Norman theory of the origin of the Russian state - abstract. "Norman theory" of the origin of the state Norman theory authors and essence

Russian University of Economics named after G.V. Plekhanov

Faculty of Management

Department of Russian and World History

in the discipline "History"

Norman theory

Completed by: Shashkina D.M.

1st year student, group 1130

Checked by: Sokolov M.V.

Moscow - 2013

Norman theory- a direction in historiography, whose supporters consider the Normans (Varangians) the founders of the Slavic state.

The concept of the Scandinavian origin of the state among the Slavs is associated with a fragment from The Tale of Bygone Years, which reported that in 862, in order to end civil strife, the Slavs turned to the Varangians with a proposal to take the princely throne. The chronicles report that initially the Varangians took tribute from the Novgorodians, then they were expelled, however, civil strife began between the tribes (according to the Novgorod chronicle - between the cities): "And fight more often for yourself." After that, the Slovenes, Krivichi, Chud and Merya turned to the Varangians with the words: “Our land is great and plentiful, but there is no dress in it. Yes, go to reign and rule over us. As a result, Rurik sat down to reign in Novgorod, Sineus - in Beloozero and Truvor in Izborsk. The first researchers involved in the analysis of Nestor's story about the calling of the Varangians, almost all generally recognized its authenticity, seeing in the Varangian-Russians people from Scandinavia. The "Norman theory" was put forward in the 18th century. German historians G. Bayer and G. Miller, invited by Peter I to work at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. They tried to scientifically prove that the Old Russian state was created by the Vikings. In the 19th century Norman theory acquired in the official Russian historiography of the 18-19 centuries. the nature of the main version of the origin of the Russian state. The extreme manifestation of this concept is the assertion that the Slavs, due to their unpreparedness, could not create a state, and then, without foreign leadership, they were not able to manage it. In their opinion, statehood was introduced to the Slavs from outside.

The Norman theory denies the origin of the ancient Russian state as a result of internal socio-economic development. Normanists associate the beginning of statehood in Rus' with the moment of calling the Varangians to reign in Novgorod and their conquest of the Slavic tribes in the Dnieper basin. They believed that the Vikings themselves, of which Rurik and his brothers were, there was no Slavic tribe and language ... they were Scandinavians, that is, Swedes.

CM. Solovyov considers the Varangians a key element in the early state structures of Rus', and moreover, he considers them the founders of these structures. The historian writes: “... what is the significance of the vocation of Rurik in our history? The calling of the first princes is of great importance in our history, it is an all-Russian event, and Russian history rightly begins with it. The main, initial phenomenon in the foundation of the state is the unification of disparate tribes through the appearance among them of a concentrating principle, power. The northern tribes, Slavic and Finnish, united and called to themselves this concentrating principle, this power. Here, in the concentration of several northern tribes, the beginning of the concentration of all the other tribes is laid, because the called beginning uses the strength of the first concentrated tribes, in order to concentrate through them other forces, united for the first time, begin to act.

N.M. Karamzin considered the Varangians the founders of the “Russian monarchy”, the limits of which “reached to the East to the present Yaroslavl and Nizhny Novgorod Governorates, and to the South to the Western Dvina; already measuring, Murom and Polotsk depended on Rurik: for he, having accepted autocracy, gave control to his famous united earthmen, besides Belaozero, Polotsk, Rostov and Mur, conquered by him or his brothers, as one should think. Thus, along with the supreme princely power, it seems that the feudal, local, or appanage system was established in Russia, which was the basis of new civil societies in Scandinavia and throughout Europe, where the German peoples dominated.

N.M. Karamzin wrote: “The names of the three princes of the Varangians - Rurik, Sineus, Truvor - called by the Slavs and the Chud, are undeniably Norman: for example, in the annals of the Franks around 850 - which is noteworthy - three Roriks are mentioned: one is called the Leader of the Danes, the other is the King ( Rex) Norman, the third is simply Norman. V.N. Tatishchev believed that Rurik was from Finland, since only from there the Varangians could come to Rus' so often. Platonov and Klyuchevsky fully agree with their colleagues, in particular Klyuchevsky writes: “Finally, the names of the first Russian Varangian princes and their warriors are almost all of Scandinavian origin; we meet the same names in the Scandinavian sagas: Rurik in the form of Hrorek, Truvor - Thorvardr, Oleg, according to the ancient Kievan pronunciation on about - Helgi, Olga - Helga, in Constantine Porphyrogenitus - ????,Igor - Ingvarr, Oskold - Hoskuldr, Dir Dyri, Frelaf - Frilleifr, Svenald - Sveinaldr, etc."

The origin of the ethnonym "Rus" is traced back to the Old Norse word Róþsmenn or Róþskarlar - “rowers, sailors” and the word “ruotsi / rootsi” among the Finns and Estonians, which means Sweden in their languages, and which, according to some linguists, should have turned into “Rus” when borrowing this word into Slavic languages.

The most important arguments of the Norman theory are the following:

· Byzantine and Western European written sources (in which contemporaries identified Rus as Swedes or Normans.

· Scandinavian names of the ancestor of the Russian princely dynasty - Rurik, his "brothers" Sineus and Truvor, and all the first Russian princes before Svyatoslav. In foreign sources, their names are also given in a form close to the Scandinavian sound. Prince Oleg is called X-l-g (Khazar letter), Princess Olga - Helga, Prince Igor - Inger (Byzantine sources).

· Scandinavian names of most of the ambassadors of the "Russian clan" listed in the Russian-Byzantine treaty of 912.

· The work of Constantine Porphyrogenitus “On the Administration of the Empire” (c. 949), which gives the names of the Dnieper rapids in two languages: “Russian” and Slavic, where Scandinavian etymology can be proposed for most of the “Russian” names.

Additional arguments are archaeological evidence that fixes the presence of Scandinavians in the north of the East Slavic territory, including finds of the 9th-11th centuries at the excavations of the Rurik settlement, burials in Staraya Ladoga (from the middle of the 8th century) and Gnezdovo. In settlements founded before the 10th century, Scandinavian artifacts date back to the period of the “calling of the Varangians”, while in the most ancient cultural layers

Points of view on the origin of the Old Russian state. Norman theories:

Norman Scandinavian Old Russian state

Disputes around the Norman version at times took on an ideological nature in the context of the question of whether the Slavs could independently, without the Norman Varangians, create a state. In Stalin's time, Normanism in the USSR was rejected at the state level, but in the 1960s, Soviet historiography returned to the moderate Norman hypothesis while simultaneously exploring alternative versions of the origin of Rus'.

Foreign historians for the most part consider the Norman version as the main one.

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.

Borovikov Alexey Petrovich

Thematic area: the formation of the ancient Russian state. Topic: "Norman theory" of the origin of the state.

Introduction

“Our land is great and plentiful, but there is no dress in it. Yes, you will go to reign and rule over us, ”says the Tale of Bygone Years.

In 2017, it will be 1055 years since the Varangian prince Rurik was called to the Russian lands, who began the unification of Rus', who, according to the generally accepted point of view in the scientific community, became the founder of the Russian state and contributed to the unification of Rus', the establishment of the "outfit".

The origin of the state among the Ancient Slavs was studied by various theoreticians. As a result of the scientific research, the "Norman theory" of the origin of the state was developed. The authors of this scientific point of view were one of the first academicians of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences G.Z. Bayer, Professor G.F. Miller and honorary member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences A.L. Schlozer, according to which the Slavic tribes, due to their backwardness, were unable to manage their affairs on their own, and therefore were forced to turn to the help of foreign princes.

The "Norman theory" of the origin of the state caused in the scientific community of that time and continues to cause significant resonance today and the division of scientific views into two opposite points of view: "Westerners" - Normanists and "Slavophiles", respectively, anti-Normanists. The first should include all adherents of the point of view of Bayer, Miller and Schlozer, and the second - all those who believed that the Slavs, despite contacts with representatives of other peoples, had their own historical path. The controversy about the legitimacy of such a statement has not left the best minds of Russian science for more than two centuries. N. M. Karamzin, S. M. Solovyov, V.O. Klyuchevsky and a number of other prominent historical figures did a great job aimed at obtaining reliable information about the history of the Russian people and the Russian state.

In the Soviet period, the scientific work of B.D. Grekov "Terrible Kievan Rus", which included an attempt to study the problems of the emergence of the Kyiv state based on the analysis and comparison of various scientific points of view.

A book published in 2013 by the famous Russian satirist M.N. Zadornov "Rurik. Lost Truth ”made a lot of noise in the scientific community, since the work of Mikhail Zadornov touched on the subject of the emergence of the Russian state without any jokes. And besides, the satirist, who acted as a historian, questioned the controversial Norman theory, believing that Rurik is Rarok, and that he is not a Scandinavian, but a representative of the Slavs themselves.

