Old Russian nationality: definition, formation and historical significance. The formation of the state in Rus' and the formation of the Old Russian people What distinctive features did the Old Russian people have

home » Geography Old Russian nationality: definition, formation and historical significance. The formation of the state in Rus' and the formation of the Old Russian people What distinctive features did the Old Russian people have

Established by the IX century. the ancient Russian feudal state (also called Kievan Rus by historians) arose as a result of a very long and gradual process of splitting society into antagonistic classes, which took place among the Slavs throughout the first millennium of our era. Russian feudal historiography of the 16th - 17th centuries. sought to artificially link the early history of Rus' with the ancient peoples of Eastern Europe known to her - the Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans; the name of Rus was derived from the Saomatian tribe of the Roxalans.
In the XVIII century. some of the German scientists invited to Russia, who were arrogant about everything Russian, created a biased theory about the dependent development of Russian statehood. Based on an unreliable part of the Russian chronicle, which conveys the legend of the calling of a number of Slavic tribes as princes of three brothers (Rurik, Sineus and Truvor) - Varangians, Normans by origin, these historians began to assert that the Normans (detachments of Scandinavians who robbed in the 9th century on seas and rivers) were the creators of the Russian state. "Normanists", who poorly studied Russian sources, believed that the Slavs in the 9th-10th centuries. were completely wild people, who supposedly did not know either agriculture, or handicrafts, or settled settlements, or military affairs, or legal norms. They attributed the entire culture of Kievan Rus to the Varangians; The very name of Rus' was associated only with the Vikings.
M.V. Lomonosov heatedly objected to the "Normanists" - Bayer, Miller and Schlozer, initiating a two-century scientific controversy on the issue of the emergence of the Russian state. A significant part of the representatives of Russian bourgeois science of the 19th and early 20th centuries. supported the Norman theory, despite the abundance of new data that refuted it. This stemmed both from the methodological weakness of bourgeois science, which failed to rise to an understanding of the laws of the historical process, and due to the fact that the chronicle legend about the voluntary calling of princes by the people (created by the chronicler in the 12th century during the period of popular uprisings) continued into the 19th - XX centuries retain its political significance in explaining the question of the beginning of state power. The cosmopolitan tendencies of a part of the Russian bourgeoisie also contributed to the predominance of the Norman theory in official science. However, a number of bourgeois scholars have already criticized the Norman theory, seeing its inconsistency.
Soviet historians, approaching the issue of education ancient Russian state from the positions of historical materialism, they began to study the entire process of the decomposition of the primitive communal system and the emergence of the feudal state. To do this, it was necessary to significantly expand the chronological framework, look into the depths of Slavic history and draw on a number of new sources depicting the history of the economy and social relations many centuries before the formation of the Old Russian state (excavations of villages, workshops, fortresses, graves). It took a radical revision of Russian and foreign written sources that speak of Rus'.
The work on studying the prerequisites for the formation of the Old Russian state has not yet been completed, but even now an objective analysis of historical data has shown that all the main provisions of the Norman theory are incorrect, since they were generated by an idealistic understanding of history and an uncritical perception of sources (the range of which was artificially limited), as well as the bias of the researchers themselves. At present, the Norman theory is being promoted by individual foreign historians of the capitalist countries.

Russian chroniclers about the beginning of the state

The question of the beginning of the Russian state was of keen interest to Russian chroniclers of the 11th-12th centuries. The earliest chronicles, apparently, began their exposition with the reign of Kyi, who was considered the founder of the city of Kyiv and Kyiv principality. The prince of the cue was compared with other founders of the largest cities - Romulus (founder of Rome), Alexander the Great (founder of Alexandria). The legend about the construction of Kyiv by Kiy and his brothers Shchek and Khoryv arose, obviously, long before the 11th century, since it was already in the 7th century. was recorded in the Armenian chronicle. In all likelihood, the time of Kiy is the period of Slavic campaigns on the Danube and in Byzantium, i.e. VI-VII centuries. The author of "The Tale of Bygone Years" - "Where did the Russian (s) land (and) who in Kyiv began the first prince ...", written at the beginning of the 12th century. (as historians think, by the Kyiv monk Nestor), reports that Kiy went to Constantinople, was the guest of honor of the Byzantine emperor, built a city on the Danube, but then returned to Kyiv. Further in the "Tale" follows a description of the struggle of the Slavs with the nomadic Avars in the VI-VII centuries. Some chroniclers considered the “calling of the Varangians” to be the beginning of statehood in the second half of the 9th century. and to this date they drove all the other events of early Russian history known to them (Novgorod Chronicle). These writings, the tendentiousness of which was proved long ago, were used by the supporters of the Norman theory.

East Slavic tribes and unions of tribes on the eve of the formation of the state in Rus'

The state of Rus was formed from fifteen large regions inhabited by Eastern Slavs, well known to the chronicler. Glades have long lived near Kyiv. The chronicler considered their land to be the core of the ancient Russian state and noted that in his time the glades were called Rus. The neighbors of the meadows in the east were the northerners who lived along the rivers Desna, Seim, Sula and the Northern Donets, which retained the memory of the northerners in its name. Down the Dnieper, south of the meadows, lived the streets, who moved in the middle of the 10th century. in the interfluve of the Dniester and the Bug. In the west, the neighbors of the glades were the Drevlyans, who often quarreled with the Kievan princes. Even further to the west were the lands of the Volynians, Buzhans and Dulebs. The extreme East-Slazian regions were the lands of the Tivertsy on the Dniester (ancient Tiras) and on the Danube and the White Croats in Transcarpathia.
To the north of the glades and the Drevlyans were the lands of the Dregovichi (on the swampy left bank of the Pripyat), and to the east of them, along the Sozhu River, were the Radimichi. The Vyatichi lived on the Oka and the Moscow River, bordering on the non-Slavic Meryan-Mordovian tribes of the Middle Oka. The chronicler calls the northern regions in contact with the Lithuanian-Latvian and Chud tribes the lands of the Krivichi (the upper reaches of the Volga, Dnieper and Dvina), Polotsk and Slovenian (around Lake Ilmen).
In the historical literature, the conditional term “tribes” (“tribes of the glades”, “tribe of Radimichi”, etc.) was strengthened behind these areas, but was not used, however, by the chroniclers. In terms of size, these Slavic regions are so large that they can be compared with entire states. A careful study of these areas shows that each of them was an association of several small tribes, whose names were not preserved in the sources on the history of Rus'. Among the Western Slavs, the Russian chronicler mentions in the same way only such large areas as, for example, the land of the Lutichi, and from other sources it is known that the Lutichi are not one tribe, but an association of eight tribes. Consequently, the term "tribe", speaking of family ties, should be applied to much smaller divisions of the Slavs, which have already disappeared from the memory of the chronicler. The regions of the Eastern Slavs, mentioned in the annals, should be considered not as tribes, but as federations, unions of tribes.
In ancient times, the Eastern Slavs apparently consisted of 100-200 small tribes. The tribe, representing a set of related clans, occupied an area of about 40 - 60 km in diameter. In each tribe, probably, a veche gathered to decide the most important issues of public life; a military leader (prince) was chosen; there was a permanent squad of youth and a tribal militia (“regiment”, “thousand”, divided into “hundreds”). Within the tribe there was a "city". A tribal veche gathered there, there was a bargaining, a court was held. There was a sanctuary where representatives of the entire tribe gathered.
These "grads" were not yet real cities, but many of them, which for several centuries were the centers of a tribal district, with the development of feudal relations turned into either feudal castles or cities.
The result of major changes in the structure of tribal communities, replaced by neighboring communities, was the process of formation of tribal unions, which proceeded especially intensively from the 5th century BC. 6th century writer Jordanes says that the common collective name of the populous people of the Wends "is now changing according to different tribes and localities." The stronger the process of disintegration of primitive tribal isolation went on, the stronger and more durable the alliances of tribes became.
The development of peaceful ties between tribes, or the military victories of some tribes over others, or, finally, the need to combat a common external danger, contributed to the creation of tribal alliances. Among the Eastern Slavs, the addition of the fifteen large tribal unions mentioned above can be attributed approximately to the middle of the 1st millennium AD. e.

Thus, during the VI - IX centuries. the prerequisites for feudal relations arose and the process of folding the ancient Russian feudal state took place.
The natural internal development of Slavic society was complicated by a number of external factors (for example, nomadic raids) and the direct participation of the Slavs in major events in world history. This makes the study of the pre-feudal period in the history of Rus' especially difficult.

Origin of Rus'. Formation of the Old Russian people

Most pre-revolutionary historians associated the origin of the Russian state with the ethnicity of the people "Rus". about which chroniclers speak. Accepting without much criticism the chronicle legend about the calling of princes, historians sought to determine the origin of the "Rus" to which these overseas princes allegedly belonged. The "Normanists" insisted that "Rus" is the Varangians, the Normans, i.e. inhabitants of Scandinavia. But the absence in Scandinavia of information about a tribe or locality called "Rus" has long shaken this thesis of the Norman theory. Historians "anti-Normanists" undertook a search for the people "Rus" in all directions from the indigenous Slavic territory.

Lands and states of the Slavs:

Eastern

Western

Borders of states at the end of the 9th century.

Ancient Rus were searched among the Baltic Slavs, Lithuanians, Khazars, Circassians, Finno-Ugric peoples of the Volga region, Sarmatian-Alanian tribes, etc. Only a small part of scientists, relying on direct evidence from sources, defended the Slavic origin of Rus'.
Soviet historians, having proved that the annalistic legend about the calling of princes from across the sea cannot be considered the beginning of Russian statehood, also found out that the identification of Rus with the Varangians in the annals is erroneous.
Iranian geographer of the middle of the 9th century. Ibn-Khordadbeh points out that "the Rus are a tribe of Slavs." The Tale of Bygone Years speaks of the identity of the Russian language with the Slavic. The sources also contain more precise indications that help to determine among which part of the Eastern Slavs one should look for Rus.
Firstly, in the "Tale of Bygone Years" it is said about the glades: "even now the calling of Rus'." Consequently, the ancient Rus tribe was located somewhere in the Middle Dnieper region, near Kyiv, which arose in the land of glades, on which the name of Rus subsequently passed. Secondly, in various Russian chronicles of the time feudal fragmentation the double geographical name of the words "Russian land", "Rus" is noticed. Sometimes they understand all the East Slavic lands, sometimes the words "Russian land", "Rus" are used in the land should be considered more ancient and very narrow, geographically limited sense, denoting the forest-steppe strip from Kyiv and the Ros River to Chernigov, Kursk and Voronezh. This narrow understanding of the Russian land should be considered more ancient and be traced back to the 6th-7th centuries, when it was within these limits that a homogeneous material culture existed, known from archaeological finds.

By the middle of the VI century. The first mention of Rus' in written sources also applies. One Syrian author - the successor of Zechariah Rhetor - mentions the people "ros", who lived next to the mythical Amazons (whose residence is usually dated to the Don basin).
On the territory outlined by chronicle and archaeological data, several Slavic tribes lived here for a long time. In all probability. The Russian land got its name from one of them, but it is not known for certain where this tribe was located. Judging by the fact that the oldest pronunciation of the word "Rus" sounded somewhat different, namely as "ros" (the people "rose" in the 6th century, "Rossky letters" in the 9th century, "Pravda Rosskaya" in the 11th century), apparently , the initial location of the Ros tribe should be sought on the Ros River (a tributary of the Dnieper, below Kyiv), where, moreover, the richest archaeological materials of the 5th-7th centuries were found, including silver items with princely signs on them.
The further history of Rus' must be considered in connection with the formation of the ancient Russian nationality, which eventually embraced all the East Slavic tribes.
The core of the ancient Russian people is that "Russian land" of the 6th century, which, apparently, included the Slavic tribes of the forest-steppe zone from Kyiv to Voronezh. It included the lands of the glades, northerners, Russ and, in all likelihood, the streets. These lands formed a union of tribes, which, as one might think, took the name of the most significant Rus tribe at that time. The Russian union of tribes, which became famous far beyond its borders as a land of tall and strong heroes (Zacharia Rhetor), was stable and long-lasting, since a similar culture developed throughout its space and the name of Rus' was firmly and permanently entrenched in all its parts. The union of the tribes of the Middle Dnieper and the Upper Don took shape during the period of Byzantine campaigns and the struggle of the Slavs with the Avars. The Avars failed in the VI-VII centuries. to invade this part of the Slavic lands, although they conquered the Dulebs who lived to the west.
Obviously, the rallying of the Dnieper-Don Slavs into an extensive alliance contributed to their successful struggle against the nomads.
The formation of the nation went in parallel with the folding of the state. National events strengthened the ties established between the individual parts of the country and contributed to the creation of the Old Russian people with a single language (if there were dialects), with their own territory and culture.
By IX - X centuries. the main ethnic territory of the Old Russian people was formed, the Old Russian literary language was formed (based on one of the dialects of the original "Russian Land" of the 6th-7th centuries). The ancient Russian nationality arose, uniting all the East Slavic tribes and becoming the single cradle of the three fraternal Slavic peoples of the later time - Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians.
In the composition of the ancient Russian people, who lived in the territory from Lake Ladoga to the Black Sea and from Transcarpathia to the Middle Volga, small foreign-speaking tribes gradually joined in the process of assimilation, falling under the influence of Russian culture: Merya, all, Chud, the remnants of the Scythian-Sarmatian population in the south, some Turkic-speaking tribes.
Faced with the Persian languages, which were spoken by the descendants of the Scythian-Sarmatians, with the Finno-Finnish languages of the peoples of the northeast and others, the Old Russian language invariably emerged victorious, enriching itself at the expense of the conquered languages.

Formation of the state of Rus'

