to Vladimir Volodarevich Peremyshlsky, and that made the prince capital of Galich again. Expressed the reason of this decision different mneniya75. Possibly, the practice shown at that time when the prince specially chose weaker center worked to depend less on the growing state ambitions of a local vech. It is known that in the first half of the same century Yury Dolgorukiy consciously went to Suzdal, and in the middle of the century his son Andrey preferred Vladimir-Zalesskiy76. However, these authors are hardly right, speaking about special primordial weakness of a vech on North востоке77. Otherwise not to understand how in the second half of the 12th century the residents of Suzdal and residents of Vladimir suddenly began to play very noticeable role in the state policy of the region. Besides still the prince Yury Vladimirovich who was especially stipulating with them an inheritance order knyazheniya78 reckoned with the getting stronger strength of residents of Suzdal. It is also important to note that the chronicler mentioned it already much later, and that in relation to history of a voknyazheniye of Andrey. Means, growth of the state role of a vech at transfer to the city of the prince capital was for domongolsky Russia norm. Though in administrative activity of the prince there was a number of important aspects - the Supreme legal proceedings, taxation of the volost, implementation of the current management and presidency on a veche that could give to it hope to manage to appropriate everything. Just with the device in these cities of the prince centers the local veche descents from meetings of the local importance gained the state value more and more. But too small city for such purposes was bad too. Andrey Bogolyubsky could not make the capital loved by Bogolyubovo, and his father - to Kideksh. However, Galich

that time (it is equal as at the time Suzdal and Vladimir) were quite suitable for these purposes. The statement in it the prince center in addition promoted its strengthening. From the middle of the 12th century noticeable growth city territorii79 is observed. From 1140th we were reached by traces local letopisaniya80. Then stone cathedral Uspensky sobor81 was put. Vladimir Volodarevich reigning at that time in Galich is considered sometimes the cynical atheist, referring to his hostility to krestotselovaniyu82. However, what he had to swear, was not for the benefit of its earth - Galichina. And during an era of specific fragmentation the relation to personal and others' shrines was inadequate. The nizovsky hosts taking Kiev plundered rich Kiev temples. And the princes of Rostislavichi called in the 1170th to the bottoms-sky cities, on an apt expression of the Vladimir scribe, greedy robbed local church gold, so, "a yak not the volost of the tvorist" 83. To the middle of the century the state role of a local vech also amplifies. Already by the time of the beginning of reigning of the son Vladimir Yaroslav for a galitsky vech will become natural to influence actively state politiku84. Not without reason, on the remark of galitsky vechnik stated then near Trebovl, the old prince fed and loved them, promoting strengthening of the edge in a system Old Russian zemel85, and, therefore, and the state role of a local vech. It, but not certain magiyey86 also speaks why to the galichena in 1145 87 reconciled to power return of this prince and his rough handlings over many vechnikami88 (besides, the victory over Berladnik brought to Galichina new Zvenigorod lands). and the initial reason of the address of a galitsky vech to Berladnik was not in the general unpopularity of Vladimir or just in defeat, heavy for Galichina, in recent war with Kiyevom89. Military losses in itself and defeats did not conduct to a quarrel of Old Russian vechnik with the princes. But at invasion of enemies the prince did not defend Galich, worrying for volost granitsy90 more that, by the way, accelerated defeat as the numerous enemies surpassing galichan in force bypassed the last and barred them the way to their unprotected stolitse91. It also touched galitsky vechnik who, as well as everywhere in Russia, from all city strata were most terribly tied to the native place that found reflection in the person social terminologii92. But the further reigning of Vladimir Volodarevich aimed at strengthening of Galichina reconciled them with this prince because of the same blood attachment to the city again. Similar cases in Russia happened. Izyaslav Yaroslavovich expelled before by the Kiev vechnik on their call returned back to them "миромъ", namely under the actual cover of overseas allies, having sent