We, in turn, will not question any point of view, since, in our opinion, a theory is considered a theory, and not an axiom, since it implies a plurality of points of view.

Meanwhile, it is impossible not to say about the high degree of scientific relevance of the Norman problem in view of the fact that recently there have been global trends in distorting the history of entire peoples.

The main thing in our work is the formation of the clearest possible idea of the Norman theory, the comparison of factual material, the analysis of various points of view, so that in the end the formulated conclusions could form the basis for understanding the historical processes of our country. The main problem, which is investigated in this paper, can be formulated as follows: the lack of a unified scientific understanding of the origin of the Russian state, including due to the insufficiency of written and archaeological sources. For objective reasons, our historical research will be limited only to a theoretical analysis of the available written sources on a strictly defined issue, since a deeper scientific study, which is of particular historical and scientific value, requires special knowledge and the involvement of highly professional experts in various fields, for example, linguistics, archeology, geography, ethnography, etc., therefore, target work - the development of skills in understanding historical processes through the study of the Norman theory of the origin of the state.

To achieve this goal, you need to do the following tasks :

To analyze and systematize the main concepts on the chosen topic;
Identify the main provisions of each of the studied concepts;
Substantiate the arguments in favor of both concepts based on scientific points of view;
Formulate independent conclusions.

The degree of scientific development of the problem. Dozens of scientists, who are both supporters of the Norman theory and its opponents, have been studying the problems of the emergence of the state among the ancient Slavs at different times. The first should include G.Z. Bayer, G.F. Miller, A.L. Schlozer, N.M. Karamzin, V.O. Klyuchevsky, S.M. Solovyova and others, and to the second - M.V. Lomonosov, D.I. Ilovaisky, S.A. Gedeonova, N.I. Kostomarov and others.

Chapter 1. Prerequisites for the development of the Norman theory, its essence

1.1. Prehistory of Normanism

“Every nation needs knowledge of its own history and geography more than outsiders; however, without knowledge of foreign peoples' history, and especially neighboring deeds and deeds, one's own will not be clear and sufficient.

We will not contradict the intended purpose of the work, and therefore we will not touch on the history of other states, but will turn to our own.

““... Our land is Great and plentiful, but there is no order (management) in it. Yes, go (come) to reign and rule over us, ”prince Rurik responded to this invitation and settled with his squad in the city of Ladoga. So, in the northwestern lands, a large association (principality) arose, the center of which was the new city built by Rurik - Novgorod "- it is about this path of development of the Old Russian state that the textbook on history for the 6th grade of an ordinary comprehensive school, edited by A.A., tells. Danilova, L.G. Kosulina. If you read this textbook in detail, you can find out that our ancestors, the Slavs, as they would say today, were very bad managers, and their princes could not become competent city managers.

The above point of view about the inability of the Slavic people to do anything without someone's foreign help has its roots in the Tale of Bygone Years: « In the summer of 6370. And I drove the Varangians across the sea, and did not give them tribute, and more often in their own hands. And there would be no truth in them, and people would stand up against people, and there would be strife in them, and fight for themselves more often. And rkosha: "Let's look for a prince in ourselves, who would rule us and row in a row, by right." Idosha across the sea to the Varangians, to Rus'. Sitse bo you call the Varangians Rus, as if all friends are called their own, the friends are Urmani, Anglians, Ini and Gotha, so and si "Rkosha Rusi chyud, Slovenian, Krivichi and all:" Our land is great and plentiful, but there is no dress in it. Yes, go to reign and rule over us. And he chose three brothers from his generations, and girded all of Rus' according to himself, and came to the word first. And cut down the city of Ladoga. And here is the oldest in Ladoz, Rurik, and the other, Sineus on the White Lake, and the third Truvor in Izborsk. And from those Varangians, the Russian land was nicknamed.

The problem of the emergence of the Russian state turned out to be so serious that Empress Catherine II herself in the Notes on Russian History says: “There is no doubt about that, according to the writers, that Rurik came to Novgorod in 862 after the Nativity of Christ. All northern writers say that the Rus in the north through the Baltic Sea (which the Rus called the Varangian Sea) went to Denmark, Sweden and Norway for bidding. Midday historians say about the Rus that since ancient times they traveled by sea with trade to India, Syria and Egypt. The law, or Code of the ancient Russian, proves the antiquity of writing in Russia. Russ long before Rurik had a letter.

From which it follows that the Slavic tribes:

a) had their own legal mechanisms for regulating certain social relations;

b) carried out trade relations with foreign states, and therefore took an active part in the formation of external market relations;

c) based on the established historical practice since the time of Ancient Rome, the existence of trade relations presupposes the existence of a system of taxes and fees, as well as an army protecting the interests of a trading power, or at least a squad ready to clash with the enemy;

d) the presence of writing gives a hypothetical idea that written international agreements could exist in the state of the Ancient Slavs.

But as the Tale of Bygone Years says, the time has come for internecine wars, and the princely squads are mired in bloody wars. The total extermination of the warring parties led to the fact that there was no one to manage the vast territory, which has the largest natural resources on the planet. Tired of the senseless clashes, the princes were forced to seek help from the Norman princes, who, according to the same Tale of Bygone Years, were driven by Slavic squads across the distant sea. Prince Rurik agreed to accept the offer of the Slavic princes and, together with his retinue, went to reign in Rus'.

From the point of view of the supporters of the Norman theory, Rurik was indeed a Norman, since it was with the Scandinavian peoples that the Slavic princes had a close connection. What did such prominent members of the Imperial Academy of Sciences as G.Z. Bayer, G.F. Miller and A. L. Schlozer. Scientists put forward a theory according to which the Slavs in reality could not properly organize their state due to historical backwardness from other more developed peoples. Of course, this point of view caused a huge academic outcry.

Thus, the prerequisites for the emergence of the Norman theory were formed by prominent scientists of that time.

1.2. Normanism: facts and contradictions.

Consider several opposing points of view. “Rurik, the autocracy of the Russian founder and forefather of many sovereigns, at the request of the Slavs and Chuds, came to them to reign with two brothers, with the whole family and with the Varangians-Russians,” this was the point of view expressed by the Great Russian scientist M.V. Lomonosov. Rurik was not a Norman; representative of the Scandinavian tribes, but was among the Slavs themselves. Lomonosov believed that Rurik was from the Polabian Slavs who lived on the Elbe River, who had dynastic ties with the princes of Ilmen, living in the upper reaches of the Mologa River, Slovenia, this was the reason for his invitation to reign.

Another argument in favor of the supporters of the anti-Norman theory is also reflected in encyclopedic publications. “The political sense was to present Ancient Rus' as a backward country, incapable of independent state creativity, and the Normans as a force that from the very beginning of Russian history influenced the development of Russia, its economy and culture,” says the Great Soviet Encyclopedia.

V. O. Klyuchevsky, being an adherent of Normanism, believed: “Scandinavian sagas, sometimes dating back to very ancient times, tell about campaigns in the country Gardarik, as they call our Rus', that is, in the "kingdom of cities." This name itself, which goes so little to rural Rus', shows that the Varangian newcomers stayed mainly in the large trading cities of Rus'. Finally, the names of the first Russian Varangian princes and their warriors are almost all of Scandinavian origin; we meet the same names in the Scandinavian sagas: Rurik in the form of Hrorek, Truvor– Thorvardr, etc.” .

A well-known follower of the Norman theory, N.M. Karamzin, gives a no less weighty argument: “The Slavic boyars, dissatisfied with the power of the conquerors, which destroyed their own, angered, perhaps, this frivolous people, seduced them with the name of former independence, armed against the Normans and expelled them; but personal strife turned freedom into misfortune, they did not know how to restore the ancient laws and plunged the fatherland into the abyss of the evils of civil strife. Then the citizens remembered, perhaps, the favorable and calm rule of the Normans: the need for improvement and silence ordered people to forget their pride, and the Slavs, convinced- so says the legend - Council of the Novgorod Elder Gostomysl, demanded the Rulers from the Varangians. The brothers, named Rurik, Sineus and Truvor, famous either by birth or deeds, agreed to take power over people who, knowing how to fight for liberty, did not know how to use it.

Another argument in favor of the Norman theory of the origin of the state of the Slavs is given by the author of the historical work Primordial Rus', Normanist S.M. Solovyov: “The establishment of the attire, disturbed by the strife of the clans, was the main, only goal of calling the princes, the chronicler directly and clearly points to it, without mentioning any other motives, and this indication of the chronicler is completely in accordance with all the circumstances, so we have no the right to make assumptions. But besides the direct and clear testimony of the chronicler, the calling of the princes is best explained by a number of similar phenomena in the subsequent history of Novgorod. The initial chronicler says that the Varangians were expelled and then called again; later chroniclers say that as soon as one prince was expelled or himself removed from Novgorod, the citizens of the latter immediately sent for another: they could not bear to live without a prince.