The formation of the state is the natural completion of a long process of formation of feudal relations and antagonistic classes of feudal society. The feudal state apparatus, as an apparatus of coercion, adapted for its own purposes the previous tribal governments, which were completely different from it in essence, but similar to it in form and terminology. Such tribal bodies were, for example, "prince", "voivode", "team", etc. KI X-X centuries. the process of gradual maturation of feudal relations in the most developed areas of the Eastern Slavs (in the southern, forest-steppe lands) was clearly defined. Tribal elders and leaders of squads, who seized communal land, turned into feudal lords, tribal princes became feudal sovereigns, tribal unions grew into feudal states. A hierarchy of landowning nobility took shape and was established. coaod^-management of princes of different ranks. The young emerging class of feudal lords needed to create a strong state apparatus that would help it secure communal peasant lands and enslave the free peasant population, as well as provide protection from external intrusions.
The chronicler mentions a number of principalities - federations of tribes of the pre-feudal period: Polyansky, Drevlyansky, Dregovichsky, Polotsk, Slovenian. Some Eastern writers report that Kyiv (Kuyaba) was the capital of Rus', and besides it, two more cities were especially famous: Dzhervab (or Artania) and Selyabe, in which, in all likelihood, you need to see Chernigov and Pereyas-lavl - the oldest Russian cities always mentioned in Russian documents near Kyiv.
Treaty of Prince Oleg with Byzantium at the beginning of the 10th century. knows the already branched feudal hierarchy: boyars, princes, grand dukes (in Chernigov, Pereyaslavl, Lyubech, Rostov, Polotsk) and the supreme overlord of the “Grand Duke of Russia”. Eastern sources of the 9th century. they call the head of this hierarchy the title "Khakan-Rus", equating the prince of Kyiv with the lords of strong and powerful powers (Avar Khagan, Khazar Khagan, etc.), sometimes competing with the Byzantine Empire itself. In 839, this title was also included in Western sources (the Vertinsky Annals of the 9th century). All sources unanimously call Kyiv the capital of Rus'.
The fragment of the original chronicle text that survived in The Tale of Bygone Years allows us to determine the size of Rus' in the first half of the 9th century. The composition of the ancient Russian state included the following tribal unions, which previously had independent reigns: the glades, the northerners, the drevlyans, the Dregovichi, the Polochans, and the Novgorod Slovenes. In addition, the chronicle lists up to a dozen Finno-Ugric and Baltic tribes who paid tribute to Rus'.
Rus' of that time was a vast state, which already united half of the East Slavic tribes and collected tribute from the peoples of the Baltic and the Volga region.
In all likelihood, the Kiya dynasty reigned in this state, the last representatives of which (judging by some chronicles) were in the middle of the 9th century. princes Dir and Askold. About Prince Dir, an Arab author of the 10th century. Masudi writes: “The first of the Slavic kings is the king of Dir; it has vast cities and many inhabited countries. Muslim merchants arrive in the capital of his state with various kinds of goods. Later, Novgorod was conquered by the Varangian prince Rurik, and Kyiv was captured by the Varangian prince Oleg.
Other Eastern writers of the 9th - early 10th centuries. provide interesting information about agriculture, cattle breeding, beekeeping in Rus', about Russian gunsmiths and carpenters, about Russian merchants who traveled along the "Russian Sea" (Black Sea), and made their way to the East in other ways.
Of particular interest are data on the internal life of the ancient Russian state. So, the Central Asian geographer, who used the sources of the 9th century, reports that “the Rus have a class of knights”, that is, the feudal nobility.
Other sources also know the division into noble and poor. According to Ibn-Ruste (903), dating back to the 9th century, the king of the Rus (i.e., the Grand Duke of Kyiv) judges and sometimes exiles criminals "to the rulers of remote regions." In Rus', there was a custom of "God's judgment", i.e. resolving disputes by duel. For particularly serious crimes, the death penalty was applied. The king of the Rus annually traveled around the country, collecting tribute from the population.
The Russian tribal union, which turned into a feudal state, subjugated the neighboring Slavic tribes and equipped distant campaigns across the southern steppes and seas. In the 7th century the sieges of Constantinople by the Rus and the formidable campaigns of the Rus through Khazaria to the Derbent passage are mentioned. In the VII - IX centuries. the Russian prince Bravlin fought in the Khazar-Byzantine Crimea, passing from Surozh to Korchev (from Sudak to Kerch). About the Rus of the 9th century the Central Asian author wrote: "They fight with the surrounding tribes and defeat them."
Byzantine sources contain information about the Rus who lived on the Black Sea coast, about their campaigns against Constantinople, and about the baptism of a part of the Rus in the 60s of the 9th century.
Russian state developed independently of the Varangians, as a result of the natural development of society. At the same time, other Slavic states arose - the Bulgarian kingdom, the Great Moravian state and a number of others.
Since the Normanists greatly exaggerate the impact of the Varangians on Russian statehood, it is necessary to resolve the question: what is the actual role of the Varangians in the history of our Motherland?
In the middle of the 9th century, when Kievan Rus had already formed in the Middle Dnieper region, on the far northern outskirts of the Slavic world, where the Slavs lived peacefully side by side with the Finnish and Latvian tribes (Chud, Korela, Letgola, etc.), detachments of the Varangians began to appear, sailing from the Baltic Sea. The Slavs and the Chud drove these detachments away; we know that the Kyiv princes of that time sent their troops to the north to fight the Varangians. It is possible that it was then that, near the old tribal centers of Polotsk and Pskov, he grew up in an important strategic place near Lake Ilmen new town- Novgorod, which was supposed to block the way for the Vikings to the Volga and the Dnieper. For nine centuries until the construction of St. Petersburg, Novgorod either defended Rus' from overseas pirates, or was a “window to Europe” for the trade of the northern Russian regions.
In 862 or 874 (the chronology is inconsistent), the Varangian king Rurik appeared near Novgorod. From this adventurer, who led a small squad, the genealogy of all the Russian princes of the “Rurikoviches” was conducted without any special reason (although Russian historians of the 11th century led the genealogy of princes from Igor the Old, without mentioning Rurik).
The Varangians-aliens did not take possession of Russian cities, but set up their fortifications-camps next to them. Near Novgorod they lived in the “Ryurik settlement”, near Smolensk - in Gnezdovo, near Kyiv - in the Ugorsky tract. There could be both merchants and Varangian warriors hired by the Russians. The important thing is that nowhere the Varangians were the masters of Russian cities.
Archaeological data show that the number of Varangian warriors themselves, who lived permanently in Rus', was very small.
In 882 one of the Varangian leaders; Oleg made his way from Novgorod to the south, took Lyubech, which served as a kind of northern gate of the Kyiv principality, and sailed to Kyiv, where he managed to kill the Kyiv prince Askold and seize power by deceit and cunning. Until now, in Kyiv, on the banks of the Dnieper, a place called "Askold's Grave" has been preserved. It is possible that Prince Askold was the last representative of the ancient Kiya dynasty.
The name of Oleg is associated with several campaigns for tribute to neighboring Slavic tribes and the famous campaign of Russian troops against Constantinople in 911. Apparently, Oleg did not feel like a master in Rus'. It is curious that after a successful campaign in Byzantium, he and the Varangians surrounding him ended up not in the capital of Rus', but far to the north, in Ladoga, from where the path to their homeland, Sweden, was close. It also seems strange that Oleg, to whom the creation of the Russian state is completely unreasonably attributed, disappeared without a trace from the Russian horizon, leaving the chroniclers in bewilderment. Novgorodians, geographically close to the Varangian lands, Oleg's homeland, wrote that, according to one version known to them, after the Greek campaign, Oleg came to Novgorod, and from there to Ladoga, where he died and was buried. According to another version, he sailed across the sea "and I will peck (his) winters in the leg and from that (he) will die." The people of Kiev, repeating the legend of the snake that stung the prince, told that he was buried in Kyiv on Mount Schekavitsa (“Serpent Mountain”); perhaps the name of the mountain influenced the fact that Shchekavitsa was artificially associated with Oleg.
In the IX - X centuries. Normans played an important role in the history of many peoples of Europe. They attacked the shores of England, France, Italy from the sea in large fleets, conquered cities and kingdoms. Some scientists believed that Rus' was subjected to the same massive invasion of the Varangians, while forgetting that continental Rus' was the complete geographical opposite of the western maritime states.
The formidable fleet of the Normans could suddenly appear in front of London or Marseilles, but not a single Varangian boat that entered the Neva and sailed upstream of the Neva, Volkhov, Lovat could not go unnoticed by Russian watchmen from Novgorod or Pskov. The portage system, when heavy, deep-sea vessels had to be pulled ashore and rolled for tens of miles along the ground on skating rinks, excluded the element of surprise and robbed the formidable armada of all its fighting qualities. In practice, only as many Varangians could get into Kyiv as the prince of Kievan Rus allowed. Not without reason, that one time, when the Varangians attacked Kyiv, they had to pretend to be merchants.
The reign of the Varangian Oleg in Kyiv is an insignificant and short-lived episode, overblown by some pro-Varangian chroniclers and later Normanist historians. The campaign of 911 - the only reliable fact from his reign - became famous thanks to the brilliant literary form in which it was described, but in essence this is only one of the many campaigns of Russian squads of the 9th - 10th centuries. on the coast of the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea, about which the chronicler is silent. During the X century. and the first half of the 11th century. Russian princes often hired detachments of the Varangians for wars and palace service; they were often entrusted with murders from around the corner: hired Varangians stabbed, for example, Prince Yaropolk in 980, they killed Prince Boris in 1015; Varangians were hired by Yaroslav for the war with his own father.
In order to streamline the relationship between the mercenary Varangian detachments and the local Novgorod squad, Yaroslav's Pravda was published in Novgorod in 1015, limiting the arbitrariness of violent mercenaries.
The historical role of the Varangians in Rus' was negligible. Appearing as "finders", the newcomers, attracted by the splendor of the rich, already far-famous Kievan Rus, they plundered the northern outskirts in separate raids, but they were able to get to the heart of Rus only once.
There is nothing to say about the cultural role of the Varangians. The treaty of 911, concluded on behalf of Oleg and containing about a dozen Scandinavian names of the Oleg boyars, was written not in Swedish, but in Slavonic. The Vikings had nothing to do with the creation of the state, the construction of cities, the laying of trade routes. They could neither speed up nor significantly delay the historical process in Rus'.
The short period of Oleg's "principality" - 882 - 912. - left in the people's memory an epic song about the death of Oleg from his own horse (processed by A.S. Pushkin in his "Songs about the Prophetic Oleg"), interesting for its anti-Varangian tendency. The image of a horse in Russian folklore is always very benevolent, and if the owner, the Varangian prince, is already predicted to die from his war horse, then he deserves it.
The struggle against the Varangian elements in the Russian squads continued until 980; there are traces of it both in the annals and in the epic epic - the epic about Mikul Selyaninovich, who helped Prince Oleg Svyatoslavich fight the Varangian Sveneld (black raven Santal).
The historical role of the Varangians is incomparably less than the role of the Pechenegs or Polovtsy, who really influenced the development of Rus' for four centuries. Therefore, the life of only one generation of Russian people, who endured the participation of the Varangians in the administration of Kyiv and several other cities, does not seem to be a historically important period.

How was the ancient Russian people formed? The development of feudal relations takes place in the process of transforming tribal unions into principalities, that is, separate state associations. The history of the ancient Russian state and the formation of the ancient Russian nationality begin with this process - processes are interconnected.

What preceded the foundation of Kievan Rus? What factors contributed to the formation of the Old Russian people?

Founding of the state

In the ninth century, Slavic society reached a level where it was necessary to create a legal framework that would regulate conflicts. Civil strife arose as a result of inequality. The state is the legal field capable of resolving many conflict situations. Without it, such a historical phenomenon as the ancient Russian nationality could not exist. In addition, the unification of the tribes was necessary, because the state is always stronger than unrelated principalities.

About when the state arose that united historians argue to this day. At the beginning of the 9th century, the Ilmen Slovenes and Finno-Ugric tribes started such a feud that the local leaders decided on a desperate step: to invite experienced rulers, preferably from Scandinavia.

Varangian rulers

According to the chronicle, the wise leaders sent a message to Rurik and his brothers, which said that their land was rich, fruitful, but there was no peace on it, only strife and civil strife. The authors of the letter invited the Scandinavians to reign and restore order. There was nothing shameful in this proposal for local rulers. Notable foreigners were often invited for this purpose.

The foundation of Kievan Rus contributed to the unification of almost all the East Slavic tribes mentioned in the annals. Belarusians, Russians and Ukrainians are the descendants of the inhabitants of feudal principalities, united in a state that has become one of the most powerful in the Middle Ages.

Legend

This city was the capital of the Slavic tribe of the Polans. They were once led, according to legend, by Kiy. Helped him manage Shchek and Khoriv. Kyiv stood at the crossroads, in a very convenient location. Here they exchanged and bought grain, weapons, livestock, jewelry, fabrics. Over time, Kiy, Khoriv and Shchek disappeared somewhere. The Slavs paid tribute to the Khazars. The Varangians passing by occupied the "homeless" city. The origin of Kyiv is shrouded in secrets. But the creation of the city is one of the prerequisites for the formation of the Old Russian people.

However, the version that Shchek was the founder of Kyiv is subject to great doubts. Rather, it is a myth, part of the folk epic.

Why exactly Kyiv?

This city arose in the center of the territory inhabited by the Eastern Slavs. The location of Kyiv, as already mentioned, is very convenient. Wide steppes, fertile lands and dense forests. The cities had all the conditions for cattle breeding, agriculture, hunting, and most importantly - for the defense of an enemy invasion.

What historical sources speak about the birth of Kievan Rus? About the emergence of the East Slavic state, and therefore - the ancient Russian people, reports the "Tale of Bygone Years". After Rurik, who came to power at the invitation of local leaders, Oleg began to rule Novgorod. Igor could not manage due to his young age.

Oleg managed to concentrate power over Kyiv and Novgorod.

Historical concepts

Old Russian nationality - an ethnic community, which united with the formation of the early feudal state. A few words should be said about what is hidden under this historical term.

Nationality is a historical phenomenon characteristic of the early feudal period. This is a community of people who are not members of the tribe. But they are not yet residents of a state with strong economic ties. How is a people different from a nation? Modern historians today have not come to a consensus. There are still discussions regarding this issue. But we can say with confidence that nationality is what unites people who have a common territory, culture, customs and traditions.

periodization

The topic of the article is the Old Russian nationality. Therefore, it is worth giving a periodization of the development of Kievan Rus:

Emergence.
Rise.
feudal division.

The first period refers to the ninth to tenth centuries. And it was then that the East Slavic tribes began to transform into a single community. Of course, the differences between them disappeared gradually. As a result of active communication and rapprochement, the Old Russian language was formed from many dialects. An original material and spiritual culture was created.

Rapprochement of tribes

East Slavic tribes lived in the territory, which was subject to a single authority. Except for the constant civil strife that took place at the last stage of the development of Kievan Rus. But they led to the emergence of common traditions and customs.

Old Russian nationality is a definition that implies not only a common economic life, language, culture and territory. This concept means a community consisting of the main, but irreconcilable classes - feudal lords and peasants.

The formation of the ancient Russian nationality was a long process. Features in the culture and language of the people inhabiting different areas of the state have been preserved. Differences have not been erased, despite the rapprochement. Later, this served as the basis for the formation of the Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian nationalities.

The concept of "Old Russian nationality" does not lose its relevance, because this community is the single root of the fraternal peoples. The inhabitants of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus carried through the centuries an understanding of the proximity of culture and language. The historical significance of the ancient Russian nationality is great, regardless of the current political and economic situation. In order to verify this, it is worth considering the components of this community, namely: language, customs, culture.

History of the Old Russian language

Representatives of the East Slavic tribes understood each other even before the founding of Kievan Rus.

The Old Russian language is the speech of the inhabitants who inhabited the territory of this feudal state from the sixth to the fourteenth century. A huge role in the development of culture is played by the emergence of writing. If, speaking of the time of the birth of the Old Russian language, historians call the seventh century, then the appearance of the first literary monuments can be attributed to the tenth century. With the creation of the Cyrillic alphabet, the development of writing begins. So-called chronicles appear, which are also important historical documents.

The Old Russian ethnos began its development in the seventh century, but by the fourteenth, due to severe feudal fragmentation, changes in the speech of the inhabitants inhabiting the west, south, east of Kievan Rus began to be observed. It was then that dialects appeared, later formed into separate languages: Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian.

culture

Reflection of the life experience of the people - oral creativity. In the festive rituals of the inhabitants of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, and today there are many similarities. How did oral poetry appear?

Street musicians, itinerant actors and singers roamed the streets of the ancient Russian state. All of them had a common name - buffoons. The motives of folk art formed the basis of many literary and musical works created much later.

The epic epic received special development. Folk singers idealized the unity of Kievan Rus. The characters of epics (for example, the hero Mikula Selyanovich) are depicted in epic works as rich, strong and independent. Despite the fact that this hero was a peasant.

Folk art influenced the legends and tales that have developed in the church and secular environment. And this influence is noticeable in the culture of later periods. Another source for the creation of literary works for the authors of Kievan Rus was military stories.

Economy development

With the formation of the Old Russian people, representatives of the East Slavic tribes began to improve tools. The economy, however, remained natural. In the main industry - agriculture - widely used rales, spades, hoes, scythes, wheeled plows.

Craftsmen achieved significant success with the formation of the Old Russian state. Blacksmiths learned to harden, grind, polish. Representatives of this ancient craft made about one hundred and fifty types of iron products. The swords of ancient Russian blacksmiths were especially famous. Pottery and woodworking were also actively developed. Products of ancient Russian masters were known far beyond the borders of the state.

The formation of the nationality contributed to the development of crafts and agriculture, which subsequently led to an increase in the development of trade relations. Kievan Rus developed economic relations with foreign countries. The trade route "from the Varangians to the Greeks" passed through the ancient Russian state.

Feudal relations

The formation of the Old Russian nationality took place during the period of the establishment of feudalism. What was this system of social relations? The feudal lords, about whose cruelty Soviet historians spoke so much, indeed, concentrated power and wealth in their hands. They used the labor of urban artisans and dependent peasants. Feudalism contributed to the formation of complex vassal relations, known from the history of the Middle Ages. The great Kyiv prince personified the state power.

class strife

Smerd peasants cultivated the estates of the feudal lords. Artisans paid tribute. The hardest life was for serfs and servants. As in other medieval states, feudal exploitation in Kievan Rus eventually became so aggravated that uprisings began. The first took place in 994. The story of the death of Igor, who, together with his squad, once decided to collect tribute for the second time, is known to everyone. Popular anger is a terrible phenomenon in history, entailing inciting strife, excesses, and sometimes even war.

Fight with aliens

The Norman Scandinavian tribes continued their predatory attacks even when the East Slavic tribes already constituted an ethnic community. In addition, Kievan Rus waged an uninterrupted struggle against the hordes. The inhabitants of the ancient Russian state bravely repelled enemy invasions. And they themselves did not wait for the next attack from the enemy, but, without thinking twice, set off. Old Russian troops often equipped campaigns in enemy states. Their glorious deeds are reflected in chronicles, epics.

Paganism

Territorial unity was significantly strengthened during the reign of Vladimir Svyatoslavovich. Kievan Rus achieved significant development, waged a fairly successful struggle against the aggressive actions of the Lithuanian and Polish princes.

Paganism had a negative impact on the formation of ethnic unity. There was a need for a new religion, which, of course, was to be Christianity. Askold began to distribute it on the territory of Rus'. But then Kyiv was captured by the Novgorod prince and destroyed not so long ago built Christian churches.

Introduction of a new faith

Vladimir took over the mission of introducing a new religion. However, there were many fans of paganism in Rus'. They have been fighting for many years. Even before the adoption of Christianity, attempts were made to renew the pagan religion. Vladimir Svyatoslavovich, for example, in 980 approved the existence of a group of gods headed by Perun. What was needed was an idea common to the entire state. And its center was bound to be in Kyiv.

Paganism, nevertheless, has become obsolete. And therefore, Vladimir, after lengthy deliberation, chose Orthodoxy. In his choice, he was guided, first of all, by practical interests.

Tough choice

According to one version, the prince listened to the opinion of several priests before making a choice. Everyone, as you know, has his own truth. The Muslim world attracted Vladimir, but he was frightened by circumcision. In addition, the Russian table cannot be without pork and wine. The faith of the Jews in the prince did not at all inspire confidence. Greek was colorful, spectacular. And political interests finally predetermined the choice of Vladimir.

