HARVARD UKRAINIAN STUDIES - See also - Harvard University

348 JOHAN CALLMERsettlement, was the site of Majaky at the confluence of the Tyxaja Sosnaand the Don (Pletneva 1984). It had a small, fortified nucleus with a surroundingopen settlement ca. 20 hectares in extent. The explosive growthof these settlements and their dependence on goods from tributary tribesboth as food for the population and as goods are characteristics held in commonwith Kiev. Part of the population of the Khazar centers may havelived a semi-nomadic life, but this possibility does not call into questiontheir general character. They probably had only one fortified nucleus,whereas, as we have seen, Kiev from the outset had more than one.A few West Slavic settlements developed similarly; notable are Cracowand Prague. Both towns had at least one fortified nucleus and adjoininglarge settlements. These centers do not seem to have developed earlier thanthe tenth century. Prague, in particular, paralleled the complexity of theKiev settlement (Borkovs'kyj 1961). Both Hradcany and Vysehrad werefortified places connected by unfortified, open settlements. The dating ofthe open settlements in Prague is still not precise enough to allow a detailedpicture of the growth of these districts. There is good reason to suppose,however, that an open, commercially oriented settlement existed already inthe tenth century. In Cracow conditions were similar, but there was onlyone fortified settlement, Wawel (Radwariski, 1975). Below the Wawel hillthere was an extensive area of open settlement extending to the north calledthe Okol. During the tenth century the Okot expanded, reaching an extentof ca. 14-15 hectares. Although growth in both Prague and Cracow wasvery strong and rapid, the impetus was not as strong as in Kiev, and thereare indications that the general development of the two West Slavic centerswas more gradual.Byzantine towns were certainly the model for the development of Kievin the latter part of the tenth century, and perhaps even earlier. There was,however, only a vague likeness between the Byzantine towns and Kiev (cf.Kirsten 1958). Any likeness to the Bulgarian cities of Preslav and Pliskawas also only very general (Stancev 1960).The development of Kiev was a special variant of urban development inEastern Europe, the first, tentative examples of which were the Khazarcenters. The background to this development was complex. It comprisedeconomic factors, which made possible an excessive production offoodstuffs and of goods in demand in long-distance trade during the periodwhen Kiev was connected with the Byzantine Empire and the Muslim Caliphate.Ideas about the administration of vast territories and the collection ofgoods from the subjugated territories became widespread in barbarianEurope. These preconditions made it possible for ruling groups with a newmentality, who perhaps scarcely understood the two leading state systems