The opponent of the Norman theory, N. I. Kostomarov, believed that Normanism is a fairy tale composed by scribes of the 16th-17th centuries for some Moscow needs, which is replete with many inaccuracies, so that it cannot be mistaken for a real miraculously preserved piece of chronicle. At the basis, he said, is a real legend, which was refined, changed, and eventually took the form of a frank fairy tale. The essence of Kostomarov's scientific research was as follows:

1) According to the annals, Rurik was called, in fact, to manage. In order to call on the Varangian princes, the Slavic peoples had to exist together for some time, and such an association was possible only on the basis of tribal kinship.

2) The reasons for calling mercenaries (Varangians) were due to the desire of the Slavs to subjugate the Finnish tribes. Indeed, in the X century. squads of the Varangians make raids, and not only on the eastern coast of the Baltic Sea and the lands adjacent to it, which necessitates the inhabitants of Novgorod to show solidarity against the Varangian expansion.

3) Varyags is a glorified Scandinavian word meaning "allies" or "mercenary warriors". In the Russian version, under the name of the Varangians, they meant not only the Swedes, but also all the sea robbers, meaning all the diversity of the peoples of the Baltic region, from where they came. In addition, not only the Baltic Sea was called Varangian, but even the Latin faith was called Varangian;

4) If you look at the treaties of Igor and Oleg, then they do not have such a word as Varangians, because, the historian says, the people who concluded it were not Varangians. In addition, in the annalistic text about Oleg's acceptance of Kyiv, it was reported that, in addition to the Varangians of Rus', there were also Varangians of other origin;

5) The Varangians of Prussia were Slavs. Even the names indicated in the treaties of the first princes with Byzantium, he sees as coming from Lithuanian roots.

Thus, Kostomarov did not deny the vocation of Rurik, but considered him not a Scandinavian, but a native of the Lithuanian tribes.

The opponent of Normanism, D. I. Ilovajski, gives very significant arguments about the inconsistency of the Norman theory. According to the scientist:

1) If we turn to all the surviving monuments of Russian literature of the pre-Tatar period, we will see the following: nowhere in these monuments is there almost any hint of the calling of the Varangian princes, for example, “The Tale of Igor's Campaign”, which more than once recalls old times and old Russian princes, even about the centuries of Trajan; but there is not a word about the Varangian princes;

2) in the legend about the calling of the princes it is said that from these princes the Novgorodians began to be called the Russian land; meanwhile, and in further news, it is clear that the Novgorodians did not call themselves Rus, but called the inhabitants of the Dnieper region that way;

3) The Polish historian Dlugosh, who wrote in the second half of the 15th century, but had more ancient Russian chroniclers at hand, in his news about Rus' spreads about Kie, Schek and Khoriv and only in passing mentions the choice of the three Varangian brothers by some Russian tribes;

4) The Scandinavian sagas not only do not confirm the fables about the calling or the conquest of Rus' by the Normans; on the contrary, they characterize even more clearly than our chronicles the role that the Normans played in Rus' as mercenary squads: a good reward, that's what attracted these northern condottieres to us most of all, and they bargain with our princes no worse than any other mercenaries;

5) Patriarch Photius in his district message of 866: “Not only this people (Bolgars) changed the ancient wickedness to faith in Christ, but also the people often mentioned and glorified by many, surpassing all other peoples in their cruelty and bloodthirstiness, - I’m talking about the Russ who, having conquered the surrounding peoples, became proud and, having a high opinion of themselves, raised their arms against the Roman state. Now they themselves have changed the impious pagan superstition to a pure and undefiled Christian faith, and behave (in relation to us) respectfully and friendly, since not long before they disturbed us with their robberies and committed a great atrocity.

We believe that the last argument in favor of the fact that the Russ had a state long before the arrival of Rurik is quite convincing. And besides, it is worth paying attention to the fact that the princes who came from outside would not be able to subjugate the scattered Slavic squads in such a short time. Askold and Dir, if they were alien princes, would not have been able to organize a campaign against Constantinople in just a year. It is unshakable for adherents of the Norman theory that the Normans, according to the testimony of Photius, came from the north. Then it is logical to assume that only the Swedes could be such Normans. However, since the time of the father of history, Herodotus, all the peoples, respectively, living in the north, should have been attributed to the northern peoples.

Thus, we have established the factual grounds for the existence of the Norman theory, as well as the arguments in favor of its failure.

Chapter 2. Normanism as a way of understanding historical processes

2.1. Normanism today

With the development of modern technology, which makes it possible to carry out the most complex archaeological work, it will be possible to more deeply study the problem of the origin of the state among the ancient Slavs. Today, many historical monuments require restoration. Some of the chronicles have been lost for various reasons, and some are at the disposal of the supporters of the Norman theory, which, in our opinion, creates a problem for organizing and conducting alternative (independent) historical research.

Taking into account the significance of global social processes currently taking place, which are of fundamental importance for studying the problems of historical aspects and patterns, we need to take into account the specifics of the possibility of distorting historical reality. In our opinion, the works of I. N. Ionov should be considered an example of such a historical distortion. According to the textbook I.N. Ionov, “the values of the Catholic (and Protestant) culture formed the basis of the values of modern world civilization. This is a dialogue between society and the state, a monologue of reason in the field of knowledge, the formal nature of law and role relations in society, condescension to violations of the precepts of religion in the business sphere. These norms can and should be criticized. Their strength lies in one thing - they created a society that forced all other societies (including Russian) to adapt to it.

Thus, the presence of alternative historical sources does not yet mean their reliability.

“Let us now turn our attention to some of the circumstances encountered in the annals in the story of the calling of princes. After the expulsion of the Varangians, the Slavic princes do not want to return to a disparate tribal life and, not seeing a way out of it with the egoism of childbirth, they agree to call on power from the outside, they call on a prince from a foreign clan "- this is exactly the historical picture that G. Sh. Chkhartishvili, better known like B. Akunin. From the origins to the Mongol invasion ».

Controversial arguments in support of the Slavic origin of Rurik are cited by M.N. Zadornov. Indeed, the name "Rurik" was not found among the Eastern Slavs, to whom he came to reign. But this name, it turns out, was loved by ... Western Slavs! Moreover, among such a Slavic people as the Bodrichi, it meant "falcon". “The entire male population of Scandinavia then lived in robbery. They plundered European monasteries, especially Christian ones - they had a lot of wealth and gold. Zadornov draws attention to one, in his opinion, based on the research of the famous historian Lydia Grot, an important fact that Sweden, where Rurik allegedly came from, did not yet exist. In fairness, it should be noted that the Tale of Bygone Years does not contain direct indications of Sweden as Rurik's homeland. From the point of view of Zadornov, Rurik is Rarok, i.e. Sokol is a Slav. The statements of the satirist writer about the reliability of the Norman theory could not but cause a new surge of controversy on this issue. Also M.N. Kryukov draws attention to the fact that Schlözer's Hypothesis was that Rus' is not Russia. The people began to be called Russians only under Ivan IV.

Thus, we can conclude that a more detailed study of this issue is necessary.

2.2. State of the Ancient Slavs.

In order to get closer to understanding the possibility of the Slavs to independently create a state, it is necessary to find out what, from the point of view of science, should be understood by the term state, and also to find out the signs of statehood. An elementary definition of the concept of the state is given by L. N. Bogolyubov: “The state is a set of bodies of state power and administration”. It is traditionally accepted to refer to the features of the state as the exercise of state power, which implies the need for powerful state bodies, the administration of justice, the collection of taxes, the protection of state borders, the implementation of economic activities, trade both in the domestic and foreign markets.

And there were 3 brothers: and the name of one was Kiy, and the other was Shchek, and the third was Khoriv, and their sister was Lybid. And Kiy sits on the mountain, where Borichev is now taken away, and Shchek sits on the mountain, where Shchekovitsa is now called, and Khoriv on the third mountain, from which he was nicknamed Horivitsa. Created a town in the name of their elder brother and drug addict and Kiev. And there was a forest near the city and a great pine forest, and a wild beast catching a beast, beating more wise and understanding, and I’ll be called a clearing, from them the essence of a clearing is a kiyan to this Day.

As we can see, the Tale of Bygone Years speaks of the presence of princely power in the Slavic land. With further study of the chronicle, we are faced with the fact that: “In the year 6360 (852), indiction 15, when Michael began to reign, the Russian land began to be called. We learned about this because under this tsar Rus' came to Constantinople, as it is written about this in the Greek annals. Thus, the chronicle allows us to conclude that 10 years before the arrival of Rurik, the Slavic princes had already made military campaigns (raids) against Byzantium. Taking into account the geographical features of the location of Constantinople, the Slavic princes had to have a well-trained army that could fight both in a naval battle and in a land battle. The collection of taxes in favor of the prince testifies to the existence of a system of taxation.