Religion, traditions, culture - all this unites the population of the countries where the tribes once lived, united in the ancient Russian ethnic union. And even after centuries, the connection between such peoples as Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian is inseparable.

According to the views shared by most researchers of the history of Ancient Rus', this is an East Slavic ethnic community (ethnos), formed in X- XIII centuries as a result of the merger of 12 East Slavic tribal unions - Slovenes (Ilmen), Krivichi (including Polochan), Vyatichi, Radimichi, Dregovichi, Northerners, Polyans, Drevlyans, Volynians, Tivertsy, Ulichs and White Croats - and was a common ancestor of those formed in XIV - XVI centuries three modern East Slavic ethnic groups - Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians. The above theses turned into a coherent concept in the 1940s. thanks to the works of the Leningrad historian V.V. Mavrodina.

It is believed that the formation of a single ancient Russian people was facilitated by:

The linguistic unity of the then Eastern Slavs (the formation on the basis of the Kyiv Koine of a single, all-Russian spoken language and a single literary language, called Old Russian in science);

The unity of the material culture of the Eastern Slavs;

Unity of traditions, customs, spiritual culture;

Achieved at the end of IX - X centuries. political unity of the Eastern Slavs (unification of all East Slavic tribal unions within the boundaries of the Old Russian state);

Appearance at the end of the tenth century. the Eastern Slavs have a single religion - Christianity in its Eastern version (Orthodoxy);

The presence of trade links between different areas.

All this led to the formation of a single, all-Russian ethnic identity among the Eastern Slavs. The formation of such self-consciousness is indicated by:

Gradual replacement of tribal ethnonyms by the common ethnonym "Rus" (for example, for the Polyans, the fact of this replacement was recorded in the annals under 1043, for the Ilmen Slovenes - under 1061);

The presence in the XII - early XIII centuries. unified (Russian) ethnic identity among princes, boyars, clergy and townspeople. So, the Chernigov abbot Daniel, who arrived in Palestine in 1106, positions himself as a representative not of Chernigov, but of "the entire Russian land." At the princely congress of 1167, the princes - heads of sovereign states formed after the collapse of the Old Russian state, proclaim their goal to protect "the entire Russian land." The Novgorod chronicler, when describing the events of 1234, proceeds from the fact that Novgorod is part of the "Russian land".

A sharp reduction after the Mongol invasion of Rus' of ties between the northwestern and northeastern lands of Ancient Rus', on the one hand, and the southern and southwestern, on the other, and also began in the second half of the 13th century. the inclusion first of the western, and then the southwestern and southern lands of Ancient Rus' into the state of Lithuania - all this led to the disintegration of the Old Russian people and the beginning of the formation of three modern East Slavic ethnic groups on the basis of the Old Russian people.

Literature

Lebedinsky M.Yu. On the question of the history of the ancient Russian people. M., 1997.
Mavrodin V.V. The formation of the Old Russian state and the formation of the Old Russian people. M., 1971.
Sedov V.V. Ancient Russian people. Historical and archaeological research. M., 1999.
Tolochko P.P. Old Russian nationality: imaginary or real? SPb., 2005.

"Formation of the ancient Russian people and state"

Content

1. The early feudal state of the Eastern Slavs is Kievan Rus. Formation of the Old Russian people

1.1 Russian land. Foundation and development of Kyiv
1.2 Kievan Rus
1.3 Old Russian people
1.4 Changes in the development of the economy
1.5 Feudal relations and class struggle. Political events
1.6 Introduction of Christianity in Rus'
1.7 Popular uprisings against feudal lords and boyars
Bibliography

1. The early feudal state of the Eastern Slavs - Kievan Rus. Formation of the Old Russian people

1.1 Russian land. Foundation and development of Kyiv

As you already know, the emergence of classes and the development of feudal relations among the ancient Eastern Slavs led to the development of their tribal unions into state associations - principalities. So, in the Middle Dnieper region, a state association of tribes of glades (Rus), northerners and streets was formed under the general name " Rus" or " Russian land". This name at that time also spread to other unions of East Slavic tribes. The local origin of the word "Rus" is evidenced, in particular, by the names of rivers in the Dnieper region: Ros, Rosava, Rostavitsa, Rusava. The Russian land is named in the ancient chronicle "The Tale of Bygone Years" and sung in the "Tale of Igor's Campaign".

On the vast territory of the Russian land, feudal principalities were formed from unions of tribes, cities were founded (Kyiv, Novgorod, Chernigov, Pereyaslav, Smolensk, Polotsk, Minsk, etc.). Most of them became the centers of principalities.

The main city of the Russian land became Kyiv. This city arose almost in the center of the Slavic tribes and stretched out on the picturesque mountainous right bank of the Dnieper, and then expanded to the river valley. The area around Kyiv with wide steppes, fertile lands and dense forests has long attracted people. There were all conditions for agriculture, cattle breeding and hunting, as well as for defense against enemy invasions.

In the ancient Russian chronicle " Tale of Bygone Years" ( XII c) tells about the founding of Kyiv by three brothers Kiy, Shchek, Khoriv and their sister Lybid on the present Starokievskaya Hill (now it is the territory of the Kyiv State Historical Museum of the Ukrainian SSR). The city is named after the elder brother Kyi, who became the prince of the tribal union of the glades.

According to the scientific definitions of archaeologists and historians, Kyiv was founded in the second half of the 5th century. (in 1982 his 1500th anniversary was celebrated). The chronicle reports that at that time Prince Kiy visited Byzantium, where the emperor received him with due honors. Thus, the state tribal union of the Polyans already then had international connections, testifying to its power and authority.

1.2 Kievan Rus

Kyiv played an important role in the history of the Russian land as the political center of a large early feudal state - Kievan Rus, which in the first half of the IX century. united several former tribal unions - the principalities of the Eastern Slavs. And in 882 the prince Oleg, who owned the Slovenian principality with a center in Novgorod, carried out a number of military campaigns, as a result of which he annexed to his possessions the lands of the union of the Krivichi tribes with their main city of Smolensk. In the same year, Oleg managed to defeat the military squad of the Polyansky prince Askold and capture Kyiv.

In the ancient Russian chronicle it is written: "And Oleg, the prince in Kyiv, settled, and Oleg said:" Let this (Kyiv) be the mother of Russian cities. "Later, Oleg annexed the tribal unions of the Drevlyans, Severyans, Radimichis, Ulichs and Tivertsy to Kievan Rus, freeing them from paying tribute to the Khazar kagan (prince).The unifying policy of Prince Oleg received support among the named tribal unions and contributed to the strengthening of the forces of the young Slavic state.

Thus, from the very beginning of its existence, the East Slavic state of Kievan Rus united under its rule almost all the East Slavic tribes named in the annals. It became one of the most powerful states of medieval Europe.

Kievan Rus was formed as early feudal state. However, along with feudal relations in the social life of the Slavic Russ, many remnants of the primitive communal system were kept: the duties of the peasants were limited to paying tribute; there was a custom blood feud for murdered relatives; to resolve important issues, the population gathered at a general meeting - veche; to protect the borders of Rus', another civil uprising.

The strengthening of the ancient Russian state accelerated the withering away of the remnants of the primitive communal system in the public life of the Slavs of the Rus and contributed to the development of feudal relations. Relying on constantly armed detachments of devoted warriors - squads, the prince in resolving issues of state life did not reckon with the veche, but convened council of boyars - wealthy feudal lords. They also owned all judicial power: court became princely. The prince and the boyars seized communal lands and lands, forced the smerd peasants not only to pay tribute, but also to work certain days on their farms. In addition, the peasants, on the orders of the prince, had to take part in military campaigns to conquer new lands and repel the invasion of nomads.

Thus, the early feudal state of Kievan Rus in the hands of the princes and boyars became a powerful tool that provided the feudal lords with the right to land ownership, the exploitation of smerd peasants, artisans, helped protect the country from enemy attacks and conquer new territories..

1.3 Old Russian people

The formation of the early feudal state of Kievan Rus was also facilitated by the fact that under the feudal system, the East Slavic tribes over a large territory united into a higher ethnic (folk) community compared to clans and tribes - old Russian nationality.

The overcoming of tribal isolation was facilitated by the development of agriculture, cattle breeding, crafts, crafts, and trade. The separation of handicrafts from agriculture and animal husbandry accelerated the further development of commodity production and trade exchange within and between tribes, as well as with neighboring countries. Trade strengthened economic ties between Kyiv, Chernigov, Pereyaslav, Seversk, Volyn, Galicia, Novgorod, Smolensk and other lands of Kievan Rus.

Joint life in one state led to the gradual erasure of differences (in language, customs, etc.) between related East Slavic tribes over a large area. They communicated with each other more and more actively. And this gradually led to the formation of local dialects old Russian language, understandable for the entire population of Kievan Rus. This population created an original material and spiritual culture, reflecting achievements in agriculture, cattle breeding, crafts, everyday life, architecture (construction), folklore, literature, and fine arts. Old Russian culture was imbued with the idea of the unity of the entire Russian land.

The Old Russian nationality was based not only on the common economic life, territory, language and culture, but also consisted of two main, irreconcilable classes - peasants and feudal lords.

At the same time, certain features in the language, culture and life of the people who inhabited the northeastern, western and southwestern territories of Kievan Rus were still preserved within the Old Russian nationality. Later, these features developed and served as the basis for the formation of the Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian nationalities.

Kievan Rus - cradle, and the ancient Russian people - a single root of the fraternal Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian peoples, who have preserved and carried through the centuries the understanding of the unity of origin, the proximity of language and culture, the awareness of the commonality of their destiny.

Socio-economic and political development of the Old Russian state

1.4 Changes in the development of the economy

Compared with the primitive communal and slave-owning feudal system, new forms of management and improvement of labor tools. Household left natural. In its main industry in Rus' - agriculture, narrow-bladed rallies, plows, wooden harrows, spades, hoes, sickles, scythes, wheelless, and sometimes heavy wheeled plows with mouldboards were widely used. Their working parts were made of iron. At that time, they used undercut ( forest areas) and fallow ( steppe and forest-steppe) farming systems, land cultivation was improved. As before, smerd peasants sowed rye, wheat, millet, buckwheat, barley, oats and other crops. But yields have gotten higher. The sickle and scythe were the main tools of labor of the peasants in a difficult time. The grain was threshed with wooden flails. Grinding was no longer only done with hand-held stone millstones - simple windmills and watermills appeared.

Along with agriculture, cattle breeding developed in Rus': herds of cows, herds of horses, flocks of sheep and goats were grazing in the meadows and steppes. AT winter time cattle were kept in barns and pens, fed with hay harvested in the summer. People also raised pigs and poultry (chickens, geese, ducks). This required a lot of labor. The crafts, especially hunting, fishing and beekeeping, did not lose their significance, which provided additional profits.

Crafts have made notable progress. Iron was smelted from bog ore in doinits - raw furnaces. In blacksmith workshops - forges, it was reforged, tempered, turned, polished. Old Russian blacksmiths made about 150 types of iron products. Their swords were famous. Pottery and Gutnichestvo (glass production), woodworking developed. From wood they built dwellings, places of worship (temples) and fortifications, made carts, sledges, canoes, furniture and other household items. Hemp and wool spinning, weaving, jewelry making and other handicrafts were further developed. Products of Russian people were known far beyond the borders of Rus'.

As a result of the gradual separation of handicrafts from agriculture, the expansion of production and the consolidation of certain types of it in certain areas, trade exchange revived. Trade contributed to the economic unification of the country, which occupied a large territory of Eastern Europe. Kievan Rus conducted active trade with foreign countries (Scandinavia, the Balkan Peninsula, Central and Western Europe, the Middle East and Asia, Byzantium). The world-famous trade route along the Dnieper "from the Varangians to the Greeks" passed through the whole of Kievan Rus from north to south, which connected it with Scandinavia and Byzantium. In foreign markets, Russian merchants sold handicrafts, furs, honey, wax, leather, etc. And in local markets, goods from other countries were sold: gold items, expensive fabrics, wine, dishes, weapons, copper, lead. Along with merchants, princely and boyar servants, peasants and city dwellers were engaged in trade.

The administrative, defense, craft, trade and cultural centers of Kievan Rus were cities, of which there were at least 80. The cities of Kyiv, Chernihiv, Pereyaslav, Lyubech, Vyshgorod, Kanev, Korsun, Zhytomyr, Korosten (Iskorosten), Radomyshl and others were famous in the Middle Dnieper. Among the urban population, the number of artisans increased, numbering about 60 specialties. Artisans united in communities for mutual assistance in the production and sale of goods. In the Middle Ages, such associations in Western Europe were called workshops. Communities of artisans opposed the princes and boyars, who encroached on their rights, as well as the economically growing church.

1.5 Feudal relations and class struggle. Political events

The feudal lords concentrated wealth and power in their hands, exploited dependent peasants and urban artisans. Feudalism led to the formation of a complex system of vassal relations, known to you from the history of the Middle Ages. The Kyiv Grand Duke remained the supreme owner of all lands and personified state power. He depended on local princes, boyars, combatants, the city's rich, the clergy, who owned lands, crafts, and craft establishments. They supported the state, which protected their interests.

The smerd peasants, who owned small plots of land, were subject to tribute (fur, honey, wax, grain, etc.) by the feudal lords, forced to work on estates and cultivate their lands. The urban poor paid burdensome taxes to the princes, served their duties, and later maintained churches and monasteries. The servants and serfs who had no land were subjected to the most cruel exploitation.

The intensification of feudal exploitation led to an aggravation class struggle. The Old Russian chronicle reports about the uprising of the Drevlyans of the city. Iskorostenya and surrounding villages in 945 d. against the prince Igor who beamed, with a military squad, collected exorbitant tribute from them, which was then called "polyudie". The rebellious Drevlyans said: "As the wolf gets into the habit of following the sheep, he will carry the whole flock if he is not killed; so here, if we do not kill him, he will destroy everyone (we will be destroyed." So they did: they killed the prince and destroyed his combatants Only the following year, Igor's wife, Princess Olga, succeeded in suppressing the uprising, she dealt cruelly with its participants, but she still had to establish the norm of tribute, the order and places (graveyards) of its collection.

Kievan Rus had to wage a constant struggle against the robber attacks of the Norman tribes of Scandinavia - the Varangians from the north, the hordes of the Khozar Khaganate from the east and the Pecheneg detachments from the steppes of the Northern Black Sea region. These attacks brought destruction and death. The Russian people courageously repulsed the invasions of enemies, fortified cities and villages with fortresses, and also carried out campaigns of their troops into enemy camps.

Relations between Kievan Rus and the medieval state of Byzantium did not always develop peacefully. Byzantium often supported enemy attacks on Rus', tried to undermine its power, the Byzantine emperors themselves wanted to subjugate the Russian lands and seize their wealth. In response to the hostile actions of the Byzantine emperors in 911, the ancient Russian prince Oleg with a large army approached the capital of Byzantium, Tsargrad (Constantinople) and besieged it. The Byzantines were forced to conclude an agreement with the Russian representatives, under the terms of which the merchants of Rus' could freely trade in Byzantium. On the occasion of such a victory, Oleg nailed his shield to the gates of Constantinople. However, even later, during the time of Prince Igor, there were wars between Kievan Rus and Byzantium.

To the son of Igor and Olga, Prince of Kyiv Svyatoslav brave warrior and commander, managed to subjugate the Volga Bulgaria and the Khozar Khaganate, inflict a sensitive defeat on the Pechenegs. The army of Svyatoslav then crossed the Danube and liberated Bulgaria from Byzantine rule. But large Byzantine forces surrounded him in the city of Dorostol (now Silistria in Bulgaria). There, the Russians defended themselves so bravely that they were able to get out of the encirclement. The Byzantines suffered significant losses. Returning to Kyiv, Svyatoslav and his soldiers died at the Dnieper rapids in a battle with the predominant forces of the Pechenegs. This happened in 972.

1.6 Introduction of Christianity in Rus'

During the reign Vladimir Svyatoslavich (980 -1015 ) Kievan Rus achieved significant development: it united almost all the East Slavic lands, waged a successful struggle against the attempts of the princes of Lithuania and Poland to seize its territory. were built defensive ramparts and fortresses along the Stugna, Ros, Trubezh, Ostra, Sula and other rivers. A number of reforms were carried out in the administration of the state. The feudal system was strengthened.

In Rus', the need has long been brewing to replace paganism, which arose in the primitive communal system, with a new religion - christianity, which would correspond to the feudal system. The Kyiv prince Askold (862-882), having visited Byzantium, himself adopted Christianity and spread it in Rus'. Prince Oleg of Novgorod, having captured Kyiv, destroyed Christian churches and restored paganism. But time passed, and the question of Christianity arose again. Princess Olga, who was received with great honors by the emperor of Byzantium, also became a Christian and spread Christianity in Kyiv. Now this mission was taken over by Prince Vladimir, Olga's grandson.

But paganism had numerous admirers, both among the ruling class and among broad sections of the common people. This was well understood by Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich. In 980, he made an attempt to renew the pagan religion, adapting it to new conditions. A single group of pagan gods is declared, headed by Perun. It was supposed to unite in itself all the main "tribal" gods and provide a single cult for the entire state, the center of which was in Kyiv" under the rule of the prince.

