Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state. The whole truth about the Norman theory The Norman theory is
Norman theory of the origin of the ancient Russian state
Content:
Introduction
- Forerunners of the Kievan state.
Anty-Slavs.
Settlement of Slavic tribes and their names.
"The calling of the Varangians" - a legend or ...?
Norman theory.
Normanists and Anti-Normanists.
The current situation: overcoming extremes.
Bibliography
Introduction
The Norman theory is one of the most important debatable aspects of the history of the Russian state. In itself, this theory is barbaric in relation to our history and its origins in particular. Practically, on the basis of this theory, the entire Russian nation was imputed to a certain secondary importance, it seems that, on the basis of reliable facts, a terrible inconsistency was attributed to the Russian people even in purely national issues. It's a shame that for decades the Normanist point of view of the origin of Russia was firmly established in historical science as a completely accurate and infallible theory. Moreover, among the ardent supporters of the Norman theory, in addition to foreign historians, ethnographers, there were many domestic scientists. This insulting fact for Russia quite clearly demonstrates that for a long time the positions of the Norman theory in science were generally strong and unshakable.
Norman theory- a direction in historiography, whose supporters consider the Normans (Varangians) the founders of the first state of the Eastern Slavs - Kievan Rus. The Norman theory was put forward in the middle of the 18th century. under Anna Ioannovna by German historians G. Bayer and G. Miller and others.
Many works have been devoted to research questions. Basically, the material presented in the educational literature is of a general nature.
The object of this work is the analysis of the "Norman theory of origin. Old Russian state, and subject of research– Consideration of individual issues related to the origin of the Norman theory.
Objective– to study the Norman theory of the origin of the Russian state, as well as to consider it from the point of view of modernity.
The sources of information for writing the work were the basic educational literature, the works of domestic authors, articles and reviews in specialized and periodicals devoted to the subject of this work, reference literature, and other relevant sources of information.
Forerunners of the Kievan state.
The vast territory of the future Kyiv state has never been uninhabited. Already a thousand or more years before our era, Greek historians mention numerous tribes and peoples who inhabited vast expanses north of the Black Sea and northeast of the Danube. The Greeks, who had colonies on the shores of the Black Sea, maintained relations with these tribes and traded with them. We find the same data on the population of the great Russian Plain from Byzantine, Roman, Arabic, and Gothic historians of the first millennium of our era.
Being unanimous in asserting the presence and large population of the great Russian Plain (the territory of the Kievan state), all ancient historians in different eras call this population different names: Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Acts, Slavs. This circumstance gave rise to the creation of a theory about the replacement of one people by another, while only the territory remained unchanged.
The latest data of historical science provide an explanation for this incomprehensible disappearance in the same territory of some peoples and the appearance of others.
According to this explanation, numerous tribes in different eras made attempts to create state formations, and these state formations were named after the tribe that was currently in control. No complete disappearances or destruction of individual tribes and peoples occurred, although the writings of Herodotus say that the entire Cimmerian people committed suicide out of fear of the Scythians. In fact, presumably, he merged with them, giving them a leadership role. And then foreigners began to call the entire population, all the tribes, instead of the Cimmerians, the Scythians. A few centuries later, the same thing happened to the Sarmatians, and a few centuries later to the Antes-Slavs. The information that we have about the Cimmerians is very scarce, but we already know much more about their heirs - the Scythians. In the 5th century BC. there was a Scythian state association in the Sea of Azov and on the Taman Peninsula, and around the 3rd century we find a strong Scythian state in the Crimea. Excavations in the vicinity of Simferopol revealed the capital of this state - the city of Naples (Novgorod) with powerful stone walls, rich tombs and extensive granaries.
The alliances of the Scythian, and later the Scythian-Sarmatian tribes, as allies or vanquished, included the tribes of the Slavs, who gradually moved from the northwest under the pressure of the Germanic tribes. In these unions, the Slavic-Russian element prevailed, and the Slavic language came out victorious in contact with the languages of the descendants of the Scythians and Sarmatians.
So gradually, by the first half of the first millennium after R. X., the population of the southern, middle and northwestern parts of the great Russian plain acquires a Slavic, Russian character. Foreigners - ancient historians - call them sklavins and ants. The northwestern tribes are Sclavins (Slavs), and the southeastern ones are Antes. The Byzantine historian Procopius reports that the Sclaveni and Antes speak the same language. This is confirmed by the 6th-century Gothic historian Jordanes, who says that they are a "great people" consisting of "countless tribes."
Academician A. A. Shakhmatov writes about the Ants: “Slavs and Ants are two branches of a once single tribe. Anty - the eastern part of this disintegrated tribe. All that we know about the Antes with perfect clarity leads us to recognize them as the Eastern Slavs, therefore, the ancestors of the Russians.
According to academician Grekov, “there is a continuous line of development from the history of the Ants to the history of the Kievan state. This is one and the same ethnic mass, who spoke the same language, believed in Perun, sailed on the same tree, burned the slaves on the grave of the prince” 2 .
Academician Derzhavin writes: “Antes are not only the ancestors of the Eastern Slavs, but also the creators of their entire culture. The predecessors of Oleg and Igor were the Antian princes: Mezhamir, Izdachich, Khvalibud and unknown owners of the Dnieper treasures” 3 .
Archaeological excavations of recent decades have provided irrefutable evidence of the presence of Slavic settlements throughout the great Russian Plain already in the first centuries of our era. The environs of Kyiv, the upper reaches of the Don, the Volga and the Western Dvina, Galicia, Transcarpathia, Pskov were places of settlement of the Slavs, of a common origin, language and culture, which is irrefutably confirmed by a thorough study of archaeological, historical and linguistic data.
These data give us the right to assert that many centuries before the “calling of the Varangians”, our ancestors had their own culture and organized their lives without outside guidance. And this statement is at the same time a refutation of the "Norman theory".
In addition, it has now been established that long before Rurik's "Rus" there were state formations, military-political unions, of our Antes ancestors. For example, the association of the Volhynians with the princes Mezhamir and Izdar, who fought against the Avars. Or the unification of the tribes that lived on the Ros River (the right tributary of the Dnieper), under the leadership of Prince Bozh, who fought against the Goths. There is an opinion that it was this association that served as the core of the Old Russian people.
The legendary Kiy, Shek and Khoriv - the founders of Kyiv, apparently, were Ant-Slavic princes, and some historians attribute the very foundation of Kyiv to the year 430. All these data, the number of which is constantly growing as a result of scientific research, irrefutably testify to the existence of an organized life of our ancestors long before the calling of the Varangians and that they had their own original culture. The size of the planned work does not allow dwelling on them in detail, and therefore all data on the prehistory of Russia are given in the most compressed form.
Anty-Slavs
Turning to the life of our immediate ancestors of the Slavic Antes, who managed to assimilate the Scythian and Sarmatian ethnic groups back in the pre-Kyiv period, first of all, it must be said that from time immemorial they were inhabitants of Europe, as the latest historical research has now established, and nowhere did they come from. Europe did not come. The northwestern group of Slavic tribes was called Slovenes, and their settlements spread far into central Europe, to the Elbe and even further west, as well as to the coast of the German Sea and on the island of Rügen.
The southeastern group of Slavic tribes was known under the general name of the Ants and spread to the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov and the shores of the Black Sea.
Both groups of Slavic tribes in the middle of the first millennium of our era withstood a hard struggle for their national existence. Antes - with the Goths, Huns, Avars, and the Byzantines, who sought to extend their influence to the lands of the Antes. Slovenes with Germanic tribes.
The Ants managed to emerge victorious from the struggle, defend their nationality and identity and remain masters of their territory - the south and southeast of the Russian Plain.
Another group - the Slovenes - were partially forced out of their lands by aggressive Germanic tribes, partially destroyed or enslaved by them and nationally depersonalized. The surviving parts of these tribes moved to the east within the boundaries of the future Kyiv state, founding new cities and settlements here. So, for example, a Slovene tribe that came from Polabia (the Elbe region) and founded the city of Lyubets (Lubeck in Germany) there, settled at the mouth of the Desna River, at its confluence with the Dnieper, and founded the city of Lyubets (later Lyubech) here.
Interesting data about what the Slavs of the period preceding the creation of the Kievan state were, is given by the famous German historian Herder. He writes: “The Slavs cultivated the land with love, engaged in various domestic arts and crafts, everywhere opened a useful trade in the products of their country, the fruits of their hard work. They built on the shores of the Baltic Sea, starting from Lübeck, the city. Between them, Vineta was the Slavic Amsterdam. On the Dnieper they built Kyiv, on the Volkhov - Novgorod, which soon became flourishing trading cities. They connected the Black Sea with the Baltic and supplied northern and western Europe with the works of the East. In today's Germany, they worked mines, knew how to melt and cast metals, prepared salt, wove linen, boiled honey, planted fruit trees and led a cheerful musical life according to their taste. They were generous, hospitable to the point of extravagance, they loved rural freedom, but at the same time they were submissive and obedient - enemies of robbery and robbery. All this did not save them from harassment by their neighbors, on the contrary, it contributed to it. Since they did not aspire to dominion over the world, did not have hereditary sovereigns thirsting for wars, and willingly became tributaries, if only this could buy the peace of their country, then the peoples, especially those belonging to the Germanic tribe, greatly sinned against them. Already under Charlemagne, cruel wars began, which, obviously, were aimed at acquiring trade benefits and were waged under the pretext of spreading Christianity. The brave Franks, of course, found it more convenient, having enslaved a diligent agricultural and trading people, to use their labors than to study agriculture, trade and work themselves. What the Franks began, the Saxons completed. In entire regions, the Slavs were exterminated or turned into serfs, and their lands were divided among Christian bishops and nobles. Their trade on the Baltic Sea was destroyed by the northern Germans, Vineta was destroyed by the Danes, and the remnants of the Slavs in Germany are like what the Spaniards made from the natural inhabitants of Peru" 4 ...