So, if we look at the Norman theory of the origin of the state among the Ancient Slavs, based on Bogolyubov's elementary definition of the concept of the state, we can conclude that the state of the Ancient Slavs was long before the arrival of Rurik, as evidenced primarily by Byzantine sources and the Tale temporary years.

Conclusion

An analysis of the available sources contributed to the formation of the following opposing points of view regarding the theory of the emergence of the state among the ancient Slavs:

The internecine princely wars that arose as a result of the prince's social and political short-sightedness led to the need to attract a foreign independent ruler who could judge the ongoing conflicts from the point of view of law;
The low legal culture of the Slavic princes, as well as their inability to lead their own subordinates, could not contribute to the development of a normal state;
Adherence to the barbaric customs of the Russian people could not lead to the formation of a civilized society;
The need to call foreign princes, in addition to all of the above, was due to the absence of any state system at all, which ultimately bothered the princes themselves, who were not capable of any competent political actions;
The need to call a prince from among foreigners was explained by the desire to restore order in such a vast territory;
Russian (Slavic) princes did an excellent job even without the help of foreign patrons, and the invitation of the Varangians was carried out exclusively for political purposes aimed at strengthening their own power;
There were still Varangians, but they performed the functions of mercenaries, not leaders;
Rurik could not be a Varangian, since the Varangians were first expelled, and their further invitation seems illogical;
In the culture of the Ancient Slavs, the cult of worship of the Scandinavian Gods, for example, Odin, was not preserved, and if the Varangians really ruled the Russian state, then the cult of their Gods would be reflected in history;
Rurik could not be a Varangian, since he was a Slav, and the word "Varangian" itself had several meanings.

We believe that the Russian state arose long before the mention of Rurik appeared in our history. We build our point of view on the basis of a logical analysis of the Tale of Bygone Years and other written sources. In addition, the mysterious city of Arkaim discovered in the Ural steppe testifies to the presence of civilizations on the territory of our country, and there are many such mysterious places. The study of the legends of the pagans, which were not included in this work due to the inconsistency with the set goal, allows us to talk about the rich past of our Slavic ancestors.

It is difficult for us to talk about the authenticity of the Book of Veles and the legend of the Pigeon Book, but in any case, we cannot verify the authenticity of the Tale of Bygone Years either. Based in part on folklore legends and legends, one must be extremely careful, but we cannot say that the Murom heroes did not exist, just as the infrastructure system described in countless folk legends did not exist. In any case, as one very famous film said, the truth is somewhere nearby.

Thus, we believe that the goal of the work has been achieved, the tasks have been implemented, and the theoretical experience gained in the course of this work will be useful for understanding historical processes, as well as possible reasons for the distortion of history.

List of sources used

Monographs and study guides

Akunin B. History of the Russian state. From the origins to the Mongol invasion / Akunin B. - M .: Genres, AST, 2013. - 396 p.
Bogolyubov L.N. Social science. Grade 9: textbook. For general education Organizations with app. For an electron. Wears. / [L.N. Bogolyubov, A.I. Matveev, E.I. Zhiltsova and others]: ed. L.N. Bogolyubov [i dr.]. – M.: Enlightenment, 2014. – 208 p.
Danilov A.A. Russian history. From ancient times to the end of the 17th century. 6th grade. Textbook / A.A. Danilov, L.G. Kosulin. 5th ed. M.: Education, 2015. - 272 p.
Zadornov M.N. Rurik. Lost true story / M.N. Zadornov, M.: Algorithm, 2013. - 320 p.
Notes of Empress Catherine II: translation from the original published by the Imperial Academy of Sciences / St. Petersburg: A. S. Suvorin edition, 1907. - 743 p.
Ilovaisky D.I. Beginning of Rus' / D.I. Ilovaisky. M.: Veche, 2015. - 288 p.
Ionov I.N. Russian civilization. XI - the end of the XX century. / I.N. Ionov, M .: Education, 2003. - 384 p.
Karamzin N.M. History of the Russian State: in 12 vols. M.: Eksmo, 2016. Vol. 1. - 1024 p.
Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history. Full course of lectures / V.O. Klyuchevsky. M.: Thought, 1993. - 1716 p.
Lomonosov M.V. Ancient Russian history from the beginning of the Russian people to the death of Grand Duke Yaroslav the First or until 1054 / M.V. Lomonosov. M.: Hyperion, 2012. - 344 p.
Soloviev S.M. History of Russia since ancient times. In 15 books and 29 volumes. Book 1. Primordial Rus' / S.M. Sool'ev. M.: Harvest, AST, 2009. - 944 p.

Internet resources

Kryukov N.M. Anti-Normanism of the Normanist August Schlozer (or what the chronicler Nestor considers nonsense) [Electronic resource] // Humanitarian scientific research. 2016. No. 5
Norman theory [Electronic resource] // Great Soviet Encyclopedia. - M .: Soviet Encyclopedia 1969-1978
The Tale of Bygone Years [Electronic resource] // IRLI RAS Library
Reading about the ancients Russian chronicles[Electronic resource]. // Notes of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. SPb. 1863. T. 2. S. 1-48

Introduction

Conclusion

Introduction

The relevance of the study is due to the fact that the legendary chronicler Nestor first addressed the issue of the origin of Kievan Rus more than eight centuries ago in The Tale of Bygone Years. The interpretation of this issue is one of the most confusing in domestic and world historiography. The narrowness of the source base, the inconsistency and ambiguity of the known factual material, false methodological approaches, political engagement and ideological sympathies of historians have repeatedly prevented an objective view of the process of the emergence of the Old Russian state. In the middle of the XVIII century. German historians, members of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences G. Bayer and G. Miller substantiated the concept of Normanism. Referring to the chronicle legend about the calling of the Varangians to Rus', these scientists put forward the thesis about the Scandinavian origin of the Old Russian state. Lomonosov became the decisive opponent and passionate critic of Normanism. Almost immediately, the controversy fell into the mainstream not of a scientific discussion, but of an ideological confrontation. The "cosmopolitanism" of German scientists, who, by absolutizing the "Varangian factor", humiliated the state ability of the Slavs, was opposed to "state patriotism", which was a kind of manifestation of a growing national consciousness. At the initial stage of this centuries-old discussion, the concepts of both Normanists and anti-Normanists were based on a false methodological principle - they considered the emergence of the state, firstly, as a culminating momentary act, and secondly, as a direct result of the activity of a particular individual. Official Soviet historiography called the Norman theory politically harmful because it did not recognize the ability of the Slavic peoples to create an independent state on their own. The discussion flared up with renewed vigor.

The purpose of the work is to study the problem of the formation of the state "Kievan Rus".

1. Prerequisites for the formation of Kievan Rus

The political association of the Antes, like all similar state associations of the early Middle Ages, turned out to be fragile. However, the process of formation of a class society and the emergence of a state among the Eastern Slavs continued, which was due to the internal evolution of their society. Historical facts testify that proto-state formations, princely power and other elements of the state process are mainly of local origin and appeared long before the formation of the Old Russian state. We will consider the prerequisites for the formation of Kievan Rus in Figure 1.

Picture 1 - Prerequisites for the formation of Kievan Rus

The emergence of the phenomenon of the Old Russian state in the 9th century. in Eastern Europe - the result of the interaction of various factors in all spheres, not only of the then society, but also of antiquity. The economic system of the Eastern Slavs was based on agriculture, with developed cattle breeding and rural crafts playing a supporting role. The improvement of agricultural tools in the 7th-9th centuries, the increase in labor productivity, the growth in the production of surplus product led to cardinal changes in the social sphere. Class differentiation deepened - landowners turned into feudal lords, and free community members became a feudal-dependent population, creating the prerequisites for an active state process.

Separation of craft from agriculture, the emergence of commodity production in the VIII - X centuries. led to a noticeable intensification of internal exchange and the expansion of foreign trade. Trade relations with Great Moravia, Bulgaria, Khazaria, Byzantium and other countries were especially lively. The expansion of trade, on the one hand, contributed to the enrichment of the Slavic tribal nobility, increased the differentiation of society, on the other hand, it raised the issue of protecting important trade routes extremely acutely. A kind of foundation of the first proto-states in Eastern Europe were large unions of Slavic tribes - Dulebs, Buzhans. With the collapse of the tribal system and the emergence of classes in the VIII-IX centuries. the process of unification of tribes and their unions is intensifying. Gradually, state formations arise - tribal principalities and their federations. According to Arab authors, already in the VIII-IX centuries. there were three cells of East Slavic statehood: Kuyavia (land of glades with Kiev), Slavia (Novgorod land) and Artania (Rostovo-Suzdal, and possibly Black Sea and Azov Rus). The first was a state association, which the chronicler called the Russian land (Arab authors associate it with Kuyavia) with a center in Kyiv. It was it that became the territorial and political core around which the Old Russian state grew.

