OLD RUSSIAN PEOPLE, Formed on the basis of tribal unions of the Eastern Slavs during the period of the Old Russian state. It became the basis of the Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian peoples. Source: Encyclopedia Fatherland ... Russian history
Rus'... Wikipedia
It was formed on the basis of tribal unions of the Eastern Slavs. The basis of the Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian peoples. * * * ANCIENT RUSSIAN PEOPLE THE OLD RUSSIAN PEOPLE was formed on the basis of tribal unions of the Eastern Slavs during the period of the Kyiv ... encyclopedic Dictionary
Old Russian civilization- Exist different approaches to highlight the time frame of ancient Russian civilization. Some researchers start it from education ancient Russian state in the 9th century, others - from the baptism of Rus' in 988, others from the first state formations... ... Man and Society: Culturology. Dictionary-reference book
Nationality- a term used in Russian until the mid-twentieth century. Mainly to indicate belonging to a people (ethnic group) or some of its qualities. In domestic science, approximately from the beginning of the 1950s, it began to be used to designate... ... Human ecology
nationality- nationality, a term widely used in Soviet science and social practice in relation to ethnic groups that did not have their own statehood, including in the form of union and autonomous republics as part of the SSScompare This category included... ... Encyclopedia "Peoples and Religions of the World"
A historically established linguistic, territorial, economic and cultural community of people that precedes a nation (See Nation). The beginning of the formation of N. dates back to the period of consolidation of tribal unions; it was expressed in a gradual... Great Soviet Encyclopedia
nationality Ethnopsychological Dictionary
NATIONALITY- a term used in Russian science and the Russian language to denote belonging to a people (ethnic group). Since the early 50s. it began to be used to designate types of ethnic groups characteristic of early class societies and located in their form ... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary of Psychology and Pedagogy
NATIONALITY- a term denoting belonging to a people (see) or the presence of some of its qualities. Since the early 50s. of our century is used to designate various. types of ethnic group (see) that are at the stage of development (community) between a tribe (or union... ... Russian Sociological Encyclopedia
Books
- Slavs. Old Russian nationality, V.V. Sedov. This book will be produced in accordance with your order using Print-on-Demand technology. This volume reprints two fundamental monographs by the late academician V.V. Sedov -...
- Old Russian people. Imaginary or real, Tolochko P.. The book of the famous Ukrainian historian and archaeologist explores one of the most hotly debated topics national history. Did it really exist? Old Russian people? On the…
Language is the basis of any ethnic entity, including a nationality, but language is not the only feature that makes it possible to speak of a given ethnic entity as a nationality. Nationality is characterized not only by a common language, which by no means eliminates local dialects, but also by a single territory, general forms economic life, common culture, material and spiritual, common traditions, way of life, characteristics of the mental makeup, the so-called " national character" Nationality is characterized by a sense of national consciousness and self-knowledge.
A nationality takes shape at a certain stage of social development, in an era class society. The formation of the Eastern Slavs into a special branch of the Slavs dates back to the 7th-9th centuries, i.e., it dates back to the time when the language of the Eastern Slavs was formed, and the beginning of the formation of the Old Russian people should be considered the 9th-10th centuries - the time of their emergence in
Rus', feudal relations and the formation of the Old Russian state.
In the 8th-9th centuries. in the history of the Eastern Slavs were a time of decomposition of primitive communal relations. Moreover, the transition from one social system - primitive communal, pre-class, to another, more progressive, namely class, feudal society, was ultimately the result of the development of productive forces, the evolution of production, which in turn was mainly a consequence of change and development tools of labor, instruments of production. 8-9 centuries were a time of serious changes in the tools of agricultural labor and agriculture in general. A plow appears with a runner and an improved tip, a plow with asymmetrical iron openers and a sucker.
Along with the development of productive forces in the field of agricultural production and the improvement of agricultural technology, the social division of labor and the separation of handicraft activities from agriculture played a huge role in the decomposition of primitive communal relations.
Development of the craft as a result gradual improvement production techniques and the emergence of new tools of craft labor, the separation of crafts from other types of economic activity - all this was the greatest stimulus for the collapse of primitive communal relations.
The growth of crafts and the development of trade undermined the foundations of primitive communal relations and contributed to the emergence and development of feudal ones. The basis of feudal society—feudal ownership of land—emerges and develops. Various groups of dependent people are being formed. Among them are slaves - serfs, robes (slaves), servants.
A huge mass of the rural population were free community members, subject only to tribute. The tribute grew into quitrent. Among the dependent population there were many enslaved people who had lost their freedom as a result of debt obligations. These enslaved people appear in sources under the name of ryadovichi and procurement.
An early feudal class society began to form in Rus'. Where division into classes occurred, the state inevitably had to arise. And it arose. The state is created where and when there are conditions for its emergence in the form of dividing society into classes. The formation of feudal relations among the Eastern Slavs could not but determine the formation of an early feudal state. Such in Eastern Europe was the Old Russian state with the capital city of Kiev.
The creation of the Old Russian state was primarily a consequence of those processes that characterized the development of the productive forces of the Eastern Slavs and the change in their dominant production relations.
We do not know how large the territory of Rus' was at that time, to what extent it included the East Slavic lands, but it is obvious that, in addition to the Middle Dnieper, Kyiv center, it consisted of a number of loosely connected lands and tribal principalities.
The formation of the Old Russian state is completed with the merger of Kyiv and Novgorod. Kyiv became the capital of the Old Russian state. This happened because he was the most ancient center East Slavic culture, with deep historical traditions and connections.
The end of the 10th century was marked by the completion of the unification of all Eastern Slavs into state borders Kievan Rus. This unification occurs during the reign of Vladimir Svyatoslavovich (980-1015).
In 981, the land of the Vyatichi joined the Old Russian state, although traces of its former independence remained for a long time. Three years later, in 984, after the battle on the Pishchan River, the power of Kyiv extended to the Radimichi. Thus the unification of all the Eastern Slavs in a single state was completed. The Russian lands were united under the rule of Kyiv, “the mother city of Russia.” According to the chronicle story, the adoption of Christianity by Russia dates back to 988. It had a very great importance, as it contributed to the spread of writing and literacy, brought Rus' closer to other Christian countries, and enriched Russian culture.
The international position of Rus' was strengthened, which was greatly facilitated by the adoption of Christianity by Russia. Ties with Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary have strengthened. Relations began with Georgia and Armenia.
Russians lived permanently in Constantinople. In turn, the Greeks came to Rus'. In Kyiv one could meet Greeks, Norwegians, English, Irish, Danes, Bulgarians, Khazars, Hungarians, Swedes, Poles, Jews, Estonians.
Nationality is an ethnic formation characteristic of a class society. Although the commonality of language is decisive for a nationality, it is impossible to limit ourselves to this commonality when defining a nationality, in in this case ancient Russian people.
The Old Russian nationality was formed as a result of the merger of tribes, tribal unions and the population of individual regions and lands of the Eastern Slavs, “peoples,” and it united the entire East Slavic world.
Russian, or Great Russian, nationality 14-16 centuries. was an ethnic community of only part, albeit a larger one, of the Eastern Slavs. It was formed over a vast territory from Pskov to Nizhny Novgorod and from Pomerania to the border with the Wild Field. The Old Russian people appeared ethnic ancestor all three East Slavic nationalities: Russians or Great Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians - and it developed on the verge of primitive and feudal society, in the era of early feudalism. Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians formed into nationalities during the period of high development of feudal relations.
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
URAL STATE UNIVERSITY NAMED AFTER A. M. GORKY.
Department of Archeology, Ethnology and Special historical disciplines.
FACULTY OF HISTORY
Course work
FORMATION OF ANCIENT RUSSIAN ETHNOSE
Student, gr. I-202
Kolmakov Roman Petrovich
Scientific director
Minenko Nina Adamovna
Ekaterinburg 2007
Introduction
Chapter 1. Ethnogenesis of the Eastern Slavs
Chapter 2. Eastern Slavs within the framework of the Old Russian state
Conclusion
List of used literature
Introduction
Russia occupies an important place in world history and culture. Now it is difficult to imagine world development without Peter I, Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Zhukov. But the history of the country cannot be considered without the history of the people. And the Russian people, or rather the ancient Russian people, certainly played a major role in the formation of the Russian state. The ancient Russian ethnic group played an equally important role in the formation of the Belarusian and Ukrainian people.