On a hill behind the "terem yard" (outside the settlement of Kiya), Vladimir built a new pagan temple, where he placed pagan gods ("idols"), the main of which was Perun. The image of Perun was wooden with a silver head and a golden mustache. Nearby were images of Khors, Dazhbog, Stribog, Simargl and Mokosh. The Christian chronicler wrote with contempt that the pagans of Kiev called them gods and made sacrifices to them (“I defile the earth with my requirements”).

But Vladimir Svyatoslavich understood that paganism had become obsolete. Therefore, he was forced to turn to one of the world religions that preached the worship of one god. Such religions then were Islam, Judaism and Christianity.

After lengthy deliberation, Vladimir chose Byzantine Orthodoxy - one of the main and oldest trends in Christianity. The prince was guided not by church or religious considerations, but by earthly practical interests, primarily political, economic and cultural.

In the summer of 988, Vladimir "baptizes Rus'", that is, he declares Christianity the state religion of Kievan Rus. Of course, Christianity was known in Rus' much earlier, since the 9th century, but now it has become the dominant religion.

The chronicle legend contains a description of the baptism of the people of Kiev in the Dnieper and its tributary Pochaina, the destruction of images of pagan idols. "Idols" (idols) were chopped up and burned, and Perun was tied to the tail of a horse and dragged "along Borichev to the Brook." Christian churches were built on the site of the former temples. In general, the baptism of Rus' took place in the conditions of sharp class contradictions, it lasted a long time and was carried out painfully. Princes and boyars introduced a new religion among the oppressed people through violence and cruelty.

The introduction of Christianity contributed to the strengthening of the state, since the church organization helped Vladimir govern the country. In the person of the priests, the prince had not only preachers who consecrated the princely power, to which Christians must obey, but also competent assistants in the administration of the state. Christianity became a powerful weapon of the ruling class, helping it to strengthen its position in society and subjugate the masses.

In the specific historical conditions of that time, Christianity contributed to the strengthening of new, more progressive feudal social relations, the expansion of the political, economic and cultural ties of Kievan Rus with neighboring states - Byzantium, Bulgaria, Greece, the countries of Western Europe and the Caucasus, the Middle East. Advanced Byzantine culture, in particular writing, also spread in Rus', although even before that, its own writing, architecture, and art developed here. Due to the rather high level of its development, Kievan Rus could creatively assimilate samples of world culture.

"Russian Truth".

K. Marx called the reign of Vladimir "the climax" in the history of Kievan Rus, which at that time achieved significant political, economic and cultural development and became one of the largest states in Europe. He compared it with the great Frankish Carolingian Empire.

After the death of Vladimir, the struggle between his sons for the Grand Duke's table (throne) in Kyiv lasted for several years. As a result, the Grand Duke became Yaroslav Vladimirovich ( years of reign - 1019 - 1054), known in history under the name Wise. He was an educated person and cared about the unity and international authority of Kievan Rus. In Kyiv, earthen ramparts were built to defend the city, stone princely palaces, monasteries with numerous buildings, shopping areas, piers on the Dnieper were equipped, the city territory was built up, and the population increased. AT 1036. Russian military squads utterly defeated the hordes of the Pechenegs, breaking through to Kyiv.

In Kievan Rus, there was an acceleration in the development of agriculture, cattle breeding, crafts, handicrafts, and trade. The prince and the boyars seized the best lands and forced smerd peasants to work on them, which led to an aggravation of class contradictions. The princes and boyars needed to strengthen their power over the masses.

To do this, new laws were introduced to regulate various aspects of public life, ensuring the inviolability of the person and property of the feudal lords, their dominant position and the right to exploit the smerd peasants. The first collection of feudal laws, compiled during the time of Yaroslav the Wise, was called " Russian Truth" ( near 1072 g).

Here are a few extracts from her article on criminal law: “If a fireman (steward) is killed intentionally, then the killer pays 80 hryvnia for him ... and 80 hryvnia for a princely entrance ... And for a princely tiun (performer of princely orders) - 80 hryvnias... And for a murdered smerd or serf - 5 hryvnias... The one who burns the barn is given to the prince all with all his property, from which the loss inflicted on the owner is deducted first of all, and the rest is disposed of by the prince at his own discretion. what to do with the one who burns the estate.

Thus, Russkaya Pravda legally consolidated the stratification of society, formalized the oppression of the masses. Like the introduction of Christianity, the adoption " Russian Pravda" was aimed at strengthening the feudal system in Kievan Rus.

1.7 Popular uprisings against feudal lords and boyars

It was difficult for the people to live under the rule of princes and boyars. Paying them a huge tribute, many smerds went bankrupt and were forced to take a loan. Having become debtors, they could not leave the village without the permission of the feudal lord, and thus they turned from freemen into feudally dependent people. The peasants also suffered greatly during the wars. At a time when the princes and boyars sat out behind the fortress walls, the enemy troops ravaged cities and villages to the ground, captured people. Moneylenders and merchants profited from the ruin and poverty of the people. All this caused popular uprisings. Some of them were so large that chronicles remember them. AT 1068. there was a big attack on Rus' by nomadic Polovtsy, who by that time had taken possession of the steppes between the Volga and Don rivers and were moving west. Russian army after an unsuccessful battle with the nomads retreated to the Kiev and Chernihiv regions. Then in Kyiv, on Podil, thousands of Kyivans gathered at a veche and demanded weapons and horses from Prince Izyaslav Yaroslavich to protect the city and the entire Russian land from enemies: "The Polovtsy scattered across the land! Prince, give us weapons and horses, we will fight them!" But the prince and the boyars were afraid to arm the people and therefore refused them. Then the people of Kiev revolted. They destroyed the houses of the Kyiv governor Kosnyachka and many hated boyars, took weapons and horses by force. The rebels expelled Grand Duke Izyaslav from Kyiv. Having elected a governor, they repulsed the Polovtsy, defended Kyiv and forced the enemies to leave the Russian land. The next year, the Grand Duke brought the Polish army, crushed the uprising and began to oppress the people of Kiev even more.

A major uprising of the poor against the boyars took place in Kyiv in 1113 g. In April of that year, the Kyiv prince Svyatopolk Izyaslavovich died, who was especially distinguished by cruelty and oppression of the city's population. The rebellious Kievans defeated the estates of the thousand Putyaty, local merchants and usurers who profited from the resale of salt. Frightened boyars and merchants sent a delegation to Pereyaslav to Prince Vladimir Monomakh. They decided to ask him to become the great prince of Kyiv. “Go, prince, to Kyiv,” the delegates said, “and if you don’t go, know that a big misfortune will happen, not only the estate of Putyata or the Sotskys ... will be robbed, but they will also attack the boyars and the monasteries, and you will be , prince, answer if the monasteries are robbed.

After some hesitation, Vladimir Monomakh arrived in Kyiv with an army, and "quenched the rebellion" (suppressed the uprising). At the same time, he was forced to make some concessions to purchases (debtors), limiting the rights of the boyars to them, forbidding usurers to take too high interest ("cuts") for debts, reduced taxes for the townspeople, eased their duties.

Vladimir Monomakh, becoming a grand duke 1113 -1125 ), fought against the Polovtsy, weakening their onslaught on Russian lands. At this time, the international prestige of Kievan Rus also grew significantly. However, its political unity was temporary and unstable.

Due to the growth of subsistence farming and the expansion of land ownership by feudal lords, the development of feudalism in Kievan Rus, as in other great medieval states of Europe, caused a gradual isolation of local principalities and weakening political power Grand Duke of Kyiv. A period of fragmentation of the Old Russian state began into several independent principalities that competed with each other. Feudal fragmentation significantly weakened the power of Kievan Rus in the face of the threat of invasion by eastern nomads and the invasion of western conquerors..

Bibliography

1. Sergienko G.Ya., Smoliya V.A. "History of the Ukrainian SSR: grades 8-9" - K., 1989

2. Sergienko G.Ya. "Anthology on the history of the Ukrainian SSR: grades 7-8" - K., 1987

3. Vlasov V.F. "History of Grade 8" - K., 2002

4. Telikhov B.V. "Development of Ukraine" - M., 1987

5. Sarbey V.G. "USSR in the history of Ukraine" - H., 1999

The history of the study of the problem of ancient Russian nationality

This problem attracted the attention of researchers already in the first half of the 19th century. At an early stage, it was considered mainly on the basis of linguistic materials, which is quite understandable, since language is the most important marker of any ethnic formation. Among Russians scientists first A. Kh. Vostokov tried to highlight the topic under consideration. Having identified some of the distinctive features of the Old Russian dialects, the researcher argued that the Old Russian language stood out from the common Slavic. He dated the emergence of differences between the individual Slavic languages of the 12th-13th centuries, believing that at the time of Cyril and Methodius, all Slavs still understood each other relatively easily, that is, they used the common Slavic language.

This issue was studied somewhat more specifically by I. I. Sreznevsky, who believed that the common Slavic (proto-Slavic) language was initially divided into two branches - western and southeastern, and the latter, after some time, differentiated into Old Russian and South Slavic languages. The researcher attributed the beginning of the Old Russian language to the 9th–10th centuries. During this period it was still monolithic. Dialectal features in the Old Russian language, according to the research of I. I. Sreznevsky, appear in the XI-XIV centuries, and in the XV century. on its basis, the Great Russian (with division into the North Great Russian and South Great Russian groups, the latter with a Belarusian sub-dialect) and Little Russian (Ukrainian) dialects are formed.

P. A. Lavrovsky explained the division of the Old Russian language into the Great Russian and Little Russian dialects by the historical situation - the formation in the time of Andrei Bogolyubsky of a state independent of Kyiv in North-Eastern Rus'. This linguist first expressed the idea of the early, even before the appearance of writing in Rus', the formation of the Old Novgorod dialect, which, however, did not meet with support among scientists of the 19th century.

In the second half of the last century, the tradition of deriving the Old Russian language from Proto-Slavic took root in linguistic literature completely. Only a few scholars have sporadically taken a different view. So, the historian M.P. Pogodin expressed the idea that the Kievan land was originally “originally Great Russian”, and Galician Rus was “Little Russian”. The Tatar-Mongol invasion significantly devastated the Kyiv region, after which it was occupied by immigrants from Galicia and thus became Little Russian. A different opinion was held by M.A. Maksimovich, who believed that the population of Kievan Rus was Ukrainian. According to this researcher, the Ukrainian ethnos was preserved in the southern lands of Rus' in the subsequent time, right up to the present. There was no desolation of the territory of modern Ukraine either in the Tatar-Mongolian period or ever before.

Of the historical and dialectological studies of the Old Russian ethno-linguistic community of this period, the works of A. I. Sobolevsky are of the greatest importance. Based on the analysis of ancient Russian written monuments of the XI-XIV centuries. this researcher singled out and characterized the features of the Novgorod, Pskov, Smolensk-Polotsk, Kyiv and Volyn-Galician dialects within the Old Russian language. He believed that the dialect division of the Old Russian language corresponded to the tribal division of the Eastern Slavs of the previous period.

The first serious historical and linguistic understanding of the beginning of the East Slavic ethno-linguistic community, the process of formation, development, dialect structure and decay of the Old Russian language belongs to A. A. Shakhmatov. Throughout his fruitful activity, this scientist somewhat changed and improved his views on this issue. I will confine myself here to a brief presentation of the essence of the constructions to which A. A. Shakhmatov came to in the last periods of his scientific work.

The first stage in the emergence of Russians (as the researcher called the Eastern Slavs), who separated from the southeastern branch of the Proto-Slavism, A. A. Shakhmatov dated the 5th-6th centuries. The "first ancestral home" of the emerging East Slavic ethnos was the lands in the interfluve of the lower reaches of the Prut and Dniester. These were the Antes, mentioned in historical sources of the 6th-7th centuries. and became the core of the Eastern Slavs. In the 6th century, fleeing the Avars, a significant part of the Ants moved to Volhynia and the Middle Dnieper region. A. A. Shakhmatov called this region “the cradle of the Russian tribe”, since the Eastern Slavs here constituted “one ethnographic whole”. In the IX-X centuries. from this area began a wide settlement of the East Slavic ethnic group, which mastered wide areas from the Black Sea to Ilmen and from the Carpathians to the Don.

The period from the 9th–10th to the 13th century, according to A. A. Shakhmatov, was the next stage in the history of the Eastern Slavs, which he calls Old Russian. As a result of settlement, the Eastern Slavs at that time differentiated into three large dialects - North Russian, East Russian (or Central Russian) and South Russian. The North Russians are that part of the Eastern Slavs who advanced to the upper reaches of the Dnieper and Western Dvina, to the basins of the Ilmensky and Peipsi lakes, and also settled the interfluve of the Volga and Oka. As a result, a political union was formed here, in which the Krivichi occupied a dominant position and into which the Finnish-speaking tribes were drawn - Merya, Ves, Chud and Muroma. To the east of the Dnieper and in the Don basin, an East Russian dialect was formed, in which akanye originally developed. The linguistic basis for the reconstruction of the South Russian dialect was Ukrainian language and his dialects, in connection with which the South Russians A.A. The researcher's point of view in relation to the Croats was not firm - they were sometimes ranked among the South Russians, sometimes they were excluded from the environment of the East Slavic tribes.

The wide settlement of the Eastern Slavs on the East European Plain and their division into three groups did not violate their unified linguistic development. The decisive role in the unified development of the Old Russian language, as A. A. Shakhmatov believed, was played by the Kiev state. With its emergence, a “common Russian life” is formed, the process of common Russian linguistic integration develops. The leading role of Kyiv determined the unified all-Russian linguistic processes throughout the territory of Ancient Rus'.

In the XIII century. the Old Russian linguistic community is disintegrating. In the following centuries, on the basis of the North Russian, East Russian and South Russian dialects of the Old Russian language and as a result of their interaction, separate East Slavic languages \u200b\u200bare formed - Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian.

The concept of A. A. Shakhmatov was a significant stimulus in the further study of the Old Russian language and nationality. It was adopted by a number of prominent linguists of that time, including D. N. Ushakov, E. F. Budde, B. M. Lyapunov. For a long time, the constructions of A. A. Shakhmatov were widespread among Russian scientists, and in some part they have not lost their significance to this day.

The Serbian linguist D.P. Dzhurovich, who made an interesting attempt to reconstruct the dialect division of the Proto-Slavic language, believed that it also included the Proto-Russian dialect, which became the basis of the Old Russian language, and localized it in the right-bank part of the Middle Dnieper, up to the basin of the upper Bug, inclusive .

Of undoubted interest are studies in the field of the origin of the East Slavic language of the Polish Slavist T. Ler-Splavinsky. He argued that the provision on the Proto-Russian (Old Russian) linguistic unity, formed during the division of the Proto-Slavic community, belongs to the indisputable. The researcher gave a detailed description of the "Proto-Russian language", describing the features that are unique to this language and alien to other Slavic languages. Until the end of the XI century. this language was divided not into three, as A. A. Shakhmatov believed, but only into two dialect groups: the northern and the more extensive southern, each of which had its own characteristic phonetic features. This division, according to T. Ler-Splavinsky, corresponded to the two cultural and political centers of Ancient Rus' - Kyiv and Novgorod. Kyiv united the southern tribes of the Eastern Slavs: Polyans, Drevlyans, Northerners, Radimichi, Vyatichi and, probably, others. Novgorod belonged to the lands of the Slovenian Ilmen and Krivichi.

The time of differentiation of the Old Russian language into the northern and southern branches, according to T. Ler-Splavinsky, cannot be determined from linguistic data. After the 11th century, during the period of political fragmentation of Rus', the process of gradual transformation of these dialect groups into three East Slavic languages begins. Thus, in the XIII-XIV centuries. Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian languages appear. The Russian language is formed on the basis of the consolidation of the North Russian group with a part of the South Russian. The Ukrainian language was formed entirely from the South Russian group, while the Belarusian language evolved from its northwestern part.

The constructions of T. Ler-Splavinsky were not widely used in linguistics and were accepted only by a few of its representatives.

The well-known linguist N. S. Trubetskoy tried to approach the coverage of the issues under consideration in a different way. The question of the existence of the Old Russian (Common East Slavic) language, in his opinion, should be considered firmly established. The researcher, like many of his predecessors, argued that the language development went from Proto-Slavic to Common East Slavic, and then as a result of the collapse of the latter, three independent East Slavic languages were formed. Following T. Ler-Splavinsky, N. S. Trubetskoy tried to substantiate the initial division of the common Russian language into two dialect groups, southern and northern, which differed markedly in basic phonetic features. He admitted the existence of such a division even in the pre-literate period. While the southern part of the Eastern Slavs, the scientist argued, developed in contact with the southern and western Slavs, the northern group became sharply isolated. Sound changes penetrating from the Slavic south and west did not reach the north of the eastern Slavs. Here development proceeded in contact interaction with the non-Slavic tribes of the Baltic region. This was realized later in the existence of two cultural centers in Ancient Rus': Kyiv and Novgorod. Thus, it turned out that the origin of elements of the North Russian and South Russian dialects is older than the formation of the Old Russian language.