2. Theories of the origin of Kievan Rus

All theories of the origin of Kievan Rus can be divided into three types. Consider them in Figure 2.

Figure 2 - Theories of the origin of Kievan Rus

Normanism and anti-Normanism are two theories of the formation of the Kievan state. The author of the first version is Byron, who drew his conclusions on the basis of the manuscripts he read. The author of the second version is Lomonosov. Both theories agree that Kievan Rus was formed from the moment of the rule of the Ruriks, but their points of view differ in determining the nationality of the Ruriks: Normanism defends the point of view that Rurik is Norman in origin; anti-Normanism is of the opinion that the Ruriks are not Normans.

3. Norman theory of the origin of Kievan Rus

In the XVIII century. a number of German scientists, in particular Gottlieb Bayer, Gerhard Miller and August-Ludwig Schlozer, who at that time worked at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, developed the so-called. Norman theory. It proved that Kievan Rus was founded by the Varangians - a German-Scandinavian people, known in the West as the Vikings or Normans. Emphasizing the importance of German influences and allusions to the inability of the Slavs to create their own state aroused the indignation of the Russian scientist of the 18th century. Mikhail Lomonosov, who proved the primary role of the Slavs in the creation of Kievan Rus. The statement of M. Lomonosov was called the anti-Norman concept and laid the foundation for disputes that continue today.

In a word, the theory attributed the creation of the Russian state to the Normans - Scandinavian Vikings (in Rus' they were called Varangians). The basis for this theory was the chronicle story about the calling to reign in Novgorod in 862 of the Varangian princes Rurik, Sineus and Truvor. This story is in three versions - the Lavrentiev and Ipatiev copies of the "Tale of Bygone Years" and the Novgorod First Chronicle. Chronicles report that initially the Varangians took tribute from the Novgorodians, then they were expelled, however, civil strife began between the tribes (according to the Novgorod Chronicle - between cities): "And fight more often for yourself." After that, the Slovenes, Krivichi, Chud and Merya turned to the Varangians with the words: "Our land is great and plentiful, but there is no outfit in it. Yes, go and rule over us." The Varangians responded to the call "and were chosen as brothers from their families": Rurik, who settled in Novgorod, Sineus - on Beloozero and Truvor - in Izborsk. The Norman theory suggests that the people of Rus comes from Scandinavia during the expansion of the Vikings, who were called Normans in Western Europe. This conclusion is based on The Tale of Bygone Years.

4. Criticism of the Norman theory of the origin of Kievan Rus

What factors contributed to the formation of the Kievan-Russian state? Was statehood introduced from outside, were both internal and external factors at work? How did they interact with each other? Whether the Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian peoples, as well as the Western and South Slavic, as well as most European peoples, go back to state times

The current relevance of these issues is due to the peculiarity of the historical fate of the Russian Federation, which also carry a certain political burden. Starting the study of this problem, namely, the solution "linking a specific task to study the main modern theories of the origin of Kievan Rus and ethnocultural processes in the period of the Kievan-Russian state, we used comparative historical and typological methods as one of the important means of ordering and analyzing the material. The problem of the history of Kievan Rus, its origins, the formation of statehood was studied by Harvard University professor Omelyan Pritsak.Believing that history begins when written sources appear, when there is a human community, a self-conscious historian, unlike archaeologists, O. Pritsak is sure, has no way to describe events, but to present the functions of these events in their development.In his work "The Origin of Russia. Ancient Scandinavian sources (except sagas) "the researcher decided to develop a new approach and a new methodology, referring directly to the primary sources. Having analyzed the essence of the heated disputes between Normanists and anti-Normanists about the origin of Rus', O. Pritsak, giving a critical review of the arguments, points out the weaknesses of both sides.

O. Pritsak proposes to consider the emergence of the ancient Russian state only "as a historical experiment within the framework of a common system" and identifies four important historical events, each of which caused a chain reaction and had an impact on the origin of Russia: the appearance of the Franks, Frisians and Anglo-Saxons in the history, the formation of the steppe empire a new type - the Avar Union, the invasion of the Arabs in the Mare Nostrum basin, and the Khazars in Eastern Europe and a whole network of destruction - the Avar state, the empire of Charlemagne. It is from this angle that O. Pritsak explores the origin of Kievan Rus.

In our opinion, the discussion is still not over, because in their discussions historians often replaced new, improved means of historical methodology with political (or patriotic) concepts, had a limited knowledge of world history, and used primary sources biased.

The work of such historians can be compared to the work of mosaicists. Like the latter, they combine passages from sources of different origins into one whole, but often do not pay attention to the true meaning of the original, because they are accustomed to relying on simple translations, neglecting the study of primary sources in the original and independent experience of the semantics of cultural spheres.

Figure 3 - History of the Khaganate of the Rus O. Pritsak

The history of the Khaganate of the Rus O. Pritsak divided into three phases: the Volga period (c. 839-930), Dnieper (c. 930-1036) and Kiev (1036-1169) (Figure 3). During the first two phases, the Rus owned predominantly trade routes and tribes, and not territories, the third phase is the beginning of the cultural consolidation of Rus' and an attempt to "nationalize" it.

If in the IX-X centuries. multi-ethnic multilingual, the object is connected socially and economically by an organism represented by maritime and trading communities of the Baltic Sea, brought there by immigrants from the Mediterranean countries, then in the XII century. this former non-territorial community becomes a political and religious center with a high culture, from which Kievan Rus appeared - such a conclusion is made by O. Pritsak.

The researcher of archeology and ancient history of the Slavs V. Baran, on the basis of his scientific intelligence and the manual "Historical origins of the Ukrainian people", tried to illuminate this problem object objectively, without political or any other prejudices. Based on a systematic study of archaeological, linguistic, historical sources and his own developments, V. Baran in his work clearly and clearly sets out the latest achievements of archaeological and historical science on the ethno-cultural and social development of the Slavs in the princely period. The scientist reveals the mechanisms of the formation of the Slavic peoples, in particular the Ukrainian one, and tries to give reasonable and objective answers to a number of questions about the formation of the Kievan-Russian state and ethno-national processes. V. Baran, relying on archaeological data, notes that in Ladoga and other settlements of the northeastern part of the Slavs in the 9th century. even before the calling of the princes, both the Slavs and the Normans-Varangians lived and the name "Rus", "Russian Land", appearing only at the end of the 9th century. and is of Scandinavian origin.

However, as Vladimir Danilovich clarifies, the Rurikovichs would not have built a state on the territory of Ukraine when the people were not ready for this. It is the formation of the state that is possible only on the condition that the society itself has already reached the appropriate economic, social and cultural level. The rather rapid Slavicization of the princes from the Rurik dynasty, the adoption of an Orthodox faith separate from other Scandinavian peoples, is undeniable evidence of the political activity of the local East Slavic elite, which is also capable of influencing processes. Wide strata of the boyars and even philistines were also involved in these processes, as evidenced by the effectiveness of veche structures in Rus'. Often, the boyars and the population of the capital centers of the lands-principalities, in particular Kyiv, Galich and others, invited or drove out their princes. The examples given by the author do not allow ignoring the internal factors of the formation of the East Slavic statehood. Rurik at first did not come to Kiev, but to Ladoga, however, the Krivichi, in the "Yatichi and Ilmen Slovenes did not create states. Relying on the military Varangian squads, he actually limited himself to conquering the tribes and collecting tribute. According to archaeological materials, the level of socio-economic development of the South- eastern tribal groups was higher compared to the northeastern, which developed new lands inhabited by an even more backward Finno-Finnish population.In addition, princes Vladimir and Yaroslav were already more Jan than Normans, but they remembered their origin. The chronicle, treaties with Byzantium, Arabic written monuments testify that it was the Norman dynasty of Rurikovich in the 9th century. brought to Kyiv the name "Rus", which became the official name of the East Slavic Slavic empire they headed. And the collapse of this state is a logical consequence of the incompatibility of the economic, cultural and political interests of those various words "Yang and non-slov" of the tribes it included, just like the USSR.

So, V. Baran defends the concept that two factors acted on the formation of the Kiev state: internal - the people themselves, their tribal elite, reached an understanding of the need for state organization, and external - the Varangian princes with military wives, who gradually, subjugating the northeastern Volga, and then the southern Dnieper-Dniester tribal associations of the Slavs raised the state process to that highest supra-tribal level, which ensured the activity of state institutions. Some researchers denied the possibility of the creation of Kievan Rus by the fore-Ukrainians, referring to the well-known historical fact that the first Kievan princes were Scandinavians-Varangians. In his monograph "From the Slavs to the Ukrainian Nation" L. Zalizniak noted that the important role of the Scandinavian military-aristocratic and commercial element in the crystallization of the state of Rus' in the 9th-10th centuries is beyond doubt. This is convincingly evidenced by both medieval written sources and archaeological finds in the Dnieper region - typical Viking jewelry, a characteristic funeral rite, runic inscriptions, etc.