The purpose of this work is to consider the issue of the emergence of the Old Russian ethnos and to trace the processes of ethnogenesis. For the study of Old Russian unity, the most important data are linguistics and archeology. The works of linguists allow us to talk about ancient Russian linguistic unity. This statement does not deny dialect diversity. Unfortunately, the picture of the dialect division of the Old Russian linguistic community cannot be reconstructed from written sources. Thanks to the finds of birch bark letters, only the Old Novgorod dialect is quite definitely characterized. The use of archeological data in the study of the origins and evolution of the ancient Russian ethnos, taking into account all the results obtained so far by other sciences, seems very promising. Archaeological materials testify to the ethnocultural unity of the ancient Russian population, which is manifested in the unity of urban life and everyday life, in the commonality of funeral rituals and everyday culture of the rural population, in the convergence of life and everyday life of the city and the countryside, and most importantly, in the same trends in cultural development. This work will examine the processes of formation of the Old Russian ethnos in the Old Russian state of the 9th – 11th centuries.
Work on this topic has been going on for a long time. A number of Russian and foreign authors have addressed this problem. And it must be said that sometimes their conclusions were diametrically opposed. Ancient Rus' was primarily an ethnic territory. This was a vast region of the East European Plain, inhabited by the Slavs, who initially spoke a single common Slavic (proto-Slavic) language. The Old Russian territory covered in the 10th – 11th centuries all the lands that had been developed by the Eastern Slavs by that time, including those in which they lived interspersed with the remnants of the local Finnish-speaking, Leto-Lithuanian and Western Baltic populations. There is no doubt that already in the first half of the 11th century the ethnonym of the East Slavic ethnolinguistic community was “Rus”. In the tale of bygone years, Rus' is an ethnic community that included the entire Slavic population of the East European Plain. One of the criteria for distinguishing Rus' is linguistic: all tribes of Eastern Europe one language - Russian. At the same time, Ancient Rus' was also a state entity. The territory of the state at the end of the 10th – 11th centuries mainly corresponded to the ethno-linguistic one, and the ethnonym Rus for the Eastern Slavs in the 10th – 13th centuries was at the same time a polytonym.
The Old Russian ethnos existed within the framework of the Old Russian state in the 10th – 13th centuries.
Of the Russian researchers who first addressed this topic, Lomonosov can rightfully be called. In the 18th century, when German scientists began to make attempts to write the initial Russian history, and the first conclusions about the Russian people were made, Lomonosov then presented his arguments in which he opposed the conclusions of German scientists. But still, Lomonosov did not become famous in the historical field.
The works of Boris Flor are well known. In particular, he entered into a dispute with Academician Sedov over the chronological framework of the formation of the Old Russian ethnos, attributing its appearance to the Middle Ages. Boris Florya, based on written sources, argued that the Old Russian ethnos was finally formed only by the 13th century.
Sedov did not agree with him, who, based on archaeological data, dated the appearance of the Old Russian ethnic group to the 9th – 11th centuries. Sedov, based on archaeological data, gives a broad picture of the settlement of the Eastern Slavs, and the formation of the Old Russian ethnic group on their basis.
The source base is extremely poorly represented. There are few written sources of Ancient Rus' left. Frequent fires, invasions of nomads, internecine war and other disasters left little hope for the preservation of these sources. However, there are still notes from foreign authors who talk about Rus'.
Arab writers and travelers Ibn Fadlan and Ibn Rusteh talk about the period initial stage the formation of the ancient Russian state, and also talk about Russian merchants in the east. Their works are extremely important, as they reveal a picture of Russian life in the 10th century.
Russian sources include the Tale of Bygone Years, which, however, at times conflicts with some data from foreign authors.
Chapter 1. Ethnogenesis of the Eastern Slavs
The ancestors of the Slavs have long lived in Central and Eastern Europe. Archaeologists believe that Slavic tribes can be traced from excavation data from the middle of the second millennium BC. The ancestors of the Slavs (in scientific literature they are called Proto-Slavs) are supposedly found among the tribes that inhabited the Odra, Vistula and Dnieper basins. In the Danube basin and the Balkans, Slavic tribes appeared only at the beginning of our era.
Soviet historical science It is recognized that the formation and development of Slavic tribes took place in Central and Eastern Europe. By their origin, the Eastern Slavs are closely related to the Western and Southern Slavs. All these three groups of related peoples had one root.
At the beginning of our era, the Slavic tribes were known as the Venets, or Wends. Veneds, or “Vento”, is without a doubt the ancient self-name of the Slavs. Words of this root (in ancient times including the nasal sound "e", which later began to be pronounced as "ya") have been preserved for a number of centuries, in some places to this day. The later name of the large Slavic tribal union “Vyatichi” goes back to this common ancient ethnonym. The medieval German name for the Slavic regions is Wenland, and the modern Finnish name Russia – Vana. The ethnonym “Vends”, it must be assumed, goes back to the ancient European community. From it came the Veneti of the Northern Adriatic, as well as the Celtic tribe of the Veneti of Brittany, conquered by Caesar during his campaigns in Gaul in the 50s of the 1st century. BC e., and the Wends (Venet) - Slavs. For the first time the Wends (Slavs) are found in the encyclopedic work “ Natural history", written by Plin the Elder (23/24-79 AD). In the section dedicated to geographical description Europe, he reports that Eningia (some region of Europe, the correspondence of which is not on the maps) “inhabited up to the Visula River by Sarmatians, Wends, Skyrs...”. The Skirs are a tribe of Germans, localized somewhere north of the Carpathians. Obviously, their neighbors (as well as the Sarmatians) were the Wends.
The place of residence of the Wends is noted somewhat more specifically in the work of the Greek geographer and astronomer Ptolemy, “Geographical Guide”. The scientist names the Wends among the “big peoples” of Sarmatia and definitely connects the places of their settlements with the Vistula basin. Ptolemy calls the eastern neighbors of the Wends the Galinds and Sudins - these are fairly well-known Western Baltic tribes, localized in the area between the Vistula and Neman rivers. On a Roman geographical map of the 3rd century. n. e., known in historical literature as the "Pevtinger Tables", the Wends-Sarmatians are designated south of the Baltic Sea and north of the Carpathians.
There is reason to believe that by the middle of the 1st millennium AD. refers to the division of the Slavic tribes into two parts - northern and southern. Writers of the 6th century - Jordan, Procopius and Mauritius - mention the southern Slavs - Sklavens and Antes, emphasizing, however, that these are tribes related to each other and the Wends. Thus, Jordan writes: “...Starting from the deposit of the Vistula (Vistula) River, a populous Veneti tribe settled across vast spaces. Although their names now change according to different clans and localities, they are still predominantly called Slavens and Ants.” Etymologically, both of these names go back to the ancient common self-name of Veneda, or Vento. The Antes are repeatedly mentioned in historical works of the 6th – 7th centuries. According to Jordan, the Antes inhabited the areas between the Dniester and the Dnieper. Using the writings of his predecessors, this historian illuminates more early events, when the Antes were at enmity with the Goths. At first the Antes managed to repel the attack of the Gothic army, but after some time the Gothic king Vinitarius nevertheless defeated the Antes and executed their prince God and 70 elders.
The main direction of Slavic colonization in the first half of the 1st millennium AD. was northwestern. The settlement of the Slavs in the upper reaches of the Volga, Dnieper and Western Dvina, occupied mainly by Finno-Ugric tribes, apparently led to some mixing of the Slavs with the Finno-Ugric peoples, which was reflected in the nature of cultural monuments.
After the fall of the Scythian state and the weakening of the Sarmatians, Slavic settlements moved south, where a population belonging to various tribes lived in a vast area from the banks of the Danube to the middle Dnieper region.
Slavic settlements of the middle and second half of the 1st millennium AD. in the south, in the steppe and forest-steppe zones, they were predominantly open villages of farmers with adobe semi-dugout dwellings with stone ovens. There were also small fortified “towns” where, along with agricultural tools, remains of metallurgical production were found (for example, crucibles for melting non-ferrous metals). Burials at that time were carried out, as before, by burning the corpse, but along with burial grounds without mounds, burials of ashes under mounds also appeared, and in the 9th – 10th centuries. The ritual of burial by disposition of corpses is becoming more and more widespread.
In the VI – VII centuries. AD Slavic tribes in the north and north-west occupied the entire eastern and central parts of modern Belarus, previously inhabited by Letto-Lithuanian tribes, and new large areas in the upper reaches of the Dnieper and Volga. In the northeast, they also advanced along the Lovat River to Lake Ilmen and further all the way to Ladoga.
During the same period, another wave of Slavic colonization headed south. After a stubborn struggle with Byzantium, the Slavs managed to occupy the right bank of the Danube and settle in vast areas of the Balkan Peninsula. Apparently by the second half of the 1st millennium AD. refers to the division of the Slavs into eastern, western and southern, which has survived to this day.