According to objective German historians, the Slavs were generously endowed with aesthetic taste, musical and artistic abilities, they were relatively highly cultured and deeply moral, although they did not profess the Christian religion. There were no lies among them. They treated their neighbor with true Christian love. Their prisoners were considered on an equal footing with the household and after some time they were sure to be released.
Now, based on the latest research, it can be argued that our ancestors also had a pile of writing, the so-called "Ruska writing". They were introduced to St. Cyril (Konstantin the Philosopher) during his stay in the Crimea, and, presumably, it was this “Russian writing” that Saints Cyril and Methodius later laid at the basis of their alphabets - “Glagolitic” and “Cyrillic”.
Settlement of Slavic tribes and their names
All Slavic tribes (Antes and Slovenes) by the 8th century were firmly settled in the entire territory of the future Kyiv State. Although they were not yet formally united in one state and lived as separate tribes, however, the presence of one language and a common culture and religion created all the prerequisites for the state unification of these disparate tribes. And the fight against foreign neighbors or ethnic groups interspersed in the lands occupied by the Slavs made this association urgently necessary and logically inevitable. All the Slavic tribes did not have any common name, but the word "Rus", "Ros", "Rus" are found among many foreign historians of the era preceding the creation of the Kievan State. Agatemer says that the Volga was then called "Ros"; Arab chroniclers under the year 713 write about the "Rus" of the Volga; the Gothic historian Jordanes (5th century) writes about the Rosomon tribe; Byzantine, Arabic and Persian authors testify to the existence of southern "Rus" around the city of "Russia", which was at the mouth of the Don and disappeared after its capture by the Goths, Huns and Khazars. At the end of the 8th century, "Rus" (a tribe or people) attacked the city of Sourozh, (Sudak in the Crimea), as the Byzantine chroniclers tell.
In the north, in the Valdai Upland, long before the calling of the Varangians, Slavic tribes were known, called "fight" (from the word "boron"), and they lived in the forests. And also "riskolan" or "ruskolun" - these are those who lived in round settlements (kolo-circle). There is evidence that the tribes living in the foothills of the Carpathians called themselves "Rus". "Ros" called themselves the Ants-Slavs who lived on the banks of the Ros River.
We meet the name "Rus" in different parts of the great Risky Plain, sometimes simultaneously, until it became the common name of all the tribes united in the Kievan State. By the time of the creation of this state, the tribes that created it were located as follows: Polyana - along the middle course of the Dnieper; Drevlyans - to the north of the glades, in Polissya; Dregovichi - between the rivers Pripet and Dvina; Ulichi or Uglichi - a part in the Carpathian region, another detached part - in Forest Russia (Great Russia); Tivertsy - along the Dniester, Duleby - along the southern Bug; White Croats - y Carpathian Mountains; Northerners - along the rivers Desna and Sula, to the Dnieper; Radimichi - along the Sozh River; Vyatichi - along the Oka River; Krivichi with their branch - Polotsk - the upper reaches of the Dnieper, Dvina and Volga; Ilmen or Novgorod Slavs - around Lake Ilmen.
"The calling of the Varangians" - a legend or ...?
The Norman theory was based on a misinterpretation of the Russian chronicles. The main drawback of almost all the works of both Normanists and anti-Normanists (more in relation to the 19th century) “was the naive idea of Nestor as the only chronicler who wrote at the beginning of the 12th century. "The Tale of Bygone Years" 5, which later chroniclers carefully rewrote. They did not pay attention to the fact that in the ancient chronicle there are three different (and different) references to the Varangians, two different versions about the ethnic nature of Russia, several versions about the baptism of Vladimir, three versions of the origin and age of Yaroslav the Wise. Meanwhile, even in the preface to the publication of the Sophia Times, P. Stroev drew attention to the consolidated nature of the Russian chronicles. In the 30s of the XIX century. skeptics M. Kachenovsky and S. Skromnenko paid attention to the same circumstance. Both believed that the Varangian-Norman problem was introduced into the chronicle no earlier than the 13th century, while S. Skromnenko emphasized the idea of the consolidated nature of the chronicle 6 .
Ideas as the only Nestor the chronicler were typical for M.P. Pogodin, who defended the authorship of Nestor and his follower Sylvester and accepted the Normanist interpretation of the chronicle. Anti-Normanists, who read chronicle texts in much the same way as skeptics, could not put up with the fact that skeptics rejuvenated chronicle news by more than two centuries. As a result, the rational grain in the understanding of the annals was not assimilated by the disputing parties.
In the 30-40s. 19th century the Nestor controversy took a different direction. A. Kubarev in a number of articles compared the chronicle with the Life of Boris and Gleb, as well as the Life of Theodosius of the Caves, which authentically belonged to Nestor. In the annals, these stories were told by the “disciple of Theodosius”, and in the lives of the disciple of the successor of Theodosius - Stefan, who personally did not know Theodosius and wrote from the recollections of the few elders who knew him. Argumentation of A. Kubarev was supported by P.S. Kazansky, arguing, in particular, with P. Burkov, who tried to recognize heterogeneous monuments as belonging to the same author - Nestor. It was P. Butkov who tried to reconcile Nestor's writings with the texts of the chronicle, believing that Nesterov's lives were written much earlier than the compilation of the chronicle. and oral sources. In the subsequent controversy, which continues to this day, different views on the very concept of "annalistic code", and most importantly on the methods of identifying the sources and reasons for certain insertions or deletions of texts from the annals, were identified. In the XX century. two main approaches were defined: A.A. Shakhmatova and N.K. Nikolsky. Shakhmatov believed that it was necessary first to reconstruct the text of this or that code and only then evaluate its content. As a result, for many years he tried to restore the editions of The Tale of Bygone Years, but in the end he came to the conclusion that this was impossible to do. He repeatedly changed his view of the authorship of the main edition, either attributing it to Nestor, the author of the lives, or to Sylvester. The oldest code, according to Shakhmatov, was compiled in the late 30s. 11th century as a kind of explanatory note in connection with the establishment in Kyiv of the metropolis of Constantinople subordination. Numerous legends, which are, as it were, parallel texts to the messages of the annals, he recognized as extracts from the annals. N.K. Nikolsky paid much more attention to the substantive, ideological side of the chronicle texts, seeing in discrepancies, first of all, one or another interest of the chroniclers and the ideological and political forces behind them. Accordingly, he considered all extra-chronicle stories and legends not extracts from the annals, but their sources. Literature as a whole in Kievan times seemed to him richer than it was customary to think earlier, and he was ready to look for the beginning of chronicle writing at the end of the 10th century. These two approaches live to this day in works on the history of chronicle writing.
Almost throughout the 19th century the study of chronicles and sources of chronicles almost did not come into contact with disputes about the Varangians and Russ. And despite the fact that it was from the annals that the source material was drawn. Only in the publications of D.I. Ilovaisky, published in the 70s. 19th century and collected in the collection "Investigations about the beginning of Russia", a certain connection was established between the annals and the problem of the beginning of Russia. Ilovaisky was absolutely right in establishing that The Tale of the Calling of the Varangians is a later insertion into The Tale of Bygone Years. He also pointed out that Igor could not be the son of Rurik: according to chronicle chronology, they were separated by two generations. But on this basis, he made a hasty conclusion that if it is an insert, then it is therefore not worth considering. As a result, it was as if not only the concept of Normanism was crossed out, but also the main direction of anti-Normanism - Venelin - Gedeonov - about the southern, Slavic coast of the Baltic as the initial region of the Varangians. Ilovaisky searched for the history of Russia only in the south, and “Slavicized” various clearly non-Slavic tribes, in particular the Roxolans, in whose name many saw the original Russ.
Norman theory
The first attempt to present Russian history systematically dates back to the 18th century. German professors of history invited from abroad, headed by Schlozer, wrote Russian history on the basis of the few chronicles and historical documents known at that time and created the so-called "Norman theory" of the origin of the Russian state.
The theory is very simple and boils down to the fact that Norman foreigners, immigrants from Scandinavia, came and organized a huge state of the Slavs, stretching from the Baltic to the Black Sea and from the Carpathians to the Volga. They came, according to this theory, at the request of the Slavs themselves, who were convinced of their inability to organize a state and “called” the Varangians for this, who came and distributed the northern regions among themselves: Rurik began to reign in Novgorod; Sineus, his brother, is in Belozersk; Truvor, the third brother, is in Izborsk. Subsequently, the son of Rurik - Igor, together with his guardian Oleg, extended his power to the south and laid the foundation for the unification under his rule of all Slavic tribes into one Kiev state (at the beginning of the 10th century). Under his son Svyatoslav, for whom his mother Olga ruled during childhood and campaigns, and his grandson, Vladimir Svyatoslavovich, who baptized Russia in 988, the Kievan state achieved tremendous power and was not only the most powerful, but also the most cultured state of Europe at that time.
