Old Russian nationality: definition, formation and historical significance. East Slavic tribes and ancient Russian people What ethnic group formed the ancient Russian state

Ibn Hanbal and the Hadith principle of nationality Textualistic religiosity would not have achieved such success without its own heroes: in particular, without the great hadith transmitter and jurist Ahmad ibn Hanbal (780-855). Ibn Khan Bal from his youth devoted himself to Islamic

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 that can solve 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 Kiev 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:

1. Emergence.
2. Rise.
3. 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 - a definition that implies not only a commonality 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 centuries. 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 Kiev prince personified the state power.

class strife

Smerdy 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 inextricable.

§ 31. In the IX-X centuries. at Eastern Slavs there were city-centers - Kiev and Novgorod. The struggle between these largest political, economic and cultural centers eventually led to the formation of a single Old Russian state headed by Kiev and to the emergence of the Old Russian nationality.

The linguistic community of this nationality was inherited from the linguistic community of the East Slavic tribes (or tribal unions). The presence of such a linguistic community in past eras was one of the

factors that contributed to the unification of the former tribes of the Eastern Slavs into a single ancient Russian people.

The formation of the Old Russian nationality was expressed, among other things, in the fact that the stability of the language unit - the dialect of a certain territory - increased. In the era of tribal formations, such stability of a linguistic unit could not be, because the tribes constantly moved, occupying vast territories.

Attachment of certain groups of the population to certain

territories was reflected in the gradual withering away of old tribal names and in the appearance of the names of the inhabitants of certain areas. So, Slovenes began to be called Novgorodians, Polanekians (from Kiev), Vyatichiryazans, etc.

Such a fixation of the population in a certain territory led to the formation of new territorial units - lands and principalities - united under the rule of Kyiv. At the same time, the borders of new formations did not always coincide with the old tribal borders. So, on the one hand, if the territory of the Novgorod land generally coincided with the former territory of the Slovenes, then on the other hand, on the former territory of one Krivichi tribe, the Smolensk and Polotsk principalities with close dialects and Pskov - with a different dialect are formed. On the territory of one Rostov-Suzdal principality, there were descendants of Slovenes, Krivichi and partly Vyatichi.

All this could not but lead to a redistribution of dialect features, to the formation of new dialect groups, and, consequently, to the loss of the former dialect division of the language and to the creation of a new such division. However, the unification of all the principalities under the rule of Kiev, the creation of the Kievan state led to the fact that the commonality of linguistic experiences of the Eastern Slavs, which was somewhat violated during the existence of separate tribal groups, became possible again after the 9th century. (this, for example, was reflected in the same fate of those reduced in the 12th century in all East Slavic dialects), although, of course, dialectal differences could not only be preserved, but also developed further.

V.X-XI centuries. dialectal differences gradually accumulated in the language of the ancient Russian people. In the East Slavic south, a change [r] to [y] developed, in contrast to the north, northwest and northeast. In the East Slavic north and northwest, clatter appeared, apparently as a result of influence from the Finnish languages. In the narrow western territory, ancient combinations [*tl], [*dl] may have been preserved. All these features affected individual elements of the phonetic system of dialects, but did not deeply affect the grammatical structure, as a result of which the unity of the national language was preserved.

§ 32. The development of the so-called Kievan Koine played a role in strengthening the unity of the Old Russian language.

Kyiv arose on the land of the glades, and its population was originally Polyansky. About the tribal dialect of the glades, which were occupied in the IX-X centuries. a very small area, and by the 11th century, they probably disappeared completely, no information is available. However, the very history of the Kiev land, as evidenced by archeology, was characterized by the fact that this territory, even before the formation of the Kiev state, was populated from the north. By summer
written legends, the Kievan state began with the capture of Kyiv by the northern princes. Therefore, apparently, the population of Kyiv has been ethnically mixed since ancient times: it included representatives of both northern and southern tribes. This mixing intensified and increased due to the replenishment of the population of Kiev with newcomers from different ancient Russian regions. It can be thought, therefore, that the spoken language of Kyiv was originally distinguished by great diversity. However, a peculiar fusion of dialect features gradually emerges - Koine, in which some features were southern in origin, while others were northern. For example, in this Koine there were such typically South Russian words as vol, brekhati, lepy ("beautiful"), and such North Russian words as horse, vѣksha, istba (> hut). In Old Kievan Koine, especially sharp dialectal features were leveled, as a result that it could become a language that satisfies the needs of Kiev in its relations with all of Russia, which, no doubt, strengthened the unity of the Russian people.

Of course, local dialects could not be leveled during this period, because then there were not yet those historical conditions that arise in the era of the formation of a national language and which lead to the dissolution of dialects in a single national language. That is why dialectal features continued to develop, and this was most clearly found in territories far removed from Kiev. However, despite this, the Kievan Koine played a certain role in strengthening the linguistic unity of the Old Russian people.

§ 33. The question of the development of the Old Russian language in the Kievan era is connected, in addition, with the question of the origin of writing and the beginning of the development of the Russian literary language.

The question of the origin of writing in Rus' has not yet been fully resolved.

Previously, it was assumed that writing in Rus' arose along with the adoption of Christianity, that is, at the end of 988. Until that time, the Eastern Slavs allegedly did not know writing, they could not write. After baptism, handwritten books appeared in Rus', first in the Old Slavonic language, written in the alphabet that Konstantin (Cyril) the Philosopher invented, and brought here from Byzantium and Bulgaria. Then they began to create their own - Old Russian - books written according to Old Slavonic patterns, and later Russian people began to use the alphabet adopted from the southern Slavs in business correspondence.

However, this point of view contradicts many scientific and historical facts that were known before, but, in essence, were not taken into account.

There is reason to believe that the Eastern Slavs knew the letter even before the baptism of Russia. It is known that in the "Life of Constantine the Philosopher" there is an indication that Constantine (Cyril),
having got to Korsun (Chersonese) in 860, “I found the gospel written in Russian letters.” The opinions of scientists differ about what kind of writing they were, and the issue has not been finally resolved. However, this circumstance does not deny the existence of writing in Russia already in the ninth century The same is indicated by the indications of the annals about the treaties between the Russians and the Greeks dating back to the beginning of the tenth century (907) Without any doubt, these treaties had to be written somehow, i.e. in Russia in At that time there should have already been writing.Finally, such facts as the Gnezdovo inscription of the 10th century, birch bark Novgorod letters of the 11th-12th centuries, various inscriptions of the 11th century, represent ancient Russian everyday writing, the appearance of which cannot be connected with Old Church Slavonic.

Thus, all these facts may indicate that the writing of the Eastern Slavs originated long before the baptism of Rus' and the ancient Russian letter was alphabetic.

With the emergence, development and strengthening of the Kievan state, the written language needed for state correspondence, for developing trade and culture develops and improves.

During this period, the history of the Russian literary language begins, the problems of which are the subject of special study.

The division of the Slavic ethno-linguistic community. The widespread settlement of the Slavs and the development of their linguistic processes leads to the differentiation of the previously common language for them, modern Slavs, as you know, in accordance with the linguistic classification are divided into eastern, western and southern. A long tradition has a tendency to identify with them groups of Slavs from early medieval sources: Wends - with Western, Antes - with Southern and Sklavins - with Eastern Slavs. However, according to linguists, the division of the Slavs (and their languages) into Western, Southern and Eastern is the product of a long and indirect regrouping of the ancient tribes and their dialects, so there is no reason for such an identification. In addition, they point out, the ethnonyms "Venedi" and "Antes" could not be the self-names of the Slavs, only the name "Sklavins" is Slavic. The time when various groups began to take shape on the basis of the dialects of the single Slavic language, including those from which the East Slavic languages ​​were formed, is debatable. There is a tendency to date the beginning of this process to the 5th-6th centuries. AD, and completion - X-XII centuries.

East Slavic tribes in the Tale of Bygone Years. One of the most important sources on the history of the Eastern Slavs as part of the ethnogenesis of the Russian people is chronicle The Tale of Bygone Years, created by 1113 by the monk Nestor and edited by the priest Sylvester in 1116. The earliest dated events in it date back to 852, but this main section is preceded by a fragment that describes the history of the Slavs and Eastern Slavs without dates.

It is noteworthy that for the chronicler, as well as for modern linguistics, the origin of the Slavs is the origin of the Slavic language, and he begins their history with the division by God of the hitherto single people “into 70 and 2 languages”, one of which was “Slovenesk”. Further in the annals it is said that "after a long time" the Slavs "sit down" on the Danube, after which their widespread settlement and division into various groups begins. Among them, the chronicler especially singles out those groups on the basis of which the ancient Russian nationality was formed - clearing, Drevlyans, Dregovichi, Polotsk, Slovenia etc., this list of the chronicler includes 14 titles. An explanation is given of the origin of these names: from the geographical features of their residence - Polyany, Drevlyans, Dregovichi, from the names of the ancestors - Vyatichi and Radimichi, from the names of rivers - Polochans, Buzhans, etc.

According to the established tradition, these groups are called "tribes" and refer to the Eastern Slavs, although the chronicler did not use the concept of "tribe", and one can hardly be sure that all these groups belong to the speakers of East Slavic dialects - Nestor was not a linguist. There is also a point of view that these are not tribes, since the territory occupied by them is too large, but unions of tribes. But this point of view is hardly correct, because, as ethnography testifies, tribal unions are transient, temporary and therefore often have no name, while ethnonyms are quite stable and therefore could hardly be omitted by the chronicler. The author of The Tale of Bygone Years describes the relationship of the Eastern Slavs with their neighbors - the Turkic Bulgarians, Avars, etc., the internal management system, everyday realities - marriage customs, funeral rites, etc. A fragment of the chronicle devoted to the description of East Slavic tribal groups is usually dated to the 6th-mid 9th centuries. AD

Eastern Slavs according to archeology and anthropology. Information about the East Slavic stage in the ethnogenesis of the Russian ethnos can also be supplemented by archaeological and anthropological data. According to V.V. Sedov, the Slavs have been penetrating the territory of Eastern Europe since the 6th century. AD two waves. One wave of Slavs populated Eastern Europe from the southwest, it goes back to the population of the Prague-Korchak and Penkov cultures and participated in the formation of the Croats, streets, Tivertsy, Volynians, Drevlyans, Polyans, Dregovichi and Radimichi. At the same time, part of the Penkovsky population penetrated the Don region, its tribal name is not recorded in the annals, then the Don Slavs moved to the Ryazan Poochie. Another wave of Slavs came from the west. Slavic colonization of Eastern Europe took place gradually, only by the 12th century. Slavs populate the Volga-Oka interfluve.

Archaeologically, East Slavic tribal groupings correspond to monuments of cultures of the 7th / 8th-10th centuries. - luka raykovetskaya in the forest-steppe part of the right bank of the Dnieper, romenskaya left bank of the Middle Dnieper and close to it borshevskaya upper and middle Don region, culture long mounds and culture hills northwest of Eastern Europe (their territories partly coincide), as well as some other groups of archaeological sites associated with the Eastern Slavs.