In the middle and second half of the 1st millennium AD. The socio-economic development of the Slavs reached a level at which their political organization outgrew the boundaries of the tribe. In the fight against Byzantium, against the invasion of the Avars and other opponents, tribal alliances were formed, often representing a large military force and usually receiving names from the main tribes that were part of this alliance. Written sources contain information, for example, about the union that united the Duleb-Volyn tribes (VI century), about the union of the Carpathian tribes of Croats - Czech, Vistula and White (VI-VII centuries), about the Serbian-Lusatian union (VII century. ). Apparently, the Russes (or Dews) were such a union of tribes. Researchers associate this name itself with the name of the Ros River, where the Dews lived, with their main city Rodney and with the cult of the god Rod, which preceded the cult of Perun. Back in the 6th century. Jordan mentions “Rosomoni,” which, according to B. A. Rybakov, may mean “people of the Ros tribe.” Until the end of the 9th century, references to the Ros, or Russ, were found in sources, and from the 10th century the name “Rus”, “Russian” already predominated. The territory of the Rus in the VI – VIII centuries. there was, apparently, a forest-steppe region of the middle Dnieper region, which for a long time was popularly called Russia itself, even when this name spread to the entire East Slavic state.
Some archaeological sites suggest the existence of other East Slavic tribal unions. Various types mounds - family burials with corpses burned - belonged, according to most researchers, to various tribal unions. The so-called “long mounds” - rampart-shaped burial mounds up to 50 meters long - are common south of Lake Peipsi and in the upper reaches of the Dvina, Dnieper and Volga, that is, on the territory of the Krivichi. One might think that the tribes that left these mounds (both Slavs and Leto-Lithuanians) were part of a once extensive alliance, which was headed by the Krivichi. High round mounds - “hills”, distributed along the Volkhov and Msta rivers (Priilmenye up to Sheksna), belong, in all likelihood, to an alliance of tribes led by the Slavs. Large mounds of the 6th – 10th centuries, hiding an entire palisade in the embankment, and a rough box with urns storing the ashes of the dead, could belong to the Vyatichi. These mounds are found in the upper reaches of the Don and in the middle reaches of the Oka. It is possible that the common features found in later monuments of the Radimichi (who lived along the Sozha River) and the Vyatichi are explained by the existence in ancient times of the Radimichi-Vyatichi tribal union, which could partially include northerners who lived on the banks of the Desna, Seim, Sula and Worksla. It is not for nothing that later the Tale of Bygone Years tells us the legend about the origin of the Vyatichi and Radimichi from two brothers.
In the south, between the Dniester and Danube rivers, from the second half of the 6th – early 7th centuries. Slavic villages appear that belonged to the Tivertsi tribal union.
To the north and northeast up to Lake Ladoga, into a dense forest region inhabited by Finno-Ugric tribes, the Krivichi and Slovenes at that time penetrated up large rivers and their tributaries.
To the south and southeast, to the Black Sea steppes, the Slavic tribes moved in constant struggle with the nomads. The process of advancement, which began in the 6th – 7th centuries, proceeded with varying degrees of success. Slavs by the 10th century reached the shores Sea of Azov. The basis of the later Tmutarakan principality, in all likelihood, was the Slavic population, which penetrated these places in a much earlier period.
In the middle of the 10th millennium, the main occupation of the Eastern Slavs was agriculture, the development of which was, however, uneven in the south, in the steppe and forest-steppe zones and in the forests of the north. In the south, plow farming had centuries-old traditions. Finds of iron parts of a plow (more precisely, a plow) date back to the 2nd, 3rd and 5th centuries. The developed agricultural economy of the Eastern Slavs of the steppe strip had a considerable influence on their neighbors in the second half of the 10th millennium. This explains, for example, the existence to this day of the Slavic names of many agricultural tools among the Moldovans: plow, sekure (axe - axe), lope, tesle (adze) and others.
In the forest belt, only towards the end of the 10th millennium did arable farming become the dominant form of farming. The oldest iron opener in this area was found in Staraya Ladoga in layers dating back to the 8th century. Arable farming, both plowing and ploughing, required the use of draft power of livestock (horses, oxen) and fertilization of the land. Therefore, along with agriculture big role cattle breeding played. Important auxiliary activities were fishing and hunting. The widespread transition of East Slavic captives to arable farming as the main occupation was accompanied by serious changes in their social system. Arable farming did not require collaboration large clan groups. In the VIII – X centuries. In the steppe and forest-steppe zones of the south of the European part of Russia, there were settlements of the so-called Romensk-Borshchev culture, which researchers consider characteristic of the neighboring community. Among them were small villages fortified by ramparts, consisting of 20 - 30 houses, above ground or somewhat buried in the ground, and large villages in which only central part, and most of the houses (up to 250 in total) were located outside of it. No more than 70–80 people lived in small settlements; in large villages - sometimes over a thousand inhabitants. Each dwelling (16 - 22 sq.m. with a separate stove and storage room) had its own outbuildings (barn, cellars, various types of sheds) and belonged to one family. In some places (for example, at the site of Blagoveshchenskaya Mountain) larger buildings have been discovered, possibly serving as meetings of members of the neighboring community - brothers, which, according to B. A. Rybakov, were accompanied by some kind of religious rituals.
The settlements of the Romensky-Borshchevsky type are very different in character from the settlements located in the north, in Staraya Ladoga, where in the layers of the 8th century, V.I. Ravdonikas discovered large above-ground houses cut from logs with an average size of 96 - 100 sq.m. with a small porch and a stove-stove, located in the center of the dwelling. Probably, each such house was inhabited by a large family (from 15 to 25 people); Food was prepared in the oven for everyone, and food was taken from collective reserves. Outbuildings were located separately, next to the dwelling. The settlement of Staraya Ladoga also belonged to the neighboring community, in which vestiges of tribal life were still strong, and the dwellings belonged to even larger families. Already in the 9th century, here these houses were replaced by small huts (16 - 25 sq.m.) with a stove in the corner, the same as in the south, the dwellings of one relatively small family.
Natural conditions contributed to the formation of the East Slavic population in the forest and steppe zones already in the 1st millennium AD. e. two types of housing, the differences between which subsequently deepened. In the forest zone, above-ground log houses with a stove-stove dominated, in the steppe - adobe (often on a wooden frame) mud huts somewhat sunk into the ground with an adobe stove and an earthen floor.
In the process of the collapse of patriarchal relations from quite distant times, the remnants of more ancient social forms described in the Tale of Bygone Years were preserved here and there - marriage by abduction, the remains of a group marriage, which the chronicler mistook for polygamy, traces of the avunculate, which was part of the custom of feeding, burning of the dead.
On the basis of ancient unions of Slavic tribes, territorial political associations(reign). In general, they experienced a developed “semi-patriarchal-semi-feudal” period, during which, with increasing property inequality, local nobility emerged, gradually seizing communal lands and turning into feudal owners. The chronicles also mention representatives of this nobility - Mal among the Drevlyans, Khodotu and his son among the Vyatichi. They even call Mala a prince. I considered the legendary Kiy, the founder of Kyiv, to be the same prince.
The territories of the East Slavic principalities are described in the Tale of Bygone Years. Some features of the life of their population (in particular, differences in the details of the funeral rite, local women's wedding dress) were very stable and persisted for several centuries even when the reigns themselves ceased to exist. Thanks to this, archaeologists were able, starting from chronicle data, to significantly clarify the boundaries of these areas. East Slavic territory by the time of formation Kyiv State was a single massif stretching from the shores of the Black Sea to Lake Ladoga and from the headwaters of the Western Bug to the middle reaches of the Oka and Klyazma. The southern part of this massif was formed by the territories of Tivertsy and Ulichs, covering the middle and southward current Prut Dniester and Southern Bug. To the northwest of them, in the upper reaches of the Dniester and Prut in Transcarpathia, lived the White Croats. To the north of them, in the upper reaches of the Western Bug - the Volynians, to the east and northeast of the White Croats, on the banks of the Pripyat, Sluch and Irsha - the Drevlyans, to the southeast of the Drevlyans, in the middle reaches of the Dnieper, in the Kiev region - the glade, on the left on the banks of the Dnieper, along the Desna and Seim - the northerners, to the north of them, along the Sozh - the Radimichi. The neighbors of the Radimichi from the west were the Dregovichi, who occupied lands along the Berezina and in the upper reaches of the Neman; from the east, the Vyatichi, who inhabited the upper and middle parts of the Oka basin (including the Moscow River) and the upper reaches of the Don, bordered the northerners and Radimichi. North of the Moscow River, a vast territory in the upper reaches of the Volga, Dnieper and western Dvina, stretching in the northwest to the eastern shore of Lake Peipus, was occupied by the Krivichi. Finally, in the north and northeast Slavic territory, Ilmen Slovenes lived on Lovat and Volkhov.