N. S. Trubetskoy did not determine the time of formation of the common Russian language, but assumed that its two-term structure was preserved until the 60s of the XII century, when the process of the decline of the reduced ones began, dated by the researcher to 1164–1282. After 1282, the Old Russian language ceased to exist - the main phonetic changes now developed locally, not covering the East Slavic world as a whole.

N. S. Trubetskoy's research on the long-standing two-term structure of the East Slavic language caused a heated discussion. They were sharply criticized by A. M. Selishchev. N. N. Durnovo actively opposed the objections of A. M. Selishchev.

In many linguistic works of the first half of the XX century. studied (without ethnohistorical excursions) the characteristic features of the Old Russian (East Slavonic) language and its dialects, which left no doubt about the existence of a single ethno-linguistic community during the period of Kievan Rus. At the same time, research showed that the Old Russian language became the common basis for the Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian languages. In this regard, we can mention the work of N. N. Durnovo on the history of the Russian language. The researcher emphasized that the phonetic and morphological foundations of the pre-written Proto-Russian language were directly inherited from the common Slavic.

Meanwhile, in the first decades of the 20th century, other opinions were also expressed, denying the commonality of the Eastern Slavs. Thus, the historian M.S. Grushevsky attributed the origin of the Ukrainian ethnos to the Dnieper union of the tribes of the Antes, known to Byzantine authors of the 6th century. . Some linguists tried to deny the existence of a single Old Russian language. Thus, the Austrian Slavists S. Smal-Stotsky and T. Garter, determining the relationship of languages only by the number of groups of similar features, believed that the Ukrainian language has similarities with Serbian in ten groups, and with Great Russian only in nine. Consequently, they concluded, Ukrainians once had much closer association with Serbs than with Great Russians, and there is no closer relationship between Great Russians and Ukrainians than with other Slavic ethnic groups. As a result, the researchers argued that there was no common Russian language, and the Ukrainian language goes back directly to Proto-Slavic. A similar opinion was also held by E. K. Timchenko. The constructions and conclusions of S. Smal-Stotsky met with unanimous rejection and severe criticism from linguists.

In the 20s of the XX century. V. Yu. Lastovsky and A. Shlyubsky preached the so-called "Krivichi" theory of the origin of Belarusians. They proceeded from the position that the Belarusians were direct descendants of the Krivichi, who supposedly constituted an independent Slavic people. The researchers did not provide any factual data confirming this hypothesis, but they simply do not exist.

Very interesting provisions on the issues under consideration were put forward in the 30-40s of the XX century. B. M. Lyapunov. A monolithic common Slavic language that did not know dialects, in his opinion, never existed. Already in the era of the Proto-Slavic language, there were noticeable dialect differences. However, the common Russian (East Slavonic) language was not based on a single Proto-Slavic dialect, but was formed from several ancient Proto-Slavic dialects, the speakers of which settled in the eastern part of the Slavic world.

Naming the East Slavic phonetic and morphological features that distinguished the common Russian language from the rest of the Slavic languages, B. M. Lyapunov believed that there were many dialects on the common Russian territory, and not three or two, as A. A. Shakhmatov and T. Ler-Splavinsky believed. The researcher allowed the existence in the prehistoric period of the dialects of the Polyans, Drevlyans, Buzhans and other tribal formations of the Eastern Slavs, recorded in the annals. He believed that the Rostov-Suzdal land was inhabited by a special ancient Russian tribe, whose name has not come down to us. The common Russian language, according to B. M. Lyapunov, functioned in the era of Kievan Rus, that is, in the X-XII centuries. Around the 12th century features begin to form, which later formed the specifics of the Russian and Ukrainian languages.

By the end of the 40s of the XX century. include extensive studies of the Old Russian language and its dialects by R. I. Avanesov. The concept of A. A. Shakhmatov on the differentiation of a single Russian ethnos by the 9th century. into three dialects was criticized by this linguist and was rejected as "anti-historical". R. I. Avanesov had no doubt that the Eastern Slavs once constituted a linguistic community and stood out from the common Slavic array. The formation of the Old Russian people of the era of Kievan Rus, according to the ideas of this researcher, was supposedly preceded by the East Slavic linguistic community. During the tribal period, this community included many dialects that were unstable, and their isoglosses were constantly changing. In the IX-XI centuries. in the conditions of the formation of feudalism, the settled population increases, its stability in territorial terms. As a result, a single and monolithic in origin language of the Old Russian people is formed, which, however, received unequal local coloring in different regions. This is how territorial dialects are formed, which destroyed the old tribal ones. New regional dialect formations were more stable, they gravitated towards large urban centers. At the same time, the ancient tribal isoglosses turned out to be almost completely erased, which, as R.I. Avanesov believed, makes judgments about the dialect division of the Eastern Slavs of the prehistoric period controversial. We can only talk about certain dialectal features that divided the East Slavic area into northern and southern zones, as well as about narrow regional phenomena (Novgorod dialects, Pskov dialects, East Krivichi dialects of the Rostov-Suzdal land).

In the XII century. In connection with the decline of the Old Russian state, R. I. Avanesov wrote, regional trends are intensifying, which initiated the formation of linguistic features, which later became characteristic features of the three East Slavic languages. The final addition of the latter occurred several centuries later.

In the 1950s, B. A. Rybakov first attracted these archaeologists to the study of the problems under consideration. He proposed a hypothesis about the Middle Dnieper beginning of the Old Russian people. Its core, according to the ideas of the researcher, was a tribal union, formed in the 6th-7th centuries. in the Middle Dnieper (from the basins of Ros and Tyasmin on the right bank and the lower reaches of the Sula, Pel and Vorskla, as well as the Trubezh basin on the left bank, that is, parts of the future Kyiv, Chernigov and Pereyaslav lands) under the leadership of one of the Slavic tribes - the Rus. The range of the latter was determined by the clothing treasures of the 6th-7th centuries. with specific metal decorations.

This territory in chronicles dating back to the 11th-12th centuries was usually called the Russian Land "in the narrow sense of this term." In the last quarter of the 1st millennium AD. e., argued B. A. Rybakov, other Slavic tribes of Eastern Europe, as well as part of the Slavicized Finnish tribes, joined the genesis of the East Slavic ethnos. However, the researcher did not consider how exactly the process of formation of the Old Russian people took place, and I believe it was impossible to do this on the basis of archeological materials.

The period of the Old Russian state with its capital in Kyiv, argued B. A. Rybakov, was the heyday of the East Slavic people. Its unity, despite the emergence of several principalities, was preserved in the era of the feudal fragmentation of Rus' in the 12th-13th centuries. This unity was realized by the East Slavic population itself, which was reflected in the geographical understanding - the entire Russian land (in the broad sense) until the 14th century. was opposed to isolated estates, with princes at war with each other.

It can be noted that the attempts of historians to get involved in the study of the process of formation of the Old Russian nationality did not give the desired results. There was too little historical evidence to shed light on this complex problem. In the middle of the XX century. in historical writings the idea prevailed that the Eastern Slavs in the VI-VII centuries. were antes. So, for example, considered Yu. V. Gauthier. V. I. Dovzhenok wrote that the Ant language differed little from Old Russian. The latter allegedly represented the same language as Ant, but at a higher level of development. According to V.I. Dovzhenko, the basis for the consolidation of the Eastern Slavs into the Old Russian nationality was the rapid pace of socio-economic development of the population of the East European Plain, but the main thing along the way of the final formation of the nationality was ethnic development during the period of Kievan Rus. The separation of a single ancient Russian people into separate parts, which led to the formation of three ethnic groups - Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian - should be sought in the historical setting of the XIII-XIV centuries.

A. I. Kozachenko also considered the Ants as the first nationality of the Eastern Slavs, which developed at the dawn of a class society. The flourishing of the Old Russian nationality was determined by this researcher by periods of Kievan Rus and feudal fragmentation (until the middle of the 13th century). Its consolidation was determined both by external danger and by the demand for national unity under conditions of strong princely power.

The idea of the Antes as early Eastern Slavs was not new. It goes back to the scientific works of the first half of XIX in. So, already K. Zeiss argued that the division of the Slavic ethnic group of the VI-VII centuries. to s (k) Lven and Ants corresponds to the differentiation of the Slavic language into western and eastern branches. Ants were identified with the Eastern Slavs by many scientists, including L. Niederle, and among linguists, as noted above, A. A. Shakhmatov and some researchers of the 50-60s of the XX century.

The problem of the formation of the ancient Russian nationality was also of interest to A. N. Nasonov. According to the ideas of this historian, the initial stage of the ethnic consolidation of the Eastern Slavs is associated with the early state formation "Russian Land", which took shape at the end of the 8th - beginning of the 9th century. in the Middle Dnieper with the center in Kyiv. Its territorial and ethnographic basis was the lands of the Polyans, Drevlyans and Northerners. At the end of the IX-X centuries. The Old Russian state spread to the entire area of the East Slavic tribes, uniting two of their branches - northern and southern - into a single ethno-linguistic array.

L. V. Cherepnin connected the process of the formation of the ancient Russian nationality with changes in socio-economic life, which allegedly took place in the 6th-9th centuries, which contributed to the rapprochement and merging of the heterogeneous Slavic population of Eastern Europe. This historian also attached significant importance to the formation of the Old Russian state, which proceeded in parallel with the formation of the nationality. However, the common language, territory, culture and economic life, as well as the struggle against external enemies, played a decisive role in this. Period X-XII centuries. L. V. Cherepnin defined it as the time of the merger of the East Slavic tribes into a “single Russian people”.

In the XII-XIII centuries, the researcher further argued, the prerequisites for the division of the Old Russian nationality were created, as a result of which strengthening and political fragmentation of the territory of the Eastern Slavs caused by the Tatar-Mongol conquest, Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian nationalities are formed.

From a historical point of view, V. V. Mavrodin also tried to show the process of formation of the ancient Russian people. He argued that the basis of the Old Russian language was the Kyiv dialect - a kind of fusion of the dialects of the population of Kyiv, rather motley in ethnic and social terms. In the diversity of Kievan dialects, a linguistic unity is formed, which became the core of the language of Kievan Rus as a whole. The commonality of the political and state life of all the Eastern Slavs, according to V.V. Mavrodin, contributed to the rallying of the Slavic population of Eastern Europe into a single ancient Russian people.

Initially, this researcher believed that the process of the formation of a nationality in the era of Ancient Rus' was not completed and the ensuing feudal fragmentation predetermined its division and the emergence of new ethno-linguistic formations. Later, V.V. Mavrodin began to argue that the differentiation of the Old Russian people was due not to the incompleteness of the process of its folding, not to the feudal fragmentation of Ancient Rus', but to the historical conditions that prevailed in Rus' after the Batu invasion - its territorial division, the seizure of many Russian lands by neighboring states.

At present, all these constructions of historians are of purely historiographical interest.

Ethnographers also drew attention to the presence of significant elements of the commonality of the material and spiritual culture and life of the Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian peoples, dating back to a single ancient Russian people. To the common East Slavic elements characteristic of the three East Slavic peoples, ethnographers usually refer to the “three-chamber” plan of residential buildings, their lack of a foundation, the presence of an oven in the huts, fixed benches along the walls; similar types of folk clothing (women's and men's shirts, men's coats, women's hats); wedding, birth and funeral rites; similarities in the tools and processes of spinning and weaving crafts; agricultural rituals and the proximity of arable implements. An unconditional historical commonality is revealed by oral art (epics and songs) of the Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian peoples, as well as fine arts - embroideries and wooden carvings.

The original hypothesis about the prerequisites for the formation of the Old Russian nationality was proposed by P. N. Tretyakov. According to his ideas, the East Slavic ethno-linguistic community was the result of the miscegenation of a part of the Proto-Slavs - the bearers of the Zarubinets culture, who settled in the first centuries of our era throughout the Upper Dnieper, with the local Baltic population. The Upper Dnieper region, as the researcher believed, became the ancestral home of the Eastern Slavs. “During the subsequent settlement of the Eastern Slavs, which culminated in the creation of an ethnographic picture known from the Tale of Bygone Years, from the Upper Dnieper in the northern, northeastern and southern directions, in particular in the middle Dnieper river, it was by no means “pure” Slavs that moved, but a population that had assimilated Eastern Baltic groups in its composition. At the same time, P. N. Tretyakov mainly considered Zarubinets antiquities, which became widespread in the 2nd century. BC e. - II century. n. e. mainly in the Middle Dnieper and Pripyat Polissya, as well as late Zarubinets and post-Zarubinets antiquities of the Dnieper region. Other, more significant processes of the Slavic development of the East European Plain, and, consequently, the complex ethnogenetic situations that took place, remained outside the researcher's field of vision.

The constructions of P. N. Tretyakov about the formation of the Old Russian nationality in the conditions of the Slavic-Baltic intra-regional interaction in the Upper Dnieper region do not find confirmation either in archaeological or linguistic materials. East Slavic does not show any common Baltic substratum elements. What united in the Old Russian period all the Eastern Slavs in linguistic terms and at the same time separated them from other Slavic ethnic formations of that time cannot be considered as a product of the Baltic influence.

The idea of the origin of the East Slavic linguistic community in the area of Zarubinets culture was also expressed by the linguist F. P. Filin, however, without making any attempts to somehow support this thesis with linguistic materials. However, this is not the main thing in his important purely linguistic studies. The researcher argued that around the 7th century. n. e. The Slavs, who settled the lands east of the Carpathians and the Western Bug, are isolated from the rest of the Slavic world, which led to the emergence of a number of linguistic innovations that made up the specifics of the Old Russian language at the first stage of its development. In the works of F. P. Filin, all phonetic phenomena characteristic of the East Slavic linguistic community, and its special lexical development, received a detailed description.

The dialectal structure of the Old Russian language seemed to F.P. Filin to be difficult, having developed on the basis of both the dialect zones of the Proto-Slavic era inherited by the Eastern Slavs, and regional innovations that arose already in the process of the development of the East Slavic language. During the formation of the Old Russian state, the researcher argued, there were still no inclinations of the future Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian languages. There was a single Old Russian language, which had dialectal features in different areas.

In the work of 1940, F. P. Filin paid some attention to the Kyiv dialect, which, in his opinion, was put forward as a common East Slavic language, that is, Old Russian. However, in subsequent studies, he no longer claimed this.

The fragmentation of Kievan Rus into many feudal principalities, according to F. P. Filin, led to an increase in dialect differences. The dialects of the Old Russian lands were now entering into a centripetal development. The turning point was the historical events of the 13th century. The Tatar-Mongol invasion and the Lithuanian conquests, which divided the East Slavic area for a long time, could not but affect the history of the language. Regional dialectisms arose in the phonetic system, phenomena developed that became specific to individual East Slavic languages. In the XIV-XV centuries, as F. P. Filin believed, one can speak of the initial stage of the formation of the Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian languages, since at that time the features characteristic of them became widespread.

The process of the formation of the Old Russian language by the Ukrainian linguist G. P. Pivtorak is somewhat vaguely described. On the one hand, referring to the works of archaeologists, he writes about two directions of the Slavic development of the East European Plain: 1) from the Middle Dnieper, moving along the Dnieper and Desna, the Slavs settled the upper Dnieper lands, the Volga-Oka interfluve and the upper reaches of the Neman; 2) from the Venetian area in the South Baltic, by sea or land, another group of Slavs settled in the forest zone, where the Krivichi and Slovenes of Novgorod are recorded in chronicles and archeology. The East Slavic ethnos, according to the researcher, was formed gradually during the settlement of Slavic tribes on the Russian Plain. The initial core of the settlement of the Old Russian people from the first half of the 1st millennium AD. e. there were lands between the upper reaches of the Western Bug and the middle Dnieper. The unity of the Old Russian language, according to G.P. Pivtorak, in the era of Kievan Rus and feudal fragmentation was constantly reinforced by various extralinguistic factors.

O. N. Trubachev sees the ancient center of the common Eastern Slavic linguistic community on the Don and the Seversky Donets. These hypothetical constructions do not seem to be sufficiently elaborated. A number of historical and philological questions arise, the answers to which modern Slavic studies cannot give.

In recent decades, the Kyiv archaeologist and historian P.P. Tolochko has also addressed the problem of the ancient Russian nationality. His constructions are based on the interpretation of individual places of written monuments with some references to archeological materials and come down to the following. Already in the VI-VIII centuries. Eastern Slavs were a single ethno-cultural array, consisting of a dozen related tribal formations. Period IX-X centuries. characterized by internal migrations that contributed to the integration of the East Slavic tribes. The process received a noticeable acceleration from the end of the 9th - the first decades of the 10th century, when the Old Russian state was formed with the capital in Kyiv and the ethnonym Rus approved for all Eastern Slavs.

During the IX-XII centuries. within the state territory of Kievan Rus there was a single East Slavic ethnic community. Its core, according to P.P. Tolochko, was Rus', or the Russian land “in the narrow sense”, or, in the terminology of foreign sources, “Inner Rus'”, that is, the territory that in the late Middle Ages was called Little Rus'.