As for the formation of the anthropological type of the medieval Eastern Slavs, the study of this process is hampered by the lack of relevant sources on their early history The reason is cremation in the funeral rite. Only from the 10th century, when inhumation replaced cremation, did these materials appear.

In Eastern Europe, the Slavs who came here settled among the Balts, the descendants of the Scythian-Sarmatian tribes, the Finno-Ugric peoples, as well as in the neighborhood with the Turkic nomadic groups in the Northern Black Sea region, which influenced both the culture of the emerging East Slavic population and the specifics of their anthropological type. .

According to anthropologists, at least two morphological complexes took part in the formation of the physical appearance of the Eastern Slavs.

The first morphological complex is distinguished by dolichocrania, large facial and cerebral parts of the skull, sharp profiling of the face, and strong protrusion of the nose. It was characteristic of the Letto-Lithuanian population - Latgalians, Aukstaits and Yotvingians. Its features were transferred to the Volhynians, Polotsk Krivichi and Drevlyans, who laid the foundation for Belarusian and partly Ukrainian ethnos.

The second morphological complex is characterized by smaller facial and cerebral parts of the skull, mesocrania, weakened protrusion of the nose, and a slight flattening of the face, i.e., features of mild Mongoloidity. It was inherent in the Finno-Ugric ethnic groups of the Middle Ages in Eastern Europe - the annalistic Meri, Murom, Meshchera, Chud, Vesi, who, in the process of assimilation, passed their features on to Novgorod Slovenes, Vyatichi and Krivichi, who later became the basis Russian ethnos. The regularity of the geographical localization of these anthropological features is that the proportion of the second complex increases towards the east. On the territory of settlement of the glades, which became the basis of the Ukrainian ethnos, the features of the Iranian-speaking Scythian-Sarmatian population can also be traced.

Thus, the anthropological differentiation of the medieval East Slavic, and then the Old Russian population reflects the anthropological composition of the population of Eastern Europe before the arrival of the Slavs. As for the impact on the anthropological appearance of the Eastern Slavs of the nomadic population of the south of Eastern Europe (Avars, Khazars, Pechenegs, Torks and Polovtsy), and later the Tatar-Mongolian population, it was extremely insignificant and is poorly traced only in the southeastern territories of ancient and medieval Rus' . An analysis of archaeological sources and anthropological materials demonstrating the miscegenation of the Slavic and local populations shows that the Slavic colonization mainly had the character of a peaceful agricultural introduction into a foreign ethnic environment. In subsequent times, the dispersion of the anthropological features of the Eastern Slavs weakened. In the late Middle Ages, anthropological differences among the East Slavic population weakened. In the central regions of Eastern Europe, its Caucasoid features are enhanced due to the weakening of Mongoloidity, which indicates the migration of the population here from the western regions.

Education of the ancient Russian people. Apparently not later than the ninth century. the process of consolidation of the East Slavic tribes into the Old Russian people begins. In the written sources of this period, tribal ethnonyms begin to disappear, which are absorbed by the new name of the Slavic population of Eastern Europe - Rus . In the scientific literature, the formed nationality, so as not to confuse it with modern Russians, is usually called Old Russian . It was formed as an ethno-social organism, since its development took place within the framework of the Old Russian state, in the name of which "Rus" a new ethnonymic formation is fixed.

The processes of ethno-linguistic consolidation were also reflected in the Slavic antiquities of Eastern Europe: in the 10th century. On the basis of the East Slavic archaeological cultures, a single archaeological culture of the Old Russian population is being formed, the differences of which do not go beyond local variants.

For more than one century, both domestic and foreign scientists have been trying to solve the problem of the origin of the ethnonym "Rus", since this can answer many important questions about the nature of ethnic processes in Eastern Europe. His solution knows both purely amateurish constructions, such as an attempt to raise this word to the ethnonym "Etruscans", and scientific approaches, which nevertheless turned out to be rejected. Currently, there are more than a dozen hypotheses regarding the origin of this ethnonym, but with all the differences they can be combined into two groups - alien, Scandinavian, and local, Eastern European, origin. The proponents of the first concept were called Normanists , their opponents are called anti-Normanists .

History, as a science, began to develop in Russia from the 17th century, but the beginning of the Norman concept dates back to a much earlier time. The chronicler Nestor stood at its origins. In The Tale of Bygone Years, he directly stated the Scandinavian origin of Rus': “In the year 6370 (862). They expelled the Varangians across the sea and did not give them tribute and began to rule themselves. And there was no truth among them, and generation upon generation stood up, and they had strife and began to fight with themselves. And they said to themselves: "Let's look for a prince who would rule over us and judge by right." And they went across the sea to the Varangians, to Rus'. Those Varangians were called Rus, just as others are called Svei, and other Normans and Angles, and still others - Gotlanders - that's how these were called. Chud Rus, Slavs, Krivichi and all said: “Our land is great and plentiful, but there is no order in it. Come reign and rule over us." And three brothers with their clans were elected and took all of Rus' with them, and they came to the Slavs, and the elder Rurik sat in Novgorod, and the other - Sineus - on Belozero, and the third - Truvor - in Izborsk. And from those Varangians the Russian land was nicknamed. The chronicler subsequently addressed this issue more than once: “But the Slavic people and the Russian are one, after all, they were nicknamed Rus from the Varangians, and before there were Slavs”; “And he had (Prince Oleg. - V.B.) Varangians, and Slavs, and others, nicknamed Rus.

In the XVIII century. German historians invited to Russia, G.-F. Miller, G.Z. Bayer, A.L. Schlozer, explaining the origin of the name "Rus", directly followed Nestor's story about the calling of the Varangians. The scientific substantiation of the "Norman" theory was given in the middle of the 19th century. Russian historian A.A. Kunik. This theory was followed by such prominent pre-revolutionary domestic historians as N.M. Karamzin, V.O. Klyuchevsky, S.M. Soloviev, A.A. Shakhmatov.

At the origins of the autochthonous, “anti-Normanist” concept in Russian historiography were M.V. Lomonosov (who erected the Slavs directly to the Scythians and Sarmatians) and V.N. Tatishchev. In pre-revolutionary times, D.I. Ilovaisky, S.A. Gedeonov, D.Ya. Samokvasov, M.S. Grushevsky belonged to the anti-Normanist historians.

In Soviet times, the Norman theory as "unpatriotic" was actually banned, in domestic science, anti-Normanism reigned supreme, led by the historian and archaeologist B.A. Rybakov. It was only in the 1960s that Normanism began to revive, at first “underground” within the framework of the Slavic-Varangian seminar of the Department of Archeology of the Leningrad state university. By this time, the position of official historiography on this issue has somewhat softened. Doubts not expressed until now about the correctness of the provisions of anti-Normanism now appear on the pages of scientific publications, and the actual lifting of the ban on discussing this problem leads to a rapid increase in supporters of the "Norman" theory. In the course of heated controversy, both sides continued to strengthen the evidence of their innocence.

Normanism. According to the Normanists, the legend about the calling of the Varangians is based on historical realities - a part of the Varangians, called "Rus", comes to Eastern Europe (peacefully or by force - it does not matter) and, settling among the Eastern Slavs, passes on their name to them. The fact of widespread penetration from the VIII century. Scandinavian population in the East Slavic environment is confirmed in archaeological materials. And these are not only finds of Scandinavian things that could get to the Slavs through trade, but also a significant number of burials made according to the Scandinavian rite. The penetration of the Scandinavians deep into Eastern Europe went through the Gulf of Finland and further along the Neva to Lake Ladoga, from where an extensive river system originates. At the beginning of this path there was a settlement (on the territory of modern Staraya Ladoga), in the Scandinavian sources called Aldeygyuborg. Its origin dates back to the middle of the 8th century. (dendrochronological date - 753). Thanks to the wide expansion of the Varangians to Eastern Europe, the Baltic-Volga route is taking shape, which eventually reaches the Volga Bulgaria, the Khazar Khaganate and the Caspian Sea, that is, to the territory of the Arab Caliphate. From the beginning of the ninth century the route “from the Varangians to the Greeks” begins to function, most of which passed along the Dnieper, to another major center of the medieval world - Byzantium. Settlements appear on these communications, a significant part of the inhabitants of which, as evidenced by archaeological materials, are Scandinavians. Among these settlements, such monuments as Gorodishche near Novgorod, Timerevo near Yaroslavl, Gnezdovo near Smolensk and Sarskoe gorodishche near Rostov played a special role among these settlements.

According to the Normanists, the word "Rus" goes back to the Old Norse root rōþ-(derived from the Germanic verb ٭rōwan- "row, sail on an oared ship"), which gave rise to the word ٭rōþ(e)R, meaning "rower", "participant, campaign on oared ships." So, it was assumed, the Scandinavians called themselves, who committed in the 7th-8th centuries. wide voyages, including to Eastern Europe. The Finnish-speaking population adjacent to the Scandinavians transformed this word into "ruotsi", giving it an ethnonymic meaning, and through them it is perceived by the Slavs in the form "Rus" as the name of the Scandinavian population.

The newcomers were people who occupied a high social position in their homeland - kings (rulers), warriors, merchants. Settling among the Slavs, they began to merge with the Slavic elite. The concept of "Rus", which meant the Scandinavians in Eastern Europe, was transformed into an ethno-society with such a name, denoting the military nobility led by the prince and professional soldiers, as well as the merchant class. Then “Rus” began to be called the territory subject to the “Russian” prince, the state that was being formed here and the Slavic population in it as dominant. The Scandinavians themselves were quickly assimilated by the Eastern Slavs, having lost their language and culture. So, in the description of the conclusion of the agreement between Rus' and Byzantium in 907 in the Tale of Bygone Years, the Scandinavian names Farlaf, Vermud, Stemid and others appear, but the parties to the agreement swear not by Thor and Odin, but by Perun and Veles.

The borrowing of the name "Rus", and precisely from the north, is proved by its alienness among the Eastern Slavic ethnonymic formations: Drevlyans, Polochans, Radimichi, Slovenians, Tivertsy, etc., which are characterized by endings in -I don't, -but not, -ichi, -ene and others. And at the same time, the name "Rus" fits perfectly into a number of Finnish-speaking and Baltic ethnonyms in the north of Eastern Europe - Lop, Chud, All, Yam, Perm, Kors, Lib. The possibility of transferring an ethnonym from one ethnic group to another finds analogies in historical collisions. One can refer to the example of the name "Bulgarians", which the nomadic Turks, who came to the Danube in the 6th century, pass on to the local Slavic population. This is how the Slavic-speaking people of the Bulgarians appear, while the Turkic-Bulgarians (to avoid confusion, the name “b at lgars") settled on the Middle Volga. And if it were not for the invasion of the Mongol-Tatars, there would still be two peoples with the same name, but completely different in language, anthropological type, traditional culture, occupying different territories.