Within the East Slavic principalities, smaller divisions can be traced from archaeological materials. Thus, the Krivichi mounds include three large groups monuments that differ in details in the funeral rite - Pskov, Smolensk and Polotsk (the chronicler also identified a special group of Polotsk residents among the Krivichi). The Smolensk and Polotsk groups apparently formed later than the Pskov one, which allows us to think about the colonization by the Krivichi, newcomers from the southwest, from Prinemania or the Buzh-Vistula interfluve, first of the Pskov (in the 4th - 6th centuries), and then of the Smolensk and Polotsk lands. Among the Vyatichian mounds there are also several local groups.
In the 9th – 11th centuries. the continuous territory of the ancient Russian state of Russian land is being formed, the concept of which as a fatherland was in high degree characteristic of the Eastern Slavs of that time. Until this time, the coexistent consciousness of the community of the East Slavic tribes rested on tribal ties. Russian land occupied vast spaces from the left tributaries of the Vistula to the foothills of the Caucasus from Taman and the lower reaches of the Danube to the shores of the Gulf of Finland and Lake Ladoga. The numerous people who lived in this territory called themselves “Rus”, adopting, as mentioned above, a self-designation previously inherent only to the population of a relatively small region in the Middle Dnieper region. This country, and other peoples of that time, were called Russia. The territory of the Old Russian state included not only the East Slavic population, but also parts of neighboring tribes.
Colonization of non-Slavic lands (in the Volga region, Ladoga region, in the North) initially proceeded peacefully. These territories were penetrated primarily by Slavic peasants and artisans. The new settlers lived even in unfortified villages, apparently without fear of attacks by the local population. Peasants developed new lands, artisans supplied the area with their products. Later, Slavic feudal lords came there with their squads. They erected fortresses, imposing tribute on the Slavic and non-Slavic population of the region, and seized the best plots of land.
During the economic development of these lands by the Russian population, the complex process of mutual cultural influence of the Slavs and the Finno-Ugric population intensified. Many “Chud” tribes even lost their language and culture, but in turn influenced the material and spiritual culture of the ancient Russian people.
In the 9th and especially in the 10th century. The common self-name of the Eastern Slavs manifested itself with much greater strength and depth in the spread of the term “Rus” to all East Slavic lands, in the recognition of the ethnic unity of all living on this territory, in the consciousness of a common fate and in common struggle for the integrity and independence of Rus'.
The replacement of old tribal ties with new, territorial ones occurred gradually. Yes, in the area military organization One can trace the presence of independent militias among ancient reigns until the end of the 10th century. The militias of the Slovenes, Krivichi, Drevlyans, Radimichi, Polyans, Northerners, Croats, Dulebs, Tiverts (and even non-Slavic tribes - Chuds, etc.) took part in the campaigns of the Kyiv princes. From the beginning of the 11th century. They began to be supplanted in the central regions by the city militias of the Novgorodians and Kiyans (Kievans), although the military independence of individual principalities continued to exist in the 10th and 11th centuries.
On the basis of ancient related tribal dialects, the Old Russian language was created, which had local dialect differences. By the end of the 9th - beginning of the 10th century. It should be attributed to the composition of Old Russian written language and the appearance of the first written monuments.
The further growth of the territories of Rus', the development of the Old Russian language and culture went hand in hand with the strengthening of the Old Russian nationality and the gradual elimination of remnants of tribal isolation. The separation of the classes of feudal lords and peasants and the strengthening of the state also played an important role here.
Written and archaeological sources dating back to the 9th – 10th and early 11th centuries clearly depict the process of formation of classes and the separation of senior and junior squads.
By the 9th – 11th centuries. include large burial mounds, where most of the warriors were buried, burned at the stake along with weapons, various luxury items, sometimes with slaves (more often with slaves), who were supposed to serve their master in the “other world”, as they served in this one. Such burial grounds were located near the large feudal centers of Kievan Rus (the largest of them is Gnezdovsky, where there are more than 2 thousand mounds, near Smolensk; Mikhailovsky near Yaroslavl). In Kiev itself, soldiers were buried according to a different ritual - they were not burned, but were often laid with women and always with horses and weapons in a log house (house) with a floor and ceiling specially buried in the ground. A study of weapons and other things found in the burials of warriors has convincingly shown that the overwhelming majority of warriors are Slavs. In the Gnezdovo burial ground, only a small minority of burials belong to the Normans - the “Varangians”. Along with the burials of warriors in the 10th century. There were magnificent burials of feudal nobility - princes or boyars. A noble Slav was burned in a boat or a specially built building - a domovina - with slaves, a slave, horses and other domestic animals, weapons and many precious utensils that belonged to him during his life. First, a small mound was built over the funeral pyre, on which a funeral feast was held, possibly accompanied by a feast, ritual competitions and war games, and only then a large mound was poured.
The economic and political development of the Eastern Slavs naturally led to the creation, on a local basis, of a feudal state with the Kyiv princes at its head. Varangian conquest, reflected in the legend about the “calling” of the Varangians to Novgorod land and the capture of Kyiv in the 9th century, had no more, and most likely, less influence on the development of the Eastern Slavs than on the population of medieval France or England. The matter was limited to a change of dynasty and the penetration of a certain number of Normans into the nobility. But new dynasty found itself under the strong influence of Slavic culture and “Russified” within a few decades. The grandson of the legendary founder of the Varangian dynasty, Rurik, bore a purely Slavic name - Svyatoslav, and in all likelihood, his manner of dressing and behavior was no different from any representative of the Slavic nobility.
Thus, it is absolutely clear that by the time of the formation of the Old Russian state, on the territory of the East Slavic tribes, there were ethnic characteristics common to all that preceded the formation of the Old Russian nationality. This is confirmed by archaeological data: a uniform material culture can be traced. Also in this territory there was common language, with minor local dialect features.
Chapter 2. Eastern Slavs within the framework of the Old Russian state
Existence in the X – XI centuries. Old Russian (East Slavic) ethno-linguistic community is reliably confirmed by linguistic and archaeological data. In the 10th century on the East European Plain within Slavic settlement In place of several cultures reflecting the previous dialectal-ethnographic division of the Proto-Slavic ethnos, a uniform Old Russian culture is being formed. Its overall development was determined by the emergence of urban life with actively evolving craft activities, the formation of the military-retinue and administrative classes. The population of the cities, the Russian squad and the state administration were formed from representatives of various Proto-Slavic formations, which led to the leveling of their dialectal and other features. Items of urban life and weapons become monotonous, characteristic of the entire Eastern Slavs.
This process also affected the rural inhabitants of Rus', as evidenced by funeral monuments. In place of different types of mounds - the Korczak and Upper Oka types, the rampart-shaped (long) mounds of the Krivichi and the Ilmen hills - ancient Russian ones are becoming widespread in their structure, rituals and direction of evolution, which are of the same type throughout the entire territory of ancient Rus'. The burial mounds of the Drevlyans or Dregovichi become identical with the synchronous cemeteries of the Krivichi or Vyatichi. Tribal (ethnographic) differences in these mounds are manifested only in the unequal temple rings; the rest of the artifacts (bracelets, rings, earrings, moonlits, household items, etc.) are of a general Russian character.
Migrants from the Danube played a huge role in the ethno-linguistic consolidation of the Slavic population of the ancient Russian state. The infiltration of the latter can be felt in the archaeological materials of Eastern Europe starting from the 7th century. At this time, it affected mainly the Dnieper lands.
However, after the defeat of the Great Moravian Empire, numerous groups of Slavs, leaving the inhabited lands of the Danube, settled across the East European Plain. This migration, as shown by numerous finds of Danube origin, is to one degree or another characteristic of all areas previously developed by the Slavs. The Danube Slavs became the most active part of the Eastern Slavs. Among them were many highly skilled artisans. There is reason to assert that the rapid spread of pottery ceramics among the Slavic population of Eastern Europe was due to the infiltration of Danube potters into their midst. Danube craftsmen gave impetus to the development of jewelry, and possibly other crafts of ancient Rus'.
Under the influence of the Danube settlers, the previously dominant pagan custom of cremation of the dead in the 10th century. began to be replaced by pit burials of corpses under the mounds. In the Kiev Dnieper region in the 10th century. inhumations already dominated the Slavic burial mounds and necropolises, that is, a century earlier than the official adoption of Christianity by Russia. To the north, in the forest zone up to Ilmen, the process of changing rituals took place in the second half of the 10th century.