The idea of the formation of the Old Russian language on the basis of the Proto-Russian dialect formation, traces of which cannot be identified in linguistic materials, forces researchers to look for other ways to resolve the issue of the formation of a common East Slavic ethno-linguistic unity, the existence of which in the first centuries of the 2nd millennium AD. e. is beyond doubt. Above, B. M. Lyapunov's concept of the composition of the Old Russian language on the basis of several Proto-Slavic dialect groups was outlined. Modern archaeological evidence of the Slavic development of the East European Plain also leads to this conclusion. The question of the formation of the ancient Russian people on the basis of archeological materials was thesisly considered in a number of my publications, which show that the formation of this ethno-linguistic unity was due to the leveling and integration of the Slavic tribal formations that inhabited the East European Plain, in the conditions of a single historical and cultural space formed on the territory Old Russian state. This will be discussed in more detail in the present study.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the linguist G. A. Khaburgaev also adhered to a similar point of view. He argued that a distinct Proto-Slavic dialect or Proto-Russian language never existed. East Slavic ethno-linguistic unity took shape on the basis of the spread of Slavic speech in Eastern Europe in a heterogeneous way from components that were heterogeneous in origin. On the eve of the formation of the Old Russian state, according to G. A. Khaburgaev, a process took place that actively destroyed the old tribal foundations. The political unification of various Slavic tribes led to the formation of a peculiar dialect-ethnographic East Slavic community. Archaeological monuments of the X-XII centuries. on the territory of Ancient Rus', this researcher argues, testify to a noticeable convergence of all the main cultural and ethnographic elements, to the process of consolidating the population into a single nationality.

A small discussion regarding the essence of the Old Russian people took place at the VI International Congress of Slavic Archeology, held in Novgorod in August 1996. The Belarusian archaeologist G.V. Shtykhov, using selective historical and archaeological data, argued that the Old Russian people had not yet formed in the era of Kievan Rus finally and broke up in connection with the fragmentation of the Old Russian state into many principalities. The researcher did not touch upon the linguistic materials characterizing the East Slavic community at all and concluded that “the process of the emergence of related East Slavic peoples - Belarusian, Ukrainian and Russian (Great Russian) - can be consistently stated without using this controversial concept” (that is, the Old Russian nationality). Apparently, G. V. Shtykhov is not embarrassed by the fact that this idea comes into conflict with the achievements of linguistics. The researcher further notes that the Slavic population of Ancient Rus' spoke various dialects.

This is true, but this does not at all lead to the conclusion that there were no common phonetic, morphological and lexical phenomena in the 10th-12th centuries. affecting the entire East Slavic area.

A close position was recently taken by the Ukrainian archaeologist V. D. Baran. In a short article, mainly devoted to the culture of the Slavs of the period of the great migration of peoples according to archaeological data, he briefly concludes that the result of the Slavic migration and the interaction of the Slavs with the non-Slavic population was the formation of new ethnic formations, including the emergence of three East Slavic ethnic groups: Belarusian, Ukrainian and Russian . The Kiev state, headed by the Rurik dynasty, did not stop the ethnic process of the formation of these peoples, but only slowed it down for a while. The period of the Tatar-Mongol ruin of Rus' was, according to V. D. Baran, not the beginning, but the final stage in the formation of three East Slavic peoples. No data confirming this concept can be found in archaeological materials. V. D. Baran did not even try to substantiate it in any way. It is said, however, that the ancestors of the Belarusians in the V-VII centuries. there were tribes of the Kolochin culture, but how exactly the process of the ethnogenesis of Belarusians proceeded remains absolutely unclear. After all, the East Slavic population of both the Polotsk land and the Turov volost, which formed the backbone of the emerging Belarusian nationality, was not genetically connected in any way with the carriers of the Kolochin antiquities.

Very important point in the problem under consideration is the question of the identity of the Eastern Slavs in the era of Ancient Rus' as a single ethnic entity. This topic was considered earlier by D. S. Likhachev, later an interesting section was devoted to it, written by A. I. Rogov and B. N. Florey in a monographic study of the formation of the self-consciousness of the Slavic peoples in the early Middle Ages. Based on the analysis of chronicle texts, hagiographic monuments and foreign evidence, researchers argue that already in the 11th century. an idea was formed about the Russian land as a single state, covering the entire territory of the Eastern Slavs, and about the population of this state as “Russian people”, constituting a special ethnic community.

Notes

Vostokov A. Kh. Discourse on the Slavic language // Proceedings of the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature. Issue. XVII. M., 1820. S. 5–61; Philological observations of A. Kh. Vostokov. SPb., 1865. S. 2–15.
Sreznevsky II Thoughts on the history of the Russian language. SPb., 1850.
Lavrovsky P.A. On the language of the northern Russian chronicles. SPb., 1852.
Pogodin M.P. Notes on the ancient Russian language // Izv. Academy of Sciences. T. 13. St. Petersburg, 1856.
Maksimovich M.A. Collected Works. T. P. Kyiv, 1877.
Sobolevsky A. I. Essays from the history of the Russian language. Kyiv, 1888; His own. Lectures on the history of the Russian language. Kyiv, 1888.
Shakhmatov A. A. To the question of the formation of Russian dialects and Russian nationalities // ZhMNP. SPb., 1899. No. IV; His own. Essay on the most ancient period in the history of the Russian language: (Encyclopedia of Slavic Philology. Issue II). Pg., 1915; His own. Introduction to the course of the history of the Russian language. Part 1. The historical process of the formation of Russian tribes and Russian nationalities. Pg., 1916; His own. The most ancient fate of the Russian tribe. Pg., 1919.
Ushakov D.N. Adverbs of the Russian language and Russian nationalities // Russian history in essays and articles / Ed. M. V. Dovnar-Zapolsky. T. 1. M., b. G.; Buddha E.F. Lectures on the history of the Russian language. Kazan, 1914; Lyapunov B.M. Unity of the Russian language in its dialects. Odessa, 1919.
Dzhurovich D.P. Dialects of the common Slavic language. Warsaw, 1913.
Lehr-Splawinski T. Stosunki pokrewienstwa jezykow rukich // Rocznik slawistyczny. IX–1. Poznan, 1921, pp. 23–71; Idem. Kilka uwag o wspolnosci jezykowej praruskiej // Collection of articles in honor of Academician Alexei Ivanovich Sobolevsky (Collection of the Department of Russian Language and Literature. 101:3). M., 1928. S. 371–377; Idem. Kilka uwag o wspolnosci jezykowej praruskiej // Studii i skize wybrane z jezykoznawstwa slowianskiego. Warzawa, 1957.
Trubetzkoy N. Einige uber die russische Lautentwicklung und die Auflosung der gemeinrussischen Spracheinheit // Zeitschrift fur slavische Philologie. bd. 1:3/4. Leipzig, 1925, pp. 287–319. The article was translated into Russian and published in the book: Trubetskoy N.S. Selected Works in Philology. M., 1987. S. 143–167.
Selishchev A. M. Critical remarks on the reconstruction of the ancient fate of Russian dialects // Slavia. VII: 1. Praha, 1928; Durnovo N. N. Several remarks on the issue of the formation of Russian languages // Izv. in Russian language and literature. T.P.L., 1929.
Durnovo N. N. Essay on the history of the Russian language. M., 1924. Reissue: M., 1959.
Hrushevsky M. History of Ukraine-Rus. Ki i v, 1904, pp. 1–211.
Smal-Stocki St., Gartner T. Grammatik der ruthenischen (ukrainischen) Sprache. Vienna, 1913; Smal-Stotsky St. Rozvytok glancing about the sim "th words" of the yang mov i ix mutually opidnennya. Prague, 1927.
Timchenko E.K. Words "Janian unity and the camp of the Ukrainian language in the words" Jansk homeland // Ukraine. Book. 3. Kiev, 1924; His own. A course of Ukrainian language history. Kiev, 1927.
Galanov I. Rev. on the book: Grammatik der ruthenischen (ukrainischen) Sprache. Von Stephan v. Smal-Stockyj and Teodor Garther. Wien, 1913 // Izv. Department of the Russian language and literature of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. 1914. T. XIX. Book. 3. S. 297–306; Yagich V. Rets. // Archiv fur slavische Philologie. bd. XXXVII. Berlin, 1920. S. 211.
Lastouski V. A short history of Belarus and Vilna, 1910. More consistently, the opinion of this researcher is presented in his articles published in the journal Kryvich, which was published in 1923-1927. in Kaunas.
Lyapunov B. M. The most ancient mutual relations of the Russian and Ukrainian languages and some conclusions about the time of their emergence as separate linguistic groups // Russian Historical Lexicology. M., 1968. S. 163–202.
Avanesov R. I. Questions of the formation of the Russian language in its dialects // Vestnik Mosk. university 1947. No. 9. S. 109–158; His own. Questions of the history of the Russian language in the era of the formation and further development of the Russian (Great Russian) nationality // Questions of the formation of the Russian nationality and nation. M.; L., 1958. S. 155–191.
Rybakov B. A. On the question of the formation of the Old Russian nationality // Abstracts of reports and speeches by employees of the Institute of the History of Material Culture of the USSR Academy of Sciences, prepared for a meeting on the methodology of ethnogenetic research. M., 1951. S. 15–22; His own. The problem of the formation of ancient Russian nationality // Vopr. stories. 1952. No. 9. S. 42–51; His own. Ancient Rus // Sov. archeology. T. XVII. M., 1953. S. 23–104.
Gotye Yu. V. The Iron Age in Eastern Europe. M., 1930. S. 42.
Dovzhenok V. I. On the question of the composition of the Old Russian nationality // Reports of the VI Scientific Conference of the Institute of Archeology. Kyiv, 1953, pp. 40–59.
Kozachenko A.I. Old Russian nationality - the common ethnic base of the Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian peoples // Sov. ethnography. T. P. M., 1954. S. 3–20.
Zeuss K. Die Deutschen und die Nachbarstamme. Munchen, 1837, pp. 602–604.
Niederle L. Slavic Antiquities. M., 1956. S. 139–140.
Yakubinsky A.P. History of the Old Russian language. M., 1941. (Reprint: M., 1953); Chernykh P. Ya. Historical grammar of the Russian language. M., 1954; Georgiev Vl. Veneti, anti, sklaveni and tridelenieto in Slavonic Yezitsi // Slavonic collection. Sofia, 1968, pp. 5–12.
Nasonov A.N. To the question of the formation of the ancient Russian nationality // Bulletin of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. 1951. No. 1. S. 69–70; His own. "Russian land" and the formation of the territory of the ancient Russian state. Moscow, 1951, pp. 41–42.
Cherepnin L. V. Historical conditions for the formation of the Russian nationality until the end of the 15th century. // Issues of the formation of the Russian people and nation. M., 1958. S. 7–105.
Mavrodin VV Formation of the Old Russian state. L., 1945, pp. 380–402; His own. Formation of a unified Russian state. L., 1951. S. 209–219; His own. The formation of the Old Russian state and the formation of the Old Russian nationality. M., 1971. S. 157–190; His own. Origin of the Russian people. L., 1978. S. 119–147.
Tokarev S.A. On the cultural community of the East Slavic peoples // Sov. ethnography. 1954. No. 2. S. 21–31; His own. Ethnography of the peoples of the USSR. M., 1958; Maslova G.S. Historical and cultural ties between Russians and Ukrainians according to folk clothes // Ibid. pp. 42–59; Sukhobrus G. S. The main features of the commonality of Russian and Ukrainian folk poetic creativity // Ibid. pp. 60–68.
Tretyakov P.N. Eastern Slavs and the Baltic Substratum // Sov. ethnography. 1967. No. 4. P. 110–118; His own. At the origins of the ancient Russian people. L., 1970.
Sedov V.V. Once again about the origin of the Belarusian nationality // Sov. ethnography. 1968. No. 5. S. 105–120.
Filin F.P. On the origin of the Proto-Slavic language and East Slavic languages // Vopr. linguistics. 1980. No. 4. S. 36–50.
Filin F. P. Essay on the history of the Russian language until the XIV century. A. I. Herzen. T. XXVII. L., 1940; His own. The formation of the language of the Eastern Slavs. M.; L., 1962; His own. The origin of the Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian peoples: a historical and dialectological essay. L., 1972.
Filin F.P. Essay on the history of the Russian language ... S. 89.
Pivtorak G.P. Formation and dialect differentiation of old Russian language: (Historical and phonetic drawings). Kiev, 1988.
Trubachev O. N. In search of unity. M., 1992. S. 96–98.
Tolochko P.P. Ancient Rus': Essays on socio-political history. Kyiv, 1987, pp. 180–191; His own. Chi isnuvala old-Russian populism? // Archeology. Kiev, 1991. No. 3. S. 47–57.
Sedov V.V. Eastern Slavs in the 6th–13th centuries. M., 1982. S. 269–273; His own. Slavs in the Early Middle Ages. M., 1995. S. 358–384.
Khaburgaev G. A. Formation of the Russian language. M., 1980.
Shtykhov G.V. Old Russian nationality: realities and myth // Ethnogenesis and ethnocultural contacts of the Slavs: Proceedings of the VI International Congress of Slavic Archeology. T. 3. M., 1997. S. 376–385. In the discussion on the report of G. V. Shtykhov, he was supported by I. A. Marzalyuk, A. I. Filyushkin, and O. N. Trusov (Ibid., pp. 386–388). Unfortunately, linguists did not take part in the dispute.
Baran V. D. The great spread of words "yan" // Archeology. Kiev, 1998. No. 2. S. 30–37. In the book "Ancient Slavs" this researcher expressed a different idea. He believes that carriers were the basis of all East Slavic chronicle tribes. The collapse of the Kievan state after the death of Yaroslav the Wise led to the grouping of the Slavic population of Eastern Europe around three main cultural and economic centers: Polotsk on the Western Dvina, Vladimir on the Klyazma and Kyiv with Galich in the Dnieper-Dniester These regions preserved the traditions of the era of the great migration of peoples and became the foundations of the three East Slavic peoples - Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian (Baran V. D. Davni slov "Yani. Kiev, 1998. S. 211-218).
Likhachev D.S. National identity of Ancient Rus'. M.; L., 1945.
The development of the ethnic identity of the Slavic peoples in the early Middle Ages. M., 1982. S. 96–120.

Slavic cultural and tribal formations in the southern regions of the East European Plain on the eve of the formation of the Old Russian people

In the first centuries of our era, the Slavs inhabited parts of the territories of two archaeological cultures: Przeworsk, occupying Central European lands from the Elbe to the Western Bug and the upper Dniester, and Chernyakhov, which spread in the Northern Black Sea region from the lower Danube in the west to the Seversky Donets in the east. These cultures were large polyethnic formations of a provincial-Roman appearance. The Slavs, called Wends by ancient authors, in the area of the Przeworsk culture belonged to the lands of the Middle and Upper Hanging with adjacent areas of the Oder basin and the Upper Dniester. This region was not closed, it was repeatedly invaded by various Germanic tribes. On the territory of the Chernyakhov culture, in the conditions of marginal mixing of the local late Scythian-Sarmatian population and the settled Slavs, a Slavic-Iranian symbiosis developed, as a result, a separate dialect-tribal formation of the Slavs, known in historical sources as antes, became isolated in Podolia and the Middle Dnieper region.

The invasion of the Huns significantly disrupted the historical situation that had developed in Roman times in Eastern and Central Europe. The Huns, originating from Central Asia, in the II century. n. e., as evidenced by Dionysius and Ptolemy, appeared in the Caspian steppes, where they lived until the 70s of the 4th century. Having defeated the Alano-Sarmatians, who roamed the steppes between the Volga and the Don, in 375 the Huns invaded the northern Black Sea lands in powerful hordes, crushing everything in their path, robbing dwellings and burning villages of the Chernyakhov culture, devastating fields and killing people. Archeology shows that a significant number of Chernyakhiv settlements at the end of the 4th c. ceased to exist, the craft centers that functioned here, supplying the surrounding population with various products, were completely destroyed. Eunapius, a contemporary of the Hun invasion, wrote: “The defeated Scythians (as the ancient authors called the population of the former Scythia) were exterminated by the Huns and most of them died ...” By the end of the 4th century. the entire Chernyakhov culture ceased to function, only in certain areas of the forest-steppe zone relatively small islands of its settlements were preserved. Separate groups of the Chernyakhov population fled, as evidenced by archeological data, to the north to the southern regions of the Oka basin and to the Crimea. At the same time, other hordes of the Huns headed for Taman and the Crimea - the rich cities of the Bosporus were subjected to devastating pogroms, and their inhabitants were massacred.

Having defeated the Visigoths somewhere on the lower Dniester, the Huns invaded the Danube lands and at the beginning of the 5th century. mastered the steppe expanses of the Middle Danube, where, having subjugated the surrounding tribes, they soon created a powerful Hun state. Having settled in Central Europe, the Huns also kept the northern Black Sea tribes in their power.

The invasion of the Huns significantly affected the Przeworsk culture. The main part of its craft centers and workshops, which supplied the agricultural population with their products, ceased to function, and many villages were deserted. At the same time, there was an outflow of significant masses of the population from the area of the Przeworsk culture. Thus, the Germanic tribes, recorded by Roman authors in the Vistula-Oder region, went south to the borders of the Roman Empire. The Slavs also joined the whirlpool of the great migration of peoples. In the first decades of the 5th c. Przeworsk culture ceased to function.

