V. M. Korpusova

Candidate of Sciences in History, independent researcher

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF V.P. PETROV’S (DOMONTOVYCH) WORK: “CERAMICS AND CERAMIC PRODUCTION OF THE ZARUBYNTSY AND CHERNYAKHIV PERIODS IN THE DNIPRO REGION FROM THE 2ND CENTURY BC TO THE 5TH CENTURY AD.”

The intellectual legacy of Viktor Platonovich Petrov (Domontovych), who made a significant contribution to the development of global thought, remains only partially studied. This is, due to several reasons, including the fact that many of Petrov’s manuscripts are preserved in the archives of various countries, including Ukraine, with a significant portion of these materials still unpublished. In the Scientific Archive of the Institute of Archaeology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (Kyiv), a manuscript of Petrov’s fundamental work, “Ceramics and Ceramic Production of the Zarubyntsy and Chernyakhiv Periods in the Dnipro Region from the 2nd Century BC to the 5th Century AD,” awaits for research and publication. This work consists of two parts: the first part focuses on “Ceramics and Ceramic Production in the Middle Dnipro Region in the Monuments of Zarubyntsy Culture” (Scientific Archive of the Institute of Archaeology, NASU, Fund 16, Inventory 1, File No. 250, 379 pages), and the second part addresses “Ceramics and Ceramic Production in the Middle Dnipro Region during the Chernyakhiv Period” (Scientific Archive of the Institute of Archaeology, NASU, Fund 16, Inventory 1, File No. 251, 251 pages).

The work has not been published yet, except for two sections: “Firing Pottery Kilns of the Chernyakhiv Period” and “The Pottery Wheel in the Ceramic Production of the Chernyakhiv Period,” which appeared in ‘Ukrainian Ceramology: National Scientific Annual. For the Year 2008. Personalities of Ukrainian Ceramology’ (Opishne: Ukrainian Folklore, 2019, Vol. IV, Part 3, pp. 311–353). These sections were submitted by me, as the editor and author of the preface, to the editorial board of ‘Ukrainian Ceramology’ in 2004 and waited 15 years for publication.

The language of the manuscript of the monographic work “Ceramics and Ceramic Production of the Zarubyntsy and Chernyakhiv Periods in the Dnipro Region from the 2nd Century BC to the 5th Century AD.” is russian.

Both parts of the monograph are typewritten, with some sheets of the first or second copy containing authorial corrections. The manuscript does not have an exact date; however, based on the analysis of the literature used, the last publication dates to 1955, suggesting that the monograph was written no later than 1956. This coincides with the period of Professor V. Petrov’s forced work at the Institute of Archaeology of the USSR Academy of Sciences in Moscow.

The manuscript text is a draft version and is not prepared for publication, notably lacking references to illustrations, which renders such a work incomplete. Additionally, the illustrations themselves are absent; however, they were recently discovered among archival photographic materials. Connecting these illustrations to the text will be the task of future editors of the publication, a task I hold great hopes for.

As the title of the manuscript indicates, it is dedicated to ceramics (in the narrow sense of the term)—the first artificial material created by humans—and the production of this material in specific locations and during certain chronological periods. However, this work extends beyond its title; it is much broader and deeper in scope. This is further evidenced by the fact that Viktor Platonovich Petrov placed special significance on this monographic work, including it in the list of scientific publications under the section “Manuscripts. Monographs” of his dissertation abstract “Language. Ethnos. Folklore” (1966).

The theme of the work “Ceramics and Ceramic Production of the Zarubyntsy and Chernyakhiv Periods in the Dnipro Region from the 2nd Century BC to the 5th Century AD” is an integral part of the discourse on the ethnogenesis of the Ukrainian people. This issue was one of the main areas of scholarly inquiry for the researcher. Author approached the problem of ethnogenesis from both theoretical and practical perspectives. He expertly employed various disciplines to address this issue, including philosophy, history, archaeology, ethnography, linguistics, folkloristics, and history of art. The methodology for these studies was based on ethnosophy, which is a component of the historian’s broader historical concept known as the “Theory of Epochs.” As a result of his research, Professor V.P. Petrov developed a new ethnogenetic concept, which he referred to as “specifically-historical”. Among the humanities, he distinguished the problem of ethnogenesis as a separate field of study, naming it ethnogenetics. He defined its objectives, sources, methodology, and specific research techniques for each source. It’s worth noting that the scientific community has yet to fully recognize V.P. Petrov’s achievements in his “specificaly-historical” concept and ethnogenetics as an independent discipline.