forward is the son who "to a kiyana isecha, Besh's Izh cut Vseslav, number 70 smoke, and drugyya a slepisha, drugyya without fault ruin, not ispytav". But Kiev residents such world suited, "an izidosh to a lyudya against with bow, and a priyashcha the prince the kyena; and cedi of Izyaslav on a table svo-em, month of May v 2 day" 93. And then "a vjzgn torg on the mountain" 94 to the yard, having deprived of Kiev residents of one of important places territorial skhodok95. But Kiev residents appreciated this prince, former, unlike Vseslav Polotsky who threw them, faithful to Kyivshchyna. And though sometimes write that severe punishments of the prince paralyzed the Kiev veche before a revolt of 1113 96, it not so. In 6705 (1097) to "kyena" did not allow the Sacred regiment to Izyaslavich to engage with Vladimir Monomakh, and sent to it for holding peace talks his mother, the widow "Vse-volozhyuyu and the metropolitan Nikola" 97. The status "кыян" is shown in the same news where they clearly act as an equivalent "lyudiya", vechnikov98, resisting to "boyars" - to the senior combatants. Such understanding of similar turns is spoken well by news of the same chronicle for 1113 where boyars and all team mourn the died Svyatopolk, and to "kyena", on the contrary, call Vladimir Monomakh and smash the prominent combatants of the old prince identified with "bolyara" 99. The word meaning "boyars" in a similar context was typical for Kiev. According to the Kiev chronicle, in the middle of the 12th century the prince "a sozva of a boyara and team all and Kyyana") 100. Here boyars act as a part of team. In Galich under 6681 (1170/1171) "boyars", unlike "галичан", too combatants - a part them is specified as "other team" 101. In general, "boyars" in Russia were also territorial, and knyazhyi102. But in these cases the vechnik of all layers act as "lyudy", to "kiyena", "galichena" therefore strashy combatants were called boyars, without being afraid of confusion. To the contrary, when all team was designated by the general word, but mentioned territorial boyars, "boyars" called poslednikh103.

As for Zvenigorod, the former princely capital of Ivan Berladnik became the galitsky suburb, as the voivode will mention in it the severe princely combatant Ivan of "Haldeevich" a year later. When in 6655 (in the winter 1145/1146) 104 the Galitsky earth was attacked by the Russian-Polish-Pecheneg coalition headed by Kiev, on the way of interventionists there was Zvenigorod. In the first day the enemies managed pozhech "about its jail... and on the second put a stvorish of a veche of Zveni-gorodchi, a hotyasha sya predat and be at nikh the voivode Volodimir muzh Ivan haldeevich, an izoma at nikh men 3 and Ube and kagozhdo ikh pereten napol, a poverzha is a hail. That zagroz im. And nachasha of Zvenigorodtsi to Beaty's ottola bez lstiya" 105. From the Moscow grand-ducal arch of the end of the 15th century in addition we learn that Ivan had no relation to convocation of this vech, and interfered already then, "слышавъ" re-

a sheniye of vechnik, having been near "them in a siege" (we will note this circumstance especially), and the zvenigorodets killed with it "a besha of a nachalnitsa to a vech to that" 106. Proceeding from it, scientists see in the killed representatives local veche znati107. Certainly, three executed zvenigorodets were connected with vechy, figured on it, and their execution frightened citizens, having forced to obey the severe voivode. P.P. Tolochko who saw in them combatants only because they, as well as Ivan is hardly right, are called "men" 108. "Husband" in Russia considered the head of any free secular family, and "reign" the husband Ivan just purposely it is specified prince as opposed to the Zvenigorod vech. However, it is more logical to see in them not just boyars, and veche elected officials existing in Russia in parallel with directing vechy knyazhyimi109 tysyatsky. However, in Novgorod and Pskov this position was approved in hands of local veche elective. Time of its emergence and the class status tysyatsky is disputable. On V.L. Yanina, Mironeg living at the end of the 12th century was the first Novgorod tysyatsky, and till 14th century tysyatsky chose from not seigniorial layers living in princely hundreds resisting seigniorial kontsam110. But the attentive analysis of sources disproves division into the seigniorial ends and not seigniorial hundreds and stands on city hind legs of the order as the fate of a posadnichestvo, and sotsky and tysyatskikh111. Also chose tysyatsky of boyars. First known elective Novgorod tysyatsky Mironeg even before the election at own expense put rich stone hram112 that in Novgorod was usually seigniorial business. And the system thousands should be considered indissolubly with its centesimal under-razdeleniyami113. Sotsky in Novgorod at the beginning of the 12th century was visible boyarin114. Means, tysyatsky especially were boyars. They, probably, were connected with an old all-Russian territorial system, like the kashinsky "territorial chiliarches" existing in parallel with representatives of prince administration. At the beginning of the 12th century Novgorod was closest than sotskiya it is connected with the native city end, heading its anti-Kiev movement and being responsible for it before the prince along with other konchansky boyarstvom115. It is known that the prince Vladimir I consulted on important questions on the boyars and "aged men", in a counterbalance we reign to the people called "town". The dispute on the social status of these aged men lasts not one stoletiye116. According to present opinions, it or soon quitted the historical stage old breeding znat117, or the nedruzhinny nobility opposite on the status to ordinary "people" 118, or in general something from area of the book constructs which do not have relations to any certain social gruppe119. Of course, concept "aged man", "elder" 120 was in a sense multiple-valued as covered all