The situation was aggravated by a significant deterioration in the climate. The first centuries of our era were climatically very favorable for the life and management of the agricultural population, which formed the basis of the bearers of the Przeworsk culture. Archeology clearly records in the III-IV centuries. and a significant increase in the number of settlements, and a noticeable increase in population, and the active development of agricultural technology.

From the end of the 4th century in Europe, a sharp cooling sets in, the 5th century was especially cold. It was a period of maximum cooling not only for the 1st millennium AD. e., at this time the lowest temperatures in the last 2000 years were observed. Soil moisture increases sharply, which was due to both an increase in precipitation and the transgression of the Baltic Sea. The levels of rivers and lakes are noticeably rising, groundwater is rising, swamps are growing. As a result, many settlements of the Roman period were flooded or severely flooded, and arable land was unsuitable for agricultural activities. Archaeological surveys in northern Germany have shown that the level of rivers and lakes here has risen so much that the population was forced to leave most of the villages that functioned in Roman times. As a result, the Teutons abandoned the lands of Jutland and adjacent regions of mainland Germany. From floods and waterlogging, the Middle Vistula, which is distinguished by low relief, was seriously affected. Here, almost all the settlements of the Roman period by the beginning of the 5th century BC. abandoned by the agricultural population. As shown below, significant masses of the inhabitants of this region migrated to the northeast, moving along the elevated lacustrine-glacial ridges from the Masurian Lakes to Valdai.

The Hun conquests in Europe were interrupted in 451, when the Hun troops invading Gaul were defeated in the battle on the Catalan fields. A year later, the well-known Hun leader Attila (445-454), having gathered a powerful army, again moved to Gaul, but could not conquer it, and after his death the Hun state collapsed. The life of the agricultural population preserved in more or less large islands in the areas of the Przeworsk and Chernyakhov cultures, and these were mostly Slavs, gradually stabilized. Deprived of the products of the provincial Roman crafts, the population was forced to create life and culture anew. At first, the early medieval Slavs in terms of development turned out to be lower than in the Roman period.

The Slavs entered the Middle Ages as a far from monolithic mass. Geographically, they were scattered over a wide area of Central and Eastern Europe. Communications between individual regions were often absent. The historical situation in each of them was peculiar; in a number of places, more or less large groups of Slavs settled among other ethnic aborigines. As a result, in the V-VII centuries. there were several different Slavic cultures recorded by modern archeology (Fig. 1).

rice. 1. The resettlement of the Slavs during the Great Migration of Peoples

(a) area of the Sukovsko-Dziedzitsa culture;
b - Prague-Korchak culture;
c – Penkovskaya culture;
d – hyposhty-Kyndeshti antiquities;
e - Imenko culture;
(f) cultures of the Pskov long mounds;
g - Tushemla culture;
h - "Meryanskaya" culture;
and – antiquities of the Udomel type;
j - regions of residence of the Slavs in Roman times;
l - the main directions of the beginning process of development by the Slavs of the Balkan Peninsula

Notes

For more on this, see: Sedov V.V. Origin and early history of the Slavs. M., 1979. S. 119-133; His own. Slavs in antiquity. M., 1994. S. 233-286.
Latyshev VV News of ancient writers about Scythia and the Caucasus. T. I. Greek writers. SPb., 1893. S. 726.

Anty

During the 5th century in the Podolsk-Dnieper region of the territory of the former Chernyakhov culture, the Penkovo culture is being formed (Fig. 2). Its creators were the descendants of the population of the forest-steppe strip of the Chernyakhovsky area, that part of it, where in Roman times, under the conditions of the Slavic-Iranian symbiosis, Antes were formed. In addition, during the formation of Penkov antiquities, there was an influx of migrants from the Dnieper left-bank lands, as evidenced by elements of Kievan culture, manifested in house building and in ceramic materials.

rice. 2. Areas of the Prague-Korchakov and Penkov cultures

a - monuments of the Prague-Korchak culture (Duleb group);
b – monuments of the Penkovo culture (Antskaya group);
c - the direction of migration of the carriers of the Prague-Korchak antiquities to the lower Danube;
(d) area of the Tushemla culture;
(e) area of the Kolochin culture;
(f) area of the Moshchin culture;

monuments initial stage Penkovskaya culture was studied in the Middle Dnieper and on the Southern Bug. Such, in particular, are the settlements of Kunya, Goliki and Parkhomovka, excavated by P. I. Khavlyuk in the Bug region, on which semi-dugout dwellings heated by heaters or hearths were discovered, and characteristic stucco pottery was found. At the settlement of Kunya, an iron two-membered fibula with a long shackle and a solid flat receiver, dating from the end of the 4th-5th centuries, was found; In the semi-dugout dwellings at the settlement of Kochubeevka, along with Penkovo utensils, fragments of Chernyakhov pottery were also found. Such utensils were also found in some other Penkovo settlements, apparently survivingly used at the beginning of the Middle Ages.

In the Middle Dnieper region, one of the studied monuments with cultural layers of the 5th century. is the settlement of Hittsi. The bulk of the pottery here was typically Pennovsky hand-made utensils. Some vessels combined the features of Penkovo and Kyiv ceramics in form. Fragments of Chernyakhov pottery were also found. The dating find here is a bone comb from the 5th century BC.

To the early stage of the Penkovo culture belongs one of the ground burial grounds near the village. Velikaya Andrusovka on the river. Tyasmin. His excavations revealed burials according to the rite of cremation on the side. The remains of the cremation were poured into small pits. In one of these burials, a cast bronze buckle dating back to the 5th century was found.

In the next century, the population of the Penkovo culture is actively growing and developing new territories. The culture is characterized by a number of features, among which the most striking is ceramics (Fig. 3: 4–6). Its leading form was pots with a slightly profiled upper edge and an oval-rounded body. The greatest expansion of these pots falls on the middle part, the neck and bottom are narrowed and approximately equal in diameter. The second common type of vessels are biconical pots with a sharp or slightly smoothed edge. In addition, flat clay discs and frying pans, characteristic of most Slavic cultures of the early Middle Ages, and occasionally bowls are common at Penkovo sites. All these dishes were made without a potter's wheel. Ornamentation on the vessels, as a rule, is absent, only a few pots have notches along the edge of the rim, a molded roller or moldings in the form of knobs on the body.

rice. 3. Ceramics of the Prague-Korchak (1-3) and Penkovo (4-6) cultures

1-3 – from the Korchak IX settlement and the Korchak burial ground;
4-6 - from the village of Semenki

The main type of settlements were unfortified settlements with an area of no more than 2-3 hectares. In most villages, there were from 7 to 15 households at the same time. Unsystematic building dominated, only a few settlements had a row type of building. The dwellings were sub-square semi-dugouts with an area of 12 to 20 square meters. m. The depth of the pits ranges from 0.4 to 1 m. The walls of the buildings had a log or pillar construction, log dwellings predominated. Log cabins were cut "in the cloud" or "in the paw". Their ground parts rose by 1.5-2m. With a pillar structure, the blocks were laid horizontally along the walls of the pit and fastened with stakes or by letting their ends into the grooves of the risers. The roofs of the dwellings had wooden frames, which were covered with straw, reeds or poles smeared with a layer of clay.

Dwellings were heated by stoves or hearths. At the early stage of the Penkovo culture, hearths predominated, later stove-heaters dominated, usually occupying one of the corners of buildings. In rare cases, clay ovens have also been recorded. The floors of the dwellings were rammed, mainland; only in a few buildings the floor was lined with wooden planks. In many buildings opposite the stoves, recesses were cut out for descending a wooden staircase, sometimes steps were cut into the mainland soil. The interior of the Penkovsky dwelling is unpretentious - only wall benches were arranged.

Dwellings in the Penkovsky settlements were accompanied by outbuildings. These were either above-ground log or column structures, or, more often, cylindrical, bell-shaped or barrel-shaped pits-cellars from 0.3 to 2 m in diameter and up to 2 m deep. They stored grain and other food supplies.

In the southern regions of the Dnieper region, where the population of the Penkovo culture was in close contact with the nomadic world, in a number of settlements, recessed dwellings of a round or oval shape were discovered, reminiscent of nomad yurts and indicating the infiltration of the Alan-Bulgarian population into the environment of the Slavs.

In the area of the Penkovo culture, there are also isolated fortified villages. Among them is the well-studied ancient settlement of Selishte in Moldavia, 130 x 60 m in size, arranged at the confluence of the Vatich stream into the river. Reut. From the floor side, it was reinforced with a wooden wall and a deep canyon. Excavations revealed 16 semi-dugout dwellings and 81 utility pits. In four semi-dugouts, the remains of handicraft activities related to jewelry and pottery were recorded. Researchers of the monument believe that the ancient settlement was one of the administrative and economic centers of the Penkovsky area.

One of the most interesting monuments of the Penkovo culture is the Pastirskoye settlement with stratifications of the 6th-7th centuries, located in the Tyasmina basin. It occupied an area of about 3.5 hectares and was protected by ramparts and ditches built back in the Scythian time. Excavations have explored about two dozen dwellings, semi-dugouts with stoves, heaters, typically of Penkovo appearance. In addition, workshops for iron processing, a forge and pottery kilns for firing pottery are open. Collected abundant and varied clothing material. Stucco pottery of the Penkovo types was predominant in the settlement. At the same time, vessels of a nomadic appearance and pottery of the so-called pastoral type, convex-sided gray-glazed pots, were found here. In all likelihood, this ceramics goes back to the Chernyakhov pottery.

The pastoral settlement was a large trade and craft and, most likely, an administrative center, in which a diverse population lived. In addition to Slavic dwellings, the remains of yurt-like buildings of nomads were discovered here.

On the territory of the Penkovo culture, the Gaivoron iron-making complex, located on the island of the Southern Bug, was studied. On an area of 3000 sq. m, excavations revealed 25 industrial furnaces, of which 4 were sintering furnaces (for enrichment of iron ore), in the rest iron smelting was carried out.

Funeral monuments of the Penkovo culture are exclusively ground burial grounds. Its bearers and direct descendants of the Ants did not know the kurgan rite at all. The Penkovsky area was characterized by biritualism, most likely inherited from the Chernyakhov culture.

The most studied cemeteries of the Penkovo culture are the above-mentioned monument near the village. Velikaya Andrusovka and the Selishte necropolis in Moldavia. Burials according to the rite of cremation of the dead on the side, followed by the placement of calcined bones in shallow pits with a diameter of 0.4–0.6 m and a depth of 0.3–0.5 m, were recorded everywhere, burials according to the rite of inhumation are more rare.

The fertile lands occupied by the bearers of the Penkovo culture, finds of agricultural tools (iron spears, sickles, hoes), grain pits, typical for all settlements, and osteological materials definitely indicate that agriculture and animal husbandry were the basis of the economy. Among the crafts, ironworking and bronze casting were the most actively developed. Technological analyzes of iron products reveal the inheritance of the production achievements of the Roman period by the Penkovsky population.

A series of treasures and random finds of various jewelry is associated with the Penkovo culture. Among the treasures stands out Martynovsky, found in 1909 in the basin of the river. Rosi and containing up to a hundred silver items - forehead rims, earrings, temporal rings, a neck torc, bracelets, a fibula, belt accessories (plaques, tips and onlays), as well as two silver bowls with Byzantine hallmarks, a fragment of a dish, a spoon and nine stylized figures people and animals.

A very interesting and widespread category of finds are finger fibulae, which had semicircular shields with five to seven protrusions (Fig. 4). They were found as part of hoards, at several Penkovo settlements and in burials. At the settlement of Barnashevka in the Vinnitsa region. open production complex third quarter of the 1st millennium AD e., in which a casting mold for the manufacture of finger fibulae was found.

rice. 4. Finger brooches with a mask-like head from the Antian sites of the Northern Black Sea region

A large amount of literature is devoted to finger fibulae with mask-like heads and their derivatives, usually called brooches of the Ant type. In particular, I performed a generalization with distribution maps. Such brooches were an integral part of the women's clothing of the Slavic ethno-tribal group, represented by the Penkovo culture. In addition, these adornments are known in those regions of the early medieval Slavic world (the Danube region, the Balkan Peninsula and part of the South-Eastern Baltic), in the settlement of which, as evidenced by other archeological data, people from the northern Black Sea lands participated.

The ethnonym of the Slavic group represented by the culture in question is defined. These are the Antes, known from the historical writings of the 6th-7th centuries. Jordan, who completed his work "Getica" in 551, reports that the Antes were part of the Venedian Slavs and lived in the territory "from Danastra to Danapra". The researchers of this monument claim that Jordanes borrowed this information from Cassiodorus, who wrote at the end of the 5th - beginning of the 6th century. Therefore, the indicated geographical coordinates should refer to the initial phase of the Penkovo culture and correspond to the Podolsk-Dnieper region of the Chernyakhov culture.

Procopius of Caesarea, a Byzantine historian of the middle of the 6th century, reports on a wider settlement of the Antes. Their western limit at that time was the northern bank of the Danube (Istra), and in the east the Ant settlements extended to the land of the Utigurs, who lived in the steppes of the Sea of Azov, which corresponds to the general territory of the Penkov culture.

Thus, according to archaeological data, the Antes, according to archaeological data, are a large tribal group of Slavs that formed in the interfluve of the Dniester and Dnieper in late Roman times with the participation of the local Iranian-speaking population and settled at the beginning of the Middle Ages in the area from the lower Danube to the Seversky Donets. According to paleoanthropological data, a significant part of the population of the 10th–12th centuries. Southern Rus', characterized by mesocrania with relative narrowness, goes back to that group of bearers of the Chernyakhov culture, which developed under the conditions of assimilation of the Scythian-Sarmatian tribes.

Procopius of Caesarea reports that the Antes, like the rest of the Slavs, used the same language, they had the same way of life, common customs and beliefs, and earlier they were called by the same name - Wends. At the same time, it is obvious from historical sources that the Antes somehow stood out among other Slavs, since they are called on a par with such ethnic groups of that time as the Huns, Utigurs, Medes, etc. The Byzantines somehow distinguished the Antes from the Slavs even among mercenaries of the Empire.

The peculiarity of the Penkovo culture speaks of some ethnographic specificity of the Ants. There is reason to believe that the Antes constituted a special dialect group of the Late Proto-Slavic language. A complete characterization of the Ant dialect is difficult, but it is possible to think that it stood out from the rest of the Proto-Slavic dialect formations, primarily by the presence of a large number of Iranian words.

According to V. I. Abaev, the change of the explosive g characteristic of the Proto-Slavic language into the posterior palatal fricative g (h), which is recorded in a number of Slavic languages, is due to the Scythian-Sarmatian influence. Since phonetics, as a rule, is not borrowed from neighbors, the researcher argued that the Scytho-Sarmatian substratum should have participated in the formation of the southeastern Slavs (in particular, future Ukrainian and South Russian dialects). Comparison of the area of the fricative g in the Slavic languages with the regions inhabited by the Antes and their direct descendants definitely speaks in favor of this position. V. I. Abaev also admitted that the result of the Scythian-Sarmatian influence was the appearance of the genitive-accusative in the East Slavic language and the proximity of East Slavic with the Ossetian language in the perfective function of preverbs. V. N. Toporov explains the origin of the unprepositional locative-dative by the influence of the Iranians. These phonetic and grammatical features in the Slavic world are regional. Their geographical distribution allows the idea of their origin in the Ant dialect of the Proto-Slavic language.

The penetration into the Slavic pagan pantheon of the gods Khors and Simargl, recorded in the Russian chronicles, is also connected with the Iranian world of the Northern Black Sea region. V. I. Abaev wrote about the etymological and semantic parallels between the Ukrainian Viy and the Iranian god of the wind, war, revenge and death (Scythian Vauhka-sura), between the East Slavic Rod and the Ossetian Naf.

In the Slavic ethnonymicon, indisputable Iranianisms are also known. These are, in particular, the tribal names of Croats and Serbs. The appearance of these tribal groups in the Danube basin and on the Elbe, as archeological evidence shows, was the result of the great Slavic migration of the early Middle Ages. Their ancestors in Roman times lived somewhere in the Chernyakhovsky area of the Northern Black Sea region. The ethnonym itself antes also has a Scythian-Sarmatian origin. “Of all the existing hypotheses, it seems to be more probable,” F. P. Filin wrote in this regard, “is the hypothesis about the Iranian origin of the word antes: ancient. Indian antas "end, edge", anteas "located on the edge", Ossetian. att "iya "rear, behind". This point of view is shared by many scientists, including O. N. Trubachev. That is, the Antes are outlying inhabitants. And indeed they inhabited the southeastern outlying territory of the Slavic world both in Roman times and in at the beginning of the medieval period Full semantic correspondence is observed with the name of the region of Ukraine, whence the modern ethnonym Ukrainians. The group of Slavs under consideration, apparently, was called Ants by the Scythian-Sarmatians of the Northern Black Sea region.

There is very little historical evidence to study the socio-political structure of the Ants. At the end of the IV century. in the conditions of enmity between the Goths and the Antes, the existence of a tribal formation of the latter seems undoubted. Jordan reports that initially the Antes repulsed the attack of the Gothic army, but after a while the Gothic king Vinitary still managed to defeat the Antes and executed their prince Bozh (Boz) with seventy elders. This event, judging by indirect data, took place somewhere in the region of the Erak River, usually identified with the Dnieper.