Normanists also operate with other evidence of the difference between Rus' and the Eastern Slavs. This is a list of ethnonyms when Nestor the chronicler describes Igor's campaign against Byzantium in 944, where Rus' differs, on the one hand, from the Varangians, and on the other, from the Slavic tribes: Slovenes, and Krivichi, and Tivertsy ... ". In confirmation of their correctness, they refer to the work of the Byzantine emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus “On the management of the empire”, created in the middle of the 10th century, which says that the Slavs are tributaries of the Ross and recognize their authority, as well as to the names of the Dnieper rapids given in his essay “according to -Russian" and "in Slavonic": the first are etymologized from the Old Norse language, and the second - from Old Russian.

The name "Rus", according to the Normanists, begins to appear in written sources, Western European, Scandinavian, Byzantine and Arab-Persian only from the 30s of the 9th century, and the information contained in them about Rus', according to the Normanists, proves its Scandinavian origin .

The first reliable mention of Rus' in written sources, in their opinion, is the message under 839 of the Bertinskiy Annals. It speaks of the arrival from Byzantium in Ingelsheim to the court of the Frankish emperor Louis the Pious "some people who claim that they, that is, their people, are called Ros ( Rhos)”, they were sent by the emperor of Byzantium Theophilus to return to their homeland, because it is dangerous to return the way they arrived in Constantinople because of the “extreme savagery of the exceptionally ferocious peoples” of this territory. However, “having carefully investigated (the purposes) of their arrival, the emperor learned that they were from the people of the Swedes ( Sueones), and, considering them more like scouts both in that country and in ours, than ambassadors of friendship, he decided to himself to detain them until it was possible to find out for certain whether they had come with honest intentions or not. The decision of Louis is explained by the fact that the coast of the Frankish Empire suffered more than once from the devastating Norman raids. How this story ended and what happened to these ambassadors remained unknown.

In the "Venetian Chronicle" of John the Deacon, created at the turn of the X-XI centuries, it is said that in 860 "the people of the Normans" ( Normannorum gentes) attacked Constantinople. Meanwhile, in the Byzantine sources regarding this event, it is said about the attack of the “Ros” people, which makes it possible to identify these names. The Byzantine Patriarch Photius, in an encyclical of 867, wrote about countless "Rus" who, having "enslaved the neighboring peoples", attacked Constantinople. In the "Bavarian geographer" of the second half of the 9th century. when listing the peoples of Rus' ( Ruzzi) is mentioned next to the Khazars.

From the 10th century the number of reports about Rus' in Western European sources is growing rapidly, the ethnonym itself in them differs significantly in vowel: Rhos(only in the Annals of Bertin) Ruzara, Ruzzi, Rugi, Ru(s)ci, Ru(s)zi, Ruteni etc., but there is no doubt that we are talking about the same ethnic group.

In Byzantine sources, the earliest mention of Rus', apparently, is found in the "Life of George of Amastrid" and is associated with an event that occurred before 842 - an attack on the Byzantine city of Amastrida in Asia Minor by "barbarians-Roses, a people, as everyone knows, cruel and wild." However, there is a point of view according to which we are talking about the attack of Rus' on Constantinople in 860 or even about the campaign against Byzantium by Prince Igor in 941. But in the Byzantine chronicles there are undoubted descriptions of the events of 860, when the army of the people "grew" ( ‘Ρως ) laid siege to Constantinople. Writing through "o" in the Byzantine tradition is apparently explained by the self-name of the attackers ( rōþs), and also in consonance with the name of the biblical people Rosh of the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, since both invasions (if there really were two) were interpreted by the authors as the fulfillment of the prediction of this book that at the end of the world the wild peoples of the north will fall on the civilized world.

As for the Arabic-Persian sources, those in which ar-russes appear already in the description of the events of the 6th-7th centuries, according to the Normanists, they are not reliable. Syrian author of the 6th century AD Pseudo-Zacharia wrote about the people grew ( hros), or rus ( hrus), who lived far north of the Caucasus. However, the obviously fantastic appearance of its representatives and the mention on a par with phantom ethnic groups (psoglavtsy, etc.) makes modern researchers attribute the message of Pseudo-Zacharia to the field of mythology. In the work of Bal'ami there is evidence of an agreement between the Arabs and the ruler of Derbent, concluded in 643, that he would not let the northern peoples, including the Rus, through the Derbent passage. However, this source dates back to the 10th century, and, according to researchers, the appearance of this ethnonym in them is the author's transfer into the past of recent events related to the destructive campaigns of the Rus on the Caspian Sea.

In reality, according to the supporters of the Norman theory, the first mention of Rus' in the Arab-Persian sources is found in Ibn Khordadbeh in the “Book of the Ways of the Countries”, which reports on the ways of Rus merchants in a fragment dated, at the latest, to the 40s of the 9th century. The author calls Russian merchants a “kind” of Slavs, they deliver furs from remote regions of the land of the Slavs to the Mediterranean Sea (it is assumed that in fact - to the Black Sea). Ibn Isfendiyar reported about the military campaign of the Rus to the Caspian during the reign of Alid al-Hasan ibn Zayd (864-884). The following information dates back to the 10th century, in particular, according to al-Masudi, in 912 or 913, about 500 Russian ships invaded the coastal villages of the Caspian Sea. In 922, the Arab author Ibn Fadlan, as part of the embassy of the Baghdad caliph, visited the Volga Bulgaria. In Bulgar, among other peoples, he saw Rus merchants and left a description of their appearance, lifestyle, beliefs, funeral rites, for the most part, these descriptions can be attributed rather to the Scandinavian population, although there are also features of the Finnic-speaking and Slavic peoples.

The Arab-Persian authors of the X century. speaks of three "types" (groups) of Rus - Slavia, Kuyavia And Arsania, researchers tend to see territorial designations in these names. Kuyavia is identified with Kiev, Slavia - with the land of Novgorod Slovenes, as for the name Arsania, its content is debatable. There is an assumption that this is the northern territory in the Rostov-Belozero region, where a large trade and craft center was located on the site of the Sarsky settlement.

Anti-Normanism. Anti-Normanists, first of all, prove the unreliability of the chronicle story about the calling of the Varangians. In fact, the chronicler was not an eyewitness to this event; by the time the Tale of Bygone Years was written, two and a half centuries had already passed. According to anti-Normanists, the story may reflect some realities, but in a highly distorted form, the chronicler did not understand the essence of the events, and therefore recorded them incorrectly. This can be clearly seen from the names of the Rurik brothers, who in fact represent the ancient Germanic sine haus - "your home" (in the meaning of "your kind") and tru wore - "a sure weapon" (in the sense of " loyal squad). But in the analyzed fragment it is said about the arrival of the brothers “with their families”. Therefore, A.A. Shakhmatov argued that this fragment is an insert made for political reasons when calling to Kyiv throne Vladimir Monomakh in 1113

Having proved the unreliability, as they believed, of the story about the calling of the Varangians, the anti-Normanists turned to the search for the autochthonous, that is, the Eastern European name "Rus". But on this issue, unlike their opponents, there is no unity. The “first anti-Normanist” M.V. Lomonosov believed that this name came from the ethnonym roxolans , that was the name of one of the Sarmatian tribes of the 2nd century AD. However, the Iranian-lingual nature of the Sarmatians hinders the possibility of recognizing them as Slavs.

Rus' was identified with the name of the people Roche in one of the parts of the Bible - the Book of the prophet Ezekiel: "Turn your face to Gog in the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, Tubal" (the prophet lived in the 6th century BC, but the text of the work, most likely, was subsequently processed ). However, this "ethnonym" owes its origin to a mistranslation: the Hebrew title "nasi-rosh", i.e. "supreme head", turned into "archon Rosh" in the Greek translation and "prince Ros" in the Slavonic.

Another nation came to the attention of researchers as a possible early mention of Rus' - rosomones , judging by the text of the source, localized in the Dnieper region. Jordan wrote about them, reporting on the events of about 350-375, in his Getica. The Gothic king Germanaric, to whom the Rosomones were subordinate, married one of the women of this people, and then ordered her to be executed "for treasonous departure" from him. Her brothers, avenging their sister, inflicted a wound on Germanaric, which turned out to be fatal. Linguistic analysis shows that the word "Rosomon" is not of Slavic origin. This is recognized by some anti-Normanists, but they argue that this name was subsequently transferred to the Slavic population that came to the Middle Dnieper.

Anti-Normanists put special hopes in the evidence of the early presence of Rus' in the territory of Eastern Europe on the message of the Syrian author of the 6th century AD. Pseudo-Zachariah, or Zechariah the Rhetor. In his "Church History", based on the work of the Greek writer Zechariah of Metilene, he speaks of the people eros (hros/hrus), localized to the north of the Caucasus. However, according to the Normanists, the reliability of this people is refuted by an analysis of the text. There are two groups of peoples in the text. The reality of some is undeniable, since it is confirmed by other sources, others are clearly fantastic in nature: one-breasted Amazons, dog-headed, Amazrats-dwarfs. To which of them do the people hros/hrus belong? Apparently, to the second, the Normanists argue, judging by the irrational characteristics of this people - hros / hrus are so huge that horses do not carry them, for the same reason they fight with their bare hands, they do not need weapons. According to the Normanists, the Syrian author described this people under the influence of associations with the biblical name Rosh of the Book of Ezekiel.

As proof of the existence of Rus', at least in the VIII century. anti-Normanists refer to the "Russian ships" of the fleet of Emperor Constantine V, mentioned in the "Chronography" of the Byzantine author Theophanes the Confessor in 774. In fact, this is a translation error, in the fragment of text that the researchers refer to, we are talking about "purple" ships.

Some anti-Normanists believe that the name "Rus" comes from the name of the river Ros in the Middle Dnieper, one of the tributaries of the Dnieper, in the habitat of chronicle meadows. At the same time, the phrase from The Tale of Bygone Years is pointed out: “a glade, which even calls Rus”, on the basis of which it is concluded that the glade that lived in the basin of this river received the name “Rus” from it, and then, as the most developed and therefore the tribe, authoritative among the Eastern Slavs, was transferred to the rest of the Eastern Slavic population. However, the Normanists object that the chronicler, carefully noting which tribes received names from the rivers, did not include the Ros / Rus tribe in his list, and since its existence is not confirmed by any specific facts, this construction is purely hypothetical.

Finally, there is a hypothesis of the origin of this ethnonym from the Iranian rox - “light”, in the meaning of “bright”, “brilliant”, that is, located on the bright north side, also having a speculative character from the point of view of the Normanists.

