Археологія фортеці Тустань/en

“By the nature of its location, the Tustan fortress is a cape settlement. The fortified territory on the central rock group Kamin (with three lines of defence) occupied 3 hectares. The dytynets rises above the adjacent valley by 51 m, the total height of the rock mass is almost 80 m”[1].

In the process of archeological research of the Tustan defensive rock complex, more than 25,000 archeological finds were collected[2]. “Archeological finds included wooden elements from the building, metal products, ceramics, glass, leather products. Among the metal products were a cross-encolpion, a ring shield with an engraved bird pattern, a bronze mace, an anvil, an ax, a key, a knife, crossbow arrowheads, shaft-hole and tanged bow arrowheads, spearheads, a fragment of a sword, steel for striking sparks from flint, spurs, bell cores, wood cutters, needles, book clasps. Especially interesting and informative were the studies of tanks and wells carved into the rock on Kamin[3].

“One of the most interesting artefacts found in the filling of the tank (14 m – R.S.) is a metal shield to the ring with an engraved pattern. It was found at a depth of 1.60–1.80 m. A round ring plate diameter is 23 mm. The edges are trimmed carelessly. The shield is engraved with a drawing: a stylized silhouette of a bird in an ornamental circle. It is shown in profile facing left. The wings are open. His paws are apart as if he were walking. The closest analogues to the shield from Tustan may be the so-called Boyar seal rings featuring images of birds. These seals date back to the 14th century. According to researchers, they belonged to the Galician boyars, who held certain government positions. The Tustan seal may have belonged to the mayor who managed the volost. For us, this find is important for the dating of Tustan in general and artefacts from the tank in particular”[4].

Archaeological excavations have uncovered a lot of ceramic material, including pottery fragments. Many of them were found in the tank (14 m). “M. Rozhko dated ceramics from the tank to the 10th century. To confirm his conclusions, the researcher also cited the results of radiocarbon and dendrochronological analyzes conducted by V. Kolishchuk (Lviv State Forestry University). Based on them, it was determined that the wooden fragments found in the tank date back to the 9th-10th centuries. However, in our opinion, such dating needs to be adjusted”. Roman Myska’s analysis of the pottery from the tank showed that the shape and structure of ceramic dough can be divided into two groups. The first includes pottery pots with roller-shaped crowns, made of milled clay with the addition of fine sand. They are characterized by good roasting, there are specimens, ornamented with a wavy line on the shoulders. According to the described features, we can date vessels of this type to the 12th – early 13th centuries. The second, much more numerous group includes pots with crowns falling behind and rounded at the end. They are made of clay, to which coarse-grained sand and hardness were added. Vessels of this type can be attributed to the second half of the 13th - early 14th century (the post-Mongol period)”[5].

“Among the many archeological finds in the tank, a wooden axle of the back of the cart was found. This axle was not finished by the master and, apparently, accidentally got into the tank together with other items, where it was left lying until 1982”[6].

“Thus, it should be assumed that the tank was cut into the rock in the 12th century. The use of the tank ceased in the 14th century along with the significant Tustan fire”[7]. According to stratigraphic data, during the fire there was a landslide due to which a significant part of the items fell into the tank and was naturally preserved by the ground[8].

“On the western side of Kamin, near its base, a unique engineering complex with a well with a depth of 30.40 m and an average width of 2 m was studied. This building is unique as it was hollowed out in solid rock, and thanks to this fact it has been perfectly preserved”[9].

In addition to the water supply system, many unique artefacts were explored in the tank and well, including a large number of wooden structures, including fragments of six doorposts, gallery pillars, fragments of logs, perches, boards with dovetail incisions, shingles, clapboards, wooden mug, as well as wooden spoons, shovels, leather soles, fragments of other leather goods, ceramics[10].

“Ceramic material found in the lower layer (of the well – R.S.) (27.40-30.40 m) is divided into fragments of tiles (fragment of ceramic tile, fragment of tile, part of the stove tile, ceramic tile), most of which had green watering on the front side and fragments of vessels”[11]. The “tile of the 16th century” with zoomorphic décor, a relief image of Saint George the Dragon Slayer killing a dragon, that was found here should be singled out[12].

"According to typological features, ceramic material can be dated back to the 12th - early 17th centuries”[13]. “Ceramic material of the late medieval period could have got to the well from the territory at a time when the fortress was no longer functioning”[14].