The scheme is very simple and the story is simple: due to the inability of our ancestors to create their own state, the “Varangians” did it. About the same that our ancestors represented before the arrival of the Varangians, Schlozer writes: “Of course, people were here, God knows since when and from where. But people without government (organization) are like beasts and birds that fill the forests” 7 .
And the famous poet A. K. Tolstoy in his playful "History" says: "This is self-humiliation, the recognition of one's inferiority does not know the history of any people"
Only foreigners who wrote our history could create such a theory, degrading national dignity, which became dominant in Russian historiography for a century and a half. It must be remembered that this theory was created in an era when all of Russia, after the revolutionary changes of Peter the Great, was rebuilt according to German models and when the Germans were an indisputable authority in science and everywhere occupied key positions, and the German Holstein-Gottorp dynasty had just reigned in Russia. (Karl Peter-Ulrich, Duke of Holstein, married to Princess Anhalt Zerbst - Peter III).
Europe's view of Russia at that time was like the land, if not quite savages, then as the land of semi-savages, uncultured Asians - "Muscovites". Newcomers from the West brought this view with them, and when they, as Russian academicians and professors, began to write Russian history, they depicted it as the history of savages who were organized into the state by the “Varangians” who came from the West.
The primary sources that the creators of the "Norman theory" had at their disposal, as already mentioned, were very modest and incomplete. Linguistics did not begin then, scientific archeology and other auxiliary branches of historical science did not exist then. There were no educated historians of Russian origin. There was no one to refute this degrading theory.
It was not easy to challenge this general line, because any doubt about its correctness was considered as a denial of the authority of Russian German academics who created the “Norman theory”, which was followed until the very revolution by the Imperial Academy of Sciences and the Ministry of Public Education.
However, despite all the above circumstances, immediately after its appearance, the "Norman theory" met with a negative and critical attitude towards itself. The Russian people could not put up with this self-deprecating theory. Lomonosov had already rebelled against her, but he could not do anything against the then all-powerful Germans.
In the 19th century, especially at the end of the century, the voices of the opponents of the Norman theory begin to sound louder, more convincing and more convincing. The rapid development of auxiliary historical sciences, the discovery of new historical monuments, the systematic study of primary sources and foreign archives - gave the opponents of the Norman theory the richest material for its complete refutation. All Russian historians of the 19th century (except for the "Norman" Pogodin) to one degree or another contributed to the refutation of the theory of the "calling of the Varangians." About this “calling”, Klyuchevsky says: “they called on to call, but in what capacity?” 8 And he explains that the Slavs, whose culture in the 9th century was immeasurably higher than the culture of the Scandinavians-"Varangians", indeed sometimes called on detachments of the Varangians to maintain order and increase their forces in the fight against their neighbors. It happened, says Klyuchevsky, that bands of Varangians appeared even without any call for the purpose of robbery and profit, and stayed for a long time. It happened that the Varangians called to serve seized power. But all this has nothing to do with the explanation of the appearance of small detachments of the Varangians (which no one disputes), which is given by the Norman theory.
During the last decades of the current century, almost all prominent historians in Russia and numerous authoritative Russian historians in exile are unanimous in their rejection of the Norman theory and, in the light of new facts and discoveries of historical and auxiliary sciences, provide documented data on that period in the life of our ancestors, in which , according to Schlozer, they lived "like animals and birds that fill the forests" - about the period preceding the creation of the Kyiv state
Normanists and Anti-Normanists
So, in 862, the Novgorodians turned to the Varangians: “Our land is great and plentiful, but there is no dress in it. Yes, go and rule over us” 9 . And the Varangian princes came - “the oldest Rurik, gray-haired in Novgorod, and the other, Sineus, on Beleozero, and the third Izborst, Truvor. And from those Varangians the Russian land was nicknamed” 10 . From the point of view of Klyuchevsky, "if we remove the somewhat idyllic cover, a very simple, even rude phenomenon will open before us." What is it? A benevolent invitation to strangers? - come, rule? No, this is "military employment" and "military guards received a certain amount of food for their services." And then? Feeling their power, the mercenaries turned into rulers. In 882, after 20 years, a certain Oleg, Rurik's combatant, appears in Kyiv; he killed his countrymen Askold and Dir, and then ruled under the young son of Rurik - Igor (882 - 912). Klyuchevsky's position seems to us quite balanced - a calm recognition of the role of the "Varangian element", without inflaming emotions and passions.
If Klyuchevsky is a Normanist, then he is the most sensible. The Principality of Kiev "was at first one of the local Varangian principalities." However, Klyuchevsky did not consider Novgorod to be the beginning of the Russian state: the political unification of the Russian Slavs came from Kyiv, and not from Novgorod. Klyuchevsky connects the name Rus with the Varangians - Rus was called "that Varangian tribe from which our first princes came." And later, in the 11-12 centuries, the whole territory subject to the Russian princes, with the entire Slavic-Russian population, began to be called Rus.
So, if Klyuchevsky is a Normanist, then our contemporary Gumilev Lev Nikolaevich, a geographer, historian, ethnographer, is close to him and is known for his theory of ethnogenesis and “passionarity”.
Gumilyov's position is more rigid. So, we read: “There are various hypotheses about the origin of the Rus, which are called differently in different languages: ruzheny, dew, rugi” 11
etc.................
« Who controls the past controls the future;
who controls the present controls the past»
J. Orwell.
Norman theory - an instrument of political struggle, was used at different times by different forces to achieve their goals.
Everything in the world is interconnected, one follows from the other. To talk about that time, one must imagine what territories were then inhabited by the Slavs, what the Vikings were like, whether there was a state formation on the territory of the future Russia. And we cannot reliably judge these facts because of an event that happened a little later, namely: because of the adoption of Christianity in Russia.
Russia fell under the “biblical project”, and, accordingly, the whole “history” was written under this concept (that is, a certain historical myth corresponding to it was created). Nestor wrote The Tale of Bygone Years in the 12th century, that is, 300 years after the "calling of the Varangians." But on one phrase from there the whole Norman theory is built:
« Our land is great and plentiful, but there is no order in it; Yes, and go to reign and rule over us».
Was it all clear? Consider this article, which was created with the active participation of the readers of the Information and Analytical Center.
NORMAN THEORY: BIRTH
The Norman theory itself was born in the 17th century, when the Swedes justified their claims to a number of northern territories (that is, until the 17th century such an interpretation of the formation of the Russian state simply did not exist)
A striking example of ideological manipulation is the Norman theory, according to which the Varangians who arrived in Russia in 862, led by Rurik, were Swedes. This idea of the beginning of Russian statehood, which has absolutely no basis, is an invention of Swedish politicians. It was first formulated by the Swedish diplomat Peter Petrei in 1615, to justify the rights of Sweden to the Russian lands captured during the Time of Troubles.
The position of Petreus, whom the German historian Evers called empty-handed, became the general line of Swedish historiography of the 17th century: it was then developed by scientists Widekind, Vereliy, Rudbeck. With even greater activity, Petreus's thought was cultivated and propagated throughout Europe by his compatriots in the 18th century, especially after the catastrophic defeats of Sweden in the wars of 1700-1721 and 1741-1743, inflicted on it by Russia. But the political background and lack of evidence for this anti-Russian theory were so clear that many German scientists did not accept it - they either directly refuted it (Pretorius, Thomas), or simply ignored it, arguing that the Russian Varangians came from the Slavic South Baltic (Hübner, Leibniz , Kluver, Baer, Buchholz).
In Russian historical science, the Varangians, as Scandinavians, were discussed in 1735 by Gottlieb Bayer and in 1749 by Gerhard Miller. But the latter was given a reasoned rebuff by Lomonosov, Fischer, Strube de Pyrmont. However, in the 19th century, Normanism in Russian science was willingly accepted due to Westernist sentiments and under the influence of the works of Schlozer, the leading scientists of Russia: Karamzin, Solovyov, Klyuchevsky, and others. that they played a very insignificant role in Russian history).
Now Normanism triumphs in our science without any reservations. In 2012, when the 1150th anniversary of the birth of Russian statehood was celebrated, archaeologist Sergei Shchavelev solemnly reported:
A "handful" of Vikings, who, in comparison with the "natives", "carriers of a more complex culture" and possessing the mentality of "leaders", led by Rurik "founded a whole state, even at the beginning of its development, equal in area to the average European kingdom."
That is, the position is the same, nothing changes: all civilization is from the “west”, and in Russia “barbarism”, even the Vikings built a state for us.