According to supporters of the autochthonous origin of the name "Rus", their correctness is proved by the localization of the so-called "narrow" concept of Rus, among other arguments. Judging by a number of texts from ancient Russian sources, in the minds of the population of that time, there were, as it were, two Russias - Rus' itself (“narrow” concept), which occupied part of the territory of southern Eastern Europe from the Middle Dnieper to Kursk, and its entire territory (“broad” concept). For example, when in 1174 Andrey Bogolyubsky expelled the Rostislavichs from Belgorod and Vyshgorod, located a little north of Kyiv, then “please velmi the Rostislavichs, or deprive the Russian land.” When Prince Svyatoslav of Trubchev left Novgorod the Great back to his land (in the modern Kursk region), the chronicler wrote: “Prince Svyatoslav back to Rus'.” transferred to the rest of the lands of the Old Russian state. However, from the point of view of the Normanists, everything was just the opposite: Rus', which settled under Rurik in the north, during the reign of his successor Oleg in 882 captures Kiev and transfers this name to this territory as a domain. As an analogue of such events, they give the name Normandy, this territory in the north-west of France was by no means the birthplace of the Normans, it was conquered by them at the beginning of the 10th century.

In this sharp controversy about the origin of the ethnonym "Rus", neither side recognizes the correctness of the opposite, "the war of the "northern" and "southern" (RA Ageeva) continues to this day.

Ancient Russian people. The beginning of the formation of the ancient Russian nationality can be dated approximately to the middle of the 9th century, when the name "Rus", whatever its origin, is gradually filled with a multi-valued content, denoting both the territory, the statehood, and the ethnic community. According to written sources, primarily chronicles, the disappearance of tribal ethnonyms is well traced: for example, the last mention of the Polyans dates back to 944, the Drevlyans - 970, the Radimichi - 984, the Northerners - 1024, the Slovenes - 1036, the Krivichi - 1127, Dregovichi - 1149. The process of consolidation of the East Slavic tribes into the Old Russian people, apparently, took place in the period from the end of the 10th to the middle of the 12th century, as a result of which the tribal names were finally supplanted by the ethnonym "Rus" that was finally common for the entire East Slavic population.

The expansion of the territory of Kievan Rus determined the settlement of the ancient Russian people - the Volga-Oka interfluve was mastered, in the north the East Slavic population went to the seas of the Arctic Ocean, acquaintance with Siberia took place. The movement to the east and north was relatively peaceful, accompanied by a striped settlement of Slavic colonists among the aboriginal population, this is evidenced by the data of toponymy (preservation of Finnish and Baltic names) and anthropology (miscegenation of the Old Russian population).

The situation was different on the southern borders of Rus', where the confrontation between its sedentary agricultural population and the nomadic, predominantly cattle-breeding world determined a different nature of political and, accordingly, ethnic processes. Here, after the defeat in the second half of the X century. Khazar Khaganate, the borders of Rus' expanded to Ciscaucasia, where a special enclave of ancient Russian statehood was formed in the form of the Tmutarakan land. However, from the second half of the XI century. the increased pressure of the nomads, first the Pechenegs, who replaced the Khazars, and then the Polovtsians and Torks, forced the Slavic population to move north to calmer forest regions. This process was reflected in the transfer of city names - Galich (moreover, both cities stand on the Trubezh rivers of the same name), Vladimir, Pereyaslavl. Before the Mongol-Tatar invasion, the borders of the nomadic world came close to the heart of Rus' - the Kyiv, Chernigov and Pereyaslav lands, which caused the decline in the role of these principalities. But the role of other lands increased, in particular, northeastern Rus' - the future territory of the Great Russian people.

The population of Ancient Rus' was multi-ethnic, researchers read up to 22 ethnonymic formations in it. In addition to the Eastern Slavs / Russ, who were the main ethnic component, the Finnish-speaking Ves, Chud, Lop, Muroma, Meshchera, Merya, etc., golyad and other ethnic groups of Baltic origin, the Turkic-speaking population, in particular the black hoods of the Chernigov Principality, lived here. In a number of territories, close contacts with the aboriginal population led to the assimilation of some ethnic groups by the Old Russian people - Meri, Muroms, Chuds, etc. The Baltic population, to a lesser extent, the Turkic-speaking south of Eastern Europe, joined it. Finally, regardless of the solution of the issue of the origin of the ethnonym "Rus", it can be argued that the Norman component played a significant role in the formation of the Old Russian nationality.

The collapse of the ancient Russian nationality and the formation of the Russian,

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

URAL STATE UNIVERSITY IM. A. M. GORKY.

Department of Archeology, Ethnology and Special Historical Disciplines.

HISTORICAL FACULTY

Course work

FORMATION OF THE OLD RUSSIAN ETHNOS

Student, c. I-202

Kolmakov Roman Petrovich

Scientific director

Minenko Nina Adamovna

Yekaterinburg 2007

Introduction

Chapter 1. Ethnogenesis of the Eastern Slavs

Chapter 2. Eastern Slavs within the Old Russian State

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

Russia occupies an important place in world history and culture. Now it is difficult to imagine world development without Peter I, Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Zhukov. But the history of the country cannot be considered without the history of the people. And the Russian people, or rather the Old Russian, certainly played leading role in the formation Russian state. The ancient Russian ethnos played an equally important role in the formation of the Belarusian and Ukrainian people.

The purpose of this work is to consider the issue of the emergence of the Old Russian ethnos, to trace the processes of ethnogenesis. For the study of Old Russian unity, the data of linguistics and archeology are the most important. The works of linguists allow us to talk about the Old Russian linguistic unity. Such a statement does not reject dialectal diversity. Unfortunately, the picture of the dialect division of the Old Russian linguistic community cannot be reconstructed from written sources. Thanks to the finds of birch bark letters, only the Old Novgorod dialect is quite definitely characterized. The use of archeological data in the study of the origins and evolution of the Old Russian ethnos, taking into account all the results obtained so far by other sciences, seems to be very promising. Archaeological materials testify to the ethnocultural unity of the Old Russian population, which is manifested in the unity of urban life and life, in the commonality of funeral rituals and everyday culture of the rural population, in the convergence of life and life of the city and the countryside, and most importantly, in the same trends of cultural development. In this paper, the processes of formation of the Old Russian ethnos in the Old Russian state of the 9th - 11th centuries will be considered.

Work on this topic has been going on for a long time. A number of Russian and foreign authors addressed this problem. And I must say that sometimes their conclusions were diametrically opposed. Ancient Rus' was primarily an ethnic territory. It was a vast region of the East European Plain, inhabited by the Slavs, who originally spoke a single common Slavic (proto-Slavic) language. The Old Russian territory covered in the X-XI centuries all the lands mastered by that time by the Eastern Slavs, including those in which they lived interspersed with the remnants of the local Finnish-speaking, Leto-Lithuanian and Western Baltic populations. There is no doubt that already in the first half of the 11th century, the ethnonym of the East Slavic ethno-linguistic community was "Rus". In the Tale of Bygone Years, Rus' is an ethnic community that included the entire Slavic population of the East European Plain. One of the criteria for distinguishing Rus is linguistic: all the tribes of Eastern Europe have one language - Russian. At the same time, Ancient Rus' was public education. The territory of the state at the end of the 10th - 11th centuries basically corresponded to the ethno-linguistic one, and the ethnonym Rus for the Eastern Slavs in the 10th - 13th centuries was at the same time a polytonym.

The Old Russian ethnos existed within the framework of the Old Russian state in the 10th-13th centuries.

Of the Russian researchers, who was the first to address this topic can rightfully be called Lomonosov. In the 18th century, when German scientists began to make attempts to write the initial Russian history, and the first conclusions about the Russian people were made, Lomonosov then presented his arguments in which he opposed the conclusions of German scientists. But still, Lomonosov became famous not in the historical field.

Known for the work of Boris Florya. In particular, he entered into a dispute with Academician Sedov about the chronological framework for the formation of the Old Russian ethnos, attributing its appearance to the Middle Ages. Boris Florya, based on written sources, argued that the Old Russian ethnos was finally formed only by the 13th century.

Sedov did not agree with him, who, relying on archeological data, attributed the time of the appearance of the Old Russian ethnos to the 9th - 11th centuries. Sedov, on the basis of archaeological data, gives a broad picture of the settlement of the Eastern Slavs, and the formation of the Old Russian ethnos on their basis.

The source base is extremely poorly represented. There are few written sources of Ancient Rus' left. Frequent fires, invasions of nomads internecine war and other disasters left little hope of the preservation of these sources. However, there are still notes by foreign authors who talk about Rus'.

Arab writers and travelers Ibn Fadlan and Ibn Ruste tell about the period of the initial stage of the formation of the ancient Russian state, and also talk about Russian merchants in the east. Their works are extremely important, as they reveal a picture of Russian life in the 10th century.

Russian sources include the Tale of Bygone Years, which, however, at times conflicts with some data of foreign authors.

Chapter 1. Ethnogenesis of the Eastern Slavs

The ancestors of the Slavs have long lived in Central and Eastern Europe. Archaeologists believe that the Slavic tribes can be traced according to excavations from the middle of the second millennium BC. The ancestors of the Slavs (in the scientific literature they are called Proto-Slavs) are supposedly found among the tribes that inhabited the basin of the Odra, Vistula and Dnieper. Slavic tribes appeared in the Danube basin and in the Balkans only at the beginning of our era.

Soviet historical science recognized that the formation and development of the Slavic tribes took place on the territory of Central and Eastern Europe. By origin, the Eastern Slavs are closely related to the Western and Southern Slavs. All these three groups of kindred peoples had one root.

At the beginning of our era, the Slavic tribes were known under the name of Venets, or Wends. Venedi, or "vento", without a doubt - the ancient self-name of the Slavs. The words of this root (which in ancient times included the nasal sound "e", which later became pronounced as "I") have been preserved for a number of centuries, in some places to the present day. The later name of the large Slavic tribal union "Vyatichi" goes back to this common ancient ethnonym. The medieval German name for the Slavic regions is Wenland, and the modern Finnish name for Russia is Vana. The ethnonym "Wends", it must be assumed, goes back to the ancient European community. From it came the Venets of the Northern Adriatic, as well as the Celtic tribe of the Venets of Brittany, conquered by Caesar during campaigns in Gaul in the 50s of the 1st century. BC e., and Venedi (Veneti) - Slavs. For the first time, Wends (Slavs) are found in the encyclopedic work "Natural History" written by Plin the Elder (23/24-79 AD). In the section on the geographical description of Europe, he reports that Eningia (some region of Europe, the correspondence of which is not on the maps) “is inhabited up to the Visula River by Sarmatians, Wends, Skirs ...” . Skiry - a tribe of Germans, localized somewhere north of the Carpathians. Obviously, their neighbors (as well as the Sarmatians) were the Wends.

Somewhat more specifically, the place of residence of the Wends is noted in the work of the Greek geographer and astronomer Ptolemy "Geographical Guide". The scientist names the Wends among the "big peoples" of Sarmatia and definitely connects the places of their settlements with the Vistula basin. Ptolemy names the Galinds and Sudins as the eastern neighbors of the Wends - these are quite well-known Western Baltic tribes, localized in the interfluve of the Vistula and the Neman. On a Roman geographical map of the 3rd century. n. e., known in the historical literature as the "Peutinger Tables", the Wends-Sarmatians are indicated south of the Baltic Sea and north of the Carpathians.