“A significant amount of wood has traces of a fire that apparently took place before it was trapped in the well”[15]. “Dendrochronological analysis of the wood from the well showed that it was simultaneous and represented one phase of the reconstruction of the fortress, which took place in 1511”[16].

In addition to wood and ceramics, "a significant number of small and large fragments of leather from shoes, simple scraps, various strips, etc. were found in the filling”[17].

“Found in the Tustan dytynets in 1978, the bronze top of the mace is one of the most interesting among the artefacts. It has five large quadrangular spikes in the middle. Ten triangular spikes are placed at the top and bottom. M. Rozhko, with reference to A. Kirpichnikov, dates the described mace to the first half of the 13th century and believes it to be of local origin.

In our opinion, the argument of R. Livokh, who believes that the mace is of Hungarian origin, is more legitimate. Finds of this type in Hungary date back to the 12th-14th centuries. As Leontiy Voitovych notes: “After the escape of Prince Wladyslaw of Opole, Hungarian garrisons held the foothills of the Carpathians on the Dniester right bank with the towns of Zhydachiv, Tustan and, possibly, Stryi until 1390”. The described mace may confirm the presence of a Hungarian garrison in Tustan. However, its commercial or trophy origin cannot be ruled out. Solving this issue requires further scrupulous analysis of Tustan artefacts with the selection of other reliable materials of Hungarian origin”[18].

Another valuable find was a miniature cross-encolpion with rounded ends having paired slippery protrusions. Its dimensions are 35×23 mm, with an eyelet of 53×23 mm. The front sash features a relief image of the Crucified Christ with a slightly curved torso, outstretched arms with large palms, occupying the entire plane of the cross, except for the upper medallion, in which indented lines form a capital letter that is poorly identifiable (N or Λ? ). On the back sash is a low-relief, proportionally executed, but rather schematic image of the Virgin Oranta with exaggerated large palms that do not reach the end of the arms of the cross, leaving the medallions empty. It is highly probable that the Tustan encolpion was made in the Galician-Volyn lands in the 13th century”[19].

Among the metal objects discovered during the archeological excavations, there is a collection of “rider’s equipment and horse harness: spurs, bellbits and horseshoes. The spurs are represented by six almost whole forms, two brackets and two stars. The oldest of them (inv. No. 518) dates back to the late 13th - early 14th centuries according to its typological features. Seven specimens, including two stars, can be attributed to the second half of 14th – 15th centuries. Two other spurs (inv. Nos. 522 and 525) could have been used in the 16th century. Almost all the finds were collected on the territory of the dytynets”[20].

Among the large amount of archeological material found in the study area of Tustan, a collection of bow and crossbow arrowheads stands out. In the collection of 116 pieces (only relatively well-preserved ones are mentioned here) bow arrowheads are presented in 75 pieces, and crossbow arrowheads – in 41 pieces.

The use of bows and crossbows in the protection of the rock fortress Tustan has its differences, which can be explained by the specific features of the location and development of the defence complex, its long functioning as a border outpost and administrative centre. Considerable advantages of defenders were due in no small part to physical characteristics of rocks – their size and height. The strength and range of metal weapons are much greater at the high point than at a lower point. A battle bow, which gives a horizontal flight of 100 m, raised to a height of 20 m, fired it at a distance of 118 m while increasing the impact force by 60 percent. The range of the arrow from the top of the Upper Platform (the proposed version is 172 m) covered not only the area of the “surrounding city”, but also the second and first lines of defence. This made it possible to double-fire certain areas of the defence complex”[21].

У Тустані більшість наконечників стріл лука та арбалета знайдено в шарі XII-XIV ст[22].

Archaeological excavations on the northern side have revealed a significant amount of light and greenish-blue clay. “The direct transition of clay into fragments of burnt plaster indicates that it, like plaster with the imprint of wood, comes from the defensive walls. The presence of clay at a length of 18 m indicates a significant height of the defensive walls of the fortress (it is known that it reached 15 m), paved with clay for firefighting purposes”[23].

The clay was found mostly on the north side which may be due to the fact that the coating was made of raw clay and during the fire it burned out, ie hardened. On the south side, the wall may have collapsed, not burnt enough, and then the plaster dissolved, turning into ordinary clay[24].