True, it follows from the Scandinavian sagas that the Swedes begin to appear in Russia only at the end of the 10th century, i.e. 120-130 years after the calling of the Varangians. In addition, the Viking pirates, specializing exclusively in robberies, were not engaged in state building. In this area, experience has been gained for centuries, which is why, in fact, only by the time of the collapse of Russia, the Swedes were able to create their own state. Yes, and they learned to build the first cities only by the end of the 13th century, while our Varangians massively “chopped” them, giving them Slavic names, four or three centuries earlier.
Of course, the roots of the Norman theory go back to The Tale of Bygone Years, and are associated with the struggle of the "elite" groups, and the Norman theory was a tool to justify the right of the "elite" to exploit the population. This struggle entered the active phase after the death (murder) of Ivan the Terrible (that is, the suppression of the dynasty of the Rurikovichs themselves) intensified under Peter I, due to the appearance of an increasing number of "Germans" at the "court", and finally formed after the death of Peter, "thanks to ” to the notorious Miller, Schlozer and Bayer, who finally formulated the Norman theory, and, in fact, wrote Russian history.
At the beginning of the 18th century, the future creators of Russian “history”, who later became academicians, G.F. Miller, A.L. Schlozer, G.Z. Bayer and more. etc. In the form of Roman “blanks” in their pockets they had: both the “Norman theory”, and the myth of the feudal fragmentation of “Ancient Russia”, and the emergence of Russian culture no later than 988 AD, and other purely ideological developments. In fact, foreign scientists proved with their research that "the Eastern Slavs in the 9th-10th centuries were real savages, saved from the darkness of ignorance by the Varangian princes." Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer brought the Norman theory of the formation of the Russian state to the forefront. According to his theory, “a handful of Normans who arrived in Russia turned the “dark country” into a powerful state in a few years.”
Lomonosov waged an irreconcilable struggle against the distortions of Russian history, and he found himself in the thick of this struggle. In 1749-1750, he spoke out against the historical views of Miller and Bayer, as well as against the "Norman theory" of the formation of Russia imposed by the Germans. He criticized Miller's dissertation "On the origin of the Russian name and people", as well as Bayer's works on Russian history. Lomonosov often quarreled with foreign colleagues who worked at the Academy of Sciences. Here is a quote from him:
“What vile dirty tricks such a beast allowed in them will not roam in Russian antiquities!”
It is alleged that the phrase is addressed to Schlözer, who "created" Russian "history". Mikhailo Lomonosov was supported by many Russian scientists. Member of the Academy of Sciences, outstanding Russian machine builder A.K. Martov filed a complaint with the Senate about the dominance of foreigners in Russian academic science. Russian students, translators and clerks, as well as the astronomer Delisle, joined Martov's complaint. It was signed by I. Gorlitsky, D. Grekov, M. Kovrin, V. Nosov, A. Polyakov, P. Shishkarev.
The meaning and purpose of their complaint is quite clear - the transformation of the Academy of Sciences into Russian, not only in name. Prince Yusupov turned out to be at the head of the commission created by the Senate to investigate the accusations. The commission saw in the speech of A.K. Russian scientists who filed a complaint wrote to the Senate:
“We have proven the charges on the first 8 counts and will prove the remaining 30 if we get access to the cases.”
“But… for “stubbornness” and “insulting the commission” they were arrested. A number of them (I.V. Gorlitsky, A. Polyakov and others) were shackled and "put on a chain." They stayed in this position for about two years, but they could not be forced to retract their testimony. The decision of the commission was truly monstrous: to reward Schumacher and Taubert, to execute Gorlitsky, to severely punish Grekov, Polyakov, Nosov with whips and exile to Siberia, to leave Popov, Shishkarev and others under arrest until the decision of the case by the future president of the Academy.
Formally, Lomonosov was not among those who filed a complaint against Schumacher, but all his behavior during the investigation period shows that Miller was hardly mistaken when he stated:
“Mr Adjunct Lomonosov was one of those who filed a complaint against Mr Counselor Schumacher and thereby caused the appointment of a commission of inquiry.”
Probably not far from the truth was Lamansky, who asserted that Martov's statement was written for the most part by Lomonosov. During the work of the commission, Lomonosov actively supported Martov ... This was what caused his violent clashes with the most zealous minions of Schumacher: Winzheim, Truskot, Miller. The Synod of the Orthodox Christian Church also accused the Russian scientist of distributing anti-clerical works in manuscript according to Art. 18 and 149 of the Military Article of Peter I, which provided for the death penalty. Representatives of the clergy demanded the burning of Lomonosov.
Such severity, apparently, was caused by the too great success of the free-thinking, anti-church writings of Lomonosov, which testified to a noticeable weakening of the authority of the church among the people. Archimandrite D. Sechenov - the confessor of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna - was seriously alarmed by the fall of faith, the weakening of interest in the church and religion in Russian society. It is characteristic that it was Archimandrite D. Sechenov who, in his libel on Lomonosov, demanded that the scientist be burned. The commission stated that Lomonosov "for repeated discourteous, dishonorable and disgusting acts both in relation to the Academy, and to the commission, and to the German land" is subject to the death penalty, or, in extreme cases, punishment by lashes and deprivation of rights and status.
By decree of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna, Mikhail Lomonosov was found guilty, but was released from punishment. He was only halved his salary, and he had to "for the insolence committed by him" to ask for forgiveness from the professors. Gerard Friedrich Miller personally compiled a mocking "repentance", which Lomonosov was obliged to publicly pronounce and sign. Mikhail Vasilievich, in order to be able to continue scientific research, was forced to abandon his views. But the German professors did not rest on this. They continued to seek the removal of Lomonosov and his supporters from the Academy. Around 1751, Lomonosov began work on Ancient Russian History.
He sought to refute the theses of Bayer and Miller about the "great darkness of ignorance" that allegedly reigned in Ancient Russia. Of particular interest in this work of his is the first part - "On Russia before Rurik", which outlines the doctrine of the ethnogenesis of the peoples of Eastern Europe and, above all, the Slavs-Rus. Lomonosov pointed to the constant movement of the Slavs from east to west. German professors of history decided to remove Lomonosov and his supporters from the Academy.
This "scientific activity" unfolded not only in Russia. Lomonosov was a world-famous scientist. He was well known abroad. Every effort was made to discredit Lomonosov in front of the world scientific community. At the same time, all means were put into play. Every effort was made to belittle the significance of Lomonosov's works not only in history, but also in the natural sciences, where his authority was very high. In particular, Lomonosov was a member of several foreign Academies - the Swedish Academy since 1756, the Bologna Academy since 1764.
"In Germany, Miller inspired speeches against Lomonosov's discoveries and demanded his removal from the Academy."
This was not possible at the time. However, Lomonosov's opponents managed to achieve the appointment of Schlozer as an academician in Russian history.
“Schlozer… called Lomonosov “a rude ignoramus who knew nothing but his annals.”
So, as we can see, Lomonosov was accused of knowing Russian chronicles.
“Despite the protests of Lomonosov, Catherine II appointed Schlozer an academician. at the same time, he not only received for uncontrolled use all the documents in the academy, but also the right to demand everything that he considered necessary from the imperial library and other institutions. Schlozer received the right to present his works directly to Catherine ... In a draft note compiled by Lomonosov “for memory” and accidentally avoided confiscation, the feelings of anger and bitterness caused by this decision are clearly expressed: “There is nothing to protect. Everything is open to the crazy Schlozer. There are no more secrets in the Russian library.”
Miller and his associates had full power not only in the university itself in St. Petersburg, but also in the gymnasium that trained future students. The gymnasium was run by Miller, Bayer and Fischer. In the gymnasium
“The teachers didn’t know Russian… the students didn’t know German. All teaching was exclusively in Latin… For thirty years (1726-1755) the gymnasium did not prepare a single person for admission to the university.”
From this the following idiotic conclusion was drawn. It was stated that:
“The only way out is to send students from Germany, since it is supposedly impossible to train them from Russians anyway.”
This struggle continued throughout Lomonosov's life. "Thanks to the efforts of Lomonosov, several Russian academicians and adjuncts appeared in the Academy."
However, “in 1763, on the denunciation of Taubert, Miller, Shtelin, Epinuss and others, the already different Empress of Russia Catherine II “even completely dismissed Lomonosov from the academy.” But soon the decree on his resignation was canceled. The reason was the popularity of Lomonosov in Russia and the recognition of his merits by foreign academies. Nevertheless, Lomonosov was removed from the leadership of the geographical department, and Miller was appointed instead of him. An attempt was made to "put Lomonosov's materials on language and history at Schlozer's disposal." The last fact is very significant. If even during Lomonosov's lifetime attempts were made to get to his archive on Russian history, then what can we say about the fate of this unique archive after Lomonosov's death.
As expected, Lomonosov's archive was immediately confiscated immediately after his death and disappeared without a trace. We quote:
“The archive of Lomonosov confiscated by Catherine II has been lost forever. The next day after his death, the library and all Lomonosov's papers were sealed by order of Catherine. Orlov, were transported to his palace and disappeared without a trace.
Taubert's letter to Miller has been preserved. In this letter, without hiding his joy, Taubert announces the death of Lomonosov and adds:
“The next day after his death, Count Orlov ordered the seals to be attached to his office. Without a doubt, it must contain papers that they do not want to release into the wrong hands.
