In particular, it is associated with prominent religious sites, monasteries, churches, cemeteries, etc.
Identifying the features of the internal micro-planning structure of ancient settlements and cemeteries (“settlements of the dead”), and the macro-planning system of mutual placement of churches, suggests the possibility of the existence of a planning system of mutual placement and other categories of archaeological sites. In particular, the problem of the macro-planning system of placement of settlements, including the period of Kievan Rus, is extremely interesting. Our study of the principles of mutual location of the settlements of Kyiv and Halych lands showed the existence of a well-thought-out macro-planning system of external, national defense (territorially closed).
Everywhere there is a clear order and echeloning in the placement of all settlements, each of which was part of a predetermined system of a separate series, and so on. This was the first principle in the choice of its location, which even sometimes went against the natural conditions of defense. The settlements were never just separate, independent fortifications, only with their own internal defense system. They were the “ring” of the great chain of a single national external defense system. In particular, in combination with “Snake shafts” (“Trojan”, etc.), natural factors, etc.
Undoubtedly, it was also connected with internal state-building (city-building) processes and was formed long and in stages, which complicated their planning structure. The role of administrative, fiscal systems, etc. also occupies a special place in it. In general, the macro-planning system of mutual placement of settlements allows us to trace the existence of several ways of their occurrence. In particular, communal, tribal (supra-tribal), trade and craft (VTRP) and urban.
The latter represented the state (feudal) way, which finally completed the formation of the system of settlements as centers of nationalization (feudalization) of lands and territories. Cities that emerged at the final stage of the process of their construction by the state authorities had the same two-part system: children and posts, and so on. They became an integral part of the state administrative (volost) structure.
At this stage, dosWe have made only the previous ones. conclusions about the existence of features of the microplanning structure of ancient cemeteries as “settlements of the dead” and macroplanning systems of churches, crosses and settlements.
In particular, the concretization of the semantics of each type of burial for different historical epochs and ethnocultural groups requires a broader and more complex (historical-archaeological, ethnographic, anthropological, religious, philosophical and psychological, etc.) study. The same applies to the study of planning systems of other groups and categories of monuments. In general, we propose only a general model of their individual main spatial (planigraphic) connections, which existed in ancient times and was formed and implemented by the relevant authorities: family, community, state and Church.
1. Afanasyev NN Tree of life. – Moscow, 1983; Kotlyarevsky AO On the funeral customs of pagan Slavs. – Moscow, 1868; Nikitina GF, Mogilnikov VA Funeral rite of llemen of Northern and Central Europe in the first millennium BC e. – Moscow, 1974; Sedov VV Funeral rite of the Slavs in the early Middle Ages // Research in the field of Baltic-Slavic spiritual culture. Funeral rite. – Moscow, 1990; Rybakov BA Paganism of the ancient Slavs. -Moscow, 1981. – P. 176-178; He is. Paganism of ancient Russia. – Moscow, 1987. – P. 267-284.
2. Timoshchuk BA East Slovenian community VI – X centuries. N. e. – Moscow, 1990 – P. 73 -120.
3. Baran JV Slavic community (according to the settlement Rashkiv – I) // Abstract of the dissertation of the candidate of historical sciences. -Kyiv, 1992.
4. Motsya OP Population of southern n lands IX – XIII centuries. (based on necropolises). -Kyiv, 1993.
5. Tomenchuk BP Necropolis of Halych and Halych land (Halych-Bukovyna Prykarpattia) // Abstract of the dissertation of the candidate of historical sciences. – Kyiv, 1998.
6. Krasovsky NS Some features of the urban structure of Kiev in the middle of the XII century. //. Architectural heritage. – Moscow, 1976. – No. 25. – P. 12 – 18; Maximov PN Creative methods of ancient Russian architects. – Moscow, 1976; Dovganyuk I. Architecture of Ukrainian churches. – Lviv, 1997 .– P. 32.
7. Tolochko PP Ways of formation of ancient Russian cities // Abstracts of the Ukrainian delegation at the VI International Congress of Slavic Archeology (Novgorod, Russia, 1996). – Kyiv, 1996,. – P. 63 – 68; Tomenchuk BP Three periods of development of Halych in the light of new archaeological research // Ibid. – P. 111-113; Filipchuk M. On the economy and social microstructures of the population of the Ukrainian Prykarpattia in the last quarter of the first millennium BC. e. // Ethnogenesis and early history of the Slavs: new scientific concepts at the turn of the millennium. Proceedings of the international archaeological conference. – Lviv, 2001. – P. 220-238.
8. Tomenchuk B. On the question of the peculiarities of the microplanning structure of ancient settlements as “settlements of the dead” and macroplanning systems of churches and settlements // New technologies in archeology. Proceedings of the international archaeological conference. – Kyiv-Lviv, 2002. – P. 301-317.