«М. Рожко, реконструюючи схему просторового розвитку Тустані, вважав, що у піковий період вона охоплювала територію від Каменя до Острого Каменя, а в урочищі Церківне існував монастир з культовою спорудою. В 1984 р. було здійснено археологічні дослідження в ур. Церківне, під час яких було виявлено гумусну пляму з деревним вугіллям та скупчення дерев’яної трухи. Проте жодних інших знахідок, які б могли свідчити про час чи функціональне призначення споруди, не було виявлено. З метою перевірки наявності культурного шару та пошуку місцезнаходження могильника, який традиційно у середньовіччі супроводжував культові споруди експедицією ДІКЗ “Тустань” в 2007 та 2009 р. було закладено дві траншеї на території урочища. Вони показали, що культурний шар епохи середньовіччя тут відсутній. Відтак функціонування культової споруди на території урочища є сумнівним»[25].

«У 2008–2009 рр. розкопки були започатковані в урочищах поблизу скельних груп Мала Скеля і Острий Камінь. Вони дали змогу уточнити деякі елементи просторової моделі середньовічної Тустані, запропонованої М. Ф. Рожком. Зокрема встановлено, що досліджувана територія у давнину інтенсивно не використовувались і найімовірніше не була забудована. Про це свідчить і відсутність рухомого матеріалу у закладених там розкопах.  Натомість вдалося відкрити і вивчити дві додаткові лінії у вигляді валів-ескарпів, які захищали скельний масив Острого Каменя з напільних боків. Незначний культурний шар виявлений тільки біля південного підніжжя Острого Каменя, кераміка з якого може бути датована другою половиною ХІІІ – початком ХІV cт. Очевидно, саме цим часом треба датувати функціонування комплексу на Острому Камені. Отже, на скельних групах Острий Камінь та Мала Скеля знаходилися дерев’яні наскельні укріплення, які найімовірніше мали характер сторожових пунктів на підступах до Каменя. Таке їхнє призначення не потребувало стаціонарної житлово-господарської забудови навколо»[26].

---

[1] Миська Р. Нові дані до історії наскельної фортеці Тустань// Матеріали і дослідження з археології Прикарапття та Волині. – 2012. – Вип.16. – С.331

[2] Рожко М. Архітектура та система оборони українських Карпат… – С.199

[3] Миська Р. Нові дані до історії наскельної фортеці Тустань. – С. 332

[4] Там само. – С. 335-336

[5] Миська Р. Нові дані до історії наскельної фортеці Тустань… . – С.336-338

[6] Глушко М. Артефакт воза з Тустані та його значення для реконструкції ходу колісного транспорту книжої доби// Фортеця: збірник заповідника «Тустань». – Кн.1. – 2009. – С.358, 365

[7] Миська Р. Нові дані до історії наскельної фортеці Тустань. – С.338

[8] Рожко М. Тустань – давньоруська наскельна фортеця. – С.82

[9] Рожко М. Архітектура та система оборони українських Карпат… – С.190

[10] Миська Р. Нові дані до історії наскельної фортеці Тустань… . – С.332

[11] Там само. – С.339

[12] Рожко М. Тустань – давньоруська наскельна фортеця. – С. 104

[13] Там само. – С.338

[14] Рожко М. Тустань – давньоруська наскельна фортеця. – С. 104

[15] Там само. – С.106

[16] Миська Р. Нові дані до історії наскельної фортеці Тустань… . – С.338-339

[17] Рожко М. Тустань – давньоруська наскельна фортеця. – С. 105

[18] Миська Р. Нові дані до історії наскельної фортеці Тустань… . – С.341

[19] Пєскова А., Миська Р., Мусін О., Гупало В. Хрест-енколпіон з розкопок наскельної фортеці Тустань//ІІІ міжнародна наукова конференція Пам’ятки Тустані в контексті освоєння Карпта у доісторичну добу та середньовіччі: проблеми їх збереження та використання. Збірник тез. – Львів, 2016. – С.14-16

[20] Котовіч П., Миська Р., Поясник Н. Середньовічні та ранньомодерні елементи спорядження вершника та кінської збруї з фортеці Тустань//ІІІ міжнародна наукова конференція Пам’ятки Тустані в контексті освоєння Карпта у доісторичну добу та середньовіччі: проблеми їх збереження та використання. Збірник тез. – Львів, 2016. – С.16-17

[21] Рожко М. Архітектура та система оборони українських Карпат… – С.200-202

[22] Там само. – С.202, 205, 208

[23] Рожко М. Тустань – давньоруська наскельна фортеця. – С.80

[24] Див лекцію Ю.Лукомського від 04.10.2014 – 01:

[25] Миська Р. Нові дані до історії наскельної фортеці Тустань… . – С.341

[26] Миська Р. Нові дані до історії наскельної фортеці Тустань… . – С.341-342