The death of Mikhail Lomonosov was also sudden and mysterious, and there were rumors about his deliberate poisoning. Obviously, what could not be done publicly, his numerous enemies completed covertly and secretly. Thus, the "creators of Russian history" - Miller and Schlozer - got to the Lomonosov archive. After that, these archives, of course, disappeared. But, after a seven year delay was finally published - and it is quite clear that under the complete control of Miller and Schlozer, and therefore edited by them - Lomonosov's work on Russian history. And that's just the first volume. Most likely, rewritten by Miller in the right way. And the rest of the volumes simply “disappeared”.
And so it happened that the "Lomonosov's work on history" at our disposal today, in a strange and surprising way, is consistent with Miller's point of view on history. It is even incomprehensible - why then did Lomonosov argue so violently and for so many years with Miller? Why did he accuse Miller of falsifying Russian history, when he himself, in his (though posthumously) published History, so obediently agrees with Miller on all points? Obsequiously agrees with him in every line? The history of Russia published by Miller based on the Lomonosov drafts, one might say, was written as a blueprint, and practically does not differ in any way from Miller's version of Russian history. Does death really change people?
The same applies to another Russian historian - Tatishchev, again published by Miller only after the death of Tatishchev! Karamzin rewrote Miller almost verbatim, although Karamzin's texts after his death were more than once edited and altered.
But there is an inaccuracy in the video: Russian court historians could not speak Russian so well.
Thus began the "victorious" procession of the "Norman theory" in Russian historiography, which, unfortunately, continued into the Soviet era.
This is due to the fact that the ideology of the USSR was Marxism. And according to Marxism, history was divided into 5 periods:
- from the primitive communal formation to the most progressive and evolutionary - communist.
But the period of Russian history before the adoption of Christianity did not fit into any "standard" template - it did not look like a primitive communal system, nor a slaveholding, nor a feudal one. But rather it was like a socialist.
And this was the whole comedy of the situation and a great desire not to pay scientific attention to this period. This was also the reason for the dissatisfaction of Froyanov and other Soviet scientists when they tried to understand this period of history.
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED? THERE ARE DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF WHO WERE RURIK AND THE VARYAGS
Grandson of Gostomysl
One of the early lists of the Novgorod Chronicle, dating from the middle of the 15th century, contains a list of local posadniks, where the first is a certain Gostomysl, a native of the Obodrite tribe. In another manuscript, which was created at the end of the 15th century, it is said that the Slovenes, having come from the Danube, founded Novgorod and called Gostomysl to the elders. The Joachim Chronicle states:
“This Gostomysl was a man of great courage, the same wisdom, all his neighbors were afraid of him, and his people loved trials for the sake of justice. For this sake, all the close peoples honored him and gave gifts and tributes, buying peace from him.
Gostomysl lost all his sons in the wars, and married his daughter Umila to some ruler of a distant land. Once Gostomysl had a dream that one of Umila's sons would be his successor. Before his death, Gostomysl, having gathered “the elders of the earth from the Slavs, Rus, Chud, Vesi, Mers, Krivichi and Dryagovichi,” told them about a prophetic dream, and they sent to the Varangians to ask their son Umila to be princes. Rurik and his relatives came to the call, that is, his own grandson returned to his homeland.
Descendant of Emperor Augustus
In the 16th century, Rurik was declared a relative of the Roman emperors. Metropolitan of Kyiv Spyridon, at the direction of Emperor Vasily III, was engaged in compiling the genealogy of the Moscow kings and presented it in the form of the "Message on the Monomakh's Crown". Spiridon reports that the “governor Gostomysl”, dying, asked to send ambassadors to the land of Prus, who was a relative of the Roman Caesar Gaius Julius Augustus Octavian (Prussian land), in order to call on the prince “Augustus of the clan”. Novgorodians did so and found Rurik, who gave rise to the family of Russian princes. Here is what the “Legend of the Princes of Vladimir” (XVI-XVII centuries) says:
“... At that time, a certain governor of Novgorod named Gostomysl, before his death, called all the rulers of Novgorod and said to them: “Oh, men of Novgorod, I advise you to send wise men to the Prussian land and call the ruler from the local clans to you” . They went to the Prussian land and found there a certain prince named Rurik, who was from the Roman family of Augustus the Tsar. And envoys from all Novgorodians begged Prince Rurik to go and reign to them.
Rurik is a Slav
At the beginning of the 16th century, the hypothesis of the Slavic origin of the Varangian princes was put forward by the Austrian ambassador to Russia, Sigismund Herberstein. In Notes on Muscovy, he claimed that the northern tribes found their ruler in Wagria, among the Western Slavs:
“... In my opinion, it was natural for the Russians to call the Vagrians, in other words, the Varangians, as sovereigns, and not cede power to strangers who differed from them in faith, customs, and language.” The author of the "History of the Russian" V.N. Tatishchev saw northern peoples in general in the Varangians, and by "Rus" he meant the Finns. Confident in his rightness, Tatishchev calls Rurik "Prince of Finland."
Position M.V. Lomonosov by Rurik
In 1749, the historian Gerhard Friedrich Miller wrote his dissertation "The Origin of the Russian People and Name". He argued that Russia "received both tsars and its name" from the Scandinavians. M.V. became his main opponent. Lomonosov, according to whom, "Rurik" was from the Prussians, but had the ancestors of the Roksolani Slavs, who originally lived between the Dnieper and the mouth of the Danube, and after several centuries moved to the Baltic Sea.
"True Fatherland" Rurik
In 1819, the Belgian professor G.F. Holmann published a book in Russian
"Rustringia, the original fatherland of the first Russian prince Rurik and his brothers", where he stated:
“The Russian Varangians, from whom Rurik descended with his brothers and retinue, lived on the shores of the Baltic Sea, which Western sources called German, between Jutland, England and France. On this coast, Rustringia was a special land, which for many reasons can be recognized as the true fatherland of Rurik and his brothers. The Rustrings, who belonged to the Varangians, were from time immemorial seafarers who traded on the sea and shared dominance over the sea with other peoples; in the 9th and 10th centuries, they considered Rurik between their first surnames.
Rustringia was located on the territory of present-day Holland and Germany.
Rurik of Jutland
In 1836, F. Kruse, a professor at Dorpat University, suggested that the annalistic Rurik is a Jutland hevding, who in the middle of the 9th century participated in Viking attacks on the lands of the Frankish Empire and had a fief (possession for the life of the master) in Friesland. Kruse identified this Viking with Rurik of Novgorod. Old Russian chronicles do not report anything about the activities of Rurik before his arrival in Russia. However, in Western Europe his name was well known. Rurik of Jutland is a real historical person, not a mythical hero. Historicity of Rurik and his vocation in Northern Russia are considered quite probable by experts. In the monograph "The Birth of Russia" B.A. Rybakov wrote that, wanting to protect themselves from unregulated Varangian extortions, the population of the northern lands could well invite one of the kings as a prince so that he would protect him from other Varangian detachments. Identifying Rurik of Jutland and Rurik of Novgorod, historians rely on the data of Western European chronicles, discoveries in the field of archeology, toponymy and linguistics.
There is only one conclusion: “it is still impossible to speak reliably about this today.” All pre-Christian sources were destroyed. The first chronicles that have come down to us were written centuries after the events and subsequently were repeatedly edited to please the current political situation, and therefore do not deserve trust.
To try to answer the question of who Rurik could be, one must imagine what territory the Slavic “tribes” occupied by the time Rurik was “called”. Did the Slavs have a state education before the advent of Rurik?
There is every reason to believe that at that time the Slavic lands included all of Eastern Europe (approximately along the lines of the Warsaw Pact), including East Germany and the southern coast of the Baltic Sea (but this is a topic for a separate article) where most of the sources bring Rurik's "homeland". Answering the second question, it is worth paying attention to the Serpent Shafts, stretching for hundreds of kilometers on the southern borders of Russia. The construction of such complex defensive structures is impossible without the involvement of huge resources and the coordinated work of many people for a long time, that is, without the existence of the state.
We also note the campaigns of Russian princes against Byzantium already at quite a historically fixed time. Imagine the situation: the “newly” formed state in Russia and the strongest power of that time are fighting each other. But there were campaigns against Byzantium under Oleg, and under Igor, and under Svyatoslav, and even earlier. It is incorrect to compare this with the Viking raids on Britain - the scale is incomparable, England of that time is far from Byzantium, the number of troops participating in the campaigns too. That is, Russia of that time is comparable in power to Byzantium.
WHAT SOCIETY WAS IT?
In the period before the baptism of Russia, the Rus undoubtedly had their own state, and at the same time there was no class society, in particular, feudal society. And the inconvenience was that the "classical" Soviet ideology claimed that the feudal class creates the state as an instrument of its political domination and suppression of the peasants. And then there was the confusion...
Moreover, judging by the military victories of the Rus over their neighbors, and that the “queen of the world” Byzantium herself paid tribute to them, it turned out that the “original” way of society and the state of our ancestors was more effective and advantageous compared to other ways and structures of that period from other peoples.