officials, including sat down at it is nice for "elder" of the prince of Ryurika121 and the "elder" working outside for Oleg konyukhov122. But it did not cancel also special category of the "town" aged men who had quite accurate social status (opposite to a prince environment) and social functions (participation in prince councils by preparation of important state decisions). By the way, the word "aged men" was rather steady all-Slavic designation of the social category interesting us. It even got into the Arab source describing life lyutichey123. accurate opposition of the Kiev town aged men to prince "boyars" declines us to correctness uchenykh124, considering their territorial representatives, and does not give the grounds to agree with A.E. Presnyakov for some reason considering them princely druzhinnikami125. However, they are not necessary and to connect with all territorial (or any else) the nobility. In the famous legend on the Belgorod kissel inserted into PVL the town aged men directly resist to all city veche "lyudiya" 126 - from ordinary people to the territorial boyars who were, thus, "aged men" is not universal at all. Therefore it is hardly true to argue on influence of commoners or, on the contrary, domination of the nobility, only proceeding from a role of town aged men in management gorodom127 (in this case B.D. Grekov writing about domination of aged men over vechy not without reason was right vech-nicknames did not decide to advance the plan at their presence and when one aged man after all found for them, at once obeyed to it. But the authority stuck to it on its rank, but not the general class status). And it is incorrect to carry "town" aged men to the leaving breeding nobility too. City aged men, elders did not disappear for centuries. In the 15th century tortured by requisitions Novgorod to the voloshchena abused not only "city", but also his "elders" 128. Besides, territorial city elective long were also out of Novgorod. In the Tver monument of the 15th century of the humble monk Thomas, the panegyric about the blessed grand duke Boris Aleksandrovich, there is a mention of the kashinsky "territorial tysyashchnik" running the city along with knyazhy lyudmi129. Territorial elective, existing in parallel with the princely yard, other people had a tradition also. Germans, except kings and combatants, had elective communal elders - the kuning representing communities on councils of the king and druzhiny130. Probably, and in Zvenigorod

XII century we deal with of this sort elective. If this is so, then both their communication with local vechy, and the subsequent sharp submission of the Zvenigorod vechnik is clear to Ivan. Business here in not a simple fright prigorozhan cruelty of the galitsky deputy. It is also important to note that, contrary to common mneniyu131, you should not consider this conflict a typical princely and veche conflict. Here more likely