In the practical realm of developing a source base, which is the first level of scientific research, V.P. Petrov placed significant emphasis on methods and methodologies of study. This focus is reflected in his work “Ceramics and Ceramic Production of the Zarubyntsy and Chernyakhiv Periods in the Dnipro Region from the 2nd Century BC to the 5th Century AD”. According to his credo, he involves ethnographic materials in the study of archaeological artifacts, such as clay dishes, pottery kilns, and potter’s wheels. The scholar uses ethnographic sources not only for reconstructing ancient production methods. Professor V.P. Petrov considered ethnography to be one of the components of ethnic identification for Ukrainians, as for any nation, alongside the biological component. In developing of the source base, Professor V.P. Petrov emphasized the importance of publishing archaeological materials. This is why, even before World War II, he planned to publish materials from the excavations of archaeologists who preceded him. The war hindered the realization of this plan. He later realized this plan. In 1959, V.P. Petrov published materials from the excavations conducted by V.V. Khvoyka in 1899, and in 1964, he published materials from the 1926, 1928, and 1929 excavations by P. Smolichev and S. Hamchenko. V.P. Petrov also published materials from his own excavations and granted the rights to publish his excavation materials to other scholars (N. Kravchenko, V. Neprina, L. Rutkivska).

In the monograph “Ceramics and Ceramic Production of the Zarubyntsy and Chernyakhiv Periods in the Dnieper Region from the 2nd Century BC to the 5th Century AD,” Professor Viktor Petrov, in the second stage of his research, shifted the focus from the source study level to the historical level of investigation. Searching for the historical roots of the ethnographic culture of the Ukrainian people, the scholar examined the Zarubyntsy and Chernyakhiv cultures in the context of the history of nations as a modification of ancient civilization. Professor V.P. Petrov was the first among scholars to highlight and substantiate the significance of ancient civilization for the early population of Ukraine. It should be emphasized that he referred specifically to the modification of ancient culture in the broadest sense of the term. In his view, one of the sources of the ethnographic culture of the Ukrainian people was ancient culture. He discussed this during the post-war years in Germany in his lecture “The Origins of the Ukrainian People” to students of the Ukrainian Technical and Economic Institute in Regensburg (Bavaria), which was published by the student community in 1947 and later reprinted multiple times. Professor V.P. Petrov asserted: “The ethnographic culture of the Ukrainian people historically roots itself in the culture of the ancient era, particularly in the material culture of the ‘Chernyakhiv’ type. The peasant bowl, equally known in both Eastern and Western Ukraine, which so strikingly and vividly appears as a colorful spot on the shelf, has forms that are ancient bowls have, through the medium of ceramics prevalent in the Dnipro region in the 1st to 4th centuries, trace back to the vessels used in ancient Greek colonies.” Exploring Chernyakhiv ceramics from a genetic-ethnographic perspective, Professor V.P. Petrov identifies its continuity in 18th-century ceramics derived from excavations in Lutsk and in contemporary ceramics of Western Ukraine. The scholar describes this pottery and its prevalence among Ukrainians: “…black pottery of distinctive shapes, jars, jugs, mugs, etc., decorated with polished graphic zigzag ornaments. The same type of pottery could be purchased at the Lviv market. This same pottery could be found in every peasant home in Galicia and Volhynia. This ethnographic pottery of Galicia-Volhynia truly reflected the colors and ornaments characteristic of Chernyakhiv ceramics.”

Professor V.P. Petrov regarded the emergence of the potter’s wheel in the ceramic production of the Chernyakhiv culture as an economic phenomenon. This understanding of the potter’s wheel’s significance allowed him to be the first among archaeologists to raise economic questions based on archaeological evidence. This concerns production volumes, levels and forms of growth, and the levels and scales of pottery production concentration in specific regions. V.P. Petrov raised the issue of simple commodity production among the Chernyakhiv people. Based on the analysis of archaeological artifacts, the author concluded that there was differentiation in pottery production in certain cases, while simultaneously observing its concentration. V.P. Petrov demonstrated that even during the Cherniakhiv period, specialized pottery settlements emerged, located in a line along the riverbank, similar to Igolomi. The volume of production in these centers reached tens and even hundreds of thousands of vessels per year, indicating their mass production: “This was a powerful flow capable of ‘flooding’ the surrounding settlements with pottery of the highest quality and the most diverse shapes and textures across a fairly extensive area.” The concentration of small artisanal production led to the creation of powerful production centers for that time, while the concentration of dozens of pottery kilns in one location resulted in thousands of units produced. All this was interconnected with the emergence of corresponding markets. The scholar identified specific local areas of pottery production: the Igolomi center for Upper Povislya, the Lepesiv center for the Horyn River, the Nikolske center for the rapids of the Dnipro, and the Peresichne center for the Uday River basin of the Donets River, etc. Among these regions on the Left Bank, the scholar particularly noted Opishne, where pottery as a craft has been preserved from ancient times to the present. He wrote about the “ancientness of pottery production in this area. Opishne is still famous for its pottery.” At the time when V.P. Petrov was working, it was impossible to delineate the boundaries of the markets for artisanal ceramics from a specific production center; he envisioned this task being accomplished through future archaeological research.