And here it should be noted that the archaeological sites of the Eastern Slavs recreate society without any clear traces of property stratification. An outstanding researcher of East Slavic antiquities I.I. Lyapushkin emphasized that among the dwellings known to us
“... in the most diverse regions of the forest-steppe belt, it is not possible to indicate those that, in their architectural appearance and in the content of the household and household equipment found in them, would be distinguished by wealth. The internal structure of the dwellings and the inventory found in them do not yet allow dismembering the inhabitants of these latter only by occupation - into landowners and artisans.
Another well-known specialist in Slavic-Russian archeology V.V. Sedov writes:
“It is impossible to identify the emergence of economic inequality on the materials of the settlements studied by archaeologists. It seems that there are no distinct traces of the property differentiation of the Slavic society in the grave monuments of the 6th-8th centuries.
“All this requires a different understanding of the archaeological material”
Notes in his study I.Ya. Froyanov.
That is, in this ancient Russian society, it was not the meaning of life to accumulate wealth and pass it on to children, it was not some kind of ideological or moral value, and this was clearly not welcomed and contemptuously condemned.
The same Swedish view of Russian history triumphs in education. So, in the textbook E.V. Pchelov "History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 16th century" for the 6th grade (2012, directors of two institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences: archeology and Russian history go to his "godfathers"), which, according to the annotation, contributes to the awareness of schoolchildren " their civic-national identity”, the Varangians are represented by Scandinavians, Normans, Vikings. Moreover, this idea is imposed on children by another question: “Why do you think a monument to the first Russian princes was erected in Sweden?”
But how would they know that it was installed only under the influence of petreev idlers, including Russians? About the Varangians-Scandinavians already speaks for future teachers - students of history - and the textbook V.G. Vovina-Lebedeva "History of Ancient Russia" (2011).
Trying to materialize their phantasmagoria, "our" archaeologists, according to their own diagnosis, "terminally ill with Normanism", achieved, for example, the inclusion of the Rurik settlement ( 2 km south of Novgorod) to the UNESCO list recommended for visiting the route "On the roads of the Vikings", the creation of the archaeological museum "Knyazhaya Gora" on the Peredolsky churchyard ( near the Novgorod hills of the IX-X centuries.), which "will be of an Old Norse character" ( moreover, this project was supposed to receive a grant of 300 thousand euros from the European Commission for Cultural Development, which probably does not affect the direction and reliability"historical reconstruction").
According to the prominent Novgorod archaeologist Sergei Troyanovsky:
“The Vikings on the Novgorod land were different - they did not fight, did not capture cities, they were forced to negotiate. If we show this to the Europeans, all of Scandinavia will be here as tourists.”
Troyanovsky emphasizes the huge difference in the actions of the Vikings and the Varangians, but does not notice that this fact means only one thing: the Varangians and Vikings are completely different people (if not nations), who have fundamentally different types of behavior.
CONCLUSION
We measure everything out of habit by the “Western” approach to the structure of the state, as well as by the “Marxist” theory of the change of formations, however, the structure of Russia of that time on other principles that carry other stereotypes of relations within the state, rules of conduct within society is quite acceptable. And there is even historical evidence of this - this is the meeting of Svyatoslav and the emperor of Byzantium.
Svyatoslav began peace negotiations with John Tzimiskes. Their historical meeting took place on the banks of the Danube and was described in detail by a Byzantine chronicler who was in the emperor's retinue. Tzimiskes, surrounded by close associates, was waiting for Svyatoslav. The prince arrived on a boat, sitting in which he rowed along with ordinary soldiers. The Greeks could distinguish him only because the shirt he wore was cleaner than that of other warriors, and by an earring with two pearls and a ruby, worn in his ear.
At that time in Russia, with the unity of moral and ethical norms for all, there was no personal hierarchy, although the professional specialization of people in the community was inevitable. Therefore, in some periods, professional managers - a prince or a priest - could perform the functions of an ordinary rower on a boat, unquestioningly obeying the helmsman, and in other circumstances the same helmsman unquestioningly carried out the orders of the same prince or priest, and at the same time they were in the aspect of each other personal dignity - an equal.
So, Prince Svyatoslav, sitting with an oar in a boat along with other rowers, talked with the emperor of Byzantium Tzimiskes, who was on horseback on the banks of the Danube, who was accompanied by his retinue. This surprised the Greeks very much and was incomprehensible to them, since it did not correlate with the social norms of Byzantium: Svyatoslav did not descend to their emperor? Is the emperor forced to talk about international relations with a plebeian? Or is it with the prince? The prince is in the ranks of the plebeians and is indistinguishable from them? These Russians are such savages that they don't know any etiquette? - the loyal subjects of the "sovereign lackeys" from such a "roof" can easily move out ...
It is beneficial for the "West" to shorten our history, to present us as "barbarians", to whom the statehood was brought by the Vikings, and "spirituality" - by the Greeks. Everything is the same as it is now… Little has changed in a thousand years. And we learn this "history" at school.
AFTERWORD ABOUT DNA GENEOLOGY
Here is an opinion from the book “The Origin of the Slavs. DNA genealogy against the "Norman theory".
Those whom we consider Rurikovich, the Russian princes named above, are of Slavic origin, have nothing to do with the Scandinavians. Those who are considered Gediminids are not the descendants of those Ruriks, these are two different DNA lines.
In the Slavic countries, the descendants of the Scandinavians are not observed. In the haplogroup R1a, for example, there is the so-called Scandinavian subclade R1a-Z284, which is typical for the Scandinavian countries, and those where the Scandinavians went. There is a lot of it not only in Scandinavia, but also in the British Isles.
And here's the bad luck - there is no such subclade either in Russia, or in Ukraine, or in Belarus, or in Lithuania. That is, there are no descendants of Scandinavians in these countries, at least in statistically significant quantities.
How is it - the Normanists say that they were there, apparently, invisible, and no offspring. That doesn't happen.
The answer is simple - they were not Scandinavians, but Slavs.
Subscribe to our groups:direction in Russian and foreign historiography, whose supporters consider the Normans (Varangians) the founders of the state in Ancient Russia. Formulated in the 2nd quarter of the 16th century. G. Bayer, G. Miller and others.
Great Definition
Incomplete definition ↓
NORMAN THEORY
direction in historiography, supporters of which consider the Normans (Varangians) the founders of the state in Dr. Russia. N. t. was formulated by him. scientists working in St. Petersburg. AN in the 2nd quarter. 18th century, - G. Z. Bayer, G. F. Miller, and others. A. L. Shletser, who arrived in Russia, later became a supporter of N. t. The basis for the conclusion about the Norman origin of Dr.-Rus. The state-va was served by the story "The Tale of Bygone Years" about the calling to Russia of the Varangian princes Rurik, Sineus and Truvor in 862, which, as established by the researchers of the annals, is a later interpolation. This news was brought, apparently, in the 12th century. with the aim of countering the desire of Byzantium to impose political politics on Russia. dependence together with the dependence of the church on Byzantium. Already in the period of the formation of N. t., its politic was revealed. meaning, aimed at presenting dr. Russia is an extremely backward country, the Slavs and their descendants are a people incapable of self-sufficiency. ist. development, and the Germans and Normans - by force, edges from the very beginning of Rus. History is called upon to guide Russia, its economy and culture. All R. 18th century N. t. was criticized by M. V. Lomonosov, who in connection with this study of the history of the East. Slavs. He pointed to the the inconsistency of N. t. and its political hostile to Russia. meaning. In the nobility-monarchy. historiography 18-19 centuries. the views of the "Normanists" acquired the character of an official. versions of the origin of Rus. state-va. H. M. Karamzin even saw the special virtues of the East. with the Lavians in that they allegedly themselves voluntarily elected a monarch. form of government and called foreign sovereigns to themselves. To a greater or lesser extent, most of the bourgeois were "Normanists". historians. S. M. Solovyov, without denying the calling of the Varangian princes to Russia, refused to see this as evidence of the underdevelopment of the East. Slavs and transfer to the 9th century. concept of national dignity of modern times. The struggle between the "Normanists" and the "anti-Normanists" became especially acute in the 1960s. in connection with the celebration in 1862 of the millennium of Russia. Opponents of N. t. were made by certain nobles and bourgeois. historians - D. I. Ilovaisky, S. A. Gedeonov, V. G. Vasilevsky and others. They criticized the department. specific provisions of N. t., but could not reveal its anti-science. In the owls the historiography of N. t. was overcome in the 1930s and 1940s. as a result of the work of a number of owls based on the Marxist-Leninist methodology. historians and archaeologists. B. D. Grekov, B. A. Rybakov, M. N. Tikhomirov, S. V. Yushkov, V. V. Mavrodin and others established that the East Slavs. society reached in the 9th century. the degree of decomposition of the communal system, when ripe ext. prerequisites for the emergence of state-va. The presence of some other Russian. princes of Varangian origin (Oleg, Igor) and the Norman-Varangians in the princely squads does not contradict the fact that the state in Dr. Russia was formed on the inside. social-economic basis. They left almost no traces in the rich material and spiritual culture