There is reason to believe that by the middle of the 1st millennium AD. refers to the division of the Slavic tribes into two parts - northern and southern. The writers of the 6th century - Jordan, Procopius and Mauritius - mention the southern Slavs - Sclavens and Antes, emphasizing, however, that these are tribes related to each other and to the Wends. So, Jordan writes: “... Starting from the deposit of the Vistula (Vistula) River, a populous tribe of Venets settled down in the boundless spaces. Although their names are now changing according to different clans and localities, they are still mainly called Slavs and Ants. Etymologically, both of these names go back to the ancient common self-name of Venedi, or Vento. The Antes are repeatedly mentioned in the historical works of the 6th-7th centuries. According to Jordanes, the Antes inhabited the regions between the Dniester and the Dnieper. Using the writings of his predecessors, this historian also covers earlier events when the Antes were at enmity with the Goths. At first, the Antes managed to repel the attack of the Gothic army, but after a while the Gothic king Vinitary still defeated the Antes and executed their prince God and 70 elders.

The main direction of Slavic colonization in the first half of the 1st millennium AD. was northwest. The settlement of the Slavs in the upper reaches of the Volga, Dnieper and Western Dvina, occupied mainly by Finno-Ugric tribes, apparently led to some mixing of the Slavs with the Finno-Ugric peoples, which was also reflected in the nature of cultural monuments.

After the fall of the Scythian state and the weakening of the Sarmatians, Slavic settlements also moved south, where a population belonging to various tribes lived on the territory of a vast area from the banks of the Danube to the middle Dnieper.

Slavic settlements of the middle and second half of the 1st millennium AD in the south, in the steppe and forest-steppe zone, they were mainly open villages of farmers with adobe dwellings, semi-dugouts with stone ovens. There were also small fortified "towns", where, along with agricultural implements, the remains of metallurgical production were found (for example, crucibles for melting non-ferrous metals). Burials at that time were carried out, as before, by burning a corpse, but along with barrowless burial grounds, there were also burials of ashes under barrows, and in the 9th - 10th centuries. the rite of burial by cadaverization is spreading more and more.

In the VI - VII centuries. AD Slavic tribes in the north and north-west occupied the entire eastern and central parts of modern Belarus, previously inhabited by Letto-Lithuanian tribes, and new large areas in the upper reaches of the Dnieper and Volga. In the northeast, they also advanced along the Lovat to Lake Ilmen and further up to Ladoga.

In the same period, another wave of Slavic colonization is heading south. After a stubborn struggle with Byzantium, the Slavs managed to occupy the right bank of the Danube and settle in the vast territories of the Balkan Peninsula. Apparently by the second half of the 1st millennium AD. refers to the division of the Slavs into eastern, western and southern, which has survived to this day.

In the middle and second half of the 1st millennium AD. the socio-economic development of the Slavs reached a level at which their political organization outgrew the limits of the tribe. In the struggle against Byzantium, with the invasion of the Avars and other opponents, alliances of tribes were formed, often representing a large military force and usually received names according to the main of the tribes that were part of this union. Written sources contain information, for example, about the union that united the Duleb-Volyn tribes (VI century), about the union of the Carpathian tribes of Croats - Czech, Vislan and White (VI-VII centuries), about the Serbo-Lusatian union (VII century BC). ). Apparently, the Russ (or Ross) were such a union of tribes. Researchers associate this name itself with the name of the river Ros, where the dews lived, with their main city, Rodnya, and with the cult of the god Rod, which preceded the cult of Perun. Back in the VI century. Jordan mentions "Rosomon", which, according to B. A. Rybakov, may mean "people of the Ros tribe". Until the end of the 9th century, sources mention Ross, or Russ, and from the 10th century the name "Rus", "Russian" already prevails. The territory of the Rus in the VI - VIII centuries. there was, apparently, a forest-steppe region of the middle Dnieper region, which for a long time was called by the people proper Rus even when this name spread to the entire East Slavic state.

Some archaeological sites suggest the existence of other East Slavic tribal unions. Various types mounds - family burials with cremations - belonged, according to most researchers, to various unions of tribes. The so-called "long mounds" - rampart-shaped burial mounds up to 50 meters long - are common south of Lake Peipus and in the upper reaches of the Dvina, Dnieper and Volga, that is, in the territory of the Krivichi. It can be thought that the tribes that left these mounds (both Slavs and Leto-Lithuanian) were part of a once extensive union, which was headed by the Krivichi. High round mounds - “hills”, common along the Volkhov and Msta rivers (Priilmenye up to Sheksna), belong, in all likelihood, to an alliance of tribes led by the Slavs. Large mounds of the 6th-10th centuries, hiding a whole palisade in the embankment, and a rough box with urns containing the ashes of the dead, could belong to the Vyatichi people. These mounds are found in the upper reaches of the Don and in the middle reaches of the Oka. It is possible that the common features found in the later monuments of the Radimichi (who lived along the Sozha River) and the Vyatichi are explained by the existence in antiquity of the Radimich-Vyatichi union of tribes, which could partially include northerners who lived on the banks of the Desna, Seim, Sula and Worksla. After all, it is not for nothing that later the Tale of Bygone Years tells us the legend about the origin of the Vyatichi and Radimichi from two brothers.

In the south, in the interfluve of the Dniester and the Danube, from the second half, VI - early VII century. there are Slavic settlements that belonged to the tribal union of Tivertsy.

To the north and northeast up to Lake Ladoga, in a remote forest region inhabited by Finno-Ugric tribes, the Krivichi and Slovenes at that time penetrated up the large rivers and their tributaries.

To the south and southeast, to the Black Sea steppes, the Slavic tribes advanced in an unceasing struggle against the nomads. The process of promotion, which began as early as the 6th-7th centuries, proceeded with varying degrees of success. Slavs to the X century. reached the shores of the Sea of ​​Azov. The basis of the later Tmutarakan principality, in all likelihood, was the Slavic population, which penetrated into these places in a much earlier period.

In the middle of the tenth millennium, the main occupation of the Eastern Slavs was agriculture, the development of which, however, was not the same in the south, in the steppe and forest-steppe zones and in the forests of the north. In the south, plow farming has had centuries-old traditions. The finds of the iron parts of the plow (more precisely, the ral) here date back to the 2nd, 3rd and 5th centuries. The developed agricultural economy of the Eastern Slavs of the steppe zone had a considerable influence on their neighbors in the second half of the 10th millennium. This explains, for example, the existence of the Slavic names of many agricultural implements among the Moldavians until now: plow, secure (axe - ax), shovel, tesle (adze) and others.

In the forest belt, only by the end of the 10th millennium, arable farming became the dominant form of economy. The oldest iron opener in these places was found in Staraya Ladoga in layers dating back to the 8th century. Arable agriculture, both plow and ploughshare, already required the use of the draft power of livestock (horses, oxen) and fertilization of the land. Therefore, along with agriculture, cattle breeding played an important role. Fishing and hunting were important secondary occupations. The widespread transition of the East Slavic captives to arable farming as the main occupation was accompanied by serious changes in their social order. Arable farming did not require the joint work of large tribal groups. In the VIII - X centuries. in the steppe in the forest-steppe belts of the south of the European part of Russia, there were settlements of the so-called Roman-Borshchi culture, which researchers consider characteristic of the neighboring community. Among them were small villages fortified by a rampart, consisting of 20-30 houses, ground or several deepened into the ground, and large villages in which only the central part was fortified, and most of the houses (there are up to 250 in total) were outside it. No more than 70 - 80 people lived in small settlements; in large villages - sometimes over a thousand inhabitants. Each dwelling (16 - 22 sq.m. with a separate stove and closet) had its own outbuildings (barn, cellars, different kind sheds) and belonged to the same family. In some places (for example, on the settlement of Blagoveshchenskaya Gora), larger buildings were discovered, possibly serving as meetings of members of the neighboring community - bratchin, which, according to B. A. Rybakov, was accompanied by some kind of religious rites.

The settlements of the Roman-Borshchevsky type are very different in character from the settlements located in the north, in Staraya Ladoga, where, in the layers of the 8th century, V.I. with a small porch and a stove-heater, located in the center of the dwelling. Probably, a large family (from 15 to 25 people) lived in each such house; food was prepared in the oven for everyone, and food was taken from collective stocks. Outbuildings were located separately, next to the dwelling. The settlement of Staraya Ladoga also belonged to the neighboring community, in which the remnants of tribal life were still strong, and the dwellings belonged to even larger families. Already in the 9th century, here these houses were replaced by small huts (16 - 25 sq.m.) with a stove-heater in the corner, the same as in the south, the dwellings of one relatively small family.

Natural conditions contributed to the formation of the East Slavic population in the forest and steppe belts already in the 1st millennium AD. e. two types of housing, the differences between which further deepened. In the forest zone, ground log houses with a stove-heater dominated, in the steppe - adobe (often on a wooden frame) somewhat recessed into the ground with an adobe stove and an earthen floor.

In the process of the disintegration of patriarchal relations from quite distant times, the remnants of more ancient social forms described in the Tale of Bygone Years were preserved in some places - marriage by kidnapping, the remains of a group marriage, which the chronicler mistook for polygamy, traces of an avunculate, who said in the custom of feeding, burning the dead.

Based on the ancient alliances of Slavic tribes, territorial political associations (principalities) were formed. In general, they experienced a “semi-patriarchal-semi-feudal” period of development, during which, with increasing property inequality, local nobility stood out, gradually seizing communal lands and turning into feudal owners. The chronicles also mention representatives of this nobility - Mala among the Drevlyans, Khodota and his son among the Vyatichi. Mala they even call the prince. I considered the legendary Kyi, the founder of Kyiv, to be the same prince.

The territories of the East Slavic principalities are described in the Tale of Bygone Years. Some features of the life of their population (in particular, differences in the details of the funeral rite, local women's wedding dress) were very stable and persisted for several centuries even when the reigns themselves ceased to exist. Thanks to this, archaeologists managed, starting from chronicle data, to significantly clarify the boundaries of these areas. The East Slavic territory at the time of the formation of the Kievan state was a single massif, stretching from the shores of the Black Sea to Lake Ladoga and from the upper reaches of the Western Bug to the middle reaches of the Oka and Klyazma. The southern part of this massif was formed by the territories of the Tivertsy and Ulich, covering the middle and southern reaches of the Prut Dniester and the Southern Bug. To the north-west of them, in the upper reaches of the Dniester and Prut in Transcarpathia, white Croats lived. To the north of them, in the upper reaches of the Western Bug - Volynians, to the east and northeast of the White Croats, on the banks of the Pripyat, Sluch and Irsha - the Drevlyans, to the southeast of the Drevlyans, in the middle reaches of the Dnieper, in the Kiev region - a clearing, on the left on the banks of the Dnieper, along the course of the Desna and the Seim - northerners, to the north of them, along the Sozh - radimichi. The neighbors of the Radimichi from the west were the Dregovichi, who occupied the lands along the Berezina and in the upper reaches of the Neman, from the east, the Vyatichi, who inhabited the upper and middle parts of the Oka basin (including the Moscow River) and the upper reaches of the Don, bordered the northerners and Radimichi. To the north of the Moskva River, a vast territory in the upper reaches of the Volga, Dnieper and western Dvina, extending in the northwest to the eastern shore of Lake Peipus, was occupied by the Krivichi. Finally, in the north and northeast of the Slavic territory, on Lovat and Volkhov lived Ilmen Slovenes.