Linguistic materials also indicate that the Slavs of the East European Plain survived the common ancient Russian era. Linguistic research of scientists from the late 19th – early 20th centuries led to this conclusion. Their results were summed up by the outstanding Slavic philologist, dialectologist and historian of the Russian language N. N. Durnovo in the book “Introduction to the History of the Russian Language,” published in 1927 in Brno.
This conclusion follows from comprehensive analysis written monuments of ancient Rus'. Although most of them, including the chronicles, are written in Church Slavonic, a number of these documents often describe episodes whose language deviates from the norms of Church Slavonic and is Old Russian. There are also monuments written in Old Russian. These are the “Russian Truth”, compiled in the 11th century. (came down to us in the list of the 10th century), many letters, free from elements of Church Slavonic, “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” the language of which is close to the living speech of the then urban population of Southern Rus'; some Lives of Saints.
Analysis of written monuments allowed researchers to assert that in history Slavic languages There was a period in Eastern Europe when, throughout the entire area of settlement of the Eastern Slavs, new linguistic phenomena arose in a unidirectional manner (unlike the Slavs who lived in the Vistula, Oder and Elbe basins, as well as the Balkan-Danube region), and at the same time some previous Proto-Slavic processes developed.
A single East Slavic ethnolinguistic space does not exclude dialect diversity. Its full picture cannot be reconstructed from written monuments. Judging by archaeological materials, the dialect division of the Old Russian community was quite deep and was due to the settlement of very different tribal groups of Slavs on the East European Plain and their interaction with a heterogeneous and ethnically subtractive population.
On the ethnic unity of the Slavic population of the 11th – 19th centuries, settled in the spaces Eastern Plain and called Russia, they speak quite clearly and historical sources. In The Tale of Bygone Years, Rus' is ethnographically, linguistically and politically contrasted with the Poles, Byzantine Greeks, Hungarians, Polovtsians and other ethnic groups of that time. Based on an analysis of written monuments, A.V. Solovyov showed that for two centuries (911-1132) the concept of “Rus” and “Russian land” meant the entire Eastern Slavs, the entire country inhabited by them.
In the second half of the 12th - first third of the 13th centuries, when Ancient Rus' broke up into a number of feudal principalities that pursued or attempted to pursue independent policies, the unity of the ancient Russian people continued to be realized: the entire Russian land was opposed to isolated fiefdoms, often at war with each other. Many people are imbued with the idea of the unity of Rus' works of art of that time and epics. The vibrant ancient Russian culture at this time continued its progressive development throughout the territory of the Eastern Slavs.
WITH mid-XIII V. The East Slavic area turned out to be dismembered politically, culturally and economically. Previous integration processes were suspended. Old Russian culture, the level of development of which was largely determined by cities with highly developed crafts, ceased to function. Many cities of Rus' were ruined, life in others fell into decay for some time. In the situation that developed in the second half of the XIII - XIV centuries, further development general language processes throughout the vast East Slavic space became impossible. Local linguistic features appeared in different regions, and the Old Russian ethnic group ceased to exist.
basis language development different regions of the Eastern Slavs became not political-economic and cultural differentiation of the area. The formation of individual languages was determined to a greater extent by the historical situation that took place in Eastern Europe in the middle and second half of the 1st millennium AD. e.
It can be stated quite definitely that the Belarusians and their language were the result of a Balto-Slavic symbiosis that began in the middle of the 1st millennium AD. e., when the first groups of Slavs appeared on the ancient Baltic territory, and ended in the X - XII centuries. The bulk of the Balts did not leave their habitats and, as a result of Slavicization, joined the Slavic ethnic group. This Western Russian population of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania gradually transformed into the Belarusian ethnic group.
The descendants of the Antes became the basis of the Ukrainian nation. However, it would not be correct to directly elevate Ukrainians to them. The Antes are one of the dialect-cultural groups of the Slavs, formed in late Roman times under the conditions of Slavic-Iranian symbiosis. During the period of migration of peoples, a significant part of the Ant tribes migrated to the Balkan-Danube lands, where they participated in the ethnogenesis of the Danube Serbs and Croats, Poelbian Sorbs, Bulgarians, etc. At the same time, a large mass of Antes moved to middle Volga, where he created the Imenkovo culture.
In the Dnieper-Dniester region, the direct descendants of the Antes were the chronicled Croats, Tivertsy and Ulichi. In the 7th – 9th centuries. there is some mixing of the Slavs who came from the Ant community with the Slavs of the Duleb group, and during the period ancient Russian statehood, obviously, under the pressure of the steppe nomads - the infiltration of the descendants of the Antes in the northern direction.
The originality of the culture of the descendants of the Antes in the Old Russian period is manifested primarily in funeral rituals - the kurgan burial ritual did not become widespread among them. The main Ukrainian dialects developed in this area.
The process of formation of the Russian nationality was more complex. In general, the Northern Great Russians are the descendants of those Slavic tribes who, having left the Wendish group of the Proto-Slavic community (Povislenie), settled in the middle of the 1st millennium AD. e. in the forest lands of the East European Plain. The history of these settlers was mixed. Those Slavs who settled in the Upper Dnieper and Podvinia, i.e., the ancient Baltic area, after the collapse of the Old Russian people, became part of the emerging Belarusians. Separate dialect areas were Novgorod, Pskov lands and North-Eastern Rus'. In the X - XII centuries. these were dialects of the Old Russian language, which later, in all likelihood, acquired independent meaning. All these territories before the Slavic development belonged to various Finnish tribes, whose influence on the Old Russian language was insignificant.
The core of the Southern Great Russians were the Slavs who returned from the Middle Volga region (also descendants of acts) and settled in the area between the Dnieper and Don (Volyn, Romny, Borshchev cultures and Oka antiquities synchronous with them).
Central to the formation of the Russian language were the Middle Great Russian dialects, the beginning of the formation of which, presumably, dates back to the 10th – 12th centuries, when there was a territorial mixing of the Krivichi (future Northern Great Russians) with the Vyatichi (South Great Russian group). Over time, the range of formation of Central Russian dialects expanded. Central position Moscow occupied it. In the conditions of the formation of a unified statehood and the creation of the culture of the Moscow state, Central Russian dialects became a consolidating moment in the gradual formation of a single ethno-linguistic whole. The annexation of Novgorod and Pskov to Moscow expanded the territory of formation of the Russian ethnic group.
Old Russian nationality is a historical fact. It fully complies with the requirements and characteristics that are inherent in this type of historical and ethnic community. However, it was not unique historical phenomenon, inherent only to the East Slavic peoples. Certain patterns and factors determine the forms of ethnic processes and the emergence of ethnosocial societies with their inherent mandatory characteristics. Modern science considers nationality as a special type of ethnic community that occupies a historical niche between a tribe and a nation.
The transition from primitiveness to statehood was everywhere accompanied
ethnic transformation of previous ethnic groups and the emergence of nationalities formed on the basis of primitive tribes. Nationality, therefore, is not only an ethnic, but also a social historical community of people, characteristic of a new and higher state of society compared to the primitive (tribal) state. Everyone has Slavic people correspond to the mode of production and social relations.
The political system of Rus' also determined the nature of the ethnic state. Tribes are a thing of the past, and nationalities have taken their place. Like any other historical category, it has its own characteristics. The most important of them: language, culture, ethnic identity, territory. All this was inherent in the population of Rus' in the 9th – 13th centuries.
Various written sources that have reached us (chronicles, literary works, individual inscriptions) indicate common language Eastern Slavs. It is an axiom that the languages of modern East Slavic peoples developed on a common Old Russian basis.
Individual facts that do not fit into this scheme cannot refute the whole idea of the existence of the Old Russian language. And in the western lands of Rus', despite the scarcity of linguistic material that has reached us, the language was the same - Old Russian. An idea of it is given by fragments that were included in all-Russian codes from local Western Russian chronicles. Particularly indicative is direct speech, adequate to the living spoken language of this region of Rus'.
The language of Western Rus' is also represented in inscriptions on spindle whorls, fragments of pottery, “Borisov” and “Rogvolodov” stones, and birch bark letters. Of particular interest is birch bark letter from Vitebsk, on which the text has been completely preserved.
Rus' occupied vast expanses of Eastern Europe, and it would be naive to believe that the Old Russian language did not have dialects or local features. But they did not go beyond the dialects, from which modern East Slavic languages are not free. Differences in language could also have social roots. The language of the educated princely entourage differed from the language of ordinary citizens. The latter was different from the language villager. The unity of the language was realized by the population of Rus' and was emphasized more than once by chroniclers.