Professor V.P. Petrov raised and addressed the issue of the productivity of pottery centers, using the most researched site at that time, the Igolomskyi pottery center, as an example. According to his calculations, determining the one-time loading of a kiln with 40-60-80 vessels of the same type, the Igolomskyi center had the capacity to simultaneously produce between two and four thousand items, and potentially several dozen, possibly hundreds of thousands of vessels per year. Similar calculations were revisited 20 years later by O. Bobrynskyi.

Studying the productivity of pottery centers, the scholar could not overlook the question of identifying the type of potter’s wheel used by the craftsmen of the Chernihiv culture. Based on ethnographic data, he proposed his own solution to this issue. Two important points are crucial here. The essence of one lies in the application of his theoretical and methodological thesis: “nothing exists in isolation” when developing the typology of the potter’s wheel. He wrote: “From what has been said, it is clear how one link immediately conditions the appearance of the next related one; how a particular design of the board and axis immediately brings about changes throughout the entire chain of connections, indicating shifts in the whole cycle of domestic and production relationships—this is a fine illustration of the fact that no phenomenon can be studied in isolation, detached from all other accompanying links and circumstances”. This thesis has been repeatedly applied by the scholar in studies of art, history, literature, and so on. The essence of the second point lies in substantiating the question of which type (manual or foot-powered) of pottery wheel was known and used by the Chernyakhiv culture. Viktor Petrov justified the resolution of this issue not through technical but economic factors. He believed that the Chernyakhiv culture was transitioning to the “foot-powered” wheel, but their conditions facilitated the use of the “manual” wheel while simultaneously hindering the shift to the “foot-powered” one. He identified such conditions in the potter’s labor productivity, determined by market capacity. During the Chernyakhiv period, the market capacity was not significant enough to incentivize a craftsman using the “manual” pottery wheel to switch to the more productive “foot-powered” wheel.

The chronological scope of the topic studied in the manuscript is limited to the Zarubyntsy and Chernyakhiv periods. However, the scholar found a way to express his views on pottery production in Ukraine during the subsequent era in the notes. It should be noted that during Professor Viktor Petrov’s lifetime, there were no known Late Chernyakhiv or immediately post-Chernyakhiv archaeological remains associated with historical Slavs; only materials from the Volyntsevo grave field were known. However, in addressing the economic question of pottery wheel use in the next chronological period (the third quarter of the first millennium), Viktor Petrov, as a powerful analyst, found a solution. The scholar noted as a trend the differing state of the craft in the Volyntsevo archaeological culture compared to the earlier Chernyakhiv culture. The difference was particularly evident in the character of the distribution of pottery produced on the wheel during the Chernyakhiv and Volyntsevo archaeological cultures. According to the researcher, later confirmed, Volyntsevo wheel-made pottery was produced by artisans solely for the ruling elite, while the rest of society used hand-formed pottery without a wheel. This fact indicates that pottery production regressed in the subsequent chronological stage compared to the Chernyakhiv period.

This phenomenon of regression in ceramic production at a later chronological stage specifically historically confirms the theses of the scholar’s historical- philosophical concept of the “Theory of Epochs”: the denial of the creative self-sufficiency of time, the absence of constant progress, and the breaks and ruptures between epochs. V.P. Petrov argued: “Denial of the break occurring in the middle of the first millennium during the transition from the Chernyakhiv type to the post-Chernyakhiv type, the chronological overestimation of the end of the Cherniakhiv period by two to two and a half centuries, and the assertion that in the third quarter of the first millennium, the same conditions existed in the Middle Dnieper region as before, cannot be accepted either in general or in specifics, for example, in the characterization of the state of pottery production, which supposedly retained the same qualities and conditions in the 6th–7th centuries as those present in the 2nd–5th centuries.” He continued: “The direct connection between the third and second quarters, the transfer of phenomena from one period to another, and the identification of these phenomena cannot be historically justified. There is a break between the Chernyakhiv and post-Chernyakhiv stages that cannot be ignored, even considering the existing connections. The third quarter of the first millennium is a period of the emergence of new social relations, of feudal structure, and thus a rupture of the socio-economic order that prevailed in the preceding stage, during the Chernyakhiv time.”

Thus, this work remains unique in addressing the issues of ceramics within the philosophical discourse of V.P. Petrov’s “Theory of Epochs.” Its depth and comprehensiveness of research into materials demonstrate that V.P. Petrov was ahead of his time compared to the investigations of other authors (A. Braichevska (Smilenko), M. Braichevskyi, O. Bobrynskyi, B. Magomedov, Yu. Kukharenko, and others), who only touched on specific aspects of this problem.

The publication of the manuscript “Ceramics and Pottery Production of the Zarubyntsy and Chernyakhiv Periods in the Dnieper Region from the 2nd Century BC to the 5th Century AD” will provide a better understanding of the scholarly legacy of Professor V.P. Petrov—one of Ukraine’s foremost humanities scholars.