The scientist draws attention to the fact that the Scandinavian names of the first Russian princes and their combatants - Askold, Olaf (Oleg) Ingvar (Igor), Helga (Olga) - with the approval of the Russian state in the II half. 10th century the words Kupyansk are replaced - Svyatoslav, Vladimir, Yaropolk, etc. This allegedly formal indicator reflects the deep process of assimilation by the Russians-proto-Ukrainians of the newly arrived foreign nobility. It was a typical phenomenon for the early medieval states of Europe. Most of the European medieval ethnic groups of the VIII-X centuries. Having matured to create their own states, it consolidated precisely around the foreign nobility. So, the military aristocracy of the Germanic tribe of the Franks became the state elite of France in the time of Charlemagne. So in Rus', the English kings and aristocrats of the X-XI centuries. were the Vikings of Denmark and Normandy. At the same time, the Kingdom of England is still considered the first state of the Anglo-Saxons, i.e. English, at the early medieval stage of ethno-historical development. Proceeding from these considerations, by analogy, L. Zaliznyak argues that Kievan Rus arose as a state of the southern Russians - proto-Ukrainians.

In his work "Kievan Rus" Tolochko departed from the scheme of a land or regional presentation of the history of Rus', and considers it in full socio-political, economic, ethno-cultural and territorial volumes. Such a position, according to the author, allows a deeper understanding of the historical phenomenon that was Kievan Rus, to trace the evolution of its state development, the unity of the historical and cultural life of all its constituent parts, which were in close interaction with Kiev and among themselves. Tolochko, having analyzed the historical sources of Kievan Rus, showed that Kievan Rus in the 9th-13th centuries. constituted an integral state organism, although it was struck by feudal separatism. At the first stage of its existence (from the 9th to the 30s of the 12th century), all the main institutions of power (prince, cathedral, snem, veche, row), the internal administrative-territorial structure were formed, state borders were defined. The political form was an early feudal monarchy with expressive elements of feudalism. At the second stage (the 30s of the 12th century - the 40s of the 13th century), Rus' became a federation of relatively independent principalities headed by Kiev and the great prince of Kyiv as the elder of the Russian princes. Kyiv, although it lost many of its former greatness, remained the political center of the country, a symbol of its ethno-cultural unity, the church capital. In the pre-Mongolian period, neither Vladimir on the Klyazma nor Galich could replace him.

Regarding the name "Rus" - Tolochko sees in it something alien to the eastern words of the Lviv people, introduced into their life only in the 9th-10th centuries. On the contrary, in his opinion, the fact that this name quickly spread to the entire East Slavic “Slavic world” indicates the ancient traditions of its existence in this environment. "was identical to the name" words of grass ". Tolochko notes that in the constructions of historians who defend the idea of a foreign beginning or its predominant impulse in the creation of the Kiev state, there is not only an answer, but even a question why in the environment of the nomadic Khazar or Pomors - the Scandinavian world there were processes of political consolidation, but in Slavic society with its ancient sedentary agricultural culture - no. And the Khazars or the Scandinavians could not create for the Eastern Slavs what they were unable to create for themselves on their lands.

The researcher is convinced that the new princely dynasty of Rurikovich in Rus', northern in origin, at first contributed to the involvement of the Varangians in the processes of the state life of the country. But the attraction never acquired the form of domination, the dominance of foreigners. The process of their influx to Rus' was strictly controlled, and living in the Kupyansk environment had its own regulation, expressed in the extraterritoriality of the Varangian squads relative to large ancient Russian cities. Slavic-Scandinavian by origin, the princely dynasty in Rus' very quickly became just the words Kupyansk, did not think of itself outside the interests of the state body at the head of which it was. Within one or two generations, the northern peoples, who went to the service of the Kyiv princes and remained for permanent residence, completely assimilated, - Tolochko adheres to this opinion on the problem of the origin of Kievan Rus. Leading researcher of the Institute of History of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Doctor of Historical Sciences V. Richka in his article "Kievan Rus: whose heritage?" expressed the opinion that if the traditional genealogies of nations with their inherent justification of their historical rights, in our case to the Kievan-Russian inheritance, originate in modern times, then the question of dynastic-state succession was formulated by the political practice and ideology of medieval Rus'.

It should be remembered that the problem of the origin of the name "Rus" is not equivalent to the problem of the formation of ancient Russian statehood. V. Rychka does not agree with the statement about the organizing role of the senior Varangians-Russians in creating the foundations of the ancient Russian state. The scientist notes that the formation of the latter was a natural consequence of the internal, socio-economic, political and cultural development of the local, in the words of the Slavic population. During the early Middle Ages, Varangian mercenaries were involved in public service by many countries of what was then Europe. Here Kievan Rus was no exception in this regard. However, according to the historian, the Norman ethnic component was not prevailing here even within the military squad. From the very beginning of the existence of the latter, it included multi-ethnic elements. Therefore, there is no need to talk about the original Norman basis of this ancient Russian public institution.

Kotlyar notes that Kievan Rus was the historical ancestral home not only of the Ukrainian, Russian and Belarusian peoples. As part of this state, dozens of large and small non-Slavic peoples of the Black Sea region and the European North, the Volga region, and the North Caucasus lived and joined the socio-political and cultural life.

The Old Russian state, the researcher writes, from the beginning of its existence was multi-ethnic. In Eastern Europe, together with the Slavs, more than 20 non-Slavic peoples lived. And the main way in which non-Slavic lands became part of Kievan Rus is mainly peaceful colonization, development and settlement of the Slavs. Archaeological research confirms both the political coexistence of Slavs and non-Slavs, and the existence of the Slavic-Finno-Ugric, Slavic-Turkic, words of the Temeno-Iranian, Slavic-Iranian and Slavic-Baltic socio-cultural symbiosis in Eastern Europe. Kotlyar, completing the consideration of the plot about the entry of non-Slavic peoples into the East Slavic proto-state, and then the state association - Kievan Rus, emphasizes that the words "Slavic, then Old Russian ethnos" always prevailed in these associations in territorial, political, economic and cultural relations. R. Ivanchenko in his manual "Kievan Rus: the beginnings of the Ukrainian state" completely excludes the Norman theory of the origin of Russia, considering the emergence of the Kiev state as a completely original state formation of the southeastern Slavs of the Dnieper region "I, who quite independently created my own forms of existence on the basis of the Proto-Slavic tribal customs, and also absorbed the customs and traditions of her neighbors, with whom she communicated peacefully or militantly. In this state, the diversity of tribes and peoples was preserved, which were established under the rule of common rulers, but who managed to maintain their ethnic difference, which affected the formation of a stable national identity of the East Slavic peoples. Ivanchenko is convinced that the basis for the creation of the Kyiv state was the population of the Podneprovsky glades. And these glades, having taken on another name - the Rus, were the ancient ancestors of the Ukrainian people. The Kievan state, like, indeed, any other country of the early or late Middle Ages, arose and developed in close proximity - peaceful or warlike - with other peoples, Slavic and non-Slavic.

Thus, it should be noted that there is now general agreement regarding the influence of the Scandinavians on the society and culture of the Eastern Slavs. Traveling as part of small detachments of merchant warriors, the Varangians quickly mastered the East Slavic Slavyansk language and culture and, due to their small number, could hardly seriously affect the lifestyle of the local population. However, it is difficult to deny the participation, even the leading role of the Varangians in political life, in view of the fact that all the rulers of Kyiv before Svyatoslav, as well as their combatants, had Scandinavian names. The Varangians played the role of a catalyst for political development by either subordinating the Slavs and organizing them politically, or by posing a threat to them that made them better organize themselves. True, in a number of cases the interests of the Eastern Slavs and the Varangians coincided. This, in particular, concerned limiting the influence of the Khazars, countering the attacks of nomads, securing and protecting the Dnieper trade route to Byzantium. Therefore, there are good reasons to consider the emergence of Kyiv as an achievement not of some separate ethnic group, but the result of a complex Slavic-Scandinavian interaction.