Uniformity is also inherent in the material culture of Rus'. It is practically impossible to distinguish most of the objects of material culture made, for example, in Kyiv, from similar objects from Novgorod or Minsk. This convincingly proves the existence of a single ancient Russian ethnos.
Among the characteristics of a nationality, one should especially include ethnic self-awareness, self-name, and people’s idea of their homeland and its geographical spaces.
It is the formation of ethnic self-awareness that completes the process of formation of an ethnic community. The Slavic population of Rus', including its western lands, had a common self-name (“Rus”, “Russian people”, “Rusichi”, “Rusyns”) and recognized themselves as one people living in the same geographical space. The awareness of a single Motherland persisted during the period of feudal fragmentation of Rus'.
A common ethnic identity took hold in Rus' early and very quickly. Already the first written sources that have reached us convincingly speak of this (see, for example, the “treaty of Rus' with the Greeks” of 944, concluded from “all the people of the Russian land”).
The ethnonyms “Rusin”, “Rusich”, not to mention the name “Russian”, functioned both during the time of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Belarusian pioneer printer Francis Skorina (16th century) is called a “Rusyn from Polotsk” in the diploma he received from the University of Padua. The name “Russian” is the common self-name of the Eastern Slavs, an indicator of a single East Slavic ethnic group, an expression of its self-awareness.
The Russian people’s awareness of the unity of their territory (not the state), which they had to defend from foreigners, is especially strongly expressed in “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” and “The Tale of the Destruction of the Russian Land.”
A single language, one culture, a name, a common ethnic identity - this is how we see Rus' and its population. This is a single ancient Russian nationality. Awareness of a common origin, common roots is a characteristic feature of the mentality of the three fraternal East Slavic peoples, which they carried through the centuries, and which we, the heirs of ancient Rus', should never forget about.
The undoubted fact of the real existence of the Old Russian people does not mean that there are no unexplored aspects in this issue.
In Soviet historiography, the idea became widespread that the formation of the Old Russian nationality took place during the period of the existence of the Old Russian state on the basis of East Slavic groups (“chronicle tribes”) united within one state. As a result of strengthening internal connections(economic, political, cultural) tribal characteristics were gradually leveled out and common features characteristic of a single nationality were established. The completion of the process of formation of the nationality was attributed to the 11th – 12th centuries. This idea, as it now turns out, was generated by the erroneous idea of the autochthony of the Slavic population throughout the entire space of the ancient Russian state. This allowed us to assume that the Slavs here went from primary tribes to tribal unions, and after the unification of the unions they evolved within the framework of the ancient Russian state.
From the point of view of modern ideas about the mechanism of ethnic formation, this path of formation of the ancient Russian nationality looks paradoxical, raises questions and even doubts. In fact, in the conditions of the settlement of the East Slavic ethnic group over large areas in those historical times, when sufficient economic prerequisites for deep integration and regular intra-ethnic contacts covering the entire vast territory occupied by the Eastern Slavs had not yet developed, it is difficult to imagine the reasons for the leveling of local ethnocultural characteristics and affirmation of common features in language, culture and self-awareness, everything that is inherent in a nationality. It is difficult to agree with such an explanation when the fact of the formation of Kievan Rus is put forward as the main theoretical argument. After all, the political subordination of individual lands to the prince of Kyiv could not become the leading factor in new ethno-educational processes and intra-ethnic consolidation. Of course, there were other factors that contributed to the integration processes. But there is one very important theoretical point that does not allow us to accept the traditional explanation of the mechanism of formation of the Old Russian people.
It is known that the large territory of settlement of an ethnic group under the dominance of a subsistence economy and the weak development of economic ties not only complicates intra-ethnic contacts, but is also one of the reasons for the emergence of local cultural and ethnic characteristics. It was as a result of settlement over large areas that the proto-Iondo-European community disintegrated and the Indo-European family of peoples arose. Also, the exit of the Slavs beyond the borders of their ancestral home and their settlement over a large territory led to their division into separate branches. This is a general pattern of the ethnogenesis of peoples. Most scientists have come to the conclusion that new ethnic groups arise and initially live in a small area. Therefore, it is difficult to agree with the statements that the formation of the Old Russian people took place throughout the vast territory of Rus' in the 11th – 12th centuries.
Another powerful “destructive factor” leading to the disintegration of ethnic groups is the action of the ethnic substrate. No one doubts the fact that the Eastern Slavs were preceded in the territory of their settlement by various non-Slavic peoples (Baltic, Finno-Ugric, etc.), with whom the Slavs maintained active interethnic relations. This also did not contribute to the consolidation of the East Slavic ethnic group. The Slavs undoubtedly experienced destructive effect different substrates. In other words, from the perspective of the territory of ethnogenesis, the traditional explanation of the mechanism of formation of the Old Russian nationality looks vulnerable. Other explanations are needed, and they exist.
Of course, the history of the Eastern Slavs developed according to a different scenario, and the foundations of the ancient Russian nation matured much earlier and not throughout the entire territory future Rus'. The most likely focus of East Slavic settlement was a relatively small area, including southern Belarus and northern Ukraine, where around the 6th century. Some tribes migrated with a Prague-type culture. Here, a unique version of it gradually developed, called Korczak. Before the arrival of the Slavs, archaeological sites similar to the Bantserov-Kolochiv ones were widespread in this region, which did not go beyond the Baltic hydronymic area, and therefore can be correlated with the Baltic tribes.
In the archaeological complexes of Korczak there are objects belonging to the named monuments or related to them by origin. This is evidence of the mixing of the Slavs with the remnants of the local Baltic population. There is an opinion that the Baltic population here was relatively rare. When in the VIII - IX centuries. on the basis of the Korczak culture, a culture like Luka Rajkovetska will develop; elements that could be correlated with the Balts will no longer be traced in it.
Consequently, by the 7th century. The assimilation of the Balts was completed here. The Slavs of this area, including part of the local population, could have experienced the influence of the Baltic substrate, perhaps insignificant, but affecting their cultural and ethnic nature. This circumstance could mark the beginning of their identification as a special (eastern) group of Slavs.
Perhaps it was here that the foundations of the East Slavic language were laid.
Only in this territory of Eastern Europe was early Slavic hydronymy preserved. There is none north of Pripyat. There Slavic hydronymy belongs to the East Slavic linguistic type. From this we can conclude that when the Slavs later began to settle throughout the spaces of Eastern Europe, they can no longer be identified with the common Slavic ethnic group. This was a group of Eastern Slavs that emerged from the early Slavic world with a specific culture and a special (East Slavic) type of speech. In this regard, it is worth recalling the guess expressed by A. Shakhmatov about the formation of the East Slavic language in the relatively small territory of Ukrainian Volyn and about the migration of the East Slavs from here to the north. This region, together with southern Belarus, can be considered the ancestral home of the Eastern Slavs.
During the stay of the Slavs in this territory, they experienced important changes: some tribal characteristics that could have been present in the initial period of migration from their ancestral home were leveled out; the foundations of the East Slavic system of speech were formed; their inherent type of archaeological culture took shape. There is reason to believe that it was at this time that the common self-name “Rus” was assigned to them and the first East Slavic state association with the Kiya dynasty. Thus, it was here that the main characteristics of the Old Russian people took shape.
In such a new ethnic quality, the Eastern Slavs in the 9th - 10th centuries. began to populate the lands north of Pripyat, which Konstantin Porphyrogenitus calls “External Russia”. This migration probably began after Oleg was confirmed in Kyiv. The Slavs settled as one people with an established culture, which predetermined the unity of the ancient Russian people for a long time. Archaeological evidence This process is the widespread distribution of spherical mounds, with single corpse burnings of the 9th – 10th centuries. and the emergence of the first cities.
The historical situation contributed to the rapid and successful settlement of the Eastern Slavs, since this region was already controlled by Oleg and his successors.
The Slavs were distinguished by a higher level of economic and social development, which also contributed to the success of settlement.
The relatively late migration of the Eastern Slavs outside their ancestral homeland, as a fairly monolithic community, casts doubt on the existence of so-called tribal unions among those who settled north of Pripyat (Krivichi, Dregovichi, Vyatichi, etc.). The Slavs had already managed to go beyond the tribal system and create a more durable ethnic and political organization. However, having settled over large areas, the Old Russian ethnos found itself in difficult situation. Various groups of the local non-Slavic population continued to remain in this territory. The Eastern Balts lived on the lands of modern Belarus and the Smolensk region; Finno-Ugric peoples lived in the northeast of Rus'; in the south - remnants of Iranian-speaking and Turkic peoples.