of Dr. Russia. The Normans-Varangians, who were in Russia, quickly merged with the indigenous population, became glorified. Starting from the 20s. 20th century the provisions of N. t. became an integral part of the bourgeois. Russian concept. history, which is followed by historians Zap. Europe and USA. The most prominent representatives of N. t. in the west are: in the USA, G. Vernadsky; in England, G. Pashkevich, A. A. Vasiliev, and N. Chadwick; in Denmark, the philologist A. Stender-Petersen; Arne, X. Arbman, in Finland - prof. V. Kiparsky. Normanist views are set forth in the general works and school textbooks of the countries of the West. Europe and USA. N. t. acquired a particularly acute political. sounding in the atmosphere of the "cold war" against the USSR and other socialist. countries after the end of World War II. Version about ist. "non-independence" Rus. people served as an argument to justify aggressive plans against the USSR and the spread of hostile Rus. people's ideas about their past and present. There were many monographs and articles on the department. questions of N. t. For modern. Normanism is characteristic in general of defense. position in relation to the works of owls. scientists. Supporters of N. t. questions: on the composition of the ruling class in Dr. Russia, about the origin of large land ownership in Russia, about trade and bargaining. ways dr. Russia, about archeol. monuments of other Russian. culture, etc., in each of which the Normanists consider the Norman element to be decisive, defining. Modern "Normanists" also claim that there was a Norman colonization of Russia and that Scand. the colonies served as the basis for establishing the rule of the Normans. "Normanists" believe that Dr. Russia was politically dependent on Sweden. Regardless of subjective intentions scientists, supporters of N. t., and their relationship to the USSR and owls. people, N. t. is untenable in scientific. relation and used bourgeois. propaganda in politics. purposes hostile to the interests of the USSR. Lit .: Tikhomirov M. H., Rus. historiography of the 18th century, "VI", 1948, No 2; his own. Slavs in the "History of Russia" prof. G. Vernadsky, ibid., 1946, No 4; his, Chadwick's Revelations about the beginning of Rus. history, ibid., 1948, No 4; his own. The origin of the names "Rus" and "Russian Land", in Sat: SE, 1947, vol. 6-7; Grekov B. D., Kievan Rus, M., 1953; his own, On the role of the Varangians in the history of Russia, Izbr. works, vol. 2, M., 1959; his own, Antiscientific. fabrications of the Finnish "professor", ibid.; Rybakov B. A., Craft Dr. Rus, M., 1948; his own. Dr. Rus, M., 1963, p. 289-300; Yushkov S. V., Socio-political. system and law of the Kyiv state-va, M.-L., 1949; Mavrodin V. V., Education of Old Russian. state-va, L., 1945; his own. Essays on the history of the USSR. Old Russian. state-in, M., 1956; Shaskolsky IP, Norman theory in modern. bourgeois science, M.-L., 1965; Lowmlanski H., Zagadnienie roli norman?w w genezie panstw slowianskich, Warsz., 1957. Works of the Normanists: Thomsen V., Nachalo Rus. state-va, M., 1891; Vernadsky G., The origins of Russia, Oxf., 1959; Paszkiewicz H., The origin of Russia, L., 1954; his own. The making of the Russian nation, L., 1963; Stender-Petersen A., Varangica and Aarhus, 1953; his, Russian studies, Aarhus, 1956 ("Acta Jutlandica", t. 28, No 2); his own, Geschichte der russischen Literatur, Bd 1, M?nch., 1957; his own. Der ?lteste russische Staat, "HZ", M?nch., 1960, Bd 91, H. 1; Arne T. J., La Su?de et l'Orient, Uppsala. 1914; his, Die Varägerfrage und die sowjetrussische Forschung, "Acta archeologica", 1952, t. 23; Arbman H., Svear i?sterviking, Stockh., 1955. A. M. Sakharov. Moscow.
Photo: Rurik Dynasty. Fresco from the Granovite Chamber of the Moscow Kremlin
The whole truth about the Norman theory
According to the widespread version, the foundations of the state in Russia 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 Russia."
The word "Rus" for 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 “rowers”) and “Roslagen” (the name of the 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 Russia.
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, and 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 barrow. 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 Russia, 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 Russia 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.
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.
The Norman theory is a complex of scientific ideas, according to which it was the Scandinavians (i.e. "Varangians"), being called to rule Russia, who laid the first foundations of statehood on it. According to the Norman theory, some Western and Russian scholars raise the question not of the influence of the Varangians on the already formed tribes of the Slavs, but of the influence of the Varangians on the very origin of Russia as a developed, strong and independent state.
The very term "Varangians" arose at the end of the 9th - beginning of the 10th centuries. The Varangians are first mentioned in the "Tale of Bygone Years" on its very first pages, and they also open the list of 13 peoples who continued the clan of Japheth after the flood. The first researchers involved in the analysis of Nestor's story about the calling of the Varangians almost generally recognized its authenticity, seeing in the Varangian-Russians people from Scandinavia (Petreius and other Swedish scientists, Bayer, G. F. Muller, Tunman, Schletser, etc. ). But as early as the 18th century, active opponents of this "Norman theory" began to appear (Tredyakovsky and Lomonosov).
However, until the sixties of the XIX century, the Norman school could be considered unconditionally dominant, since only a few objections were raised against it (Ewers in 1808). During this time, the most prominent representatives of Normanism were Karamzin, Krug, Pogodin, Kunik, Shafarik and Mikloshich. However, since 1859 the opposition against Normanism has risen with a new, hitherto unprecedented force. The reason is most likely political, Russia is trying to present itself among the European peoples as a state with its own history. This was required by Russia's nascent international political ambitions and growing internal problems. The relatively young Russian nobility demanded "historical endurance", that is, they claimed to be noble in order to equalize with European aristocrats, or at least somehow come closer. Serfdom also required an explanation, because it did not exist in Europe, and the numerous Russian army, having passed through the European countries, following the army of Napoleon, saw this.
Normanists - adherents of the Norman theory, based on the story of the Nestor Chronicle about the calling of the Varangians-Russians from across the sea, find confirmation of this story in Greek, Arabic, Scandinavian and Western European testimonies and in linguistic facts, everyone agrees that the Russian state, as such, really founded by the Scandinavians, i.e. the Swedes.
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 Russia 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 Varangians themselves, “of which Rurik and his brothers were, were not a Slavic tribe and language ... they were Scandinavians, that is, Swedes.”
M. V. Lomonosov subjected to devastating criticism all the main provisions of this "anti-scientific concept of the genesis of Ancient Russia." The ancient Russian state, according to Lomonosov, existed long before the calling of the Varangians-Russians in the form of disunited tribal unions and separate principalities. The tribal unions of the southern and northern Slavs, who “considered themselves free without a monarchy,” in his opinion, were clearly burdened by any kind of power.
So - "the state existed, but in the form of separate disunited principalities" (the car was, but in the form of scattered incompatible spare parts !!!). You can't express yourself more absurdly, but this absurdity turned out to be in demand and accepted. No less absurd is Lomonosov's pretentious statement that the Russians were weary of any authority and considered themselves free. It is absurd because this is not said by anyone, but by a representative of a country (people), in which the basis of the state is serfdom.
/ehorussia.com/new/sites/all/themes/ehofox/images/postquote.png" target="_blank">http://ehorussia.com/new/sites/all/themes/ehofox/images/postquote.png ); background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgb(241, 244, 249); padding: 10px 10px 10px 47px; margin: 10px 0px 0px 25px; color: rgb(59, 55, 63); overflow: auto; clear: both; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Lomonosov, in particular, claimed that Rurik was from the Polabian Slavs, who had dynastic ties with the princes of the Ilmen Slovenes (this was the reason for his invitation to reign). One of the first Russian historians of the middle of the 18th century, V.N. Tatishchev, having studied the “Varangian question”, did not come to a definite conclusion regarding the ethnicity of the Varangians called to Russia, but made an attempt to combine opposing views. In his opinion, based on the "Joachim Chronicle", the Varangian Rurik descended from the Norman prince ruling in Finland, and the daughter of the Slavic elder Gostomysl.
Noting the role of the Slavs in the development of world history and the fall of the Roman Empire, Lomonosov once again emphasizes the love of freedom of the Slavic tribes and their intolerant attitude towards any oppression. Thus Lomonosov indirectly indicates that princely power did not always exist, but was a product of the historical development of Ancient Russia. He showed this especially vividly in the example of ancient Novgorod, where "the Novgorodians refused tribute to the Varangians and began to govern themselves." Yes, some of the episodes could have been refused, but there were many episodes and not all ended the same way.
However, during that period, the class contradictions that torn apart the ancient Russian feudal society led to the fall of the rule of the people: the Novgorodians "fell into great strife and internecine wars, one clan rebelled against another to obtain a majority."
And it was at this moment of acute class contradictions that the Novgorodians (or rather, that part of the Novgorodians who won this struggle) turned to the Varangians with the following words: “our land is great and plentiful, but we have no outfit; come to us to reign and rule over us.”
Focusing on this fact, Lomonosov emphasizes that it was not the weakness and inability of the Russians to govern, as the supporters of the Norman theory stubbornly tried to assert, but class contradictions, which were suppressed by the strength of the Varangian squad, were the reason for calling the Varangians. Not entirely logical, but quite patriotic.