At the beginning of the Middle Ages, the Antes, as can be assumed on the basis of historical data, did not create a common political association - a single tribal union headed by archon princes. Archaeological materials say nothing about this either. From the text of Jordanes' work, one can guess that in the 6th century, apparently, there were several Antian tribal formations, each of which had its own prince. Procopius of Caesarea reports that the Antes "... are not controlled by one person, but since ancient times they have lived in democracy, and therefore they have profitable and unprofitable business always carried out together." In other words, the Antes, according to Procopius, did not know the sovereign power, similar to the Byzantine one, and lived on the basis of self-government, discussing all common issues at tribal gatherings.

The relationship between the Ants and the Slavs in different periods was not the same. In a number of cases, they undertook joint actions; sources also record enmity between them. During the reign of Justin I (518–527), as Procopius testifies, the Antes attacked Thrace. From the 40s of the VI century. a period of peaceful relations between the Antes and Byzantium began. Around 545 the Antic-Byzantine alliance was concluded. Since that time, the sources do not record a single attack of the Antes on the Byzantine Empire. Obviously, thanks to this alliance, the Antes are increasingly penetrating into Byzantium and participating in separate detachments in the imperial wars in Italy. Thus, it is known that the Antes detachment constituted a significant part of the troops of the Byzantine commander John during the campaigns against Rome and the conquest of southern Italy. Procopius reports about three hundred ants guarding the region of Lucania, while noting that "... these barbarians are the most skilled at fighting in hard-to-reach areas." It is further noted that “the Antes, with their inherent valor, together with the peasants from the Tullian detachment, overthrew the enemies ...” The Byzantine-Antian alliance probably did not concern all the Antes. According to Mauritius, who wrote at the same time, the Antes were enemies of Byzantium. It has been suggested that the information of Mauritius refers to the Danubian Antes, who threatened the neighboring fortresses of the Byzantine Empire and its Balkan possessions, and the Antes tribal union of the Middle Dniester was its ally. These same Antes may have helped Byzantium in the fight against the Dacian Slavs. In 602, the Avar Khagan, having learned about the attack of the Romans on the Dacian Slavs, at that time the allies of the Avars, sent a punitive expedition led by Apsikha, "... to destroy the Antes tribe, which was an ally of the Romans." According to G. G. Litavrin, Apsykh's campaign was not completed, since at that time several formations of the Avars rebelled and went over to the side of Byzantium. The anti-Byzantine alliance remained in force, apparently, until 612, when the epithet disappeared from the title of Emperor Heraclius antsky .

In the Dnieper lands, most likely, another tribal group of Ants arose. From the information of the Byzantine historian Menander Protector (80s of the 6th century), it follows that around 560 there was an alliance of several Antic archon leaders. In connection with the invasion of the Avars on the Antian lands, the historian reports: “... when the rulers of the Antes were put in a distressed situation and fell into misfortune against their hopes, the Avars immediately began to devastate (their) land and rob (their) country” . Obviously, the Antes were deceived in their hopes of victory over the Avars. The embassy sent by the Ants to the Avar Khagan was not successful, and Mezamer, who led it, was killed by the Avars.

Ethnonym antes remained, presumably, for the bearers of the Penkovo culture. So they were called by the Byzantines and the neighboring non-Slavic population. However, it was not the self-name of the North Black Sea Slavs. The Ants called themselves Slavs or, perhaps, tribal ethnonyms like Croats, Tivertsy, street and others. It is possible that some of them are named in the source of the 9th century. - "Geographer of Bavaria", which will be discussed in more detail below, as well as in the essay "On the Management of the Empire" by Constantine Porphyrogenitus.

The wide settlement of the Antes and the lack of a single political entity led to the fact that their ethnonym was forgotten over time. This was obviously facilitated by the design of the VIII-IX centuries. East Slavic tribal groups that emerged from the Antian cultural and tribal formation.

The Penkovskaya culture as a whole dates back to the 5th–7th centuries. Later, it evolves into the Sakhnov culture and related antiquities of the 8th–9th centuries. No significant transformations are observed. The appearance of the settlements, their topography, layout and dimensions, housing construction, and funeral rites are preserved. Only earthenware is somewhat modified. Many settlements of the Penkovo culture continued to function in the 8th–9th centuries.

At that time, the range of the Antian tribes was limited to the lands to the west of the Dnieper - the forest-steppe regions of Ukraine and Moldova. To the east of the Dnieper near the turn of the 7th and 8th centuries. there was a resettlement of the Slavs of a different dialect-tribal grouping, to which a special section is devoted below. The descendants of the Antes mixed here with the newcomer Slavs.

In the lands to the west of the Dnieper in the VIII-IX centuries. there is some leveling of the Slavic antiquities of the forest zone and forest-steppe regions. The same type of house-building is taking shape, molded pottery appears in the settlements of the Penkovsky area, continuing the traditions of the Prague-Korchak. However, it is impossible to speak about the complete identity of the forest-steppe and forest areas, since they differ significantly in the development of the funeral ritual. In the Prague-Korchak region, kurgan ritualism is gaining ground, in the former Antian region, soil necropolises dominated undividedly, in which the rite of inhumation gradually supplanted cremations. The cartography of the latter (Fig. 5) indicates a wide infiltration of the descendants of the Ants into more northern regions, which was due to the constant pressure of the Turkic-speaking nomadic tribes. Another significant difference between the Penkovsky area and the Prague-Korchak area is the absence of temporal rings in the female attire of the Antes and their descendants.

rice. 5. Ground burials of the 10th–12th centuries. of the ancient Russian population that emerged from the Antes environment

a - ground burials;
b - the area of the Prague-Korchak culture;
c - the area of the Penkovo culture

On Antian territory, the Tale of Bygone Years localizes three tribal formations recorded in Russian chronicles - Croats, Tivertsy and Ulichi.

The Croats of Eastern Europe are part of the once large Proto-Slavic tribe. The great Slavic migration shattered this tribal formation. It is known that around the turn of the VI and VII centuries. a large group of Croats settled in Dalmatia. Another group of them settled in the Czech Republic, where it was recorded by the charter of the Prague bishopric in 1086. In the charter of Henry II in 1108, the Croats who lived on the river were named. Saale. Croats are also known somewhere near the river. Moravia.

In the area of the Penkovskaya culture, the following local groups are distinguished by geographical reasons: Upper Dniester, Middle Dniester, South Bug, Dnieper-Tyasma and Dnieper-Orel, which are separated from each other by more or less wide uninhabited territories. East Slavic Croats on the Basis of Historical Data, Materials of Archeology and Toponymy in the 10th-12th Centuries. localized in the North-Eastern Carpathian region, mainly in the basin of the upper reaches of the Dniester. Consequently, the Upper Dniester group of Penkovo antiquities can be attributed to this tribe. The Middle Dniester region coordinates them with the Tivertsy, the South Buzh region - presumably with the Buzhans, the Dnieper-Tyasma and Dnieper-Orelsky regions - with the early streets. In the Antian period, these were territorial formations (no ethnographic differences between the regions have yet been identified), which eventually took shape in separate tribal groups.

Under-slab graves became an ethnographic feature of the Croatian area of the Upper Dniester region in ancient Russian times. These are burials according to the rite of inhumation, in soil pits marked on the surface with large stone slabs. The Carpathian Croats formed the backbone of the population of the Galician land.

The Tale of Bygone Years reports that “... Tivertsi sityahu bo along the Dniester, squat to Dunaev. Be a multitude of them; sedyahu bo along the Dniester to the sea, and the essence of their cities is to this day. Ethnonym Tivertsy, most likely, goes back to the ancient name of the Dniester - Tiras. If this is so, then Tivertsy literally means "Dniester" - the inhabitants of the Dniester region. hydronym Tiras formed from the Iranian turas - "quick". Starting with Herodotus, it is repeatedly found in the writings of ancient authors and at the beginning of the Middle Ages it was replaced by the name Dniester (Danaster - near the Jordan), which also has an Iranian origin.

According to archaeological materials, the Tivertsy are one of the groups of Antes that lived in the Dniester basin (except for its upper reaches). The settlements and soil burial grounds of the second half of the 1st millennium AD are quite well studied. e. this region. However, no specific features of the Tivertese culture of this time can be identified.

From the end of the ninth century Turkic nomads penetrate into the steppe regions of the range of the Tivertsy. As a result, in the southern part of the Dniester region in the X century. Tivertsy Slavs leave their settlements. In this regard, we can agree with the hypothesis developed by L. Niederle about the resettlement of some part of the Tivertsy under the onslaught of the Pechenegs, and then the Polovtsians to Ukrainian Transcarpathia and Semigrad Rus.

Until the middle of the X century. streets inhabited the Dnieper lands south of the Polyansky area. In the oldest chronicle code, fragments of which have been preserved in the Novgorod chronicle, it says: “And besha sit down down the Dnieper, and by seven go over between Bg and Dnestr, and sedosha tamo” . Based on the analysis of chronicle data, B. A. Rybakov showed that the migration of streets from the Dnieper to the Bug region and to the Dniester is quite real, and localized the street city of Peresechen in the Southern Dnieper. According to Konstantin Porphyrogenitus, the streets were neighbors with the Pecheneg tribes. Linguists believe that the name of this tribe is derived from the Slavic lexeme corner(corner > uglichi; Russian chronicles contain several different spellings of this ethnonym, including uglichi). The form convict appeared, in all likelihood, under the influence of the Turkic languages. Between the Dnieper and Orel, where the streets lived in the second half of the 1st millennium AD. e., there is a historical area Angle. From this toponym, obviously, the ethnonym was formed uglichi > convict.

The early streets are the Antian local group, which, as already mentioned, inhabited the Dnieper-Orel and Dnieper-Tyasma regions of the Penkovskaya, then Sakhnovskaya culture. In the X century. these lands were occupied by Turkic-speaking nomads. The streets were forced to move to the forest-steppe regions of the Southern Bug basin, where, just at that time, big number fortified settlements.

Notes

Khavlyuk P. I. Early Slavic settlements in the basin of the Southern Bug // Early medieval East Slavic antiquities. L., 1974. S. 181-215.
Goryunov E. A. Early stages of the history of the Slavs of the Dnieper Left Bank. L., 1981. S. 66-79.
Berezovets D. T. Burial grounds near the valley of the river. Tyasmin // Words "Jano-Russian Old Life". Kiev, 1969. S. 67-68.
Rafalovich I. A. The study of early Slavic settlements in Moldova // Archaeological research in Moldova 1970-1971. Kishinev, 1973, pp. 134-144; Rafalovich I. A., Lapushnyan V. L. Works of the Reut archaeological expedition // Archaeological research in Moldova 1972. Kishinev, 1974. P. 110-147; Them. The burial ground and the early Slavic settlement near the village. Selishte // Archaeological research in Moldova 1973. Chisinau, 1974. P. 104–140.
Braychevsky M.Yu. Works on the Pastirsky settlement in 1949 // KSIIMK. Issue. XXXVI. 1951, pp. 155-164; His own. New finds of the 7th–8th centuries n. e. on the Shepherd settlement // KSIAU. Issue. 10. 1960. S. 106-108; Braychevsky M. Yu. Pastirsky belongings born in 1949 // Archeology. T. VII. Kiev, 1952. S. 163-173; He is. New excavations at the Pastirsky settlement // Archaeological memorials of the URSR. T. V. Kiev, 1955. S. 67-76; Braichevskaya A. T. Smithy at the Pastirsky settlement // KSIAU. Vip. 103.
Bidzilya V.I. Cold-smelting furnaces of the middle of the 1st millennium AD. e. on Pivdenny Buzi // Archeology. Vip. 14. Kiev, 1963. S. 123-144.
Berezovets D. T. Burial grounds of streets ... S. 58-70; Rafalovich I. A. Research of early Slavonic settlements... P. 141-143; Rafalovich I. A., Lapushnyan V. L. Works of the Reut Archaeological Expedition... P. 136-141; Them. A burial ground and an early Slavic settlement ... S. 104-140.
Rybakov B. A. Ancient Rus // SA. T. XVII. 1953. S. 76-89.
Vinokur I. S., Megey V. P. Jewelery maisterna of early-middle words "yan" // Archeology. Kiev, 1992. No. 3. S. 82-95; Ukraini, Kiev, 1994, pp. 23-27. His words "Janian jewelers of Podnistrov": For materials, the Bernashivsky complex of the middle of the 1st millennium AD Kam "yanets-Podilsky, 1997. pp. 53-56; Vinokur I. S. Bernashevsky jewelry complex of the Anti-Slavinian frontier // Society, economy, culture and art of the Slavs: Proceedings of the VI International Congress of Slavic Archeology. T. 4. M., 1998. S. 223-232.
Sedov V.V. Slavs in the Early Middle Ages. M., 1995. S. 84-90.
Jordan. On the origin and deeds of the Getae. Getica. M., 1960. S. 72.
Procopius of Caesarea. War with the Goths. M., 1950. S. 156, 298, 384; Collection of the oldest written news about the Slavs. T. 1. M., 1991. S. 170-250.
Sedov V.V. Slavs of the Middle Dnieper region (according to paleoanthropology data) // Sov. ethnography. 1974. No. 1. S. 16-31.
Abaev V.I. On the origin of the phoneme g (h) in the Slavic language // Problems of Indo-European linguistics. M., 1964. S. 115-121.
Abaev V. I. Preverbs and perfectivity: On one Scythian-Slavic isogloss // Problems of Indo-European linguistics. M., 1964. S. 90-99.
Toporov V. N. About one Iranian-Slavic parallel from the field of syntax // Brief reports of the Institute of Slavic Studies. Issue. 28. M., 1960. S. 3-11; His own. On the Iranian element in Russian spiritual culture // Slavic and Balkan folklore. M., 1989. S. 23-60.
Sedov V. V. Dialect-tribal differentiation of the Slavs at the beginning of the Middle Ages according to archeology // History, culture, ethnography and folklore of the Slavic peoples. X International Congress of Slavists: Reports of the Soviet Delegation. M., 1988. S. 173-175.
Abaev V. I. Scythian-European isoglosses: At the junction of East and West. M., 1965. S. 115-117.
Abaev V. I. Scythian-European isoglosses... P. 110-111; His own. Pre-Christian Religion of the Alans // XXV International Congress of Orientalists: Reports of the USSR Delegation. M., 1960. S. 5-7.
Ivanov Vyach. Vs., Toporov V.N. About ancient Slavic ethnonyms: main problems and prospects // Slavic antiquities: Ethnogenesis, material culture of Ancient Rus'. Kyiv, 1980; Khaburgaev G. A. The ethnonymy of The Tale of Bygone Years in connection with the tasks of reconstructing the East Slavic glottogenesis. M., 1979. S. 98. According to O. N. Trubachev, the Serbs are an Indo-Aryan ethnonym that entered the Proto-Slavic environment somewhere in the Southern Bug region (Etymological Dictionary of Slavic Languages. Proto-Slavic Lexical Fund. Issue 8. M., 1981. S. 181).
Filin F. P. Education of the language of the Eastern Slavs. M., 1962. P.60.
Trubachev O.N. Linguistic periphery of the ancient Slavs: Indo-Aryans in the Northern Black Sea region // Vopr. linguistics. 1977. No. 6. P. 25. On the non-Slavic origin of the ethnonym antes and about the periodic enmity of the Antes with other Slavs, see: Schreiner P. Studia Byzantino-Bulgarica. Vienna, 1986. S. 357; Kramar I. Antskat of a corpse in Slavic and svetlinata in datireneto, localization and etymology in the name “anti” // Historical Pregled. Sofia, 1988. 6. S. 19-33). However, this circumstance cannot in any way be used to deny the Slavic affiliation of the Antes. Information from Procopius and Mauritius, and mainly archaeological materials, reliably indicate that the Ants belonged to the early medieval Slavs.
Jordan. On the origin and deeds of the Getae... S. 115.
Code of ancient written news... T. 1. S. 183.
There. S. 197.
Duychev I. Attacks and settling on the Slavs on the Balkan Peninsula // Military Historical Collection. T. 26. Issue. 1. Sofia, 1977. S. 73.
Code of ancient written news... T. 1. S. 187.
Litavrin G. G. On the campaign of the Avars in 602 against the Ants // Slavs and their neighbors. M., 1989. S. 22-27.

Russian chroniclers about the beginning of the state

East Slavic tribes and unions of tribes on the eve of the formation of the state in Rus'

Origin of Rus'. Formation of the Old Russian people

Formation of the state of Rus'

Founding of the state

Varangian rulers

Legend

Why exactly Kyiv?

Historical concepts

periodization

Rapprochement of tribes

History of the Old Russian language

culture

Economy development

Feudal relations

class strife

Fight with aliens

Paganism

Introduction of a new faith

Tough choice

Similar Documents

The history of the study of the problem of ancient Russian nationality

Notes

Slavic cultural and tribal formations in the southern regions of the East European Plain on the eve of the formation of the Old Russian people

Notes

Anty

Notes

ecosystems

Zoology

Biology

Long 19th century

recent history

Middle Ages

new time

Interwar period