The Slavs did not exterminate or displace the local population. For several centuries, a symbiosis took place here, accompanied by a gradual displacement of the Slavs with various non-Slavic peoples.
The East Slavic ethnos experienced the influence of various forces. Some of them contributed to the establishment of common principles characteristic of the nationality, while others, on the contrary, contributed to the emergence of local characteristics in them, both in language and in culture.
Despite the complex dynamics of development, the Old Russian ethnos found itself under the influence of integration forces and processes that cemented it and created favorable conditions not only to preserve, but also to deepen common ethnic principles. A powerful factor in preserving ethnicity and ethnic identity was the institution of state power, a unified princely dynasty Rurikovich. Wars and joint campaigns against common enemies, which were characteristic of that time, to a large extent strengthened common solidarity and contributed to the unity of the ethnic group.
In the era of ancient Rus', economic ties between individual Russian lands undoubtedly intensified. The church played a huge role in the formation and preservation of a single ethnic identity. Having adopted Christianity according to the Greek model, the country turned out to be, as it were, an oasis among peoples who professed either another religion (pagans: nomads in the south, Lithuania and Finno-Ugrians in the north and east), or who belonged to another Christian denomination. This formed and supported the idea of the identity of the people, their difference from others. The feeling of belonging to a particular faith is such a strong and uniting factor that often replaces ethnic identity.
The church greatly influenced the political life of the country and shaped public opinion. It sanctified princely power, strengthened ancient Russian statehood, purposefully supported the idea of the unity of the country and people, and condemned civil strife and division. The ideas of a single country, a single people, their common historical destinies, responsibility for its well-being and security greatly contributed to the formation of ancient Russian ethnic identity. The spread of writing and literacy preserved the unity of the language. All these factors contributed to the strengthening of the Old Russian people.
Thus, the foundations of the Old Russian people were laid in the VI – XI centuries. after the settlement of part of the Slavs in the relatively compact territory of southern Belarus and northern Ukraine. Having settled from here in the 9th – 10th centuries. as one people, they were able to maintain their integrity for a long time under the conditions of ancient Russian statehood, develop the economy, culture, and strengthen ethnic self-awareness.
At the same time, the ancient Russian people fell into the zone of action destructive forces: territorial factor, different ethnic substrates, deepening feudal fragmentation, and later – political demarcation. The Eastern Slavs found themselves in the same situation as the early Slavs after their settlement outside their ancestral homeland. The laws of ethnogenesis came into play. The evolution of the Old Russian ethnos tended to accumulate elements leading to differentiation, which was the reason for its gradual division into three peoples - Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians.
Conclusion
Having completed this work, I think it is possible to draw some conclusions. The Slavs have passed long haul ethnogenesis. Moreover, certain signs by which one can accurately ascertain the appearance of the Slavs date back to a fairly early period (we can definitely talk about the second quarter of the 1st millennium). The Slavs occupied vast areas of Eastern Europe, came into contact with many peoples and left a memory of themselves among these peoples. True, some ancient authors for a long time did not call the Slavs by their name, confusing them with other peoples. But, nevertheless, one cannot deny the enormous importance of the Slavs on the destinies of Eastern Europe. The Slavic element still remains the main one in most Eastern European countries.
The division of the Slavs into three branches did not lead to the immediate destruction of their ethnocultural characteristics, but, of course, led to the highlighting of their striking features. Although the millennial development of closely related peoples has led them to such discord that it is now not possible to unravel this tangle of contradictions and mutual claims.
The Eastern Slavs created their own state later than others, but this does not indicate any backwardness or underdevelopment. The Eastern Slavs went their way to the state, a difficult path of interaction with nature and the local population, struggle with nomads and proved their right to exist. Having disintegrated, the ancient Russian ethnos gave birth to three, completely independent, but extremely close to each other, peoples: Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian. Today, some, not entirely competent and rather highly politicized, historians, both in Ukraine and in Belarus, are trying to deny ancient Russian unity and are trying to bring their peoples out of some mythical roots. At the same time, they even manage to deny belonging to Slavic world. For example, in Ukraine they came up with a completely unthinkable version that the Ukrainian people descended from some “ukros”. Of course, such an approach to history cannot bring about any positive aspects in the perception of reality. And it is not surprising that such “versions” spread precisely in the light of anti-Russian sentiments, primarily among political leaders in Ukraine. The construction of such “historical” concepts cannot be durable and can only be explained by the current political course of these countries.
It is difficult to deny the existence of the Old Russian ethnic group. The presence of basic ethnic characteristics among the Eastern Slavs (single language, common cultural space) suggests that at the time of the formation of the ancient Russian state there was a single ethnic group, albeit with its own local peculiarities. The feeling of unity persisted during feudal fragmentation, however, with Tatar-Mongol invasion new processes of ethnic formation were caused, which after several decades led to the division of the Eastern Slavs into three peoples.
List of sources and literature used
Sources
1. Geographical guide. Ptolemy.
2. Natural history. Pliny the Elder.
3. Notes on Gallic War. Caesar
4. About the management of the empire. Konstantin Porphyrogenitus. M., 1991.
5. On the origin and deeds of the Getikas (Getika). Jordan. M., 1960.
6. The Tale of Bygone Years. M., 1950. T. 1.
Literature
1. Introduction of Christianity in Rus'. M., 1987.
2. Vernadsky G.V. Ancient Rus'. Tver - M. 1996.
3. Old Russian unity: paradoxes of perception. Sedov V.V. // RIIZh Rodina. 2002.11\12
4. Zabelin I.E. History of Russian life from ancient times. Part 1. – M., 1908.
5. Zagorulsky E. About the time and conditions of the formation of the Old Russian nationality.
6. Ilovaisky D.I. The beginning of Rus'. M., Smolensk. 1996.
7. How Rus' was baptized. M., 1989.
8. Kostomarov N.I. Russian Republic. M., Smolensk. 1994.
9. Peoples of the European part of the USSR. T. 1 / Ed. V.A. Alexandrova M.: Nauka, 1964.
10. Petrukhin V.Ya. The beginning of the ethnocultural history of Rus' in the 9th – 11th centuries. Smolensk - M., 1995.
11. Petrukhin V.Ya. Slavs. M 1997.
12. Prozorov L.R. Once again about the beginning of Russia.//State and Society. 1999. No. 3, No. 4.
13. Rybakov B.A. Kievan Rus and Russians Principalities XII– XIII centuries M., 1993.
14. Rybakov B.A. Prerequisites for the formation of the Old Russian state. Essays on the history of the USSR III-IX centuries, M., 1958.
Right there. P.8
Petrukhin V.Ya. The beginning of the ethnocultural history of Rus' in the 9th – 11th centuries. Smolensk - M., 1995.
Tutoring
Need help studying a topic?
Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
According to the views shared by most researchers of the history of Ancient Rus', this is an East Slavic ethnic community (ethnos), formed in X- XIII centuries as a result of the merger of 12 East Slavic tribal unions - Slovenes (Ilmen), Krivichi (including Polotsk), Vyatichi, Radimichi, Dregovichi, Severians, Polans, Drevlyans, Volynians, Tivertsi, Ulichs and White Croats - and was the common ancestor of those formed in XIV - XVI centuries three modern East Slavic ethnic groups - Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians. The above theses turned into a coherent concept in the 1940s. thanks to the works of the Leningrad historian V.V. Mavrodina.
It is believed that the formation of a single ancient Russian nationality was facilitated by:
Linguistic unity of the then Eastern Slavs (formation on the basis of the Kyiv Koine of a single, all-Russian spoken language and a single literary language, called Old Russian in science);
Unity of the material culture of the Eastern Slavs;
Unity of traditions, customs, spiritual culture;
Achieved at the end of the 9th - 10th centuries. political unity of the Eastern Slavs (unification of all East Slavic tribal unions within the borders of the Old Russian state);
Appearance at the end of the 10th century. the Eastern Slavs have a single religion - Christianity in its eastern version (Orthodoxy);
The presence of trade links between different areas.
All this led to the formation of a single, all-Russian ethnic identity among the Eastern Slavs. The development of such self-awareness is indicated by:
The gradual replacement of tribal ethnonyms with the common ethnonym “Rus” (for example, for the Polyans, the fact of this replacement was recorded in the chronicle under 1043, for the Ilmen Slovenes - under 1061);
Presence in the XII - early XIII centuries. a single (Russian) ethnic identity among princes, boyars, clergy and townspeople. Thus, the Chernigov abbot Daniel, who arrived in Palestine in 1106, positions himself as a representative not of the Chernigov people, but of “the entire Russian land.” At the princely congress of 1167, the princes - the heads of sovereign states formed after the collapse of the Old Russian state - proclaimed their goal to protect “the entire Russian land.” The Novgorod chronicler, when describing the events of 1234, proceeds from the fact that Novgorod is part of the “Russian land”.