Norman theory of Kievan Rus

Conclusion

The problem of the origin of Kievan Rus' has been debatable for a long time. Back in the 18th century German historians G. - Z. Bayer and G.F. Miller put forward the Norman concept of the origin of the Kievan state. First, the discussion was around the origin of the name "Rus". In historical sources this term is interpreted in different ways. Some researchers are trying to prove its Finnish origin, others are looking for its roots in the Swedish, Slavic languages. This testifies to the wide distribution of the name "Rus" in the languages of other peoples. According to Kotlyar, according to the latest linguistic and historical research, the word "Rus" is of Finnish origin (ruotsi). It was used at first to refer to the Scandinavians, later the wife of the Old Russian princes. Gradually, the squads of the Varangian princes from the Rurik clan in the East Slavic lands became heterogeneous, but the term "Rus" extended to all combatants. Under this name, arson was formerly the clearing that reigned in the proto-state formation in the Dnieper region, and then all the Eastern Slavs. Subsequently, the Normanists even proclaimed the origin of the Kievan state as the formation of Scandinavian aliens - the Varangians, thereby denying the ability of the Slavic peoples to create their own state on their own. This concept was strongly criticized by M. Lomonosov, wrote an angry letter to the Germans, proving the primary role of the Slavs in the creation of Kievan Rus. M. Lomonosov's statement was called the anti-Norman concept.

Anti-Normanists believed that the name "Rus" is of Slavic origin and is closely related to the Ukrainian names of the rivers Ros, Rusa, Rostavitsa in Central Ukraine. They argued that no tribe or people called "Russians" was known in Scandinavia and neither an ancient Norman source, including sagas, mentions it. Anti-Norman views were consistently held by such two leading Ukrainian scientists as N. Kostomarov and M. Hrushevsky.

Bibliography

1.Baran, V.D., Baran Ya.V. The historical origins of the Ukrainian people [Text]: a textbook for universities. / V.D. Baran - K.: Geneza, 2011. - 340 p.

2.Emelin, A.S. History of Russia [Text]: a textbook for universities. / A.S. Emelin - M.: Infra, 2011. - 320 p.

.Isaev, I.A. History of the state and law of Russia [Text]: a textbook for universities. / I.A. Isaev - M.: "Jurist", 2011. - 448 p.

.History of Russia [Text]: a textbook for universities. / Ed. Yu.P. Titov. - M.: Norma, 2012 - 450 p.

.Kotlyar, M.F. Formation of the Old Russian state [Text]: a textbook for universities. / M.F. Kotlyar - M.: Infra, 2013. - 115 p.

.Manual on the history of the Fatherland [Text]: a textbook for universities. / Ed. Kuritsina V.M. - M.: Prostor, 2012. - 670 p.

.Pritsak. O.P. Origin of Rus'. Ancient Scandinavian sources (except sagas) [Text]: a textbook for universities. / O.P. Pritsak - K.: Oberegi, 2012. - 134 p.

.Tolochko, P.P. Kievan Rus [Text]: a textbook for universities. / P.P. Tolochko - K.: Abris, 2011. - 153 p.

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

NORMANN THEORY- a direction in the study of the domestic past, whose supporters consider the Scandinavians, Vikings, Normans the founders of the Russian state. The thesis about the “calling of the Varangians”, which formed the basis of the theory, like itself, has been used in scientific and political disputes for more than three centuries as an ideological justification for the concept of the inability of the Slavs, and especially Russians, to independent state creativity and development in general without the cultural and intellectual assistance of the West .

The Norman theory was first formulated by German scientists who worked in Russia at the invitation of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences during the reign of Anna Ivanovna (second quarter of the 18th century), - G.Z. Bayer, G.F. Miller and A.L. Schlozer. Describing the history of the creation of the Russian state, they were based on the legendary story of the chronicler from Tale of Bygone Years about the calling by the Slavs to Rus' of the Varangian king Rurik, who gave the name of the first Russian princely dynasty (Rurik, 9-16 centuries). Under the pen of these German historians, the Normans (north-western tribes of the Varangians, Swedish Vikings) were the creators of the ancient Russian statehood, their representatives formed the basis of the ruling class of ancient Russian society (princes, boyars, the top command staff of their squads in the "times of military democracy"). M.V. Lomonosov, a contemporary of Bayer, Miller and Schlozer, saw in the theory put forward by them a political meaning hostile to Russia and pointed out its scientific inconsistency. He did not deny the authenticity of the chronicle story, but believed that the "Varangians" (Normans) should be understood as the tribes of the Goths, Lithuanians, Khazars and many other peoples, and not just the Swedish Vikings.

In the 19th century Norman theory acquired in the official Russian historiography of the 18th-19th centuries. the nature of the main version of the origin of the Russian state. The Normanists were N.M. Karamzin and many others. other historians of his time. S.M. Solovyov, without denying the calling of the Varangian princes to Rus', did not see in this legend grounds for thinking about the infringement of national dignity.

By the 30s–50s of the 19th century. the struggle between "Normanists" and "anti-Normanists" was at the same time a struggle between "Westerners" and "Slavophiles". It became especially acute in the 60s of the 19th century. in connection with the celebration in 1862 of the millennium of Russia. Opponents of the theory then were D.I. Ilovaisky, N.I. Kostomarov, S.A. Gedeonov (who was the first to try to prove the West Slavic origin of the Varangians), V.G. Vasilevsky. They drew attention to the fact that the thesis about the calling of the Varangians was first turned into a theory precisely during the “Bironovshchina” (when many top positions at the court were occupied by German nobles who sought to justify the cultural role of the West for “backward” Russia). At the same time, over the past six centuries (12th-18th centuries), the legend of Rurik's vocation was included in all works on the history of Russia, but was never a basis for recognizing the backwardness of Rus' and the high development of its neighbors. And yet the argumentation of the "anti-Normanists" was weak and by the beginning of the 20th century. the victory of "Normanism" in Russian historiography seemed obvious. Even A.A. Shakhmatov, an outstanding Russian specialist in ancient Russian annalistic textology and archeography, having established the late and unreliable nature of the story about the calling of the Varangian princes, nevertheless inclined to the idea of the “decisive importance” of the Scandinavian tribes in the process of state building in Rus'. He even derived the very name of the ancient Russian state from the Finnish lexeme "ruotsi" - the designation of the Swedes and Sweden.

In Soviet historical science, the question of how the ancient Russian state was created, of the correctness or falsity of the Norman theory, acquired an obviously political significance. Historians who studied the most ancient period of Russian statehood (B.D. Grekov, B.A. Rybakov, M.N. Tikhomirov, V.V. Mavrodin) were faced with the need to give a “fierce rebuff to the reactionary bourgeoisie, trying to denigrate the distant past of the Russian people, undermine the feeling of deep respect for him on the part of all progressive mankind. Together with fellow archaeologists, they sought to find justification for the high degree of decomposition of the communal system among the Slavs by the beginning - the middle of the 9th century, since only this could confirm the presence of internal prerequisites for the emergence of the state.

Nevertheless, the "Normanists", especially those who worked on the study of the history of the ancient Russian state in foreign universities, did not give up their positions. Finding Norman elements in the organization of administrative and political management, social life, culture, the Normanists tried to emphasize that they were decisive in determining the nature of a particular social phenomenon. By the early 1960s, Normanists had become advocates of at least one of four concepts:

1) "The concept of conquest", leaning towards the idea of the conquest of the Russian land by the Normans (shared by most Russian historians)

2) "The concept of colonization" (T. Arne) - the capture of Russian territory by the Normans by creating Scandinavian colonies.

3) "The concept of political cooperation" between the Swedish kingdom and Russia. Initially, the role of the Varangians in Rus' was the role of merchants who knew foreign countries well, later - warriors, navigators, sailors.

4) "The concept of a foreign elite" - the creation of an upper class in Rus' by the Vikings (A. Stender-Petersen).

Their anti-Normanist opponents drew attention to the following points in their argumentation.

1) Representatives of the South Baltic Pomeranian Slavs, who were part of large tribal confederations of tribes, in the 8th-10th centuries. dominated the southern shores of the Baltic and determined much in the history, religion, culture of this region, influencing the fate and development of the Eastern Slavs, especially its northwestern region, where the first centers of Russian statehood arose - Staraya Ladoga and Novgorod. But these were not the Varangians, namely the Pomeranian Slavs.

2) The ancient connections of the Pomeranian Slavs with the East Slavic lands were reflected in the linguistic community of the South Baltic and Novgorod (Ilmen) Slavs. The Tale of Bygone Years also says that the Slavic language and the Varangian-Russian language "are the same." The chronicle found confirmation that - in the opinion of its author - there were Norwegians, Swedes, Danes, and there were "Varangians - Rus", and the chronicler singled out separately the Scandinavian, and separately - the Varangian-Russian ethnic community.

3) The existence of some ancient Russian princes of Varangian origin (Oleg, Igor, etc.) and Norman-Varangians in princely squads does not contradict the fact that the state in Ancient Rus' was formed on an internal socio-economic basis. The Varangians left almost no traces in the rich material and spiritual culture of Ancient Rus', because those of them who lived in Rus' were assimilated (glorified).

4) The Normans (Varangians) themselves recognized the high level of development of Gardariki - the "country of cities", as they called Rus'.