faced capital and peripheral interesy132. The Galitsky deputy Ivan did not want to hand over galitsky possession, and zvenigorodets — to stand up for Galich. Old Russian authorities of the capital were not too soft on rebellious suburbs. Residents of Suzdal and rostovets together with allied Murom at the time nearly pozhgl rebellious Vladimir: whether "pozhzhy and paka in him we will put a posadnik, an essence ours the lackey of a kamennitsa" 133. Elimination of three elective heads of the Zvenigorod vech disorganized vechnik. In view of the medieval traditionalism the Old Russian society did not allocate the officials with full absolute power, but habitually entrusted them performance of certain functions. The case when the strong Kiev host disgracefully lost fight is known, hesitating to fight without traditional leadership knyazya134. And zvenigorodets did not think of themselves as solid force without habitual coordinators. (It is not surprising that else during Olga's revenge to Drevlyans iskorostensky "elders of a hail" 135 were separately executed. The scientist truly caught communication with kiyevocentristsky aspirations of Olga. Only that there was a fight not with local breeding znatyyu136, and with territorial power of the conquered region. Since then the center of Drevlyans was transferred to Ovruch, Ryurikovich put by Kiev governed there). So they had to obey the princely combatant and to keep defense of the city before arrival of galitsky troops. As a result, according to the Novgorod chronicler, Vsevolod Olgovich and his allies could not take Zvenigorod and any other "city" of Galichiny137 and left, without having suppressed strengthening of independence of the young Galitsky state.

Thus, transformation of the old Dnestr Croatian settlement into the city happened along with emergence of reigning in it in the middle of the 10th century. And, nearly initially Galich submitted to Peremyshl. With conquest of these lands Kiev Galich fell back into the shadow, but it was rather good for Ivan Vasilkovich and Vladimir Volodarevich to make of it the strong prince center. But, contrary to calculations of both princes, strengthening of Galichina in the system of Old Russian lands caused growth of a political role of a local vech. Galichane will be held Vladimir kind in remembrance as about the prince who much made for strengthening of Galichina therefore will reconcile to its power return to Galich after the quarrel with them. Murder of three zvenigorodets by the galitsky deputy was not a simple ostrastka prigorozhan, but disorganization of a local vech by elimination of three elective coordinators.