Sharp reduction after Mongol invasion to Rus', connections between the northwestern and northeastern lands of Ancient Rus', on the one hand, and the southern and southwestern lands, on the other, as well as what began in the second half of the 13th century. the inclusion first of the western, and then of the southwestern and southern lands of Ancient Rus' into the Lithuanian state - all this led to the collapse of the Old Russian people and the beginning of the formation of three modern East Slavic ethnic groups on the basis of the Old Russian people.
Literature
- Lebedinsky M.Yu. On the question of the history of the ancient Russian people. M., 1997.
- Mavrodin V.V. The formation of the Old Russian state and the formation of the Old Russian nationality. M., 1971.
- Sedov V.V. Old Russian people. Historical and archaeological research. M., 1999.
- Tolochko P.P. Old Russian people: imaginary or real? St. Petersburg, 2005.
V. ORIGIN OF THE OLD RUSSIAN PEOPLE
“The Slavic tribes, which occupied vast territories of Eastern Europe, are experiencing a process of consolidation and in the 8th-9th centuries they form the Old Russian (or East Slavic) nationality. Common features in modern Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian languages show that they all separated from one common Russian language. such monuments as “The Tale of Bygone Years”, the most ancient code of laws - “Russian Truth”, the poetic work “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign”, numerous letters, etc. were written in the Old Russian (East Slavic) language.
The beginning of the formation of the all-Russian language is determined by linguists - as the 8th-9th centuries.
The consciousness of the unity of the Russian Land was preserved both during the era of Kievan Rus and during the period of feudal fragmentation. The concept of “Russian Land” covered all East Slavic regions from Ladoga in the north to the Black Sea in the south and from the Bug in the West to the Volga-Oka interfluve inclusive in the east.
At the same time, there was still a narrow concept of Rus', corresponding to the middle Dnieper region (Kiev, Chernigov and Seversk lands), preserved from the era of the 6th-7th centuries, when in the Middle Dnieper region there was a tribal union under the leadership of one of the Slavic tribes - the Russes. Population of the Russian tribal union in the 9th-10th centuries. served as the nucleus for the formation of the Old Russian people, which included the Slavic tribes of Eastern Europe and part of the Slavic Finnish tribes.
What are the prerequisites for education? East Slavic people?
The widespread settlement of Slavs in Eastern Europe occurred mainly in the 6th-8th centuries. This was still the pre-Slavic period, and the settling Slavs were united in linguistically. The migration took place not from one region, but from different dialect areas of the Proto-Slavic area. Consequently, any assumptions about the “Russian ancestral home” or about the beginnings of the East Slavic people within the Proto-Slavic world are not justified in any way. The Old Russian nationality was formed over vast areas and was based on the Slavic population, united not on ethno-dialectal, but on territorial grounds.
The leading role in the formation of this nation apparently belonged to the ancient Russian state. It is not without reason that the beginning of the formation of the ancient Russian nationality coincides in time with the process of the formation of the Russian state. The territory of the ancient Russian state also coincides with the area of the East Slavic people.
Russian land or Russia began to be called the territory of the ancient Russian early feudal state. The term Rus is used by PVL and foreign countries of Europe and Asia. Byzantine and Western European sources mention Rus'.
The formation of ancient Russian statehood and nationality was accompanied by rapid development of culture and economy. Construction ancient Russian cities, the rise of handicraft production, and the development of trade relations favored the consolidation of the Slavs of Eastern Europe into a single nation.
In the formation of the Old Russian language and nationality, a significant role belonged to the spread of Christianity and writing. Very soon the concepts of “Russian” and “Christian” began to be identified. The church played a multifaceted role in the history of Rus'.
As a result, a single material and spiritual culture is emerging, which is manifested in almost everything, from women’s jewelry to architecture. (22, p.271-273)
“When, as a result of the Battle of Kalka and the invasion of Batu’s hordes, not only the unity of the Russian land, but also the independence of the scattered Russian principalities were lost, the consciousness of the unity of the entire Russian land became even more acutely felt in literature. The Russian language, unified throughout the entire territory of the Russian land, became an unconscious expression of Russian unity , and to the conscious - all Russian literature. "The Tale of the Destruction of the Russian Land", "The Life of Alexander Nevsky", the cycle of Ryazan stories and especially Russian chronicles reminded of the former historical unity of the Russian land and thereby seemed to call for regaining this unity and independence." (9 a, p. 140)
From the book there was no Kievan Rus, or what historians are hiding author From the book Course of Russian History (Lectures I-XXXII) author Klyuchevsky Vasily OsipovichThe rupture of the nationality But I will now point out general meaning this northeastern direction of colonization. All its consequences, which I will outline, come down to one hidden fundamental fact of the period under study: this fact is that the Russian nationality, which began in
From the book there was no Kievan Rus, or what historians are hiding author Kungurov Alexey Anatolievich From the book The Conquest of America by Ermak-Cortez and the Rebellion of the Reformation through the eyes of the “ancient” Greeks author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich5. The origin of Ermak and the origin of Cortes In the previous chapter, we have already reported that, according to Romanov historians, information about Ermak’s past is extremely scarce. According to legend, Ermak’s grandfather was a townsman in the city of Suzdal. His famous grandson was born somewhere in
From the book “The History of Ukraine Illustrated” author Grushevsky Mikhail Sergeevich119. Ideas of nationality The beginnings of the knowledge of democracy. In the 18th century, the so-called romantic populism began to grow in Western Europe: in place of either reworking in writing the old themes of the Greek and Roman or destroying them under their gaze, the writers exploded until
From the book Archive of Andrei Vajra author Vajra AndreyTwo Russian nationalities “Where is the resistance against this flood, tearing down all barriers and rolling, knocking down everything in its path, rushing unstoppably and flooding everything around? Where?! Perhaps, separately, this Russian (Little Russian) people. He won't be a Pole, but
From the book there was no Kievan Rus. What historians are silent about author Kungurov Alexey Anatolievich“I renounce the Russian people...” When did Ukrainians appear in the world? Not the “ancestors of the Ukrainians,” which is what today’s Ukrainian historians talk about with such enthusiasm, but the Ukrainians? The question is quite complicated. Because at the first stage of its development, Ukraine was political
From the book Ancient East authorThe formation of a nation and a state People have inhabited Asia Minor since time immemorial, and by the time Indo-European newcomers from the east appeared on Halys, about a dozen states had already settled here, created by the aborigines Hatti (Hatti) - the people
From the book Ancient East author Nemirovsky Alexander ArkadevichTribes and nationalities Tribes neighboring China penetrated its territory and even settled there, forming small fiefs. The recognition and legitimation of the institution of hegemony of the principalities was dictated by the desire to resist the penetration of these tribes. Hegemonic principalities
author Gudavičius Edwardase. Education of the Lithuanian people By the time the state was created, the Lithuanian ethnic group had already gone through a significant development path from a small tribe to an integral tribal complex. Unlike most Central European states, which united more than one ethnic group,
From the book History of Lithuania from ancient times to 1569 author Gudavičius EdwardasA. The formation of the Ruthenian people The Grand Dukes of Lithuania accepted Catholicism and built their state into political system Europe, when among their subjects the majority were Orthodox and non-Lithuanians. In the 15th century finally interrupted
From the book Mazepa's Shadow. Ukrainian nation in the era of Gogol author Belyakov Sergey Stanislavovich From the book At the Origins of the Old Russian Nationality author Tretyakov Petr NikolaevichIn the footsteps of an unformed nationality 1B to the end of the 2nd century. n. e. In the North-Western Black Sea region, a new historical situation emerged, accompanied by significant movements of tribes. It affected the life and culture of the population of vast areas, which included
From the book Life and Manners of Tsarist Russia author Anishkin V. G. authorThe Principle of Nationality in the Sasanian Empire The Parthian Empire was a relatively loose association of regional governments and semi-independent cities. Wherein central government was too weak to stop the constant strife. Perhaps this
From the book History of Islam. Islamic civilization from birth to the present day author Hodgson Marshall Goodwin SimmsIbn Hanbal and the Hadith Principle of Nationality Textualist religiosity would not have achieved such success without its own heroes: in particular, without the great hadith transmitter and jurist Ahmad ibn Hanbal (780–855). Ibn Hanbal devoted himself to Islam from his youth.