Within the East Slavic principalities, smaller divisions can be traced from archaeological materials. So, the Krivichi mounds include three large groups of monuments, differing in details in the funeral rite - Pskov Smolensk and Polotsk (the chronicler also singled out a special group of Polochans among the Krivichi). The Smolensk and Polotsk groups apparently formed later than the Pskov one, which allows us to think about the colonization by the Krivichi, newcomers from the southwest, from Prinemaniya or the Buzh-Vistula interfluve, first Pskov (in the 4th - 6th centuries), and then - Smolensk and Polotsk lands. Among the Vyatichi burial mounds, several local groups are also distinguished.

In the IX - XI centuries. a continuous territory of the ancient Russian state of the Russian land is being formed, the concept of which as a homeland was highly characteristic of the Eastern Slavs of that time. Until that time, the coexisting consciousness of the commonality of the East Slavic tribes rested on tribal ties. Russian land occupied vast expanses from the left tributaries of the Vistula to the foothills of the Caucasus from the Taman and the lower reaches of the Danube to the shores of the Gulf of Finland and Lake Ladoga. Numerous people who lived on this territory called themselves "Rus", having adopted, as mentioned above, a self-name that was previously only inherent in the population of a relatively small area in the Middle Dnieper. Rus was called this country, and other peoples of that time. The territory of the Old Russian state included not only the East Slavic population, but also parts of neighboring tribes.

The colonization of non-Slavic lands (in the Volga region, Ladoga region, in the North) was initially peaceful. First of all, Slavic peasants and artisans penetrated into these territories. New settlers lived even in unfortified settlements, without fear, apparently, of attacks by the local population. Peasants developed new lands, artisans supplied the district with their products. In the future, Slavic feudal lords came there with their squads. They set up fortresses, imposing tribute on the Slavic and non-Slavic population of the region, seized the best plots of land.

In the course of the economic development of these lands by the Russian population, the complex process of mutual cultural influence of the Slavs and the Finno-Ugric population intensified. Many Chud tribes even lost their language and culture, but in turn influenced the material and spiritual culture of the ancient Russian people.

In the ninth and especially in the tenth century. The common self-name of the Eastern Slavs manifested itself with much greater force and depth in the spread of the term "Rus" to all East Slavic lands, in the recognition of the ethnic unity of all living in this territory, in the consciousness of a common destiny and in the common struggle for the integrity and independence of Rus'.

The replacement of old tribal ties with new, territorial ones took place gradually. So, in the field of military organization, one can trace the presence of independent militias in the ancient principalities until the end of the 10th century. Militias of Slovenes, Krivichi, Drevlyans, Radimichis, Polyans, Northerners, Croats, Dulebs, Tivertsy (and even non-Slavic tribes - Chuds, etc.) participated in the campaigns of the Kyiv princes. From the beginning of the XI century. They began to be forced out in the central regions by the militias of the cities of Novgorod, the Kievans (Kyivians), although the military independence of individual principalities continued to exist in the 10th and 11th centuries.

On the basis of ancient related tribal dialects, the Old Russian language was created, which had local dialect differences. By the end of the ninth - beginning of the tenth century. The addition of the Old Russian written language and the appearance of the first monuments of writing should be attributed.

The further growth of the territories of Rus', the development of the Old Russian language and culture went hand in hand with the strengthening of the Old Russian people and the gradual elimination of the remnants of tribal isolation. An important role here was played by the isolation of the classes of feudal lords and peasants, the strengthening of the state.

Written and archaeological sources relating to the 9th - 10th and early 11th centuries clearly depict the process of class formation, the separation of senior and junior squads.

By IX - XI centuries. include large burial mounds, where mostly warriors are buried, burned at the stake along with weapons, various luxury items, sometimes with slaves (more often with slaves), who were supposed to serve their master in the "other world", as they served in this. Such burial grounds were located near the large feudal centers of Kievan Rus (the largest of them is Gnezdovsky, where there are more than 2 thousand burial mounds, near Smolensk; Mikhailovsky near Yaroslavl). In Kiev itself, soldiers were buried according to a different rite - they were not burned, but often laid with women and always with horses and weapons in a specially buried log house (domovina) with a floor and a ceiling. A study of weapons and other things found in the burials of combatants convincingly showed that the vast majority of combatants are Slavs. In the Gnezdovsky burial ground, only a small minority of burials belong to the Normans - "Varangians". Along with the burials of combatants in the tenth century. There were magnificent burials of the feudal nobility - princes or boyars. A noble Slav was burned in a boat or a specially built building - a domino - with slaves, a slave, horses and other domestic animals, weapons and a lot of precious utensils that belonged to him during his lifetime. First, a small mound was arranged over the funeral pyre, on which a feast was performed, possibly accompanied by a feast, ritual competitions and war games, and only then a large mound was poured.

Economic and political development Eastern Slavs naturally led to the creation of a feudal state with Kyiv princes at the head, on a local basis. The Varangian conquest, reflected in the legend about the "calling" of the Varangians to the Novgorod land and the capture of Kiev in the 9th century, had no more, and most likely less influence on the development of the Eastern Slavs than on the population of medieval France or England. The case was limited to a change of dynasty and the penetration of a certain number of Normans into the nobility. But the new dynasty was under the strongest influence of Slavic culture and "Russified" after a few decades. The grandson of the legendary founder of the Varangian dynasty, Rurik, bore a purely Slavic name - Svyatoslav, and in all likelihood, the manner of dressing and holding was no different from any representative of the Slavic nobility.

Thus, it is clear that at the time of the formation of the Old Russian state on the territory of the East Slavic tribes, there were ethnic characteristics common to all that preceded the formation of the Old Russian nationality. This is confirmed by archeological data: a uniform material culture can be traced. Also in this territory a single language has developed, with minor local dialect features.

Chapter 2. Eastern Slavs within the Old Russian State

Existence in the X-XI centuries. Old Russian (East Slavonic) ethno-linguistic community is reliably confirmed by the data of linguistics and archeology. In the 10th century, on the East European Plain, within the Slavic settlement, several cultures reflecting the former dialect-ethnographic division of the Proto-Slavic ethnos were replaced by a uniform Old Russian culture. Its general development was due to the formation of urban life with an actively evolving handicraft activity, the addition of a military retinue and administrative classes. The population of cities, the Russian squad and the state administration were formed from representatives of various Proto-Slavic formations, which led to the leveling of their dialectal and other features. Items of urban life and weapons become monotonous characteristic of all Eastern Slavs.

This process also affected the rural inhabitants of Rus', as evidenced by funerary monuments. To replace the diverse types of burial mounds - the Korchak and Upper Oka types, the rampart-shaped (long) mounds of the Krivichi and the Ilmensky hills - the Old Russian ones are spreading in their structure, rituals and the direction of evolution, the same type throughout the territory of ancient Rus'. The burial mounds of the Drevlyans or Dregovichi become identical with the synchronous cemeteries of the Krivichi or Vyatichi. Tribal (ethnographic) differences in these mounds are manifested only in unequal temporal rings, the rest of the finds (bracelets, rings, earrings, crescents, household items, etc.) are of an all-Russian character.

In the ethno-linguistic consolidation of the Slavic population of the Old Russian state, immigrants from the Danube played a huge role. The infiltration of the latter is felt in the archaeological materials of Eastern Europe since the 7th century. At this time, it affected mainly the Dnieper lands.

However, after the defeat of the Great Moravian state, numerous groups of Slavs, leaving the inhabited Danubian lands, settled along the East European Plain. This migration, as shown by numerous finds of Danubian origin, is to one degree or another characteristic of all areas previously mastered by the Slavs. The Danube Slavs became the most active part of the Eastern Slavs. Among them were many highly skilled artisans. There is reason to believe that the rapid spread of pottery among the Slavic population of Eastern Europe was due to the infiltration of the Danube potters in its environment. The Danube craftsmen gave impetus to the development of jewelry, and possibly other crafts of ancient Rus'.

Under the influence of the Danube settlers, the previously dominant pagan custom of cremation of the dead in the tenth century. began to be supplanted by burial mounds of pit corpses. In the Kiev Dnieper region in the tenth century. inhumations already dominated the Slavic burial mounds, necropolises, that is, a century before the official adoption of Christianity by Rus. To the north, in the forest zone up to Ilmen, the process of changing rituals took place in the second half of the 10th century.

The materials of linguistics also testify that the Slavs of the East European Plain survived the common ancient Russian era. Linguistic researches of scientists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries led to this conclusion. Their results were summed up by the outstanding Slavic philologist, dialectologist and historian of the Russian language N. N. Durnovo in the book "Introduction to the History of the Russian Language", published in 1927 in Brno.

This conclusion follows from complex analysis written monuments of ancient Rus'. Although most of them, including chronicles, are written in Church Slavonic, a number of these documents often describe episodes whose language deviates from the norms of Church Slavonic and is Old Russian. There are also monuments written in Old Russian. Such are the “Russian Truth”, compiled in the 11th century. (came down to us in the list of the 10th century), many letters, free from elements of Church Slavonic, “The Tale of Igor's Campaign”, the language of which approaches the living speech of the then urban population of South Rus'; some Lives of the Saints.

An analysis of written monuments allowed researchers to assert that in the history of the Slavic languages ​​of Eastern Europe there was a period when, throughout the entire space of the settlement of Eastern Slavs, new linguistic phenomena and at the same time some of the former Proto-Slavic processes developed.

A single East Slavic ethno-linguistic space does not exclude dialectal diversity. Its complete picture cannot be restored from written monuments. Judging by the materials of archeology, the dialectal division of the Old Russian community was quite deep and was due to the settlement of the Slavs of very different tribal groups on the East European Plain and their interaction with a heterogeneous and ethnically subtractive population.

The ethnic unity of the Slavic population of the 11th - 17th centuries, settled in the spaces of the Eastern Plain and called Rus, is also quite clearly spoken by historical sources. In The Tale of Bygone Years, Rus' is ethnographically, linguistically and politically contrasted with the Poles, Byzantine Greeks, Hungarians, Polovtsy and other ethnic groups of that time. Based on the analysis of written monuments, A.V. Solovyov showed that for two centuries (911-1132) the concept of "Rus" and "Russian land" meant the entire Eastern Slavs, the entire country inhabited by them.