This fortification was necessary to protect the locals from Tatar invasions. Today, the urban-type settlement is part of the Letychiv district of the Khmelnytsky region.
The castle in Medzhibozh was first mentioned in the Ipatiev Chronicle in 1146. Also in ancient n chronicles of the twelfth century. there is a mention of the capture of the city by Prince Svyatoslav Vsevolodych. The Grand Duke of Kyiv Izyaslav Mstislavovych handed over to him five cities, including Midzhibizh … At that time, this village was one of the fortified cities of Kievan Rus.
From the history of Medzhibozh
The end of the twelfth century. – Medzhibizh is a part of the Galicia-Volyn principality.
1331 – capture of the city by Lithuanian prince Olgerd. He handed over Medzhibie to his sons, known as Koryatovichi. She built the castle in question.
1241 – The Golden Horde captures part of the lands of Podolia.
1259 – Danylo Halytsky is finally defeated in the fight against the Golden Horde. Therefore, he acknowledged his dependence on it and must destroy the fortifications of many cities and, in particular, Medzhibozh.
1362 – Prince Olgerd brought order to the Mongol-Tatars, after which he began to restore the fortifications of Podolsk cities.
1434 – Medzhibie is a part of Letychiv district. This event took place after Poland captured western Podillya. Since the city is located at the intersection of the Black and Kuchman roads (from which the Crimean Tatars ran to the lands of Podolsk), Medzhibizh Castle becomes a strategic defensive point.
1593 – the city received the Magdeburg right. The charter of self-government announced the responsibilities of the burghers. They had to fortify the garden, dig a ditch, build a dam, keep in order the defensive fortifications and garrison. Everyone had to have a supply of bullets and little by little and keep their weapons ready.
The castle fortifications were often destroyed as a result of repeated raids by Crimean Tatars, which became especially frequent in the 15th-16th centuries. But it was rebuilt every time.
Medzhibizh Castle often became an obstacle to the destruction of the city by the Tatars. In 1507, 1515 and 1516, Tatar detachments were defeated here twice. The approach of enemies was evidenced by the fire lit on the Watchtower. And during 1565-1627 the Tatars failed to capture the castle. At the end of the 16th – beginning of the 17th century the fortifications of the castle were strengthened. Even Khan, at the head of a horde of one hundred thousand in 1615, did not dare to storm it, but embraced the walls, later plundering the whole of Podillya.
The castle survived a lot during the liberation war of the Ukrainian people in 1648-1654 under the leadership of Bohdan Khmelnytsky. At the beginning of the war, the insurgent detachments of Maksym Krivonos captured the city, as they managed to defeat the Polish nobility. Of course, this happened thanks to the heroic help of the local population.
In 1649, a fierce battle took place near Medzhibozh between the Polish army and Danylo Nechay’s Cossack regiments, as a result of which the royal troops retreated. The castle was captured.
The leader of the liberation war, Bohdan Khmelnytsky, stopped in Medzhibozh. This happened in 1650, when he was on his way to Kamianets-Podilskyi. However, a year later, about 12,000 rebels stormed the city and damaged the fortress.
After the Buchach Peace Treaty of 1672, the Turks received the lands of Podillya, where Medzhibizh Castle is located. They rebuilt the damaged parts of the fortress. Of course, all the changes were there in the Eastern style. And the church, which was part of the palace complex. Re-equipped into a mosque.
Mezhdibizh was included in the military department by the tsarist government after the Polish uprising of 1830-31. The city was turned into a military settlement. And the headquarters of the 12th Akhtyr Regiment was placed in the castle.
The castle in the village of Medzhibizh is a kind of example of defensive architecture in Ukraine. The castle, despite the terrible events he had to see, became more and more exquisite with each passing century. And according to the first project, it was built in a strict style with formidable walls and towers. And this is not surprising, because its main function was to intimidate, and if it failed, then to protect.
Palaces began to be built in castles in the 17th century, adorning them with white stone carvings and paintings. As a result, Medzhibizh Castle was gradually enriched with such elements as decorative figured teeth, Gothic windows, carved white stone doorposts, an attic and an arched belt of deaf niches. Eventually, it took the form of an intermediate between buy comparative essay cheap the defensive structure and the castle-palace.
The castle is built on a promontory formed between two rivers that merge among wide meadows. According to the plan, it resembles an elongated triangle with a sharp vertex facing east. The entrance to the castle is arranged in the western wall, on the side of Medzhibozh, from where the fortifications were protected by a moat, through which led a drawbridge, later replaced by a stone one.
The majestic building is well integrated into the surrounding landscape: the rivers, washing the fortress, on three sides, served as a reliable natural protection.