5) The foreign origin of the ruling dynasty is typical of the Middle Ages; the legend of calling the Varangians to Rus' is no exception (the German dynasties originate from the Roman ones, the British from the Anglo-Saxon ones).

To date, the question of the origin of the Russian state has not been finally clarified. The controversy between Normanists and anti-Normanists occasionally resumes, but due to lack of data, many modern researchers began to lean towards a compromise option, and a moderate Normanist theory arose. According to her, the Varangians had a serious influence on the ancient Slavs, but being small in number, they quickly mastered the Slavic language and culture of their neighbors.

Lev Pushkarev, Natalya Pushkareva

According to the widespread version, the foundations of the state in Rus' were laid by the Varangian squad of Rurik, called by the Slavic tribes to reign. However, the Norman theory has always had many opponents.

Background

It is believed that the Norman theory was formulated in the 18th century by a German scientist at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, Gottlieb Bayer. However, a century earlier, it was first voiced by the Swedish historian Peter Petrei. In the future, this theory was followed by many major Russian historians, starting with Nikolai Karamzin.

The Norman theory was most convincingly and fully presented by the Danish linguist and historian Wilhelm Thomsen in his work The Beginning of the Russian State (1891), after which the Scandinavian origins of Russian statehood were considered factually proven.

In the first years of Soviet power, the Norman theory established itself on the wave of growth of the ideas of internationalism, but the war with Nazi Germany turned the vector of the theory of the origin of the Russian state from Normanism to the Slavic concept.

Moderate Norman theory prevails today, to which Soviet historiography returned in the 1960s. It recognizes the limited nature of the influence of the Varangian dynasty on the emergence of the Old Russian state and focuses on the role of the peoples living southeast of the Baltic Sea.

Two ethnonyms

The key terms used by the "Normanists" are "Varangians" and "Rus". They are found in many chronicle sources, including the Tale of Bygone Years:

"And they said to themselves [Chud, Slovene and Krivichi]:" 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'."

The word "Rus" for the supporters of the Norman version is etymologically connected with the Finnish term "ruotsi", which traditionally denoted the Scandinavians. So, the linguist Georgy Khaburgaev writes that the name "Rus" can be formed from "Ruotsi" purely philologically.

Norman philologists do not pass by other similar-sounding Scandinavian words - "Rhodes" (Swedish for "rowers") and "Roslagen" (the name of a Swedish province). In the Slavic vowel, in their opinion, "Rhodes" could well turn into "Rus".

However, there are other opinions. For example, the historian Georgy Vernadsky disputed the Scandinavian etymology of the word "Rus", insisting that it comes from the word "Rukhs" - the name of one of the Sarmatian-Alanian tribes, which is known as "Roksolani".

"Varangians" (another scan. "Væringjar") "Normanists" also identified with the Scandinavian peoples, emphasizing either the social or the professional status of this word. According to Byzantine sources, the Varangians are, first of all, hired warriors without an exact localization of their place of residence and a specific ethnicity.

Sigismund Herberstein in Notes on Muscovy (1549) was one of the first to draw a parallel between the word "Varangian" and the name of the tribe of the Baltic Slavs - "Vargs", who, in his opinion, had a common language, customs and faith with the Russians. Mikhail Lomonosov argued that the Varangians "consisted of different tribes and languages."

chronicle evidence

One of the main sources that conveyed to us the idea of "calling the Varangians to reign" is The Tale of Bygone Years. But not all researchers are inclined to unconditionally trust the events described in it.

Thus, the historian Dmitry Ilovaisky established that the Legend of the Calling of the Varangians was a later insertion into the Tale.

Moreover, being a collection of various chronicles, The Tale of Bygone Years offers us three different references to the Varangians, and two versions of the origin of Rus'.

In the "Novgorod Chronicle", which absorbed the previous Tale "Initial Code" of the end of the 11th century, there is no comparison of the Varangians with the Scandinavians. The chronicler points to the participation of Rurik in the foundation of Novgorod, and then explains that "the essence of the people of Novgorod is from the Varangian clan."

In the “Joachim Chronicle” compiled by Vasily Tatishchev, new information appears, in particular, about the origin of Rurik. In it, the founder of the Russian state turned out to be the son of an unnamed Varangian prince and Umila, the daughter of the Slavic elder Gostomysl.

Linguistic evidence

Now it is precisely established that a number of words of the Old Russian language are of Scandinavian origin. These are both terms of trade and maritime vocabulary, as well as words found in everyday life - anchor, banner, whip, pud, yabednik, Varangian, tiun (princely manager). A number of names also passed from Old Norse into Russian - Gleb, Olga, Rogneda, Igor.

An important argument in defense of the Norman theory is the work of the Byzantine emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus "On the management of the empire" (949), which gives the names of the Dnieper rapids in Slavic and "Russian" languages.

Each "Russian" name has a Scandinavian etymology: for example, "Varuforos" ("Big backwater") clearly echoes the Old Norse "Barufors".

Opponents of the Norman theory, although they agree with the presence of Scandinavian words in the Russian language, note their small number.

archaeological evidence

Numerous archaeological excavations carried out in Staraya Ladoga, Gnezdovo, on the Rurik settlement, as well as in other places in the north-east of Russia, indicate traces of the presence of the Scandinavians there.

In 2008, at the Zemlyanoy settlement of Staraya Ladoga, archaeologists discovered objects depicting a falling falcon, which later became the coat of arms of the Rurikids.

Interestingly, a similar image of a falcon was minted on the coins of the Danish king Anlaf Gutfritsson dating back to the middle of the 10th century.

It is known that in 992 the Arab traveler Ibn Fadlan described in detail the rite of burial of a noble Rus with the burning of a boat and the erection of a mound. Russian archaeologists have discovered graves of this type near Ladoga and in Gnezdovo. It is assumed that this method of burial was adopted from immigrants from Sweden and spread up to the territories of the future Kievan Rus.

However, the historian Artemy Artsikhovsky noted that, despite the Scandinavian items in the funerary monuments of North-Eastern Rus', the burials were carried out not according to the Scandinavian, but according to the local rite.

Alternative view

Following the Norman theory, Vasily Tatishchev and Mikhail Lomonosov formulated another theory - about the Slavic origin of Russian statehood. In particular, Lomonosov believed that the state on the territory of Rus' existed long before the calling of the Varangians - in the form of tribal unions of northern and southern Slavs.

Scientists build their hypothesis on another fragment of The Tale of Bygone Years: “after all, they were nicknamed Rus from the Varangians, and before that there were Slavs; although they were called glades, but the speech was Slavic. The Arab geographer Ibn Khordadbeh wrote about this, noting that the Rus are a Slavic people.

The Slavic theory was developed by 19th-century historians Stepan Gedeonov and Dmitry Ilovaisky.

The first ranked the Russians among the Baltic Slavs - encouragers, and the second emphasized their southern origin, starting from the ethnonym "blond".

Rusov and Slavs were identified by the historian and archaeologist Boris Rybakov, placing the ancient Slavic state in the forest-steppe of the Middle Dnieper.

A continuation of the criticism of Normanism was the theory of the "Russian Khaganate", put forward by a number of researchers. But if Anatoly Novoseltsev leaned towards the northern location of the kaganate, then Valentin Sedov insisted that the state of the Rus was located between the Dnieper and the Don. The ethnonym "Rus" according to this hypothesis appeared long before Rurik and has Iranian roots.

What does genetics say?

Genetics could answer the question about the ethnicity of the founders of the Old Russian state. Such studies have been carried out, but they have generated a lot of controversy.

In 2007, Newsweek published the results of a study of the genome of living representatives of the Rurik dynasty. It was noted there that the results of DNA analyzes of Shakhovsky, Gagarin and Lobanov-Rostovsky (the Monomashich clan) rather indicate the Scandinavian origin of the dynasty. Boris Malyarchuk, head of the genetics laboratory at the Institute of Biological Problems of the North, notes that such a haplotype is often present in Norway, Sweden and Finland.

Anatoly Klyosov, professor of chemistry and biochemistry at Moscow and Harvard Universities, does not agree with such conclusions, noting that "there are no Swedish haplotypes." He defines belonging to Rurikovich by two haplogroups - R1a and N1c1. The common ancestor of the carriers of these haplogroups, according to Klenov's research, could indeed live in the 9th century, but his Scandinavian origin is being questioned.

“The Rurikoviches are either carriers of the R1a haplogroup, Slavs, or carriers of the South Baltic, Slavic branch of the N1c1 haplogroup,” the scientist concludes.

Professor of the Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences Elena Melnikova is trying to reconcile two polar opinions, arguing that even before the arrival of Rurik, the Scandinavians were well integrated into the Slavic community. According to the scientist, the analysis of DNA samples from Scandinavian burials, of which there are many in the north of Russia, can clarify the situation.