In addition to Lomonosov, other Russian historians, including S. M. Solovyov, also refute the Norman theory: “The Normans were not a dominant tribe, they only served the princes of native tribes; many served only temporarily; those who remained in Russia forever, due to their numerical insignificance, quickly merged with the natives, especially since in their national life they did not find obstacles to this merger. Thus, at the beginning of Russian society, there can be no question of the domination of the Normans, of the Norman period ”(S.M. Solovyov, 1989; p. 26).
So, we can say that the Norman theory was defeated under the onslaught of Russian scientists. Consequently, before the arrival of the Varangians, Russia was already a state, maybe still primitive, not fully formed. But it also cannot be denied that the Scandinavians sufficiently influenced Russia, including statehood. The first Russian princes, who were Scandinavians, nevertheless introduced a lot of new things into the management system (for example, the first truth in Russia was Varangian).
However, without a doubt, the influence of the Scandinavians on Russia was quite significant. It could occur not only as a result of close communication between the Scandinavians and Slavs, but simply because all the first princes in Russia, and therefore the legitimate power, were Varangians. Consequently, the first truth in Russia was Varangian.
In addition to legislation and statehood, the Scandinavians bring with them military science and shipbuilding. Could the Slavs on their boats sail to Constantinople and try to capture it, surf the Black Sea? Constantinople captures (in history, the fact of the capture of Constantinople is not confirmed, only the fact of a raid on the suburbs is noted) Oleg is a Varangian king, with his retinue, but he is now a Russian prince, which means his ships are now Russian ships, and for sure these are not only ships that came from the Varangian Sea, but also cut down here in Russia. The Vikings brought to Russia the skills of navigation, sailing, orienteering by the stars, the science of handling weapons, and military science.
Of course, thanks to the Scandinavians, trade is developing in Russia. At the beginning, Gardarik is just some settlements on the way of the Scandinavians to Byzantium, then the Varangians begin to trade with the natives, some just settle here - who will become a prince, who will be a combatant, who will remain a merchant. As a result, the Slavs and Varangians together continue their journey "from the Varangians to the Greeks." Thus, thanks to its Varangian princes, Russia first appears on the world stage and takes part in world trade. And not only.
Already Princess Olga understands how important it is to declare Russia among other states, and her grandson, Prince Vladimir, finishes what she started by carrying out the Baptism of Russia, thereby transferring Russia from the era of barbarism, from which other states left long ago, into the Middle Ages.
And although the Norman theory did not receive absolute historical confirmation, with the advent of the Scandinavians in Russia appeared:
- Shipbuilding;
- Sailing, navigation;
- Stellar navigation;
- Expansion of trade relations;
- Warfare;
- Jurisprudence, laws.
It was the Scandinavians who put Russia on the same level of development as other developed states.
Soviet historiography, after a break in the first years after the revolution, returned to the Norman problem at the state level. The main argument was the thesis of one of the founders of Marxism, Friedrich Engels, that the state cannot be imposed from outside, supplemented by the pseudoscientific autochthonic theory of the linguist N. Ya. Marr, officially promoted at that time, which denied migration and explained the evolution of language and ethnogenesis from a class point of view . The ideological setting for Soviet historians was to prove the thesis about the Slavic ethnicity of the Rus tribe. Characteristic excerpts from a public lecture by Doctor of Historical Sciences Mavrodin, delivered in 1949, reflect the state of affairs in Soviet historiography of the Stalin period:
/ehorussia.com/new/sites/all/themes/ehofox/images/postquote.png" target="_blank">http://ehorussia.com/new/sites/all/themes/ehofox/images/postquote.png ); background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgb(241, 244, 249); padding: 10px 10px 10px 47px; margin: 10px 0px 0px 25px; color: rgb(59, 55, 63); overflow: auto; clear: both; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">Naturally, the “scientific” servants of world capital strive at all costs to discredit, denigrate the historical past of the Russian people, to belittle the significance of Russian culture at all stages of its development. They “deny” the Russian people the initiative to create their own state.[…]
These examples are quite enough to come to the conclusion that a thousand-year-old legend about the “calling of the Varangians” by Rurik, Sineus and Truvor “from across the sea”, which should have been archived long ago along with the legend about Adam, Eve and the serpent tempter, the global flood, Noah and his sons, is being revived by foreign bourgeois historians in order to serve as a tool in the struggle of reactionary circles with our worldview, our ideology.[…]
Soviet historical science, following the instructions of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, based on the remarks of comrades Stalin, Kirov and Zhdanov on the “Summary of a textbook on the history of the USSR”, developed a theory about the pre-feudal period, as the period of the birth of feudalism, and about the barbarian state that arises at this time, and applied this theory to specific materials of the history of the Russian state. Thus, already in the theoretical constructions of the founders of Marxism-Leninism there is no and cannot be a place for the Normans as the creators of the state among the "wild" East Slavic tribes.
Normanist Arguments
In 862, in order to end the civil strife, the tribes of the Eastern Slavs (Krivichi and Ilmen Slovenes) and Finno-Ugric peoples (All and Chud) turned to the Varangians-Rus with a proposal to take the princely throne.
Where the Varangians were called from, the chronicles do not report. It is possible to roughly localize the place of residence of Rus on the coast of the Baltic Sea (“from across the sea”, “the path to the Varangians along the Dvina”). In addition, the Varangians-Rus are put on a par with the Scandinavian peoples: Swedes, Normans (Norwegians), Angles (Danes) and Goths (the inhabitants of Gotland are modern Swedes):
/ehorussia.com/new/sites/all/themes/ehofox/images/postquote.png" target="_blank">http://ehorussia.com/new/sites/all/themes/ehofox/images/postquote.png ); background-attachment: scroll; background-color: rgb(241, 244, 249); padding: 10px 10px 10px 47px; margin: 10px 0px 0px 25px; color: rgb(59, 55, 63); overflow: auto; clear: both; background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat;">And the Slovenes 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 Russia. Those Varangians were called Rus, as others are called Swedes, and others are Normans and Angles, and still others are Gotlanders, and so are these.
Later chronicles replace the term Varangians with the pseudo-ethnonym "Germans", which unites the peoples of Germany and Scandinavia.
The chronicles left in the Old Russian transcription a list of the names of the Varangians-Rus (until 944), most of the distinct Old Germanic or Scandinavian etymology. The chronicle mentions the following princes and ambassadors to Byzantium in 912:
Rurik (Rorik), Askold, Dir, Oleg (Helgi), Igor (Ingwar), Karls, Inegeld, Farlaf, Veremud, Rulav, Gudy, Ruald, Karn, Frelav, Ruar, Aktevu, Truan, Lidul, Fost, Stemid. The names of Prince Igor and his wife Olga in Greek transcription according to synchronous Byzantine sources (compositions of Constantine Porphyrogenitus) are phonetically close to the Scandinavian sound (Ingor, Helga).
The most important argument 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 two languages: Russian and Slavic, and the interpretation of the names in Greek.
At the same time, Konstantin reports that the Slavs are "tributaries" (paktiots - from the Latin pactio "agreement") of the Ross. The same term characterizes the Russian fortresses themselves, in which the dews lived.
archaeological evidence
The Arab traveler Ibn Fadlan in 922 described in detail the burial ceremony of a noble Rus - burning in a boat with the subsequent erection of a barrow. He was an eyewitness to this rite when he observed Rus merchants on the Upper Volga, where he arrived with an official embassy to the ruler of the Volga Bulgaria. The belonging of the rite of burial in the boat to the Scandinavians is now beyond doubt either among Russian or European archaeologists. On the territory of Eastern Europe, no other peoples in the Viking Age knew such a rite.
On the territory of Ancient Russia, the Scandinavian rite of burial in a boat was recorded at the Plakun burial ground in Staraya Ladoga, in Gnezdovo, Timerevo and in the South-Eastern Ladoga region. These burials date from the second half of the 9th - the first half of the 10th centuries.
Items of Scandinavian origin have been found in all trade and craft settlements (Ladoga, Timerevo, Gnezdovo, Shestovitsa, etc.) and early cities (Novgorod, Pskov, Kyiv, Chernigov). More than 1200 Scandinavian weapons, jewelry, amulets and household items, as well as tools and tools of the 8th-11th centuries. comes from about 70 archaeological sites of Ancient Russia. There are also about 100 finds of graffiti in the form of individual runic signs and inscriptions.
In 2008, archaeologists discovered objects from the era of the first Rurikids with the image of a falcon on the Zemlyany settlement of Staraya Ladoga, which later became a symbolic trident - the coat of arms of the Rurikids. A similar image of a falcon was minted on the English coins of the Danish king Anlaf Gutfritsson (939-941).
Archaeological studies of the layers of the 9th-10th centuries in the Rurik settlement revealed a significant number of finds of military equipment and Viking clothing, Scandinavian-type objects were found (iron hryvnias with Thor's hammers, bronze pendants with runic inscriptions, a silver figurine of a Valkyrie, etc.), which indicates the presence immigrants from Scandinavia in the Novgorod lands at the time of the birth of Russian statehood.
A number of words of the Old Russian language have a proven Old Norse origin. It is significant that not only words of trade vocabulary penetrated, but also maritime terms, everyday words and terms of power and control, proper names.