In the second half of the 12th - the first third of the 13th centuries, when Ancient Rus' broke up into a number of feudal principalities that pursued or tried to pursue an independent policy, the unity of the ancient Russian people continued to be realized: the entire Russian land was opposed to isolated estates, often at enmity with each other. The idea of ​​the unity of Rus' is imbued with many works of art of that time and epics. The bright ancient Russian culture at that time continued its progressive development throughout the entire territory of the Eastern Slavs.

From the middle of the XIII century. The East Slavic area turned out to be dissected in political, cultural and economic terms. Former integration processes were suspended. Old Russian culture, the level of development of which was largely determined by cities with highly developed crafts, ceased to function. Many cities of Rus' were ruined, life in others fell into decay for some time. In the situation that developed in the second half of the 13th - 14th centuries, the further development of common language processes throughout the vast East Slavic space became impossible. Local linguistic features appeared in different regions, the Old Russian ethnic group ceased to exist.

The basis of the linguistic development of various regions of the Eastern Slavs was not the political, economic and cultural differentiation of the area. The formation of individual languages ​​was largely due to the historical situation that took place in Eastern Europe in the middle and second half of the 1st millennium AD. e.

It can be stated quite definitely that the Belarusians and their language were the result of the Balto-Slavic symbiosis that began in the middle of the 1st millennium AD. e., when the first groups of Slavs appeared on the ancient Baltic territory, and ended in the X-XII centuries. The bulk of the Balts did not leave their habitats and, as a result of Slavicization, merged into the Slavic ethnos. This Western Russian population of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania gradually transformed into the Belarusian ethnic group.

The descendants of the Ants became the basis of the Ukrainian nationality. However, it would not be correct to direct Ukrainians to them. Anty - one of the dialect-cultural groups of the Slavs, formed in late Roman times in the conditions of the Slavic-Iranian symbiosis. During the period of the migration of peoples, a significant part of the Ant tribes migrated to the Balkan-Danube lands, where they participated in the ethnogenesis of the Danube Serbs and Croats, Poelbe Sorbs, Bulgarians, etc. At the same time, a large array of Ants moved to the middle Volga, where they created the Imenkovskaya culture.

In the Dnieper-Dniester region, the direct descendants of the Ants were the annalistic Croats, Tivertsy and Ulichi. In the 7th - 9th centuries. there is some mixing of the Slavs, who came out of the Ants community, with the Slavs of the Duleb group, and during the period of Old Russian statehood, obviously, under the onslaught of the steppe nomads, the descendants of the Ants infiltrated in a northerly direction.

The originality of the culture of the descendants of the Ants in the Old Russian period is manifested primarily in the funeral rituals - the burial rite of burial was not widespread among them. In this area, the main Ukrainian dialects developed.

More complex was the process of formation of the Russian nationality. In general, the North Great Russians are the descendants of those Slavic tribes who, leaving the Venedian group of the Proto-Slavic community (Hanging), settled in the middle of the 1st millennium AD. e. in the forest lands of the East European Plain. The history of these settlers was ambiguous. Those Slavs who settled in the Upper Dnieper and Podvinye, i.e., the ancient Baltic area, after the collapse of the Old Russian people, became part of the emerging Belarusians. Separate dialect regions were Novgorod, Pskov lands and North-Eastern Rus'. In the X - XII centuries. these were dialects of the Old Russian language, which later, in all likelihood, acquired an independent meaning. All these territories before the Slavic development belonged to various Finnish tribes, whose influence on the Old Russian language was insignificant.

The core of the South Great Russians was the Slavs, who returned from the Middle Volga region (also descendants of acts) and settled in the interfluve of the Dnieper and Don (Volyn, Romny, Borshchev cultures and Oka antiquities synchronous to them).

Cementing in the formation of the Russian language were the Middle Great Russian dialects, the beginning of which, presumably, dates back to the 10th - 12th centuries, when there was a territorial mixing of the Krivichi (future North Great Russians) with the Vyatichi (South Great Russian group). Over time, the formation of Middle Great Russian dialects expanded. Moscow occupied the central position in it. In the context of the formation of a single statehood and the creation of the culture of the Moscow State, the Middle Great Russian dialects became a consolidating moment in the gradual formation of a single ethno-linguistic whole. The annexation of Novgorod and Pskov to Moscow expanded the territory of the formation of the Russian ethnos.

Old Russian nationality is a historical fact. It fully complies with the requirements and features that are inherent in this type of historical and ethnic community. At the same time, it was not a unique historical phenomenon, inherent only to the East Slavic peoples. Certain patterns and factors determine the forms of ethnic processes, the emergence of ethno-social societies with their inherent mandatory features. modern science considers nationality as a special type of ethnic community, which occupies a historical niche between a tribe and a nation.

The transition from primitive to statehood was accompanied everywhere

ethnic transformation of previous ethnic groups and the emergence of nationalities formed on the basis of primitive tribes. Nationality, therefore, is not only an ethnic, but also a social historical community of people, characteristic of a new and higher state of society compared to the primitive (tribal) state. All Slavic nationalities correspond to the mode of production and social relations.

Politic system Rus' also determined the nature of the ethnic state. Tribes are gone, and nationality has taken their place. Like any other historical category, it has its own characteristics. The most important of them: language, culture, ethnic identity, territory. All this was also inherent in the population of Rus' in the 9th - 13th centuries.

A variety of written sources that have come down to us (chronicles, literary works, individual inscriptions) testify to common language Eastern Slavs. It is an axiom that the languages ​​of the modern East Slavic peoples developed on a common Old Russian basis.

Separate facts that do not fit into this scheme cannot refute the idea of ​​the existence of the Old Russian language as a whole. And in the western lands of Rus', despite the scarcity of linguistic material that has come down to us, the language was the same - Old Russian. An idea of ​​​​it is given by fragments that were included in the all-Russian codes from local Western Russian chronicles. Especially indicative is direct speech, adequate to the living spoken language of this region of Rus'.

The language of Western Rus' is also represented in the inscriptions on whorls, fragments of dishes, "Borisov" and "Rogvolod" stones, birch bark letters. Of particular interest is a birch-bark letter from Vitebsk, on which the text has been preserved in full.

Rus' occupied the vast expanses of Eastern Europe, and it would be naive to believe that the Old Russian language did not have dialects, local features. But they did not go beyond dialects, from which modern East Slavic languages ​​are not free either. Differences in language could also have social roots. The language of the educated princely environment differed from the language of a simple city dweller. The latter was different from the language of the villager. The unity of the language was realized by the population of Rus' and was repeatedly emphasized by the chroniclers.

Uniformity is also inherent in the material culture of Rus'. It is practically impossible to distinguish most of the objects of material culture made, for example, in Kyiv, from similar objects from Novgorod or Minsk. The ego convincingly proves the existence of a single ancient Russian ethnos.

Ethnic self-consciousness, self-name, people's idea of ​​their homeland, its geographical spaces should be especially attributed to the number of signs of nationality.

It is the formation of ethnic self-consciousness that completes the process of the formation of an ethnic community. The Slavic population of Rus', including its western lands, had a common self-name ("Rus", "Russian people", "Rusichs", "Rusyns") and realized themselves as one people living in the same geographical area. Awareness of a single Motherland persisted even during the period of feudal fragmentation of Rus'.

A common ethnic identity was fixed in Rus' early and very quickly. Already the first written sources that have come down to us speak convincingly about this (see, for example, the “treaty of Rus' with the Greeks” of 944, concluded from “all the people of the Russian land”).

The ethnonyms "Rusyn", "Rusich", not to mention the name "Russian", functioned during the time of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Commonwealth. The Belarusian printing pioneer Francysk Skaryna (XVI century) in the diploma he received from the University of Padua is called “Rusyn from Polotsk”. The name "Russian" is the common self-name of the Eastern Slavs, an indicator of a single East Slavic ethnic group, an expression of its self-consciousness.

The Russian people's awareness of the unity of their territory (not the state), which they had to protect from foreigners, is especially strongly expressed in the "Word of Igor's Campaign" and "The Word of the Destruction of the Russian Land."

A single language, one culture, a name, a common ethnic identity - this is how we see Rus' and its population. This is a single ancient Russian people. Awareness of a common origin, common roots - characteristic the mentality of the three fraternal East Slavic peoples, which they carried through the centuries, and which we, the heirs of ancient Rus', should never forget.

The undoubted fact of the real existence of the Old Russian nationality does not mean at all that there are no unexplored aspects in this issue.

In Soviet historiography, the idea became widespread that the formation of the Old Russian nationality took place during the period of the existence of the Old Russian state on the basis of East Slavic groupings (“annalistic tribes”), united within the framework of one state. As a result of the strengthening of internal ties (economic, political, cultural), tribal characteristics were gradually leveled and common features characteristic of a single nationality were affirmed. The completion of the process of formation of the nationality was attributed to the XI - XII centuries. Such an idea, as it now turns out, was generated by an erroneous idea of ​​the autochthonous nature of the Slavic population throughout the entire space of the ancient Russian state. This made it possible to assume that the Slavs went from the primary tribes to tribal unions, and after the unification of the unions, they evolved within the framework of the Old Russian state.

From the point of view of modern ideas about the mechanism of ethno-formation, such a way of forming the ancient Russian people looks paradoxical, raises questions and even doubts. Indeed, in the conditions of the settlement of the East Slavic ethnos over large areas in those historical times, when there were not yet sufficient economic prerequisites for deep integration, regular intra-ethnic contacts covering the entire vast territory occupied by the Eastern Slavs, it is difficult to imagine the reasons for the leveling of local ethno-cultural features and approval of common features in language, culture and self-consciousness, all that is inherent in the nationality. It is difficult to agree with such an explanation, when the fact of the formation of Kievan Rus is put forward as the main theoretical argument. After all, the political subordination of individual lands to the Kyiv prince could not become the leading factor in new ethno-forming processes and intra-ethnic consolidation. Of course, there were other factors that contributed to the integration processes. But there is one very important theoretical point that does not allow accepting the traditional explanation of the mechanism for the formation of the ancient Russian people.

It is known that a large area of ​​ethnic settlement in the conditions of dominance of subsistence farming and weak development of economic ties not only complicates intra-ethnic contacts, but is also one of the reasons for the emergence of local cultural and ethnic characteristics. It was as a result of settlement in large areas that the Proto-Iondo-European community broke up and the Indo-European family of peoples arose. Also, the exit of the Slavs beyond the boundaries of their ancestral home and their settlement over a large territory led to their division into separate branches. This is the general pattern of the ethnogenesis of peoples. Most scientists have come to the conclusion that new ethnic groups arise and initially live in a small area. Therefore, it is difficult to agree with the statements that the formation of the Old Russian people took place throughout the vast territory of Rus' in the 11th - 12th centuries.

Another powerful "destructive factor" leading to the disintegration of ethnic groups is the action of the ethnic substratum. No one doubts the fact that the Eastern Slavs in the territory of their settlement were preceded by various non-Slavic peoples (Baltic, Finougrian, etc.), with whom the Slavs maintained active interethnic relations. This also did not contribute to the consolidation of the East Slavic ethnic group. The Slavs undoubtedly experienced the destructive effect of various substrates. In other words, from the point of view of the territory of ethnogenesis, the traditional explanation of the mechanism for the formation of the Old Russian people looks vulnerable. Other explanations are needed, and they are.

Of course, the history of the Eastern Slavs developed according to a different scenario, and the foundations of the Old Russian nationality matured much earlier and far from all over the territory of the future Rus'. The most likely center of East Slavic settlement was a relatively small area, including southern Belarus and northern Ukraine, where approximately in the 6th century. Part of the tribes with a culture of the Prague type migrated. Here, its original version gradually developed, which received the name Korczak. Before the arrival of the Slavs, archaeological sites close to the Bantser-Kolochivsky ones were widespread in this region, which did not go beyond the Baltic hydronymic area, and therefore can be correlated with the Baltic tribes.

In the archaeological complexes of Korczak, there are objects related to the named monuments or related to them by origin. This is evidence of the mixing of the Slavs with the remnants of the local Baltic population. There is an opinion that the Baltic population here was relatively rare. When in the VIII - IX centuries. on the basis of the Korczak culture, a culture of the type of Luka Raikowiecka will develop, it will no longer trace elements that could be correlated with the Balts.

Therefore, by the 7th c. The assimilation of the Balts was completed here. The Slavs of this area, including part of the local population, could experience the impact of the Baltic substrate, perhaps insignificant, but affecting their cultural and ethnic nature. This circumstance could initiate their separation as a special (eastern) group of Slavs.

Perhaps it was here that the foundations of the East Slavic language were laid.

Only in this territory of Eastern Europe did early Slavic hydronymy survive. There is none north of Pripyat. There, Slavic hydronymy belongs to the East Slavic linguistic type. From this we can conclude that when later the Slavs began to settle in the spaces of Eastern Europe, they can no longer be identified with the all-Slavic ethnos. It was a group of Eastern Slavs that emerged from the early Slavic world with a specific culture and a special (East Slavic) type of speech. In this regard, it is worth recalling the conjecture expressed by A. Shakhmatov about the formation of the East Slavic language in a relatively small territory of Ukrainian Volyn and about the migration of Eastern Slavs from here in a northerly direction. This region, together with southern Belarus, can be considered the ancestral home of the Eastern Slavs.

During the stay of the Slavs in this territory, they experienced important changes: some tribal features that could have been in the initial period of migration from their ancestral home were leveled; the foundations of the East Slavic system of speech were formed; the type of archaeological culture inherent in them took shape. There is reason to believe that it was at this time that the common self-name "Rus" was assigned to them and the first East Slavic state association with the Kiya dynasty arose. Thus, it was here that the main features of the Old Russian nationality were formed.

In such a new ethnic quality, the Eastern Slavs in the 9th - 10th centuries. began to populate the lands north of Pripyat, which Konstantin Porphyrogenitus calls "Outer Russia". Probably, this migration began after the approval of Oleg in Kyiv. The Slavs settled as one people with an established culture, which predetermined the unity of the ancient Russian people for a long time. Archaeological evidence of this process is the widespread distribution of spherical mounds, with single cremations of the 9th-10th centuries. and the emergence of the first cities.

The historical situation contributed to the rapid and successful settlement of the Eastern Slavs, since this region was already controlled by Oleg and his successors.

The Slavs were distinguished by a higher level of economic and social development, which also contributed to the success of settlement.

The relatively late migration of the Eastern Slavs outside their ancestral home, as a fairly monolithic community, calls into question the existence of the so-called tribal unions among those who settled north of Pripyat (Krivichi, Dregovichi, Vyatichi, etc.). The Slavs have already managed to go beyond the tribal system and create a stronger ethnic and political organization. However, having settled in large areas, the Old Russian ethnos found itself in a difficult situation. Continued to remain in this area different groups local non-Slavic population. On the lands of modern Belarus and the Smolensk region, the Eastern Balts lived; Finno-Ugric peoples lived in the northeast of Rus'; in the south - the remnants of the Iranian-speaking and Turkic peoples.

The Slavs did not exterminate and did not oust the local population. For several centuries, a symbiosis took place here, accompanied by a gradual displacement of the Slavs with various non-Slavic peoples.

The East Slavic ethnos experienced the impact of various forces. Some of them contributed to the establishment of common principles inherent in the nationality, others, on the contrary, to the emergence of local features in them, both in language and in culture.

Despite the complex dynamics of development, the Old Russian ethnos found itself under the influence of integration forces and processes that cemented it and created favorable conditions not only for the preservation, but also for the deepening of common ethnic principles. A powerful factor in the preservation of the ethnos and ethnic self-consciousness was the institution of state power, the single princely dynasty of Rurikovich. Wars and joint campaigns against common enemies, which were characteristic of that time, to a large extent strengthened the overall solidarity and contributed to the rallying of the ethnos.

In the era of ancient Rus', undoubtedly, economic ties between individual Russian lands intensified. A huge role in the formation and preservation of a single ethnic identity belonged to the church. Having adopted Christianity according to the Greek model, the country turned out to be, as it were, an oasis among peoples who professed either another religion (pagans: nomads in the south, Lithuania and Finougrians in the north and east), or belonged to another Christian denomination. This formed and supported the idea of ​​the identity of the people, its difference from others. The feeling of belonging to a certain faith is such a strong and unifying factor that it often replaces ethnic identity.

The church strongly influenced the political life of the country and shaped public opinion. She consecrated princely power, strengthened the ancient Russian statehood, purposefully supported the idea of ​​the unity of the country and people, condemned civil strife and division. The ideas of a single country, a single people, its common historical destinies, responsibility for its well-being and security greatly contributed to the formation of ancient Russian ethnic identity. The spread of writing and literacy preserved the unity of the language. All these factors contributed to the strengthening of the Old Russian people.

Thus, the foundations of the ancient Russian nationality were laid in the VI - XI centuries. after the settlement of part of the Slavs on the relatively compact territory of southern Belarus and northern Ukraine. Having settled from here in the 9th - 10th centuries. as one people, they were able to maintain their integrity for a long time in the conditions of ancient Russian statehood, develop the economy, culture, and strengthen ethnic self-consciousness.

At the same time, the Old Russian people fell into the zone of action of destructive forces: the territorial factor, different ethnic substrates, the deepening of feudal fragmentation, and later political demarcation. The Eastern Slavs found themselves in the same situation as the early Slavs after their settlement outside their ancestral home. The laws of ethnogenesis worked. The evolution of the ancient Russian ethnos tended to accumulate elements leading to differentiation, which was the reason for its gradual division into three peoples - Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians.

Conclusion

Finishing this work, I consider it possible to draw some conclusions. The Slavs have come a long way of ethnogenesis. Moreover, certain signs by which one can accurately state the appearance of the Slavs belong to a rather early period (we can definitely talk about the second quarter of the 1st millennium). The Slavs occupied vast areas of Eastern Europe, contacted many peoples and left a memory of themselves among these peoples. True, some ancient authors did not call the Slavs by their own name for a long time, confusing them with other peoples. But, nevertheless, one cannot deny the great importance of the Slavs on the fate of Eastern Europe. The Slavic element still remains the main one in most Eastern European states.

The division of the Slavs into three branches did not lead to the immediate destruction of their ethno-cultural characteristics, but, of course, led to the identification of their bright features. Although the millennia-old development of closely related peoples has led them to such discord that it is now impossible to unravel this tangle of contradictions and mutual claims.

The Eastern Slavs created their own state later than others, but this does not mean that they are somehow backward or underdeveloped. The Eastern Slavs went their way to the state, a difficult path of interaction with nature and the local population, struggle with nomads and proved their right to exist. Having broken up, the ancient Russian ethnos gave life to three, completely independent, but extremely close to each other, peoples: Russian Ukrainian and Belarusian. Today, some not entirely competent and rather highly politicized historians, both in Ukraine and in Belarus, are trying to deny the Old Russian unity and are trying to deduce their peoples from some kind of mythical roots. At the same time, they even manage to deny belonging to the Slavic world. For example, in Ukraine they came up with a completely unthinkable version that the Ukrainian people de descended from some kind of "ukrov". Of course, such an approach to history cannot bring about any positive aspects in the perception of reality. And it is not surprising that such "versions" spread precisely in the light of anti-Russian sentiments, primarily among political leaders in Ukraine. The construction of such "historical" concepts cannot be durable and can only be explained by the current political course of these countries.

It is difficult to deny the existence of the Old Russian ethnos. The presence of the main ethnic features among the Eastern Slavs (single language, common cultural space) suggests that at the time of the formation of the ancient Russian state there was a single ethnic group, albeit with its own local characteristics. The feeling of unity was preserved even during the feudal fragmentation, however, with the Tatar-Mongol invasion, new processes of ethnic formation were caused, which after several decades led to the division of the Eastern Slavs into three peoples.

List of used sources and literature

Sources

1. Geographical guidance. Ptolemy.

2. Natural history. Pliny the Elder.

3. Notes on the Gallic War. Caesar

4. On the management of the empire. Konstantin Porphyrogenitus. M., 1991.

5. On the origin and deeds of the Getae (Getika). Jordan. M., 1960.

6. The Tale of Bygone Years. M., 1950. T. 1.

Literature

1. The introduction of Christianity in Rus'. M., 1987.

2. Vernadsky G.V. Ancient Rus'. Tver - M. 1996.

3. Old Russian unity: paradoxes of perception. Sedov V.V. // RIIZH Motherland. 2002.11\12

4. Zabelin I.E. The history of Russian life since ancient times. Part 1. - M., 1908.

5. Zagorulsky E. About the time and conditions of the formation of the ancient Russian nationality.

6. Ilovaisky D.I. Beginning of Rus'. Moscow, Smolensk. 1996.

7. How Rus' was baptized. M., 1989.

8. Kostomarov N.I. Russian republic. M., Smolensk. 1994.

9. Peoples of the European part of the USSR. T. 1 / Ed. V.A. Aleksandrova M.: Nauka, 1964.

10. Petrukhin V.Ya. The beginning of the ethno-cultural history of Rus' in the 9th-11th centuries. Smolensk - M., 1995.

11. Petrukhin V.Ya. Slavs. M 1997.

12. Prozorov L.R. Once again about the beginning of Russia.//State and Society. 1999. No. 3, No. 4.

13. Rybakov B.A. Kievan Rus and Russian principalities of the 12th–13th centuries. M., 1993.

14. Rybakov B.A. Prerequisites for the formation of the ancient Russian state. Essays on the history of the USSR III-IX centuries, M., 1958.

There. C.8

Petrukhin V.Ya. The beginning of the ethno-cultural history of Rus' in the 9th-11th centuries. Smolensk - M., 1995.

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.