1. Alekseeva C.B. M.N. Tikhomirov as historian of the Old Russian city//M.N. Tikhomirov. Old Russian cities. SPb., 2003.
2. In the same place. Page 19.
3. V.V. Mavrodin, Froyanov I.Ya. Friedrich Engels about the main stages of decomposition of a patrimonial system and a question of emergence of the cities in Russia//the Bulletin of the Leningrad state university. 1970. Page 20.; I.Ya. Froyanov, I.B. Mikhaylova. The city or "протогород" (about one far-fetched historical category)//Early medieval antiquities of Northern Russia and its neighbors. SPb., 1999. A question historiography see in the same place.
4. V.V. Karlov. To a question of a concept of the early feudal city and its types in a domestic historiography//the Russian city (to a gradoobrazovaniye problem). Issue 3. / Under the editorship of V.L. Yanina. M, 1980. Page 83; A.V. Kuza 1) Social typology of the Old Russian cities//Russian city (researches and materials). Issue 6. / Under the editorship of V.L. Yanina. M, 1983. Page 14; 2) The cities in the social and economic system of the Old Russian feudal state of the 10-13th centuries//Short messages of Institute of history and archeology. M, 1984. Page 3; O.M. Rapov. Once again about the concept "Russian early feudal city"//Genesis and development of feudalism in Russia. L., 1983. / Under the editorship of V.A. Ezhov, I.Ya. Froyano-va. C.30. Tolochko of Subparagraphs 1) Ancient Kiev. To., 1983. Page 30; 2) Origin of the most ancient East Slavic cities//Earth of the Southern Russia of the 9-14th centuries. To., 1985.
5. Mountain A.A. From Slavic resettlement to the Moscow kingdom. M, 2004. Page 9-19.
6. I.Ya. Froyanov. Rebellious Novgorod. SPb., 1992. Page 57-60.
7. M.I. Zhikh. 1) To a problem of genesis of social topography of ancient Novgorod. Novgorodika - 2008. The veche republic in the history of Russia. Materials of the international academic and research conference on September 21-23, 2008 Part 1 / Sost.: D.B. Tereshkina, G.M. Kovalenko, S.V. Troyanovsky, T.L. Kaminskaya, K.F. Zavershinsky. Veliky Novgorod, 2009; 2) about origin of Novgorod and the beginning of the Novgorod statehood//http://ruskline. m/analitika/2010/06/21/o_proishozMemi_mvgoroda_i_nachale_mvgorodskoj_ gosudarstvennosti/
8. Mountain A.A. From Slavic resettlement...
9. V.V. Sedov. Old Russian nationality. Historical and archaeological research. M, 1999.
10. L.P. Mikhaylova, B.A. Tymoschuk. Slavic monuments of the basin of the Upper Prut of the VIII-X centuries//Slavs on Dniester and Danube. To., 1983.
11. Not M.A. Galitskoye a veche at Yaroslavl Osmomysle//the International historical magazine "Rusin". [Chisinau]. 2010. No. 1 (19). Page 90. primech. 47.
12. A.Yu. Dvornichenko. About an East Slavic politogenez in the 6-10th centuries//Rossica antiqua: researches and materials. 2006 / Otv. edition A.Yu. Dvornichenko, A.V. Mayorov. SPb., 2006. Page 186.
13. V.D. Rann_'s ram of a slov'yana m_zh Dn_stry і Prip'yattyu. To., 1972. Page 196197; Aul_kh V.V. Naselennya p_vdenno-zakh_dny pogranichchya Ki§vsko ї Rus_ (Z _stor і ї Galitsko ї zeml_ V-X article)//Ki§vska Russia: culture, traditsa і ї. / V_dp. edition. Ya.D. _sa¾vich. To., 1982; A.V. Mayorov 1) Galitsko-Volynsky Russia. Essays of the socio-political relations during the domongolsky period. Prince, boyars and city community. SPb., 2001 Page 183; 2) A problem of the basis of Galich in a modern historiography//Ukrayna in the Central Східній =vrop_ (z naydavn_shy chas_v to k_ntsya the XVIII article). Vipusk 3. To., 2003. Page 230.
14. A.V. Mayorov. Galitsko-Volynsky Russia... Page 182-188.
15. P.P. Tolochko to Galich - 1100 rok_v//Galich і Galitska the earth. To.; Galich, 1998; Ram of EL to Galich 1100 rok_v//Arkheolog_ya. 1999. No. 1. To., 1999.
16. M.K. Yurasov. Foreign policy actions of Hungarians in Central Europe in the second half _kh centuries//Slavs and their neighbors. The Middle Ages - early modern times. Issue 9. M, 1998.
17. V.P. Shusharin. The Russian-Hungarian relations in the 9th century//International relations of Russia till 17th century of M., 1961. Page 142-144.
18. Pasternak J. A кгу^і (Gaütia) magyar sMeletek//AgLeo^ і and Hungarica. Bp., 1937.
19. V. Aul_kh. Prince Galich//Galichina that Wolin at Dob Serednyo v_chchya. To 800-r_chchya z day narodzhennya Danila Galitsky / V_dp. Edition. I. _sa¾vich. Lv_v, 2001. Page 141.
20. NesinM.A. Galitskoye a veche at Yaroslav... Primech. 92. Page 96.
21. Kotlyar M.F. Galitsko-Volinska Russia. To., 1998. Page 118.
22 V.V. Aul_kh 1) Z _stor і ї dol_topisny Galich//Dosl_dzhenn z slov'yanorusko ї archeologist і ї. To., 1976; 2) P_vdenno-zakh_dny Naselenn...; 3) Historical topography of ancient Galich//Slavic antiquities. Ethnogenesis. Material culture of Ancient Russia. Sb. nauch. tr. / Otv. edition

V.D. Korolyuk. To., 1980; Dzhedzhora O. Problem_ _storichny topographer і ї davnyy Galich//ZNTS. Lv_v, 1991.

23. N.F. Kotlyar. Formation of the territory and emergence of the cities of Galitsko-Volynsky Russia the IX-XIII centuries. To., 1985. Page 75.
24. V.'s ram, Tomenchuk B. P_dsumki dosl_dzhen Galitsko ї arkheolog_chno ї ekspeditsa і ї in 1991-1996 rr.//Galich і Galitska earth...

Rosemary Marion
Other scientific works: